1992 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 35th Parliament
HANSARD
(Hansard)
MONDAY, JUNE 1, 1992
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 3, Number 21
[ Page 1945 ]
The House met at 2:05 p.m.
Prayers.
Hon. L. Boone: I have two sets of very important guests today. It gives me a great deal of pleasure to introduce a delegation of Australian parliamentarians from Canberra, sitting in the members' gallery today. Would the members of the House please join me in welcoming the Hon. Peter Walsh, Senator for Western Australia; the Hon. John Moore, member for Ryan, Queensland; Lady Florence Bjelke Petersen, Senator for Queensland; Mr. Harry Jenkins, member for Scullin, Victoria; Mr. Ted Lindsay, member for Herbert, Queensland; and Mr. Alexander Somlyay, member for Fairfax, Queensland.
The parliamentarians are accompanied by Mr. Don Piper, secretary to the delegation, and Mr. John Newell, Australian consul general in Vancouver. Would the members please welcome them to B.C.
W. Hurd: I'd like to introduce grade 8 to grade 12 students and adults from Semiahmoo Secondary School in my riding, along with their teacher, Ms. Russell. They are in the precincts today to learn about the House. Would the House please make them welcome.
Hon. L. Boone: An equally important group to me that is in the gallery today is my mother, Ann Chudley, and two friends of hers from Guildford, England -- Eileen Pullane and her son Richard Pullane. Would the members please make them welcome.
G. Brewin: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to welcome to the House today 35 grade 11 students from Victoria High School, and their teacher, Mr. Walter Christianson. I would like the House to make them welcome.
J. Pement: I have the great pleasure today of introducing from the area of Hazelton, a beautiful part of our province, from the Gitanmaax band and council, Chief Gary Patsey, Murphy Green, Lester Moore and Ted Mowat. Accompanying them are lawyer Peter Grant, Merius Vos, Ken Kerr and Lawrence Benjamin. I ask the House bid welcome to these people from far away Bulkley Valley-Stikine.
Hon. M. Harcourt: I've just noticed, sitting on the floor of the Legislature, one of the long-serving MLAs, Tony Gargrave, who was for 14 years a member for the riding of Mackenzie. As some of you will remember -- if you remember those days -- he was one of the elegant practitioners of the use of the English language. I'm sure that if you go back and read Hansard, you will understand what I am talking about. He is carrying on the elegant use of the English language now as a practising lawyer in the city of Vancouver. Would you give a very warm welcome to one of our past colleagues.
W. Hartley: Today in the members' gallery we have a former business partner of mine and a longtime friend, Candace Gordon. She is here today with her mother, who is visiting from Greenbush, Ontario. Would the House please make them welcome.
J. Pullinger: It is my pleasure today to welcome to the precincts and to the House a good friend of mine and a community activist and president of the Cowichan-Ladysmith Constituency Association, Mr. Tom Harkins. Would the House please help me make him welcome.
F. Jackson: I have two constituents from Kamloops-North Thompson in the gallery today: Imeke Swanton and her daughter Cheryl. Cheryl just graduated from the University of Victoria and is on her way to bigger and better things. I would like the House to join me in making them welcome.
J. Pement: I'd also like to introduce in the House today two people from the Woodlot Association in our province: from Burns Lake, Archie Strimbold, and from Vanderhoof, Bill MacIntosh. Would the House please bid them welcome.
M. Farnworth: I know that my introduction has already been made, but as someone who has very strong family ties to Australia, I'd like to take the opportunity to converse in the mother tongue for just a few moments and extend a very special welcome to the distinguished parliamentary delegation from Australia. Mr. Weisgerber and I had a wonderful lunch. It was an opportunity to reacquaint myself with the politics of Australia, which are very similar in some ways to those of British Columbia. I'd like to, as I said, extend a warm welcome to our Australian cousins.
J. Beattie: Hon. Speaker, in my best Ontario accent, I would like to have the House welcome my wife, Janet Murphy, and my son Cedric Beattie to the House today.
Hon. D. Miller presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Range Amendment Act, 1992.
Hon. D. Miller: This bill amends the Range Act to provide for management and enforcement measures to enable the Ministry of Forests to more effectively manage and protect the Crown range resource. The bill enables Crown forage to be allocated under the Forest Act for purposes such as sheep-grazing of forest plantations for brush control. It provides for the direct award of one-year grazing permits in cases where it is appropriate to do so. It enables the Ministry of Forests to maintain a balance between the forage grazed on Crown range by a tenure-holder and the holder's ability to support the livestock when the livestock are not on Crown range. It enables the ministry to require range
[ Page 1946 ]
tenure-holders to provide management plans to ensure proper management of the range resource. It provides tenure administration measures to enable the ministry to react to the needs of livestock industry while safeguarding the Crown range resource. It provides enforcement powers such as partial suspension and cancellation, and a monetary penalty for trespassed livestock, to enable the Ministry of Forests to better protect the Crown range resource.
Bill 55 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Hon. A. Hagen presented a message a from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled School Amendment Act, 1992.
[2:15]
Hon. A. Hagen: Hon. Speaker, this bill provides for a number of miscellaneous amendments to the School Act dealing with such matters as filling trustee vacancies caused by conflict of interest; requiring school boards to report to the College of Teachers any dismissals, disciplinary action or resignations of persons holding letters of permission to teach; the continuation of educational programs free of charge for students of school age who have met the graduation requirements; ensuring that the exemption from school tax for farmland is consistent with the Assessment Act; the definition of land for the purposes of the acquisition and disposal of land by school boards; clarifying the minister's order-making power with respect to student records; and other housekeeping amendments.
Bill 46 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
NANAIMO COMMONWEALTH
HOLDING SOCIETY
Hon. L. Boone: Hon. Speaker, I would like to make a ministerial statement.
I have this morning received a preliminary report from the registrar of companies on his review of the facts surrounding allegations both in the media and the Legislature last week on the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society, NCHS Charities Society, Harewood Community Hall Association and Harewood Social Centre Society.
Based on this information, I have decided to appoint an investigator and initiate an investigation pursuant to section 85 of the Society Act to review the affairs and conduct of these societies, including compliance to the Society Act and the protection of public interest. The terms of reference of the investigation will be finalized within the next few days, and I will report to the House with this information.
NANAIMO COMMONWEALTH
HOLDING SOCIETY
G. Farrell-Collins: My question is to the Premier. Last week the Attorney General advised the House that he had stopped using the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society to process his constituency allowance in 1983. Can the Premier advise the House as to the date when the member for Nanaimo, the member for Vancouver-Burrard, the member for Vancouver-Kingsway and the Premier himself stopped using the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society to process their constituency funds?
Hon. M. Harcourt: Hon. Speaker, as Premier, I do not have that information. Dealing with ministers in a previous government and a previous Legislature is not a matter that's before the executive council or within my purview. I can say that when I was an MLA in the previous parliament, the constituency arrangement that I had with Marwood Services Ltd. was discontinued in, I think, 1990, when my constituency assistant was brought in as a statutory employee and when the riding associations were being readied for single-member ridings. But I cannot answer for the other members. As the questioner knows, that is under vote 1 and is a legislative matter among members, not with the executive council or the Premier.
G. Farrell-Collins: My question is to the Minister of Finance, and in light of ministerial statement today, I do believe it is appropriate. Once the former Minister of Health, the current hon. member for Matsqui, was cleared of any wrongdoing last year in the Stan Dubas case, the current Minister of Finance stated in the House: "I think it is also clear that the former minister responded according to the highest standards -- which we have come to expect in a parliamentary democracy -- by tendering his resignation at that time." Will the Finance minister show the same high standards that he allotted to the hon. member for Matsqui and step aside until such time as he can be cleared of the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society bingo controversy?
Hon. G. Clark: The official opposition is a few days behind the independent member for Matsqui, but I will answer it again. I guess the distinction is that there has been no suggestion at any time of any personal benefit on my behalf. There has been no suggestion at any time that I've used any influence in my capacity as Minister of Finance. I acted immediately and promptly to remove the section of the registry's branch to avoid any appearance of conflict. On top of all that, of course, the appropriate authorities are investigating each and every individual concern.
G. Farrell-Collins: My final supplementary is to the Minister of Government Services. Given that there are now a number of ongoing bingo investigations in this province, will the minister at this time commit to
[ Page 1947 ]
expanding the parameters to include the activities of the Nanaimo free enterprise holding society, one with strong ties to the Social Credit Party?
Hon. L. Boone: I'd dearly love to answer that in the positive, but at this point the member should know that anything that has to do with charities and casinos has to do with the Attorney General's ministry, is under the Gaming Commission and has nothing to do with the society registrar.
J. Weisgerber: A question to the Attorney General. Over the weekend it was reported that the RCMP had launched an investigation into the Nanaimo Commonwealth "slush fund" Society. Can the Attorney General confirm who ordered the investigation, when it was first started and what the scope of the investigation is intended to reveal?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think the best way for me to answer that question is to read a two-sentence press release issued today by the RCMP:
"The Nanaimo RCMP has contacted Mr. Jacques Carpentier of Nanaimo, B.C., regarding the concerns raised by the Nanaimo bingo groups. The police have also contacted the public gaming branch in Victoria, B.C. and will respond if there is any need to be involved in a criminal investigation."
J. Weisgerber: Given the number of concerns that have been expressed regarding this society, will the Attorney General take it upon himself to ask the RCMP to launch an investigation?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: No, I will not. But if the member or, for that matter, any other citizen in British Columbia has any evidence of any criminal wrongdoing, it is their responsibility to make sure that the RCMP have that information as quickly as possible so they can do an investigation.
Hon. Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.
J. Weisgerber: Last Wednesday I asked the Attorney General whether or not he would agree to appoint a special prosecutor to oversee the investigation by the gaming branch and by any other interested party into the affairs of the Nanaimo Commonwealth holding slush fund -- whatever it is. At that time the Attorney General said that there was no opportunity to appoint a special prosecutor because no charges had been laid or were pending. Does the Attorney General not understand that when Stephen Owen made recommendations regarding a special prosecutor, it was for situations exactly like this? A special prosecutor would guide the investigation in order to ensure that charges were not subject to political interference. With that in mind, will the Attorney General reconsider and ask for and appoint a special prosecutor today?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: First of all, I'm sure the member knows that the recommendations made by Stephen Owen were incorporated in amendments to the Crown Counsel Act last year, I believe. Those amendments to the current Crown Counsel Act allow the Deputy Attorney General, where it is the "public interest," to assign a special prosecutor -- in other words, a prosecutor who is independent of the ministry. That would occur if the RCMP were in the process of investigating a particular issue and required guidance from Crown counsel or, in this case, a special investigator. Should that situation ever arise -- it may; it may not -- the Deputy Attorney General is required by law to determine whether or not it is in the public interest to appoint a special prosecutor at that time.
W. Hurd: A question to the Minister of Finance. The opposition has learned that Marwood Services Ltd. negotiated a loan of $50,000 with the Hongkong Bank of Canada in June of 1991. What assurances can the minister provide this House that his own constituency funds were not used by this company to secure the loan? Is he concerned that Marwood Services has the same directors, the same registered office and the same records office as the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society's charities? Was the minister aware of the potential for money-laundering when he retained the services of Marwood?
Hon. G. Clark: Of course, all members of the House know that our constituency office allowances are not of sufficient magnitude -- if one is to run a constituency office and pay a secretary and the like -- that there would be sufficient resources in any way, shape or form to justify the use of those funds for other than what they are intended for. Members and the people of B.C. know that Mr. Ted Hughes, a man of eminent qualifications and integrity, is reviewing the question of constituency allowances, including the use of Marwood Services or any other third party by other members, and I think that's an appropriate forum to have this discussion. But I can assure members of the House now that every penny I received for my constituency allowances was used to run my constituency office.
W. Hurd: To the Attorney General. Is the Attorney-General confident that the accounting firm of Ernst and Whinney, under the direction of the gaming branch, will have the broad mandate it needs to audit all aspects of the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The short answer for that question is yes, I do.
The Speaker: Final supplemental.
W. Hurd: Is he aware that, as a result of the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society losing its bingo licence in 1990, Ernst and Whinney is mandated by gaming regulations to focus only on the trail of bingo proceeds from 1990 to 1992? The opposition has been advised that the gaming branch will not be authorized for a regulation audit of all affairs of the society. Can the Attorney General confirm what the mandate of the gaming branch will be in this affair?
[ Page 1948 ]
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I don't intend to answer for the Minister of Government Services in respect of the issues under the Society Act, but I should make it clear to members of the House that the gaming branch has ordered this audit, and it will cover all issues relating to the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society since licences were first issued to it under the Gaming Commission procedures dealing with bingos.
A. Warnke: My question is also for the Attorney General. A document exists in the public gaming branch entitled "General Ledger for Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society Associates for January to June 1989," which shows under the heading "MLA Allowance Account" the names of sitting NDP government members who continued to have financial dealings with the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society during that time. Will the Attorney General commit to making this document public today?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: It might be easier for the member to make it public. I have not seen it nor heard of it before, and perhaps the member would be kind enough to table it.
[2:30]
I should add that the issues which appear to be raised in the member's questions either are being dealt with by the audit ordered by the Gaming Commission or will be dealt with by Mr. Hughes in respect of constituency allowances.
A. Warnke: Again to the Attorney General. I appreciate his remarks, but at the same time the opposition has also failed to obtain a copy of this, and this is the reason why we are raising this today.
Again to the Attorney General -- and it's also with respect to the same document -- will the government...?
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please, hon. members. The Chair cannot hear the question.
A. Warnke: It's in the files, hon. Speaker. At any rate, with respect to that same document -- and I can assure hon. members it exists -- will the government, especially the government that has introduced freedom of information and pretends to advocate it, also undertake to release to the House the names of those MLAs listed under "MLA Allowance Account" next to those account references as well as make information available to the RCMP, the Deputy Attorney General, the Gaming Commission, Mr. Ted Hughes and the Society Act, who are all investigating the activities of this party?
That is a question, hon. Speaker, if members would....
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm not aware of what may be in the document that the member either has or doesn't have, but I can say that all information required by Mr. Hughes will be made available to him, and all information that is required by the audit conducted under the auspices of the Gaming Commission will be made available to them.
The Speaker: The bell ends question period.
C. Serwa: On a point of order, hon. Speaker. The opposition House Leader was on his feet well prior to the ringing of the bell, and he should be allowed to address his question.
The Speaker: The Chair has made the determination that the end of question period is signalled by the bell.
Hon. G. Clark: Hon. Speaker, I call Committee of Supply from 2 p.m. to 6 p.m. Section A will be the Ministry of Advanced Education. Section B will be Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks.
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 (continued).
Hon. J. Cashore: When we concluded on Friday I had given my opening statement, and we were into some exchanges on some various issues. I notice that the official opposition critic is present, so I assume that she would wish to begin proceedings.
J. Tyabji: My apologies for not being here on Friday. However, in this position there are always several different demands on our time. On Friday it was unavoidable that I be in my riding.
However, having said that, there's a lot of ground to cover here with regard to the environment, as I am sure the minister will agree. I'm sure he will also agree that this is the most important portfolio that exists, as obviously the environment is fundamental. I think anyone can agree that the environment gets to the fundamental issues of existence. Basically, everything else is undermined if it isn't operating successfully.
I want to spend a minute talking about the Liberal philosophy so that the minister can understand where we're coming from with regard to my questions. I would put to the chair that some of my questions possibly will not be exactly to the financial details, but will be to determine from the minister which direction he's going so that I can then detail my following questions. I will start from the generalities and work toward the specifics. With regard to the Liberal philosophy, we believe that the environment is fundamental to any operation of the economy and to the social aspect of society, and that every other part of what we do as people is related to the environment.
Having said that, we feel that there has been a history of not taking the environment into account. We
[ Page 1949 ]
see that a great reform, a motivation to change the way in which we do things, has come about primarily because of the resurgence of environmental awareness in 1990.
The Liberal party would like to see an environmental bill of rights implemented. That is something we've previously talked about very briefly in the House. I know that the minister is working toward an environmental protection act, and I commend him on that initiative. However, I would also urge the minister to undertake an environmental bill of rights, one that would guarantee us the right to clean air and water and a safe environment. Once we have those bottom-line objectives in place, anything we do following that obviously has to fall in line with that philosophy.
We Liberals recognize that the environment does not sit in a vacuum, does not stand alone, and that any decision made with regard to the environment will also be impacting our economy and the society we live in. There are several very difficult decisions that have to be made in the next few years with regard to the environment.
Having said that, to get to the Environment estimates, I would like to ask the minister.... We now have the CORE initiative that the minister has instituted, headed by Stephen Owen, who is a very capable man. We also have the B.C. Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. I would like to get a breakdown from the minister on how much these two initiatives are costing and what the mandates are: the mandate for CORE, as briefly as possible, and the mandate for the B.C. Round Table on the Environment and the Economy.
Hon. J. Cashore: First of all, with regard to the point that the hon. member made about an environmental bill of rights, I know that is a perspective that has been put forward a number of times, and is certainly worthy of consideration. The fact is that this government has indicated its intention to completely revamp the environmental legislation of British Columbia during its term in office. That's going to result in four major environmental bills, including environmental impact assessment; environmental protection, which will take over the role of the Waste Management Act and the Environment Management Act; a water act; and a fish, wildlife and habitat act. That will go a step further than any environmental bill of rights, because it will have moved beyond a statement of principles to a statement of action that is entrenched in law. Therefore, that will be more effective than an environmental bill of rights.
Having said that, when the hon. member sees our environmental protection act, it will be apparent that the opening portion of that act is virtually an environmental bill of rights. I'm sure that she would agree that a rose by any other name.... But ours is going to be entrenched within the opening part of the environmental protection act.
With regard to the cost of the B.C. Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, the annual budget for this year is $1.8 million. Last year it was $2 million. This was one of those factors that we had to address in assessing our priorities given the budgeting constraints, but we still feel this is an adequate budget to fulfil that mandate.
With regard to the Commission on Resources and Environment, I'm just now getting a printout reminding me that it's $4 million.
J. Tyabji: Getting back to the comments about the bill of rights, the reason I brought it up is that the minister will remember that we were recently talking about the concept of pollution credits. It seems to me that when we're talking about the bill of rights, the principles and the way in which we implement those principles, and the way in which we implement the philosophy, that environmental bill of rights would take us in a different direction. That's where I was coming from with regard to making the comment about the bill of rights.
I would also like, if possible, a brief statement of the mandate of the B.C. Round Table, and a brief statement of the mandate of CORE. The reason I'm asking this is that I'd like to know where they don't overlap and where they do overlap, and what the minister is doing in terms of trying to streamline it so that we don't see a lot of duplicate effort.
Hon. J. Cashore: With regard to the question of the bill of rights, for the hon. member to say that an environmental bill of rights would, by definition, take us away from the possibility of trading non-toxic credits with regard to pollution.... I think that would preclude the opportunity to discuss what might be, upon considering all the information, an inappropriate opportunity that should not be precluded. I do not think the hon. member would want to stand here and advocate an environmental bill of rights that in the final analysis could possibly be demonstrated...to fit into at least the discussion that needs to take place on how that might work appropriately.
Now that she has raised that issue, I would just point out to her that apart from all the discussion that took place in the media last week, if it can be demonstrated that such trading could indeed be an essential part of lowering pollution, then I think she would want to consider it. It gives me an opportunity to make it very clear that given, for instance, a particular airshed, the authority would set a maximum amount of pollution that could go into that airshed. If that credit process resulted in the termination of a filthy polluting plant, to be replaced by a high-tech plant that did much better in terms of the effects of pollution and was a step toward lowering the total amount of pollution going into that airshed and a means of enabling a viable and healthy economy to continue, then I cannot imagine for one minute that this member would want to be precluded from at least considering that possibility by having precluded it in a statement of environmental principles.
[2:45]
I'm a great believer in availability of information and access to information. I was frankly a little surprised when one of the editorials suggested that we not even consider it, given that the newspapers are even more adamant than the opposition in seeking information. I don't think people are ever hurt by information, if they
[ Page 1950 ]
can discuss it openly and appropriately in a free society. Therefore I was just a little dismayed that there was this blanket condemnation of that which might at least be considered. We also pointed out at that time that the recommendations that were in boldface were the ones that we were wedded to; we really would need to be argued out of those positions. The ones that were not in boldface were there for consideration. Again, in a free and democratic society, I think we should be open to consider that.
I would like to point out to the hon. member that if she chooses to review CORE during these estimates, she will technically be doing so in the estimates where they don't belong; CORE belongs in the estimates of the Attorney General. However, the question was asked about how CORE relates to the Round Table, and that's a question that I will try to deal with.
As the hon. member knows, the Round Table came into existence several months ago following the Strangway report, which was in response to the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment's response to the Brundtland commission. There are now Round Tables existing in every jurisdiction in Canada. The Round Table has a mandate that is to advise cabinet on how to integrate environmental, economic and social considerations to enhance opportunities for the future. It has objectives: firstly, to develop strategies to foster sustainability in British Columbia; and secondly, to undertake public consultation on sustainable development. Therefore the mandate of the Round Table in its advisory capacity is as broad as the concept of sustainable development itself, dealing with such things as pollution, water quality, public involvement and a wide range of issues that go right across the spectrum of environmental issues.
The CORE mandate is more focused on land and water use issues and on those issues that have a very intense need for careful evaluation. Its mandate is to independently and publicly advise cabinet on legislation, policy and allocation decisions related to land use issues and processes in the province. Specifically, funding is provided to assist the commission in developing a land use plan for the province, a regional planning process, a community-based land use participation process and a comprehensive dispute resolution system for land use issues.
The short answer is: the Round Table has a much broader mandate; CORE has a more focused mandate. But it is also true that in order to glean the greatest amount of value out of these two processes, we have good communication and interaction between those who are involved in each of them. That is the case, and I think it's working very well.
J. Tyabji: I don't know whether I should continue debate on pollution credits or go back to the questions I have on the Round Table and CORE. For the purpose of this discussion, I will come back to the Round Table and the CORE questions. We have to deal with the issue of pollution credits. The minister has brought up the details of this.
Interjection.
J. Tyabji: I wasn't going to go into it; I was just making reference to why I would refer to a bill of rights.
I would say to the minister that as far as his suggestion goes, I would not stand here and say that we shouldn't discuss pollution credits. An environmental bill of rights would not mean that you don't discuss it; it would mean that you don't consider it. I would say to this minister that it is my very strong feeling that we do not consider it. I'll tell you why.
If the objective is to eliminate pollution, this is not the way to go. If the objective is to decrease it, we know it's effective. We can look at other jurisdictions where they've decreased it. The by-product of the pollution credit system has invariably been that free enterprise has taken over, and you get the institutionalization of pollution through trading credits on the market. We've seen that happen in several jurisdictions.
The discussion papers outline the manner and the potential for B.C. to use it. We issue credits, and those who come below a certain level are able to trade. In California, which is only one jurisdiction to have pollution credits, they actually have to earn the credits. We were going to a system similar to Tennessee's, I believe. They're issued pollution credits, and if you fall below that guideline....
All we're doing is putting a lid on the pollution that already exists. I find that totally unacceptable. If the objective is to eliminate pollution, you don't do it by institutionalizing it in a manner that will result in a huge economic spinoff. I would suggest to the minister that if you have pollution credits, you end up with an industry whose very existence depends on the continued production of pollution. You have actual brokers, who broker the credits. In the event of pollution being eliminated, they're all out of a job. So you have a lobby group whose vested interest is in the continued production of pollution. I say that that's totally unacceptable, particularly with regard to airshed management.
We should be working toward the elimination of pollution. If that means giving people a ten-year phase, then that's fine. In the short term we would see a decrease in the amount of pollution or at least management at the same level. It doesn't even guarantee a decrease, but it might be able to guarantee the same the level of pollution being produced. In the long term it will end up being entrenched at that level, and you can't get rid of it. I think we can do a lot better than that.
We have to put money into the research and development of alternative sources. We have to work with industries to make sure that they meet acceptable guidelines that are working towards elimination. I recognize that the minister's discussion papers say that we are working towards zero pollution. We all know that we can never achieve zero pollution, but we have to work towards it. That's what I'm saying with the bill of rights.
We may end up living in a world where we cannot guarantee clean air and clean water, but if we have a bill of rights like that on the table, then we know that that's what we're working toward. Every decision that we make is going toward that bill of rights -- the rights to clean air and clean water. Obviously pollution credits go contrary to having a bill of rights -- a right to clean
[ Page 1951 ]
air. If you're entrenching the existing level of air pollution, you're working contrary to that. That's what I would put to the minister. That is why we believe that we have to start off with a fundamental bill of rights, and then we move from there.
If the minister is suggesting that a bill of rights would preclude discussion of these ideas, no, absolutely not. We can always discuss things. It would preclude adoption of these measures, because we do not believe that these measures are consistent with the elimination of pollution. That's with regard to the pollution credits.
I would pass the floor back to the minister so that he can continue this discussion before going back to the Round Table and CORE.
Hon. J. Cashore: Anybody who reviews the Blues will see that the member has gone full circle. She's come right back to agreeing with the position that I was stating last week -- that is, it was for the purpose of a discussion. I'm glad to see the hon. member now affirming the discussion purpose, which is why it's there. It was not there in boldface as a recommendation that we're wedded to. In the context of access to information, it's one of an array of procedures that are being used elsewhere, and we should be able to discuss it. I'm glad the hon. member has come to the point of finally stating that she agrees that it should be there for discussion. She also said that a bill of rights would not preclude such a thing from being discussed. I agree with that too. I'm glad she made that point. We're obviously agreeing on the point that it should be something that's available for discussion. And with a good, thorough discussion we should be able to find out whether it could be useful and usable, or whether it might be inappropriate for British Columbia. I've got serious personal doubts about it, but I'm not about to deprive the people of British Columbia of having an opportunity to discuss it.
With regard to the point that pollution credits would entrench a certain level of pollution from which society could never recover, that is absolutely incorrect and shows very shoddy research. The fact is that you will find some jurisdictions where the system works very, very badly. However, you would set it up in such a way that there would be a ceiling on the total amount of pollution; then you would ratchet that back at regular intervals, as you had those badly polluting factories replaced by more environmentally appropriate, state-of-the-art facilities; and then you'd have a gradual progression towards -- as the member states -- the goal of zero pollution. I mentioned that trading does not prejudge standards; it's a tool for implementing standards. The member's research is not accurate on this. If the member is taking from my remarks that we are wedded to this, then she is simply wrong. I do not hear her condemning a discussion paper that places in boldface those recommendations that we are, yes, wedded to and places in non-boldface those recommendations that we think the public is eminently well-qualified to discuss. I cannot imagine that she would want to prevent the public from discussing such an idea. If it's not a good idea, it should be set aside; leave it at that.
J. Tyabji: I can assure the minister that there is nothing wrong with my research, although I know that many of the members on that side of the House have been trying to spin the story in the media that the Liberals have poor research. That is not the case in this instance. I would also remind the minister that B.C. is experiencing a growth in population, and with this growth in population we are having an increase in the number of cars and number of emitters of air pollutants. With the increase in air pollution.... Obviously his scenario of a general decrease with a lid on a certain amount would assume that we have a stable population base -- which we don't; we have an increasing population base -- and unless we make a determined effort to go in a different direction, we'll continue to face the kind of problem that we have and will definitely be entrenching pollution.
Because the minister is talking about the discussion paper, I would like to make a couple of comments on it. The minister is saying that I surely would not object to discussing things. Of course I would encourage that we discuss things in the discussion paper. I would also like to take this opportunity to ask the minister how there can be a discussion paper -- and, I'm to understand, one year to discuss the measures in the discussion paper -- with regard to solid waste management, packaging alternatives and possible legislation for waste reduction when we have a bill that we're in the middle of debating. With regard to that, that is definitely an enabling bill. We already have the Peat Marwick report that has come forward and has made very specific recommendations as to what the minister will then do. We have the proposal for an enlarged beverage deposit system. And we haven't yet had any discussion, because the discussion paper just came out.
If the minister is really going to get down to whether or not we should discuss things, I would like to ask him how he can have a discussion paper with legislation that's already been tabled and is already in the middle of debate. So it doesn't matter what people have to say about his discussion paper; he's already made the decision.
I'm not saying that those might not be the right decisions. But if we're going to be very sanctimonious about process, then I'd ask: how can we have a discussion paper? People could be taking it very seriously, spending a lot of time on it, and the legislation has already been tabled. We already know where the minister is going to go with it. So as far as that goes, I don't know how the discussion paper has a lot of credibility.
That gets to the point of pollution credits. How can any of us feel secure that what we're discussing is ever going to be seen in legislation when we know that the waste management legislation has already been tabled and, regarding the pollution credits, we don't know whether that's just something that is in a discussion paper, whether you are wedded to it behind the scenes, or whether there is legislation waiting to be tabled on it. We can't be sure, so if the discussion paper is meant to
[ Page 1952 ]
be some measure of reassurance I would put it to the minister that it's not.
Hon. J. Cashore: I'm delighted with this line of questioning, because I would much rather be criticized for being proactive than for dragging my feet, and we're being proactive. Our government is moving forward and dealing with a backlog of a great many issues.
[3:00]
There are a number of discussion papers out there, and given the importance and the urgency of doing what the hon. member said -- trying to achieve zero pollution, setting that as a goal and trying to move appropriately towards that goal -- I realize that it's very important that we move with dispatch; with adequate consultation, but, as the opposition can also criticize, that we not use the consultation process as a means of avoiding action. Therefore we are moving forward on some very significant themes in a timely manner.
The hon. member says: "How can you be having a discussion paper when you already have legislation before the House?" When she has been in this House for a few years, she will realize that that is as natural as the sun coming up in the morning. Legislation is constantly being revised to deal with current and urgent issues. The hon. member for Okanagan West made this point extremely well in the House the other day with regard to the portion of the waste management amendment act that deals with the beverage container strategy. That is enabling legislation, and for the hon. member to stand there and say that there hasn't been any discussion on that is simply an inadequate statement.
There's been discussion going on for ten years on that issue, and during the past two and a half years there's been a very clear process -- a very focused process -- involving the stakeholders. I guess I should be waiting until we get to the second reading conclusion of the bill, where I will be pointing out to the hon. member that I think it's good to have constructive criticism. However, when that criticism is entirely written by a narrow portion of an industry opposed to that legislation, it behooves the hon. member to do the type of research that the hon. member for Okanagan West did, so that the research reflects a broader awareness of what the environmental community is saying -- what Ruth Lotzkar is saying -- so that it is looked at in a much more thorough way.
To say somehow that you shouldn't go ahead and have legislation in this session because we're going to be studying the total revamping of the waste management protection act a year from now.... We'll just have to disagree on that. I have no apology whatsoever for enabling the people of British Columbia to have a year for input into that process. All sorts of organizations -- people in industry, the women's environmental network -- have a great deal of interest in participating in that process. I encourage the hon. member to participate in that process as well.
She's right when she says there is going to be a growth in population. If the trading of pollution credits was to be one of the methods that came out of the process, it would have to be in such a way that it was used to ratchet down the total amount that industry could pollute, because of such things, as she points out, as the growth of population. Certainly we must move forward with dispatch. When the hon. member says that we should not be even considering that type of possibility, I would remind her of what she said on the occasion that I announced the pulp regulation. If she goes back and reviews her comments -- I won't read them into the record right now, unless she insists that I do -- I think she would realize that she was cutting off that option too.
J. Tyabji: I would disagree.
However, there is a very interesting scenario developing here. We have a minister, on the one hand, putting forward a discussion paper that has things in it that are already in legislation, and saying, "Oh, I encourage discussion on it; however, I have already made the laws," and trying to justify that process, which doesn't make sense. He says there have been ten years of process. This means that he's relying on the previous administration's record with the environment, with regard to process. To have the minister stand up and be agreeing with the third party on the environment....
I would say to the minister that, as far as my research goes, it has nothing to do with a narrow part of the industry being affected. It has to do with the whole process and the whole objective -- the manner in which you want to reduce waste. I find it appalling that this minister is relying on a previous administration in terms of process and consultation, to say: "Oh well, there has been enough consultation. That's fine." I'm not objecting to the fact that he might be taking an initiative. Why would he, on the one hand, say to the people, "Here's your opportunity to discuss this initiative," and on the other hand table legislation dealing with the same initiative?
I can't make it much clearer than that to the minister. You can't have it both ways. Either you're going to discuss it with them before you introduce the laws, or you take the initiative in introducing the laws. You're trying to do both. To me, it doesn't make any sense. The discussion paper loses credibility because there are things in it that are already becoming legislation under this minister. You can't do it by justifying the previous administration's record. I would put to this minister that he can't be that happy with the previous government's record with regard to the environment.
Getting back to the comments about the Round Table and CORE, it's my understanding, based on what the minister has outlined, that there is an overlap in jurisdictions with regard to land use; that they have basically the same mandate with regard to land use; that the B.C. Round Table has a broader mandate, but it also encompasses land use. If CORE has a more specific mandate, why does it have more than twice the budget? And if the B.C. Round Table could have dealt with these land use issues -- and we understand that the B.C. Round Table is having discussions with people of various backgrounds from around the province before they're coming forward with their recommendations -- why was the mandate that was given to CORE not put
[ Page 1953 ]
before the B.C. Round Table? It seems to me that we would save a lot of money.
Hon. J. Cashore: During the recent election campaign, I said many times that I was not one who would want to throw out the baby with the bath water; I would not want to waste an appropriate process that had been ongoing. I said that many times with regard to Parks and Wilderness for the 90s, for instance. I also say that with regard to the work in developing a beverage container strategy.
At the time that the Rabbitt report came in, I was the critic and I tried to offer constructive criticism. I did not stand up in this House and condemn a process that was going on simply because the government was bringing it forward; I saw my role as trying to nurture the process and ensure that it would come forward with the best possible result. In that way there is a dynamic that exists and functions within this place, and it is perhaps the most useful of all the dynamics we ever see here. Therefore, I have no embarrassment in congratulating the previous administration on some of its initiatives and in trying to build on that one. I feel it is important that we bring to it a stamp of this government.
With regard to the work that has been going on for the past two and a half years, I know that the hon. member for Okanagan West and I would agree... Did I get it right that time -- west?
C. Serwa: West is best.
Hon. J. Cashore: West is best, okay. ...that the people in the Ministry of Environment who have been carrying this process forward, and from whom we've both learned a lot, are also willing to work with that hon. member. I would hope that it is in that type of format that we can come forward with the best possible strategy.
With regard to the comments that we shouldn't be having a discussion paper now when there are amendments coming into the House at the present time that fit into the same area, let's just agree to disagree on that. My short answer is that the work of government carries on. The government has a responsibility to enact legislation that is timely and needed. If some aspects of that come under of the purview of the discussion paper, so be it. But I'm sure the hon. member will agree that when we are looking at a total revamp of the Environment Management Act and the Waste Management Act for one year ago, it is very appropriate that the public has the opportunity to discuss all aspects, and even those aspects that may have been legislated this session. If that public discussion was to inform our awareness of that issue to the extent that that should be changed, so be it. Hon. member, we do not have to hide from creating an opportunity for the public to have meaningful discussion. When the former administration was involved in meaningful discussions, I applauded that. I expect that more often than not, that is the case.
With regard to the Round Table and CORE, the hon. member asked a question about comparative budgets. I would advise the hon. member that the Round Table, in its advisory role, has an ongoing mandate where it reports to government on a regular basis. But the work of government does continue vis-�-vis both the Round Table and CORE. The fact is that CORE's mandate is to deal, with great intensity, with some land use issues in the province that are of great importance to the body politic at the present time. I'm sure she would agree that those issues need to be addressed with some urgency. The Round Table, in carrying on its mandate, has made several reports to the government on a wide variety of issues and is continuing to do so as it deals with different elements of its mandate.
The Chair: Before I recognize the hon. member for Okanagan East, I'd just like to caution all members that the discussion of legislation is not appropriate during estimates. It would be an error in judgment to allow this debate to continue at the risk of setting a precedent that we at one point will have to rule members out of order. Would the hon. member please continue.
J. Tyabji: Thank you, hon. Chair; I recognize that this is the debate on estimates. However, I would like to make one concluding comment with regard to philosophy on the part of the minister, and I want to respond to the comments he made with regard to his agreement with the former administration.
If the minister is really holding to the polluter-pay principle, which is fundamental to his discussion paper and is obviously what we're talking about in estimates, then he should not be pursuing the kind of recommendations that came out of the Rabbitt report, which we looked at with the former administration. In both instances, with this minister and with the previous administration, what we are doing is passing it along to the consumer, and that's nothing more than a tax grab. That's where I have a problem.
Having said that, I'd like to move on to the Round Table on the Environment and CORE. It seems to me that there isn't a need for that duplication with regard to a land use strategy. Based on the staff of the ministry -- the minister himself, his deputy minister, his assistant deputy ministers and the B.C. Round Table -- we didn't need yet another body dealing with these issues. I would agree with the minister that these are absolutely critical issues, but we have enough people to make the decisions right now. If we want to listen to people, the Round Table was the avenue for doing that.
I'd like to move on in this part of the estimates guide, as I had passed on to the minister, to the first category: the earth category, part A, land use. We're dealing with subsection 1, which is forestry. I want to talk about several issues in the forestry industry. I recognize that there is a lot of overlap between his portfolio and the Ministry of Forests in this, but some of them are fairly specific. In a lot of cases, I'm looking for direction from the minister as to what he is planning to do.
One of the first I'd like to talk about is the Blue Lead Creek area, which I'm sure the minister is aware of, and the fact that there is currently clearcutting going on there. The log-around strategy took in parts that were outside of an area that was designated for logging regardless. We have a parks plan strategy that seems to
[ Page 1954 ]
be very well designed not to include what's happening in the Blue Lead Creek area.
I'd like to ask the minister a couple of things. First of all, with regard to Blue Lead Creek, does he think that they should be clearcutting in that area, given the potential environmental impact? Does he think that the current stumpage rates of 25 cents are adequate? Or does he think that there's a greater environmental value in leaving that area intact and including it in the parks plan?
[3:15]
Hon. J. Cashore: I suppose you could argue, if you wanted to, that there's an environmental value in not having any industry in the province. You could identify any location in the province and ask: "Does the minister not agree that there would be a better environmental value if we didn't do that there?" So we could spend all the time of estimates with the hon. member picking different places in the province and asking: "Is there not a better environmental value if we do not do that there?" But she can't have it both ways. She has to be prepared to go to the public and say how she would deal with the job loss. In stating that her environmental perspective in the context of sustainable development is that any time somebody points out a concern the answer is no, you can't do that there, that means shutting down industry in the province. If she's prepared to go that route, that's up to her. I think it's not prudent for her to go that route. I thought she was going off in the opposite direction on the beverage container strategy issue, but then that's another debate that is going at the second reading later on.
When it comes to the Blue Lead, that was one of the hot spots, as we said, identified by the B.C. Environmental Network. We made some tough decisions. We made a decision that would ensure that logging didn't take place in a very significant area. There was another area where logging is taking place. There's no question that there are some environmental values within that area that we're concerned about. I recognize that. It's very important that logging not take place there, especially during critical times with regard to the cycle of salmon spawning.
It is really to state the obvious to recognize that there are land use conflicts in the province and that it behooves us to work at them, and to recognize that when you work at those conflicts, you do not always come out with the decision that makes everybody happy. I would advise the hon. member as she analyzes these situations that she, too, is going to be watched for her comments with regard to where the balance is.
J. Tyabji: It's wonderful to have a lot of platitudes about where we draw the line, but I'd like to ask this minister if he thinks 25-cent stumpage is really an industry that's viable enough to justify the clearcutting of the entire valley bottom. To me, if we had identified this as an environmental hot spot and if we recognize the inherent value of this particular area in terms of the old-growth cedar in the interior.... I want to know from this minister if he really thinks that 25-cent stumpage -- I believe it's $9 for a truckload of cedar that they take out there -- is what we would consider a viable industry in B.C. and worthwhile sacrificing an environmental hot spot for?
Hon. J. Cashore: That is a question appropriately directed to the Minister of Forests, and I will not answer it.
W. Hurd: Just returning briefly to the mandate of the Commission on Resources and Environment and in light of the comments by the hon. member for Okanagan East with respect to the Blue Lead. In view of the fact that specific areas were set aside in conjunction with the announcement of the Commission on Resources and Environment, is the minister concerned that that might have raised the expectations of the people of the province? In fact, the commission's mandate was to deal with specific land-use disputes in the province. Has he been receiving calls from concerned citizens throughout the province asking the very logical question: "Why would those set-aside or log-around areas in the interior and Vancouver Island be announced in connection with CORE, and not the area that I happen to be concerned about?" Is it not reasonable to assume that people would make that connection? Is he at all concerned that the commission may be perceived to have a mandate which in fact it doesn't possess?
Hon. J. Cashore: I really don't think I understood the question. Let me see if I did. I think the question was: is it not a concern that at the announcement of the CORE and the hot spots -- where there would be some set-asides -- there may be some people in the province who wondered why their particular area was not mentioned at that time? The short answer is yes, I have received phone calls about that; we've received a lot of phone calls. The majority of the phone calls have been very supportive with regard to the process we've been following, given the difficult scenario. It is true that some people have asked: "Why not this particular area in this other part of the province that hasn't been identified in those log-around strategies?"
As I have stated before and as the Minister of Forests has stated, the log-around strategies were identified on the basis of a list that was given to us by the B.C. Environmental Network. We said that we would make decisions on each one of those recommendations. As a matter of fact, there were six areas on the list; we added one at the time of making the announcements. The announcements were made in two phases: first, those areas on Vancouver Island, and then several weeks later, those areas in the Cariboo-Chilcotin and in the East Kootenays. We followed through in doing what we said we would do, and we realize there are people who had other areas that were their real concerns too. Having done this, we said that the process will then relate to the CORE process. So that was a decision government had to make in order to get on with the land use planning that hopefully was going to be in a more creative climate.
[ Page 1955 ]
W. Hurd: Continuing the line of questioning on the Commission on Resources and Environment. Is the fact that specific areas were tied to the commission's mandate not a concern to the minister, in light of what Mr. Owen appears to be saying -- namely, that his mandate is to pursue a process for resolving land use disputes? Would it be logical to assume that the process which the commission chairman is trying to evolve would apply to every conceivable area that has been set aside in conjunction with the announcement?
It seems that there are two different agendas being pursued here. One is to develop a philosophical framework for resolving land use disputes, and the other is to deal with the issues on Vancouver Island and in the interior, which are really site-specific and may require more urgent attention by the ministry than the four-or five-year mandate of the Owen commission.
Hon. J. Cashore: There's no question that everything has an urgent need. It's the role of government to make the decisions that can be made appropriately and to have a good balance between time and urgency. That's always a real challenge. In a way, that's stating the obvious.
I don't agree with the way the hon. member phrased it. As a matter of fact, we had to make those tough decisions at that time to enable a process to work. So that was an enabling decision: to enable a process to get underway and to get working. It is true that the process will be focusing on some areas that have greater urgency at this point in time than some other areas have. The government has appointed two areas of priority for CORE.
W. Hurd: Is the opposition correct in assuming that no decisions will be made with respect to these areas on Vancouver Island and in the interior until Mr. Owen has handed in his report to government? That leads me back to the Blue Lead issue. Why would it be appropriate for those particular areas to be walled off for the mandate or period of the Owen commission and not other areas of the province that might have been outside the knowledge of the B.C. Environmental Network?
Hon. J. Cashore: I know that the hon. members want to make good use of the time of the House. It would be interesting to look in Hansard and see if these hon. members have availed themselves of the opportunity to canvass these questions when they should have appropriately been canvassed, and that was during the Attorney General's estimates. I would be interested if somebody could indicate to me whether they raised those points at that time, because very clearly that's where this fits into the estimates.
I would just like to point out that the government has directed the Owen commission towards three significant areas of the province: Vancouver Island, the Kootenays and the Cariboo-Chilcotin. These are the primary areas to be addressed in the CORE mandate. That does not preclude the fact that the ongoing work of government continues. Therefore we still have a need to coordinate and to be in close consultation among various aspects of government and these instruments that are fulfilling very important roles in dealing with urgent issues.
J. Tyabji: Is the minister suggesting that the areas we are questioning him about, because they could potentially be of interest to CORE, are no longer his responsibility because CORE happens to be in the Attorney General's estimates?
Hon. J. Cashore: I have stood in this House and answered every question that has been asked of me. I simply have pointed out to the hon. members that there was a time in the estimates process where they had a responsibility to be asking those questions, and it's of interest to me to know if they did so. But I feel very much a part of the process that has created CORE, and I am delighted with CORE. I think it's one of the most innovative and far-reaching initiatives ever taken by any government in North America. So if you want to continue to give me an opportunity to wax my particular perspective on CORE, be my guest.
J. Tyabji: I actually would like to ask the minister about the parks plan that he, the Minister of Forests and the Premier unveiled. My first question does have some interrelatedness to CORE, in that I'd like to know if the minister thinks the unveiling of the parks plan undermines the CORE process in terms of pre-empting some of the land use.
Hon. J. Cashore: I won't use the obvious cliché in response to that kind of a question. I am quite prepared to answer this member's questions on the parks plan. It was my understanding that in consultation with the official opposition and the third party there was an agreement that we would deal with Environment and then Lands and Parks issues so that we could have some coordination in using the time of staff from those three branches. I see now that a question has been asked on Parks issues. I'm not going to stand here and refuse to answer your questions, but I thought that we had an agreement, in keeping with the cooperation that was promised by the Liberal Party prior to the election. I thought that we had some cooperation agreed upon in terms of how we would follow through. The fact is that I have a vast ministry, and I don't have staff present from Parks at the present time. If the questions are going to start jumping all over the place, then obviously I'll be accommodating that. It's just that I thought that was an arrangement.
I am very proud of the parks plan announcement that we made a while back. Again, that picks up on a process that was underway. Again, we were not planning to throw out the baby with the bath water. Again, I had some substantive differences with the previous government with regard to the general philosophy on that issue, and now we have an opportunity to ensure that the perspective we wanted to see, in having a protected areas strategy concomitant with Parks and Wilderness for the 90s, would happen.
I feel that Parks Plan 90, the protected areas strategy, CORE, the Round Table on the Environment and other
[ Page 1956 ]
processes that are taking place in this province are an indication of a government that is getting down to business. I would much rather be criticized for the initiatives that I am taking than for dragging my feet; and we are taking initiatives, because it's very timely at this point in this province.
J. Tyabji: I'm sure the minister is aware that the critic portfolios of Environment, Lands and Parks have been split so that the official opposition has given Lands and Parks to the portfolio of the critic for forestry. I would point out to the hon. minister that, in my opinion, we are not straying from the categories that I have provided to him or the staff, because we are under earth, land use and forestry, and that is all tied in with the parks plan, CORE initiatives and the whole idea of process.
[3:30]
Having said that, I think we can quite easily move on. Since we are in the area of forestry, I'd like to know if the minister has any plans to deal with the fact that cedar shakes are currently being made with old-growth timber. I'd like to know if the minister thinks that old-growth timber is justifiably cut to make cedar shakes and whether the minister thinks there are alternatives.
Hon. J. Cashore: If I understand the question, it's if cedar should not be used to make shakes, and there might be other alternatives.
J. Tyabji: Old-growth forests.
Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Chair, I'm going to sit down again and listen very carefully while this member rephrases the question.
J. Tyabji: I think there's a general lack of understanding in the House currently that this is the Minister of Environment, and therefore it is his responsibility to oversee the protection of old-growth forests, in conjunction with the Minister of Forests. So having said that, I would like to canvass the minister with regard to old-growth forests and whether he believes that they would be better off preserved or whether we should continue to be using them for the production of cedar shakes.
Hon. J. Cashore: I have a great deal of concern for old-growth forests; I also have concern for cedar shakes. I have cedar shakes on the roof of my cabin, as a matter of fact, and they do a good job. With regard to the question on the sustainability of cedar shakes in the context of current logging practices, I do not purport to be an expert on that. I am continuing to keep the counsel of those who are working with us in reviewing these issues so that, in the context of sustainability, we can come up with appropriate measures.
All of the instruments that we have referred to are very helpful in this process and within the Ministry of Environment, where we have placed 25 wildlife biologists in Ministry of Forests offices, which is a tremendous boon and a long overdue and creative concept that is one of the ways in which we are addressing the issue of the stewardship of the forest vis-�-vis sustainability.
If the hon. member wants me to come up with some sort of analytic definition of the role of cedar shakes, I simply don't have that analysis on the top of my head. But it is an issue that I do believe is very important. I continue to be in close consultation with the excellent people we have working with us as we deal with these sustainability issues. The hon. member has identified an important sustainability issue in the province.
J. Tyabji: As this minister is no doubt aware, there are plans -- there have been in the past; this is an annual program in the Revelstoke area -- for aerial spraying of Vision. To my knowledge, there has not yet been a cancellation of those plans. The people there are very concerned. This minister has expressed his commitment to alternatives numerous times. He obviously has to work with the Minister of Forests in this initiative. I have also approached the Minister of Forests on this issue. I would like to know if the minister believes that aerial spraying of pesticides is an acceptable way of managing the environment and if he would support aerial spraying of Vision in the Nelson-Revelstoke area. I would also like to make a note to the minister that there are five watersheds being affected by this particular spraying.
Hon. J. Cashore: We have a Pesticide Control Committee, which consists of people with expertise in this area. They give us advice on this. I'm subject to that advice. It is true that I have some personal concerns with regard to the efficacy of aerial spraying. That is something that we're constantly looking at. I encourage the hon. member to advise her contacts to remember that we do have an Environmental Appeal Board process in the province that they may wish to look at.
With regard to an earlier question, the fact is that the protection of old growth is an important component of the protected area strategy.
J. Tyabji: If the minister is suggesting that the Environmental Appeal Board would be the avenue for residents who don't like the idea of aerial spraying of Vision in their watersheds, could this minister tell me how often the Environmental Appeal Board has ruled in favour of those who are making the appeal?
[M. Lord in the chair.]
Hon. J. Cashore: Last fiscal year, about 10 percent. We don't have the numbers for this year. I'll just leave it at that.
J. Tyabji: We're assuming that 90 percent of the appeals, based on precedents, would not be successful. I would ask the minister if his advisory group with regard to pesticides has more decision-making authority in this area than he does. If not, would he be prepared to withdraw the aerial spraying of Vision?
Hon. J. Cashore: That's an interesting question -- interesting because I've never heard the likes of it in
[ Page 1957 ]
my five years in the Legislature. A minister of the Crown has a responsibility to administer the laws that are on the books. We also have a role in legislative renewal and change. Sometimes emerging and appropriate values are, hopefully, reflected in that change. In the meantime, the appropriate functioning of the province continues.
The hon. member knows that the forestry critic is sitting right behind her. I wish I could be a fly on the wall and listen to some of the discussions that must take place within that caucus. It would be interesting to know if the forestry critic for the official opposition takes the same position that she takes on this issue.
Of course I have authority, but I am a prudent person in carrying out my activity. I'm proactive but prudent, and I would not begin to take over the role of technical decision-making with regard to the array of responsibilities I have as the Minister of Environment. Were I to do that, or were that hon. member to do that, if she could stand in this position for a day, she would soon learn that the public would suddenly become extremely disaffected and disappointed and outright worried at such administration.
J. Tyabji: I would suggest to the minister that there are alternatives, as he well knows, to the spraying of Vision in watersheds. I would also suggest to the minister, if he is calling himself proactive and prudent, that prudence would suggest erring on the side of caution. In this instance, where you have numerous people writing complaints with regard to aerial spraying in their watersheds, this minister at the very least should allow some kind of stay of the spraying until he himself can make a ruling.
I would like to know if this minister feels that he can rely on the decisions of the previous administration with regard to aerial spraying of pesticides. If not, is he prepared to make these decisions himself, to allow some kind of stay at least for the residents, and to hear their appeals? He has said that he is very interested in listening to people and in having discussions with people. Based on that, would he at least be willing to hear what they have to say before going ahead with the aerial spraying?
Hon. J. Cashore: The Pesticide Control Committee advises the pesticide administrator, and that individual makes the decisions. That's within the act. With regard to an earlier question, does the minister have that authority, the answer is no, the minister does not have that direct authority. The authority that the minister does have is with regard to addressing questions of legislation review, etc. That should be part of a timely process.
I should point out that areas sprayed with Roundup are being reduced significantly in the province. That is something that needs to be stated for the record. Aerial spraying is also being reduced significantly within the province.
I would like to suggest that at the present time the minister does not have that authority under the Pesticide Control Act, and, I would argue, nor should the minister have that authority. That should be an authority existing on the basis of persons who are empowered, who have the expertise and who have the advice in order to make those decisions within the context of the present legislative regime. In the meantime, I'm most interested in reviewing this whole matter with regard to legislative reform.
S. O'Neill: I would like to commend the minister on the establishment of small park areas on Shuswap Lake. Over the past number of years we've had increasing friction between houseboaters and permanent residents, and I'm hoping that these small parks will go a long way to reducing that friction.
I have a concern about the erosion on the Eagle River, the Salmon River and Chase Creek. This not only affects the farmers, as they're losing a great deal of profitable farmland, but it also impacts on fisheries. The Eagle River and the Salmon River used to have significant salmon runs that are no longer there, and of course Chase Creek could impact on the big Adams River run. Not only that, it silts up the bay and the channel, and about every eight to ten years the federal government then spends millions of dollars dredging the Sicamous channel or Salmon Arm bay. Would it not be more cost-effective to prevent the erosion, perhaps through a joint provincial-federal program. Is that possible?
Hon. J. Cashore: Off the top of my head it makes sense to me. What we're going to have to do is take that specific area that the hon. member for Shuswap is referring to, review it and take a look at the federal-provincial responsibility towards that and get back to the hon. member either during estimates or in a timely way if it is not possible during estimates.
W. Hurd: A question about pollution offences in the province of British Columbia. The opposition was encouraged to hear the minister announce in his preamble that he intended to get tough with polluters, and that the bell will toll for people who pollute the environment either knowingly or unwittingly. Is it the intention of his ministry to treat the pollution offences by municipal governments in the same fashion as he would corporate polluters'?
[3:45]
Hon. J. Cashore: Yes, hon. Chair.
W. Hurd: Has the minister identified the difficulties facing municipal governments, particularly those with aging infrastructures, who, of course, are dependent on taxpayers' dollars to undertake capital improvements, unlike corporations, which may have access to bank loans or be able to finance their improvements out of earnings or profits? Is he concerned at all about the difference between municipal governments and corporations in their ability to undertake, in some cases, some fairly major capital expenditures on their sewage and infrastructure? Is he prepared to allow a greater latitude to municipalities to deal with serious issues, particularly in light of the economic downturn we're in and the problems that
[ Page 1958 ]
municipalities have with their ongoing budgets? Is he prepared to accept the fact that municipalities occupy a somewhat more vulnerable position in terms of addressing their pollution problems than do corporations?
Hon. J. Cashore: Just last Monday I met with the GVRD on that very issue. I think the hon. member makes a good point. To govern wisely it's very important that we be cognizant of the kinds of unique problems that are faced by various municipalities and regional districts throughout the province. The point is well taken. We're in very close consultation; we're listening.
At the same time, I believe that the municipalities know that they want to be part of the solution, but there is no question that given the infrastructure in some sewerage and drainage districts that goes back more than 50 years.... We saw it on TV the other night. There are some enormous costs there. The role for government is to help enable the making of steady progress, while recognizing the very real problems of financial resources.
W. Hurd: Regarding enforcement of corporate polluters in the province of British Columbia, we now have on the books, as the minister well knows, a policy of the polluter reporting the nature of the spill or emission. The polluter reports when he is in violation of his waste management permit. In light of the fact that the fines and assessment costs are apparently scheduled to increase astronomically, has he committed any additional inspection officers through the waste management branch to ensure that the same high level of reporting that goes on in the corporate community in British Columbia is maintained? Is he at all concerned about the impact that the massive increases in fines might have on the principle of the polluter reporting the nature of the problem at the plant? Does he see any need for any increase in the amount of inspections or manpower through the waste management branch?
Hon. J. Cashore: The answer is yes. An additional 11 conservation officers have been deployed around the province to deal with such issues. They will have concomitant responsibilities in the area of fish and wildlife. But the fact is that we have dramatically enhanced the ability to follow through on that monitoring process.
W. Hurd: My questions relate primarily to the waste management branch, those individuals responsible for monitoring air quality, effluent discharge and water quality. The opposition notes that there has been a significant reduction in the budget for environmental protection. Would that reduction in any way impair the ability of the waste management branch to conduct investigations and to do its job in monitoring air and water quality in the province?
Hon. J. Cashore: We're just getting the information on the enhancement to the environmental protection resource.
I'll take this opportunity, though, to just inform the House of our initiative on the conservation officers' service. The budget provided an allocation of $2 million and 20 new full-time enforcement employees to bolster the service. These resources include a 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.
Hon. members may be interested to hear these figures with regard to where these conservation officers have been deployed: the Vancouver Island region will have three conservation officers; the lower mainland region two; southern interior region one; the Kootenay region two; the northern interior region one; and the Skeena region two. In enforcement headquarters here in Victoria there will be two special investigators. The bioassay lab in Vancouver will have one laboratory technician, and throughout the regions for CO offices there will be an administrative support staff of six. I think this is a very clear indication of the government's willingness to recognize the importance of the environmental resources in deploying financial resources.
With regard to pollution prevention, for enforcement of the bioassay lab -- to reinstate some of the funds that we had thought we were going to lose but didn't -- and toxic waste reduction, there was a total of $2.71 million and 18 full-time employees going, in general terms, into the field of environment protection in addition to the existing staff.
W. Hurd: Just in furthering a discussion on the issue of pollution assessments and offences, this may be a matter of upcoming legislation, so perhaps the minister can clarify it. It's the understanding of the opposition that the fees that would be required by the ministry for environmental assessments and studies are scheduled to rise quite substantially. Just to assist us with discussion, is that in the area of legislation to come forward, or has that been built into the estimates for revenues in the current fiscal year?
Hon. J. Cashore: The power to have an OIC to address that exists under existing legislation. Given the direction that the hon. member might be heading, I would be interested in hearing -- from the perspective of a bill of rights from the official opposition -- what their philosophy is with regard to the polluter-pay principle. As I said before, there would be a virtual bill of rights in the opening portion of our environmental impact assessment legislation. I'm not trying to get off the topic, but if we are going to have a polluter-pay principle, and if all parties in the House support that principle, then we can't merely pay lip-service to it.
W. Hurd: Would the minister not be concerned that massive across-the-board increases in the fees for environmental monitoring would have the effect of penalizing companies that are environmentally responsible? Is there any suggestion that the fee schedule might in some way be adjusted for corporations, factories or plants that have made significant strides
[ Page 1959 ]
and that will be facing dramatically higher costs for routine environmental inspections which may be not be warranted given their past performance in the province? Is there going to be any recognition that there needs to be a performance evaluation in terms of these across-the-board increases, rather than risk the possibility of penalizing environmentally responsible companies and acting as a disincentive to investment in the province?
Hon. J. Cashore: Precisely, I couldn't agree more. The initiatives that we are taking deal with the quality and quantity of the effluent discharge; those who are not diligent will pay more and those who are diligent and improving their act will pay less. The polluter-pay principle is alive and well. From what the hon. member is saying, I would understand that we're on the same wavelength.
W. Hurd: I assume, then, that the polluter-pay principle and these rather dramatic increases in environmental assessment charges would also accrue to other levels of government -- municipalities and regional districts. Are they facing the same kinds of dramatic increases in pollution monitoring if they are required to use the services of the ministry to assess hospital incinerators, for example; existing secondary sewage treatment plants; or the effects, for example, of any outdoor burning that the municipality may be involved in? Has the ministry announced or adopted a communications program to let the municipalities know of the rather dramatic increases they might be facing from his ministry in connection with routine environmental assessments in the future?
Hon. J. Cashore: The hon. member was dealing in some of his questions with sewage effluent, and then shifted into other kinds of polluting. With regard to the sewage effluent, again, we're on the same wavelength. Of the 4,000 permittees in the province, the majority of those will be paying less. Those who will be paying more are those who pollute more, but the majority of the 4,000 will actually be paying less under that system.
I'm trying to understand a note that I've written to myself with regard to the hon. member's last question. I think the answer is yes, but I can't figure out my notes, so I'll have to ask the hon. member to ask that question again.
W. Hurd: I think my question pertained to municipalities and regional districts that may have a serious pollution problem that they're certainly aware of, and may be requiring environmental assessments from the ministry. My question, I guess, was are they to assume that their costs are going to rise rather dramatically, and have these levels of government been advised of the kind of financial impacts they're going to be facing, particularly in light of the rather serious budget situation that many municipalities in the province are currently facing?
Hon. J. Cashore: I should correct an answer I gave a moment ago. It's not that the majority of the 4,000 permittees will be paying less. I should have said that the majority of the municipalities will be paying less.
With regard to the issue of those who will be paying more, again it relates to the philosophy of the polluter-pay principle. Obviously we're cognizant of those issues with regard to every municipality, but we also need to be coming forward with the type of regulation that is going to work.
W. Hurd: Further on the issue of the assessment costs for environmental inspections, is there any intention by the ministry to recognize the work that individual corporations might be doing in preparing a capital expenditure budget for a major environmental improvement, and would it not be appropriate to recognize that work in some form of....? Or reflect that willingness by the company to meet its obligations in some sort of adjustment to the kind of permit inspections that might be required by the ministry? Or is it the intention of the ministry to continue to charge these increases even to companies that are in the midst of rather significant capital improvements with an environmental perspective?
[4:00]
Hon. J. Cashore: The fees will be based on the performance. If a corporate citizen is moving diligently towards improving performance, that will be reflected in the fees. A lot of the details of the material we're canvassing right now are still before cabinet and are not public, but they will become public shortly.
I now remember what the question was that the hon. member asked me: will there be a communications strategy with regard to this? The answer is yes.
W. Hurd: Again on the issue of effluent from pulp mills: it's the understanding that the minister has attached a deadline for pulp mills using chlorine to announce their capital spending plans as to how they're going to reach the targeted levels by 1995. Can the minister advise the committee of the progress, and whether or not the deadline we're dealing with is July 1, 1992?
Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Chair, it's my recollection that the hon. member asked that question on Friday, and I answered it on Friday. It's in Hansard, perhaps the Blues. The answer is yes. The plans are coming in by June 30.
W. Hurd: Is the minister confident that all the mills in the province, including those in Port Alberni and Powell River, will have their plans in the hands of the ministry by June 30? Will those plans be available for scrutiny by the environmental movement in the province?
Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Chair, yes and yes.
J. Tyabji: I'd like to get back to the outline that we were going with in regard to estimates. Because we hadn't set aside a specific category for wilderness or for
[ Page 1960 ]
wildlife, I assume that would go under forestry, if that's agreeable to the minister.
Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Chair, I realize that there is overlap. We tried to set up these three categories that dealt with the three main branches of the ministry: environment, lands and parks. With regard to forestry, we have not signified a portion of debate focusing in on forestry issues. It could come up under environment, dealing with fish and wildlife and multiple uses of the forest, it could come up under parks or it could come up under lands. So whenever you wish to ask those questions is okay.
J. Tyabji: I don't want the minister making any comments that I'm not being cooperative.
I would like to ask the minister about a certain East Kootenay wildlife division employee named Ray Demarchi. I'm sure the minister is aware of him. I'd like to quote some of the things he's been saying very recently with regard to the management of wildlife, and I'd like to get the minister's input.
I will read to you from an article in the Calgary Herald on April 23, 1992. The headline is: "Experts' Solution to Urban Elk -- Shoot 'Em." The article reads:
"If park officials are really serious about controlling aggressive elk in the townsite, they should start shooting them, suggests a leading wildlife biologist. 'That's right; go out there and shoot them,' says Ray Demarchi, head of the nearby East Kootenay wildlife division in British Columbia. 'You get a couple of dead animals and the elk will get the message. And the parks service will get the message too. There won't be any more problem elk.' Demarchi doesn't condone hunting in Banff's back alleys, where many garbage-feeding elk roam. But he suggests chasing the animals to the edge of town where they can be dispatched more safely and more aesthetically'."
I'd like to ask the minister if he has had any discussions with Ray Demarchi since these comments have come out. And if he has, what was the nature of the discussions? Does the minister have any general concerns with regard to this particular employee's activities? I have a number of other things here: allegations that have been made with regard to some of his conduct while doing his job. I'm hoping the minister is aware of the allegations I'm referring to. I'd rather not bring them up in the House, but I will if he is not.
Hon. J. Cashore: First of all, with regard to the member's comment that she wouldn't want me to say that she hasn't been cooperative, I would never say such a thing. I find that this hon. member is extremely cooperative in the House. I think that in this House all of us have milk and honey flowing in our veins -- all of us. We're simply here to try to enhance the well-being of the province.
With regard to Ray Demarchi, I would want to begin any comment that I made about any public servant with a statement of my philosophy about commenting on public servants. First of all, I would recognize that it behooves us to be extremely careful, given that these are people who work within the ministry -- they're public servants. They're often caught between a rock and a hard place of political expectation on the one hand and public demand on the other. Very often they work in very difficult circumstances where the expectations are enormous. I prefer to see a society that recognizes public servants as partners in the process of seeking to achieve those goals that we all want to achieve. Therefore, in commenting on this comment -- which is taken somewhat out of context -- I think that in some ways it's unfair to an individual, because he or she doesn't really have an opportunity to come into this House and participate in this forum; therefore things can be said where an individual could have no recourse, given the immunity that we enjoy in this forum.
Having said that as background, no, I haven't talked to Mr. Demarchi within the last couple of weeks. I think the last time I talked to him was about three weeks ago. I do know that he's a valued public servant. Again, I think it would be very important to have a thorough understanding of the context of the issue with regard to the elk in that particular location. Obviously it's an issue that has a great deal of complexity to it.
J. Tyabji: As the minister is no doubt aware, following the article in the Calgary Herald of April 23, some reporters contacted Ray Demarchi to determine if he was serious and if he would maintain his position with a different newspaper. He was contacted then by the Cranbrook Townsmen for an April 29 article. The headline is: "Wildlife Head Recommends Shooting Elk to Clear Town." It starts off in the same way as the Calgary Herald article.
"The town of Banff is having another year of problems with its urban elk population, and the head of the East Kootenay wildlife division says the best thing park officials can do is chase the elk to the edge of town and shoot them."
And I'll quote -- there's some interesting language here, hon. Chair:
"'When one elk sees something like another elk being shot, they learn from it,' Ray Demarchi said. 'They'll learn to get the hell out of there.' In 1974, Demarchi said, the town of Robson had a similar problem with elk, so wildlife officials opened season on elk in Robson and it solved the problem."
No doubt it did.
I would like to know if the minister supports this approach to wildlife management in an urban centre, and I would again like to ask the minister if he is aware of the other allegations that some local residents have made with regard to some of the conduct of Ray Demarchi.
Hon. J. Cashore: In my role I receive several phone calls, letters and faxes every day making all sorts of allegations. I also have received phone calls, letters and faxes saying very positive things. So I'm not going to comment on that with regard to one individual within the ministry who's not here to defend himself.
The fact is that you could move some of the elk out of an area, but you can't move them all. I realize that the process here is that the minister is the one who is asked the questions, but it would help me, in terms of responding to the member, if she would be willing to share with the House what her position is on this and
[ Page 1961 ]
the form of management that she would prefer, given the problem that exists. The fact is that we do give permits now in British Columbia to remove problem elk in extreme situations. So if the question is whether we endorse that management format, we do under the existing legislation and under the existing application of that legislation. If the member has some information that would cause us to look at that in a different way, we'd be interested in hearing about it. I'm sure she appreciates that it is a very difficult problem, as we saw on the news the other night. Where we recognize it's a problem, we give a permit to be able to act.
J. Tyabji: Since the minister is canvassing my opinion, my opinion is that the reason the elk are there is because there is an easily available food source, and that's the root of the problem. That's the approach that you should take. Obviously you can trap and move them in the short term.
However, I would like to ask this minister if he would commit to following up on some of the allegations, which I know have been passed to him in writing on at least one occasion, with regard to some of the conduct of Ray Demarchi. Rather than reading this out in the House and making it public knowledge, I will pass a copy to the minister so that he can act within the confines of his office. I think these are very serious allegations and that the minister should look at them. It is with regard to the same person. I would also recommend to the minister in any discussion with a public servant, if he feels their position is going to be controversial, that at the very least they should be slightly less forthcoming with their own opinion as to the most suitable solution.
I don't know if the minister heard my remarks. I will pass you a copy of what I have here with regard to the allegations on the conduct of Ray Demarchi, and then you can review them. I would urge you to follow up with the appropriate action, and then I would monitor that -- if that's suitable to the minister.
The minister is probably aware that we have a problem in the Kelowna area as well with regard to deer encroachment on the outlying orchards. This will be coming up in his portfolio again this year. Last year the deer were coming down from the wilderness areas into the orchards. It has been costing the orchardists a lot of money. There are obviously several ministries involved here. The overriding one is Environment, and there is Agriculture and Forests as well as the regional district.
Last year the Ministry of Environment issued hunting licences, and there was a very serious problem with individuals trekking through private property to shoot deer in people's back yards, which was causing a lot of anxiety to the people who lived there. I think there were as many as 300 hunters on one weekend, and it's a very small area. I'd like to know what approach the minister is going to take this year with regard to wildlife management. I know that some of the local residents have advocated a very high fence. I know that there are alternate methods of repelling deer, and I would like to canvass the minister's thoughts on that issue.
Hon. J. Cashore: With regard to a food source for the elk, let's remember that we're dealing with an Alberta problem here. I'm willing to deal with Alberta during my estimates. I don't know if we're going to annex Banff or all of Alberta, or just how that's going to come out during the constitutional talks. I understand that there is one thought of having regions, so maybe at some point we would have some wider influence on what happens in Alberta. With regard to the issue of the food source, does the hon. member mean that we're going to remove the trees, the flowers and the shrubs that exist in...?
[4:15]
Interjection.
Hon. J. Cashore: Oh, the garbage. The hon. member is telling me that there are elk eating garbage. I see. In the news broadcast that I saw, the elk were eating trees, plants and shrubs. I didn't know that elk were garbage eaters, but you learn something new every day. That's fascinating. I thought that there were some problem bears that ate garbage. You could actually have adventure tours where people would go to the dumps to watch the elk. That's interesting.
With regard to the situation outside Kelowna -- a very serious and difficult problem -- that has to do with the interface between a growing residential population and the fact that it is territory that has been occupied by those ungulates. It's a difficult issue. When the problem that the member cited arose several months ago, we acted very quickly to shut down the season. How are we going to deal with it this year? We have our staff working closely with the agricultural community and with other people in the area. It is being addressed. I may be able to give a more definitive response than that when I receive further information. At this time, I do know that our staff are working on it with the community.
L. Fox: I'm going to leave the global issues with respect to the environment to our environment critic, who has immensely more knowledge on the subject than I do. I wanted to ask some specific questions. Since we are on the wildlife area of it, one of the concerns in my neck of the woods has been the fact that the conservation officer's time has been used substantially on environmental issues rather than on game management issues. There is a lot of concern in the northern parts of the province. We don't have enough game wardens or game management people; their time allotment is primarily used inspecting dump sites, measuring water quality and those kinds of important issues. Through this process and evolution the actual game management side has suffered dramatically. I noticed just a few moments ago that you gave us some numbers. I believe it was 22 increased personnel in terms of conservation officers. I wanted to find out how much of that emphasis is going into game management, and how much is going into environmental measurements and inspecting spills and that kind of thing. Perhaps I could ask the minister to address that.
[ Page 1962 ]
Hon. J. Cashore: The answer would be determined by the priorities in the area. I believe that we put one additional conservation officer into the region that the hon. member represents. I think, though, that when we're talking about wildlife and game management, we're talking about different ways in which the ministry responds. We don't have game rangers, but we have conservation officers. We have fish and wildlife biologists, some of whom are specialists in ungulates and other wildlife. We have those different components within the ministry to be aware of those issues and to work on effective management in that regard. Hence we have the fish and wildlife part of our ministry headed by Mr. Jim Walker. In general terms, we do address that issue. I would be interested in the member's comments with regard to where he sees problems area or concerns.
Before we do that, I see the hon. member for Okanagan East is not in the House. I had some further comments with regard to the concern she raised about the elk. I'll wait until she's back in the House before I answer that question.
L. Fox: I would like to give the minister more background on some of the concerns in my area in particular -- at least those that I am more familiar with. The Nechako region is large in terms of a management area. We have thousands of square miles of territory, and much of it is pristine wilderness. At this time we have two conservation officers to cover hundreds of roads, a lot of which connect with other regions in the back country.
To bring this problem into perspective, I have to tell the minister that there is a lot of poaching. I know that you took action earlier within your ministry to try to get a handle on that situation. Poaching has increased substantially in the last couple of years. Perhaps that's reflective of the economic times. I'm not sure. I'm told that some of it is actually taken out of the area and sold. It is a big concern to those in my region who put an extremely high value on wildlife and want to make sure that it's managed in a sustainable way; hence the question about more emphasis being placed on the wildlife management part of your ministry. Perhaps that will help you.
Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. member, in your opening remarks you said that you were aware of the special investigation unit. The hon. member is also aware of the increasing problem with regard to poaching. One of the responsibilities that we have in this context is to try to ascertain just to what extent that problem exists. We know that it's there, but we need more information as to how intense it is. We're certainly hearing a lot of reports about poaching. We think that the fact that we do have a special investigation unit is going to play a major part in addressing that.
I would also mention that given the fact that we have placed, I believe, 25 wildlife biologists in Ministry of Forests' offices throughout the province to assess logging plans, that means that they're also involved in the loop of looking at the entire way in which we manage the wildlife component in our province. I would add to that, too, that given the 40 full-time employees and the $10 million to enable us to catch up on our inventory requirements.... That's not only dealing with wood fibre; it's also dealing with fish and wildlife values. Therefore the baseline data that will come out of that will be very important in order to achieve the kind of scientific information we need to be able to do effective wildlife management work.
L. Fox: I appreciate the answers and look forward to monitoring the success of the program. I have a couple of other areas of concern. I had difficulty with the budget numbers here in pulling out the exact amounts. Perhaps they're not specifically in your budget. I'm sure that the minister is aware that I had the privilege of sitting on the Round Table on the Environment and the Economy in the first year for a few months of its development. Once I had made my political intentions clear, I had to resign that seat. But during those few months I gained a great appreciation for the process and the kind of discussions that were happening around that table. It was a bit awkward in the early stages, to say the least, with 31 people, each having their own turf and their own concerns. However, under its very able chairmanship, it became a very good process. Indeed, it has had some achievements. I want to know specifically what amount of dollars are in this year's budget for the Round Table on the Environment and the Economy -- if it's in your budget. How does that equate to last year? Was there an increase or a decrease?
Hon. J. Cashore: Perhaps the hon. member wasn't in the House earlier this afternoon; I did give that information. But I will give that answer again. The budget for the Round Table on the Environment and the Economy this year is $1.8 million. Last year it was $2 million.
I'd like to take this opportunity to thank the hon. member for the work he did on the Round Table. I agree that under the chairmanship of Mr. Chuck Connaghan, we've had some very effective work done and some outstanding volunteer work by a number of our citizens.
L. Fox: Just to follow on that -- you may have answered this as well. I was getting myself prepared for these estimates, so perhaps the question has been asked. I know there's going to be some overlap. Is there a liaison mechanism between CORE and the Round Table, other than the minister or the ministry, to bring these two groups together so they're not working independently?
Hon. J. Cashore: There's an ongoing discussion between CORE and the Round Table. There's regular contact and interaction. We're also aware of that at the level of the Cabinet Committee on Sustainable Development, where that process is facilitated as well.
I said twice in the House now that the Round Table budget last year was $2 million. I stand corrected; it was $2.4 million last year. It's $1.8 million this year.
[ Page 1963 ]
L. Fox: Perhaps I might ask what area of the Round Table is being cut. Earlier it didn't seem to be that significant, but now we're talking about $600,000. Can you expand on exactly what that means in terms of the Round Table?
Hon. J. Cashore: I met with one of the committees of the Round Table this morning -- actually with Graham Lea, who's on the committee that's working on paper and the economy. The fact is that the Round Table is being very cooperative in looking at those areas that are more oriented to their advisory role, even though their mandate has grown to some extent. They have been involved in some public education work. They have addressed the issue of financial resources, recognizing that the province is dealing with a very serious deficit problem. They are cooperating by identifying and addressing those issues that are most urgent.
L. Fox: I'll leave that at this time. I want to talk just a little bit about Kemano 2. The minister has made it clear to me in private discussions and to the House that his and the government's position is imminent with respect to the review process. I don't want to talk about that. I'll wait until we have that before us.
[4:30]
I know the minister has received a letter from the Steelhead Society in Prince George with respect to the sport fisheries in the Nechako. It's my recollection that in 1987, prior to the province reaching an agreement with Alcan and the federal government, there was some assurance by the Ministry of Environment of the day that the stocks of the sport fishery would be enhanced in the upper Nechako as part of that agreement. But has there been any discussion and is there any ongoing discussion about enhancing the sport fishery in the lower Nechako?
Hon. J. Cashore: There has been some discussion, but to date there has not been any actual project undertaken.
L. Fox: Can I just ask then if the minister and his ministry are committed to enhancing the sport fishery in both the lower and the upper Nechako?
Hon. J. Cashore: Yes, within the context of the settlement agreement, the province is committed.
L. Fox: Earlier this year the ministry announced that there would a catch-and-release program in the Bulkley River with respect to steelhead fishing. I believe this comes under your ministry; I hope I'm right in this. It is generally respected and honoured by all fishermen and sportsmen along the Bulkley River that there should be catch-and-release, but what bothers a lot of the people along the river is that while the sport fishery does that, there appear to be a lot of the steelhead lost at the Morice town gates, for instance, where they get caught up in the netting. If you go along there when the fish are running, you'll see that the native Indians net the entrance of the ladders with scoop nets. Given the fact that there is an extreme shortage of steelhead and a lessening of those stocks, has there been any consideration given to trying to stop those kinds of things from happening?
Hon. J. Cashore: An agreement has just been signed by all parties, including the native people, dealing with that in the Skeena area. That would include the Morice town area. As a matter of fact, I had occasion, when I was in Aiyansh a few weeks ago to dedicate the Nisga'a Memorial Lava Bed Provincial Park, to drive with one of our officials to the site you're referring to. I can recall, when I was there back in the 1960s, actually seeing the traditional fishing, which was quite a tourist attraction at the time. He told me that this process was emerging into a totally different approach. I'm pleased to say that I understand that the agreement has now been signed.
L. Fox: I'm sure that will be good news for everybody who is extremely concerned about the steelhead in the Bulkley and Skeena rivers.
There's a similar concern with respect to the Tachie River, which hooks Stuart Lake up into Trembleur Lake. You have closed Tachie River this year to sports fishing. This is endorsed by virtually everyone in the area, but it is still being netted. There is an extremely large concern over the decrease in rainbow stocks and so on. Perhaps a similar agreement could be approached with respect to the netting of the Tachie River. Would that be something that you might consider?
Hon. J. Cashore: This is a question I'll take on notice. We're going to get some information on that and bring it back. We'll have to do a little research.
L. Fox: Well, those are some of my favourite fishing areas. I'm prepared to release them, and I know others are, but we'd certainly like to see the enhancement have an opportunity.
I want to talk just a little bit about the fines and the increased fines with respect to environment polluters. I concur with the principle of polluter-pay, but I did have some concerns. The one question I have to ask is: where does the revenue go that's collected from these fines?
Hon. J. Cashore: I could hear the former Minister of Environment, the member for Okanagan West, saying the sustainable environment fund. That is correct.
L. Fox: As you may be aware, because he answered that, we haven't had a chance to have dialogue on that particular issue.
One of the concerns that I'm well aware of -- particularly with respect to municipal waste -- is the limitations of the funding formula for the improving of infrastructure. The funding formula -- I'm sure the minister is aware, but just so it is stated -- is that 75 percent of the capital cost is on the municipalities; 25 percent is paid by the province. Given that we're going to accept the principle of polluter-pay, could we not also suggest that part of these dollars which go into sustainable development could go toward lowering the
[ Page 1964 ]
amount that has to be raised by municipalities to something that would be more palatable and more achievable in terms of improving their infrastructure networks? Perhaps we could look at something like some of these dollars going in and helping to achieve a 50:50 split, or something along these lines. That would make it more affordable for municipalities facing these kinds of concerns.
Hon. J. Cashore: I'm not sure. The money comes out of revenue-sharing funds, which are under the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, and if I understand correctly what the hon. member is saying about 75:25, I think that's wrong. If I understand the question correctly, if he's referring to the revenue-sharing for municipal sewage, municipal infrastructure, I'm not sure how to distinguish municipal infrastucture from municipal sewage. When we're talking about sewers, we're talking 50:50.
L. Fox: Perhaps there is the odd exception where it can be up to 50:50; but the rule of thumb is, in fact, 75 percent municipal contribution and 25 percent provincial contribution. There has been very little variance from that in the last five years, hon. minister.
Hon. J. Cashore: When there's a high environmental risk, it's 50:50. When there's not a high environmental risk, it's 75:25.
L. Fox: All of these are high environmental risks with respect to the quality of the effluent going into our rivers and streams. I'm sure the minister will concur that we want to get the least possible pollution from municipal services into the river. I understand that the actual funding is under Municipal Affairs. But given the fact that this minister and his ministry deal with environmental concerns, could some of these sustainable dollars go into improving the quality of effluent going from municipal sewer services into the watersheds?
Hon. J. Cashore: The short answer is no. Even though there may be some merit in the suggestion, the fact is that there is more demand on the money in SEF than there is money in SEF. There is simply not the financial resource going into that pot to enable what may be a good idea to be carried out. So the answer is no, because the dollars aren't there. The dollars are already being used in other environmentally appropriate ways.
J. Tyabji: I was listening to the minister's discussion just a few minutes ago referring to the Round Table on the Environment and the Economy and some of the questions I brought up earlier. That brought to mind a question I had been meaning to ask the minister with regard to this. Is the minister commissioning any polls in his ministry specifically with regard to the functioning of the Round Table on the Environment and the Economy?
Hon. J. Cashore: The answer is no. To my knowledge, we don't do polling in the Ministry of Environment.
I would like to come back to the deer issue that the hon. member raised. It's a very significant issue. The present modus operandi within the ministry is that if safety is not a concern, we have a hunting season. If safety is a problem, we encourage fencing by the farmers. So that's the present standard. There aren't a lot of options when this problem exists, but methods of repelling deer don't always work and there's a poor record of repellents being effective.
I don't want to get into a "you're right, you're wrong" type of argument with you. But I have to say that I have consulted with some of the most eminent wildlife biologists in British Columbia, and elk don't eat garbage. I think we're talking about tulips and shrubs and about people's gardens attracting elk right down into downtown Banff, but I don't think we're talking about garbage. You may have confused a garbage-bear story with an elk-in-Banff story, but according to the best information I have, elk don't eat garbage. Maybe you can come up with some photographs.
J. Tyabji: The minister will be very interested to learn that it was his own staff person in the East Kootenay wildlife division who said that he doesn't condone hunting in Banff's back alleys, where many garbage-feeding elk roam. Your staff person is the reliable source I was counting on, because I have not been in Banff for a few years. I have not been there with a video camera, hunting down the back alleys to see if the elk are eating garbage. I would suggest to the minister that if they are eating garbage, there's a very easy solution to the problem: don't make it accessible. That was the point I was making. Obviously access is a great consideration with regard to wildlife. If there is nothing there to attract them, then they won't come.
With regard to the deer, if the minister is suggesting that the solution to the problem of orchards encroaching into deer habitat is for the orchardists to put up fences, then I would put to the minister that we should keep in mind that it can be proven to a large extent that one of the reasons the ungulates are proliferating in that area is because of forestry practices. To that extent it then becomes the responsibility of the provincial government, specifically his ministry, to monitor the wildlife that are proliferating as a result of greater access to food. That is why wildlife proliferate.
It is not enough to tell the orchardists to put up fences, because they don't have the money. They're losing money because of a problem they have not created. At some point somebody is going to have to help them out, or they will just close up shop. That is what we're seeing with a lot of orchardists. That is not an acceptable solution, and neither is hunting in that kind of area.
There are definitely solutions with regard to whether or not we should allow forestry practices that encourage ungulates that close to an urban area. These are things that should be discussed now to prevent future problems. In the short term this should be addressed with a government initiative, because it is
[ Page 1965 ]
these practices of the government that are causing the problems in the first place.
[4:45]
Hon. J. Cashore: The options are being discussed now. The ministry is actively working on it. They're meeting with the people in the area. They're coming forward with the best possible methods available to deal with it. Unless the hon. member is able to put forward her wildlife management plan and show how that will work better than the procedures that are presently being used -- there is obviously an interface between the abundance of deer on the one hand and the human factor on the other hand -- it's not too productive a discussion.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment has a few comments to make. This will give me an opportunity to leave the chamber very briefly.
D. Lovick: There's an honourable tradition in this chamber that perhaps members are not familiar with: namely, it is not considered to be in the public interest to keep any one minister standing in her or his place for some four hours without reprieve and respite. It is therefore a well-known tradition that others will fill in, albeit briefly. I'm happy to note that members on the other side have also been absenting themselves from these chambers for very short periods of time, however interesting the debate may be.
I want to emphasize, however, that I have no intention to simply filibuster, or talk for the sake of talking. Rather, I want to contribute something to the debate, essentially under the heading and apropos of what we refer to as the public consultation process.
This government, you will recall, said a great deal about its commitment to open and consultative models of government. I would argue the case that it has done a rather good job of demonstrating that that is more than simply a rhetorical commitment, that it is indeed living up to the promise made.
I noted in the introductory comments to the estimates from my colleague the Minister of Environment that he referred to the consultation model and the process that I and some others of his staff are involved in. I believe it was the member for Surrey-White Rock -- I'll be very careful, as I don't want to put words in anybody's mouth -- who said: "Yes indeed, minister, we appreciate the public consultation model, but you haven't really gone far enough. You haven't done it quite right." I was sort of hoping, as I listened thereafter to the debate, to discover whether in fact there was any particular criticism of the process we had been involved in, with a view to responding. I listened, alas, in vain.
I didn't hear any criticism, but, having some personal interest as well as an interest on behalf of the government in this matter, I would like to read into the record very briefly.... I say "read in" not literally. I'm not about to read a bunch of things, but rather, explain to the House the public consultation model that we introduced by way of introducing ultimately a new environmental assessment act for this province. So if I might, for the edification and enlightenment of members opposite, and as well for my own colleagues who are also not privy to all this information, I thought I'd simply sketch out the process.
The consultation process, as we refer to it, was conducted over a seven-week period from April 2 to May 21. We recognize that was a rather short time-frame. Obviously, if consultation is to have any meaning at all, it ought to be as lengthy, elaborate and aired-out a process as one possibly can make it. Unfortunately, we didn't have an opportunity to do that.
Interjection.
D. Lovick: No, this isn't future policy. This is, rather, a report on initiatives of this ministry which have been sketched out in brief in the assessment debate introduction. I'm fleshing out that information for the benefit of members opposite. I am pleased to do so, and I am sure that all members, whatever their intellectual and other abilities, will take advantage of the opportunity to listen. I am pleased to note that.
On April 2 we began the process by holding a session with what we referred to as major stakeholder organizations, and that meeting was designed primarily not so much to talk about the plans for environmental assessment, not so much to talk about the specifics of a discussion paper that had been published, but rather to talk about the consultation process and what we envisaged under that heading.
It's interesting to note that one of the concerns expressed again and again by participants of that particular workshop was: we like what you're doing, but we wish we had more time. I'm happy to note that that message has been conveyed to the minister, and he will be making some announcement about our responsiveness to that particular complaint in very short order.
When I refer to umbrella stakeholder organizations, let me specify, albeit briefly, what those are and what that refers to. Broadly considered, we recognize that in this province there are, in addition to the "general public," three particular environmental stakeholder groupings. One of those is environmental organizations -- those organizations that define themselves as such: the Sierra Club and the Western Canada Wilderness Committee, not to mention all the ones that are specific to more particular locales, communities and regions. In addition, we recognize that another legitimate vested interest -- a stakeholder interest -- belongs to first nations people. That then became the second stakeholder organization. Our third one is a combination of industry and local government representatives.
We invited those individuals to meet with us, listen to our plans for a consultation process under the heading of environmental assessment and give us some direction on how me might proceed. Following that particular meeting, we attempted to reach out to those same stakeholder organizations throughout the province, knowing full well, of course, that they weren't all located only in the lower mainland. We attempted to then reach out, and that resulted in the production -- very quickly, I might add -- of a mailing list of some
[ Page 1966 ]
6,000 individual organizations, names, municipalities or businesses throughout the province.
It's worth noting, by the way, that one of our predicaments when the consultation process began was that we discovered there was not a consultation mailing list in hand, in the ministry's possession. In other words, there wasn't a list of people with whom the ministry had consulted or discussed things with as a matter of course. We were distressed by that. I'm sure that my colleagues opposite from the third party will feel the same way. I'm sure they were committed to doing the same but didn't have time. I'm happy to say that we have now rectified that particular error.
[R. Kasper in the chair.]
In any event, 6,000 people or organizations were contacted. We sent out, at that time, a schedule of our meetings, where we intended to be and for how long, and we also sent out a copy of the draft discussion paper. It's important to focus for just a moment on what this draft discussion document is. It's called: "Reforming Environmental Assessment in British Columbia: A Discussion Paper." It consists of a brief background on the issue and the complexity of the issue and, as well, offers 45 particular recommendations from ministry staff regarding what shape new legislation ought to take. We emphasized again and again that this was not intended to stack the deck and say this is what's on the table and nothing else. Rather, the process was to be as open as we could make it.
After having sent out that material, after having announced our intentions to the world, we then started our process of actually travelling to the communities. I would be dishonest if I did not acknowledge our first visit in the geographical centre of the province in the community of Prince George, and one day thereafter in the northeast corner of the province, namely Fort St. John.
Interjection.
D. Lovick: Somebody across the way says Vanderhoof is the geographical centre. I have a hunch I know what constituency you represent -- just a hunch. In any event, I stand corrected.
We went into that particular community to meet with individuals. Again, as I say, I must be candid and acknowledge the fact that those people were somewhat concerned that they hadn't had sufficient notice. All we could do, in fairness, is say: "You're absolutely correct. You're right. Had we world enough and time, we would have done it differently and better." And, indeed, we made the commitment there, as I did throughout the province, that next time we will do it better because we won't be on quite the same rigid and rather too constricted timetable. We then went to all of the particular communities throughout the province that we had scheduled to visit -- some 13 different communities. I can list them all if you wish, so everybody can cheer when I hit the appropriate ones. But I won't engage in those cheap tricks.
Suffice it to say that what we did on a typical day in that exercise was to start the day with meetings with the three different groups I referred to earlier, the umbrella stakeholder organizations -- aboriginals, environmental organizations, industry and local government. I should add, by the way, that we are also including trade union representatives, labour councils, and those kinds of things under industry and local government. Obviously they, too, have a vested interest in what might happen under the heading of assessment. A typical day consisted of meeting with those representatives. We normally had at least two sessions in which individuals were invited to come and talk with us, to present their concerns to us and to listen to us explain, albeit briefly, what it was we were proposing and what our intentions were for environmental assessment. In the afternoon we would normally have an open-house session to which individuals were simply invited to come and discuss the documents we had presented, to look at the kind of low-budget visual presentation we had -- and believe me, it was low budget; this wasn't exactly Hollywood North or anything -- and then to offer us any comments. Those sessions usually turned into a kind of round-table discussion by the end of the session. In the evening we would then have an open-house session, which again was left fairly loose and free-flowing. Sometimes it would become a more formal meeting; other times it would simply become a round-table discussion.
That process, as I say, went on from April 6 to May 5. We went to 13 communities in six different regions of the province. We met with, in total, some 700 different individuals. Some 700 different people participated in the regional meetings and in the open houses. After that part of the process ended -- that public consultation process that I take some pride in, which I think was indeed real, wasn't a sham, wasn't a charade, wasn't simply going through the motions -- we then had ten days of meetings, again with the umbrella stakeholder organizations. We held those in Vancouver.
By umbrella stakeholder associations and organizations, I am referring to those groups that literally speak for -- create an umbrella over -- organizations that have a base throughout the province, in effect. Thus we would meet with Western Canada Wilderness Committee or the Sierra Club or the Mining Association of B.C. or the Council of Forest Industries or the B.C. and Yukon Chamber of Mines, etc. -- those groups, then, claiming to represent groups that had membership throughout the province or in different regions of the province.
Those sessions were devoted to listening to briefs from people more in the know, those who work with environmental assessment, who know something about the field. I might add that it is a pretty technical field; indeed, it's a rather esoteric field. But the fact is, we invited those individuals to come and to offer us their criticisms and their briefs, and we had very good attendance.
[5:00]
Finally.... I recognize that my time is limited. I know by the rules of the House that when I finish, all that is required is for one of my colleagues to simply
[ Page 1967 ]
stand up and say that he would like me to continue this process, and then I will for only a few minutes, I assure members opposite. That will give me an opportunity to wrap this up. So I give you notice, my colleagues who are here in the House, that that's the mechanism in case you're not familiar with it -- though I see that my friend from Okanagan West would be happy to leap up and say that he would love to hear more, and I thank him for that.
The end of the process qua process happened on May 21. We had a workshop for all those umbrella stakeholder organizations that had participated thus far and wanted to have their last kick at the can. What we did on that day, I think, is eristic. I think it's instructional and informative for other consultation processes. Therefore I'd like to sketch it out, albeit briefly. I recognize, however, that I am without time. Therefore I shall take my seat and hope I'll be given a brief opportunity to continue.
N. Lortie: Although I have some questions I'd like to ask the minister and some comments to make about the Ministry of Environment, I'm enthralled and intrigued by the comments of my hon. friend in front of me and would request that he be given an opportunity to have another three of four minutes of my time.
The Chair: I recognize the hon. member for Nanaimo.
D. Lovick: Oh, how I love spontaneity! Isn't it wonderful to watch it happen? I'm a little disappointed, however, that my colleague behind said three or four minutes; after all, we could have gone beyond that. However, I've asked the indulgence of the House for some time. By the way, I appreciate it, colleagues on both sides.
Let me very quickly tell you about that last process. It's an interesting one, and as I said a moment ago, I think it's eristic. We learned a great deal from it. As you can imagine, in the process of our consultation we listened to comments, questions and concerns from groups whose interests were, in some cases, diametrically opposed. They were adversaries. Given that it was our mandate to somehow adjudicate and mediate between those competing interests, we decided: why don't we give those interests the first opportunity to do what we as politicians do -- namely, try and find the common ground between divergent and competing interests?
Accordingly, we then took five or six of the most contentious and controversial parts of the document -- the areas that we're struggling with in terms of what new environmental assessment legislation ought to look like -- and put those questions on the table. For example, should there be intervener funding, or participant assistance, as it's known? Should there be a place at the table for aboriginal peoples on a regular ongoing basis? We then assembled groups of between eight and 11 people at each of the tables and said: "Here is a brief backgrounder on the subject, on the difficult issue, and here is the question that we want you to focus on. Give us your input."
I have to tell you that the results of the workshop didn't solve our problem. In other words, we didn't suddenly discover that we had nice succinct and readily accessible answers to all of our questions. However, those discussions and that questioning process -- and this is important, and I offer it as an observation that might guide all of us in terms of future legislation that we draft for the good of the people of this province -- made the different players aware that, indeed, there were points of view that were diametrically opposed and very different from their own, but they were equally legitimate and capable of being articulated. The result of that will be that what we ultimately do in the name of environmental assessment legislation will be supported by larger numbers of individuals, groups and organizations simply because they have had a firsthand introduction to the complexity and difficulty of the issue.
In short, I think that the consultation process was very effective. It was made possible by the efforts of large numbers of both government and contract employees, all of whom I can say, without fear of contradiction -- and as much as I hate the cliché -- truly acted above and beyond the call of duty. The process was wonderful. The results are still to be determined. The final report of the minister has not yet been tabled. However, I think that it will be a good one, and it will be something that we can learn a great deal from. Above all, though, it is sub rosa a report on the consultation process itself, and I think it's desirable.
W. Hurd: Just a point of clarification. Is it appropriate for members of the House to question the parliamentary secretary on his fact-finding mission around the province on behalf of environmental assessment? Or should those questions be more appropriately directed to the minister?
Hon. J. Cashore: It's my understanding that the context of the discussion is the estimates of the House and that the tradition is for the minister to speak to the estimates. However, I would think that questions to the hon. member relating to that, if he is agreeable, would be certainly within the realm of what we're doing here today.
W. Hurd: Regarding this particular assessment process with respect to the initial meetings with the major stakeholders, was the issue of pulp mill effluent regulations on the agenda of that meeting, given the fact that those rather significant events predated the creation of the environmental assessment process? Or was the issue of pulp mill effluent and pulp mill pollution problems specifically exempted from that process?
D. Lovick: The document that we tabled and I referred to, "Reforming Environmental Assessment in British Columbia: A Discussion Paper," was the only document on the table. That was all we were discussing. Environmental assessment is forward-looking by definition. It talks about new projects coming on stream and grapples with the question of what ought to be
[ Page 1968 ]
done to adjudicate those processes to make sure that they don't have too negative an impact on the environment. So the specific question that the member raises regarding pulp mill effluent was never mentioned, named or referred to in that document. That doesn't mean, I hasten to point out, that some people didn't find an opportunity to raise that issue and ask whether what we proposed under the heading of environmental assessment would adequately grapple with that problem. I hope that answers your question.
W. Hurd: Again on the matter of the stakeholders in connection with this environmental assessment process. In light of the important role played by Environment Canada in British Columbia in protecting the environment and in conservation, wildlife habitat, water quality and fisheries, can the minister explain what role the federal government and, in particular, Environment Canada might have played in this environmental assessment consultation process in British Columbia?
Hon. J. Cashore: I would look upon Environment Canada as a very important stakeholder, and given the general invitation to invite comment, I would think that it would behoove Environment Canada to participate fully in the process. Given that it's a process initiated by the provincial government, it's not the same as a joint panel that you might have during a joint process under the existing MPRP in combination with ERP. Nevertheless, I would see them as a stakeholder, and it would be important that Environment Canada would see fit to participate and make comment. I would certainly expect that they would do that.
W. Hurd: Can he confirm, then, that Environment Canada did participate in this rather lengthy and wide-ranging consultation process that was initiated in communities throughout the province? Is it fair to assume that their comments with respect to environmental assessments in the province are going to be fairly reflected in the final report that the parliamentary secretary brings forward to the minister?
Hon. J. Cashore: I don't have the information at hand with regard to the extent to which they participated. Certainly there's a great deal of interactionn with Environment Canada through the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, of which I am a member. There are different ways, as you know, that we participate with Environment Canada. The recent Fraser basin management agreement is another example. I will find out the answer to the question with regard to the extent to which they formally participated in the environmental impact assessment discussion process. Of course, Environment Canada and the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks are, believe it or not, quite often in contact and consult on various issues. It will be interesting to find out to what extent they participated in that process. We will get that answer for you.
W. Hurd: I assume that the situation with the Nechako River may have been front and centre in at least one or two of the meetings that were conducted by the parliamentary secretary. In view of the important role the federal government has in the Alcan diversion project and of the concern of the United Fishermen and Allied Workers' Union about the flow of water in the Nechako, one would have hoped that the federal Environment people would have been invited to participate in discussions involving the direction Environment Canada might be taking on that rather critical issue.
With respect to the Nechako, however, has the minister identified any funds in his ongoing budget to study the concerns of the United Fishermen regarding the reduction in water flows and the impact that might have on the fishery in the Fraser River as well as in the Nechako?
Hon. J. Cashore: With regard to the federal government and the Nechako issue, it would appear that the federal government is looking upon the Department of Fisheries and Oceans as being the main ministry through which they would consult on that issue.
As I have stated before, I have talked to the Hon. Jean Charest with regard to this issue, and I will be talking to the Hon. John Crosbie shortly with regard to the Kemano completion project.
The hon. member asked about the points being made by the UFAWU. I think he's aware that I have met with the Rivers Defence Coalition and the Carrier-Sekani Tribal Council. The UFAWU is a member of that coalition, and we have had discussions with them in that context. We're most interested in enabling all the information that various groups have, from different perspectives, to be available. We are at an informnation-gathering stage right now, pursuant to stating the nature of the review that will take place. The question about whether the ministry has funds that will be made available to discuss in particular the UFAWU concerns needs to be a more generic question. The announcement that will be made when we are ready to state the nature of the review will cover such considerations.
[5:15]
J. Tyabji: Considering that this is the first year the minister is in this new portfolio, I'd like to know what he has planned with regard to the concept of wilderness corridors, with which I'm sure he's familiar. I know that some of his parks plans and some of the land use strategies coming out of his ministry address this to some extent. But I'd like to hear from the minister what his philosophy is with regard to the preservation of representative ecosystems, which is all tied in with wilderness corridors.
Hon. J. Cashore: With regard to the corridor program, that relates effectively to the protected areas strategy. It fits into that very well. I have also indicated that I am on record as supporting the Canadian heritage rivers system. We are in the process, pursuant to that support, of discussing it with the federal government,
[ Page 1969 ]
because we believe that part of the process of British Columbia entering into the Canadian heritage rivers system could result in bringing about a more effective Canadian heritage rivers system for the entire country. I gave a major speech -- I think it was last February -- to the Outdoor Recreation Council, and at that time indicated that we are most interested in entering the Canadian heritage rivers system. Again, the corridor program and the CHRS would be in place as an adjunct to the protected areas strategy and the various processes under way to address this.
With regard to the question about biodiversity and representative ecosystems, it is the position of this government that we wish that to be a fundamental value in carrying through the study process relating to the areas targeted in the protected areas strategy and Parks and Wilderness for the '90s, so that we can do everything we possibly can to ensure, to the greatest extent possible, that representative ecosystems are indeed protected for future generations. That's one of the fundamental values in addressing that issue.
J. Tyabji: I'd like to go back to the discussion that we were having about the Blue Lead Creek area. If this ministry is committed to the Canadian heritage rivers system initiatives, and if he is also committed to the idea of ecosystem preservation and some manner of pristine wilderness, does the minister understand the implications of the logging of the watershed there? Even though there have been log-arounds in those areas, they weren't up for logging regardless. Does this minister also support some of the logging that's gone around in that area, with regard to it being high up on the hill so there's very little chance for successful replanting? In addition to asking all those questions, I'd like to ask the minister if he thinks that it is advisable from an environmental point of view, from a ecosystem point of view and from a Canadian heritage rivers system point of view to be logging in the watersheds of those rivers that are feeding into that system.
Hon. J. Cashore: The Canadian heritage rivers system is a system whereby candidate rivers would be nominated to become a part of that system. That would have the effect of putting those rivers forward, in terms of the national perspective, with regard to being seen as particularly important rivers for other than industrial values. The Canadian heritage rivers system, as I understand it, would not have the effect of precluding development on those rivers, but it would have a major role in raising public awareness and therefore improving, at least from one perspective, the level of political and public will.
To suggest that the Blue Lead might be a candidate for the Canadian heritage rivers system would not be in sync with such groups as CPAWS -- the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society -- or other very knowledgeable organizations that are promoting this concept. They have a number of candidates that would rank much higher than the Blue Lead. When the member frames her question in the context of a Canadian heritage rivers system and the Blue Lead, I really believe that it is not seen as a candidate for nomination. The kinds of rivers that the Canadian heritage rivers system would want to nominate well in advance of any river such as the Blue Lead would be the Tatshenshini, the Babine, the Blackwater, just to name three.
The member came back to this issue of Blue Lead again. I really do believe that we canvassed this issue and that I answered this question earlier this afternoon. I stated that we are dealing with situations throughout the province where there are great divergences of opinion with regard to land-and water-use planning. Hence the need for measures that bring people together to a common table to try to ascertain what is best for the future of the province.
The hon. member wants to keep coming back to ask if I think that proceeding in that area is inappropriate. The fact is that we have to make some difficult decisions in this province. We have made that decision. None of these decisions are easy to make, but it's important that they be made so that we can get on with it. We recognized that in the context of wildlife values. I said earlier this afternoon that we are doing everything we can to ensure that activity is not taking place at a time when the important parts of the salmon spawning cycle are taking place. Also, we made our decision in the context of realizing that the alternative areas that could have been considered were considered. We also had information that the wildlife values were significant in those areas. Therefore a difficult decision was made. It's important that government be prepared to make such difficult decisions.
J. Tyabji: Hon. Chair, the reason that I keep coming back to this area, as I'm sure the minister is aware, is that we have some wetlands there that are unique in the province. For example, the Mitchell wetland has 10 percent of all rainbow trout and is the second-largest contributor of sockeye salmon to the Quesnel system. The Quesnel system, of course, is on par with an inland sea.
There are also very important spawning grounds for the kokanee. We have the largest population of grizzly bears. There are a lot of wolverines and caribou in the area. The steep hillside and the series of wetlands are unique in the province. As this minister is aware, we have an inland rainforest in this area which we don't have in a lot of other areas of the province. The Cariboo Mountains provide the same backdrop for the type of climate we get in the lower mainland. I keep coming back to this area because I think it is unique.
If the minister subscribes to the wilderness corridor philosophy -- that this fits in with the wilderness corridor philosophy -- will he extend the wilderness corridor from the Bowron lakes to the southern part? I understand that there are difficult decisions to make. As we sit and discuss this, we're having an increase in the rate of logging. Instead of having three passes in 60 years, we have two heavy passes over 20 years in terms of logging. I would suggest to the minister that this area is unique and it must be decided. Yes, the areas he mentioned are very important. But if he subscribes to wilderness corridors, he should reconsider this.
I know he has already answered this question, but I wanted to restate it and be specific about the values for
[ Page 1970 ]
the system before passing the floor to our agriculture critic.
Hon. J. Cashore: As I said before, in this beautiful province there's a multiplicity of unique areas. The issue of the representative ecosystem is a value, as I mentioned before, that needs to be fulfilled. Every member of the House could come into this House with their unique area. We would have 75 different unique areas.
The role of government is to make some decisions in that context. One assumption that was made in making that decision was that we need to protect areas that are intact. We protected the Niagara because it is an intact area. We don't hear the hon. member or some elements of the environmental community standing up and saying: "Hooray, they protected the Niagara." As I said in the House before, it's a question of whether the glass is half empty or half full. Frankly, hon. member, I would say the glass is half full.
We also considered the highest wildlife value. Our staff say that the highest wildlife values were in the Penfold. We protected the Niagara and the Penfold, and we allowed logging in the Blue Lead and the Killdog. I am quite ready to recognize that there was a certain amount of pain in having to make that difficult decision, but it so happens that those were areas where logging already existed, and we protected the areas that were intact. We think that it was a difficult yet Solomon-like decision.
R. Chisholm: This question to the minister is in reference to the Fraser Valley's transportation and pollution problems. Due to its geographical nature, the prevailing winds and the amount of traffic in the Fraser Valley and Vancouver, we have pollution at the far end of the Fraser Valley that is unbearable. I'm just wondering what the minister sees as a solution for this. Is it going to be a band-aid solution, or are we going to go into a long-range solution like a GO train or LRT? I realize LRT is something like $30 million a kilometre, but I would like to know what the minister foresees in the near future to try to solve this air pollution problem in the Fraser Valley.
Hon. J. Cashore: I would like to thank the member for that excellent question. When a question is phrased that way, we can find a context in which to discuss ideas. Again, that idea of the pollution credits, which has been blown all out of proportion, is simply there as an idea. That's one idea, along with an array of other ideas, that needs to be looked at.
Some of the things that we have already done are to issue a discussion paper towards a clean-air strategy and also a strategy paper on smoke emissions. We think that that's very important. We would invite the hon. member and also his constituents to participate in the process of reviewing those papers and getting their input, because that's going to be fundamental to the answer to his question, which is how we are going to respond to some of those concerns.
The member for Chilliwack makes an enormously important point. I know the member for Matsqui would certainly agree that we have a problem in the airshed that's bounded by mountains on both sides of the Fraser Valley, resulting in inversion. Before we get that inversion, it's caused by an accumulation of smog and other pollutants going into the air that starts with automobiles that are burgeoning in number in the Vancouver area. That smog and those other pollutants are going up into the air, building up in quantity and drifting out towards those two members' ridings, right to the area where we have our bread basket. The major area in the province for food production is the area to where we see that smog and pollution drifting.
Also, we know from Dr. David Bates that studies have been done with regard to the dramatic increase of visits to emergency wards of hospitals by people suffering from respiratory problems during such episodes of inversion. So we know that if we don't address this problem, we're going to see the costs in other ways: in our health care system and in the way in which it impacts our young people. And we have to be concerned about our food supply. It's a very important issue.
What are some of the measures that need to be taken to address that? In September the program for motor vehicle testing will begin. That will be a process of ensuring that the major cause of pollutants in that airshed will be dealt with, and we'll start getting some of those vehicles off the road.
[5:30]
When you're trying to resolve one problem in one place, you end up creating other problems; and I have some personal angst and distress over the fact that it's often the poorest people in our society who have those cars that are of a vintage where they are polluting. It is true that we get into some real dilemmas in trying to resolve some of these problems, but resolve this one we must. We simply cannot take the chance with the health of our populace and the problems that are visited upon the people up in that area. In my riding, Coquitlam-Maillardville, we still have the problem of that accumulation, and that's very important.
One of the things that I really commend the Premier for is his Georgia basin initiative, which recognizes that pollution is no respecter of political boundaries and therefore that we need to be co-operating and working on environmental issues with our neighbours to the south, because air goes both ways across the border. We also need to recognize that the Greater Vancouver Regional District, the Regional District of Fraser-Cheam and the two other regional districts in the valley all have concerns around this issue. I think that as government -- and this idea is looked at in our paper -- we need to take a look at having a regional air quality authority that would deal with the entire Fraser Valley, so that there's some way of assessing how to address the total amount of pollutants that are going up and how to address the area of changing practices within those four regions so that the problems will begin to be mitigated.
We also have to look at such things as the environmental laws in California, because of the population that they have there, which are going to produce economies of scale that will result in electric cars. There is research and development on batteries that will be
[ Page 1971 ]
effective in such technology, and we'll benefit from that in the lower mainland once the auto makers come forward with some transportation alternatives.
As the hon. member mentioned, transit is incredibly important in all this. We are in the process of reviewing the way that that can work. There's another project very dear to my heart, and that is the alternative that people should have of riding their bicycles to work. It's not to see the bicycle just as a recreational activity, but to be able to create a bicycle corridor all the way from UBC in Point Grey to Boundary Road, and then to connect with routes through Burnaby and Coquitlam that would be off main highways and which would be an alternative for people who would like to use their bicycle as a method of transportation.
There's an array of methods that we have to be using to get people out of their automobiles. There are a number of ideas that can be used to address this issue, hon. member, and we're certainly interested in your comments towards a clean air strategy paper.
R. Chisholm: I thank the minister for his remarks. I have to agree with him that the auto is 85 percent of the pollution in the valley. Enlarging our roads throughout the valley, such as the Trans-Canada, is not going to be a solution. As a matter of fact, that will just entice more automobiles to the valley. With the population explosion we are now experiencing, we can expect a lot more of the same. I might suggest that one of the alternatives is natural gas. As you mentioned, California has the strictest environmental laws in the world, and they are now utilizing natural gas vehicles. The first 2,000 went in by Dodge, and GMC and Ford are following up.
Another area which I have to make a comment on is mass transit. I suggest to the minister that the rail lines are already in place and could possibly be used for a GO train in lieu of LRT, which is much too expensive by far in this time-frame. I don't think we can afford to enlarge the Trans-Canada, as I said before, because it entices more cars. As well, we don't have money for bridges and whatnot. Possibly the minister could talk to Ottawa about helping us out in this type of endeavour, since they wouldn't have to put money into enlarging the Trans-Canada or the new bridge systems that we'd require to enhance this system.
Hon. J. Cashore: I understand that the last point was about a GO train type of proposal that we might ask Ottawa to help with. Is that correct? I think that that kind of an idea along with many of these other concepts coming forward are very appropriate. I would certainly want to follow up on that suggestion. If he's talking about a GO train, I guess he's referring to a GO train going all the way from Chilliwack and using existing lines right to where it could connect with SkyTrain. We are looking at that kind of approach. I do agree that the role of the federal government certainly is an important one in looking at that.
The hon. member referred to NGVs, natural gas vehicles. The government vehicle that I am using is a dual-fuel NGV, and I certainly do encourage the use of natural gas as an alternative fuel to be considered along with other alternative fuels. The member is correct that we do have a problem where we don't have that critical mass yet that finds the big three and other auto-makers producing sufficient production-model NGVs. I think I heard the member say that there are some of those vehicles going into the California market right now because of the demands for air quality in that area.
During Globe '92, I understand that a freight car of production NGVs did show up in Vancouver at that time. I think there was some promotion of that involving B.C. Gas. It's my understanding that B.C. Gas has achieved the greatest success in North America in convincing consumers to consider NGV options. It's my understanding that they have had very good results in seeing ever more consumers turning to NGV dual-fuel vehicles in recent years. It's my understanding that they've had a very good level of success in promoting that alternative, and I wish them continued success.
F. Garden: I'm sorry that I missed the opportunity to get to my feet just after the opposition environment critic, but she's left the House. I want to get back to the Blue Lead situation. It's not as simple as the critic put it to the minister. Prior to the decision being made on the Blue Lead, the people in my riding and in Cariboo South spent a lot of time bringing to the minister's attention the problems associated with logging in the Blue Lead area. It's still quite a controversial subject. As late as last Thursday night, people on both sides of the issue came down to Victoria to express their views. At the meeting in Victoria there were as many people from the Williams Lake area as there were from the Victoria area, just to give you an idea of the intensity of feeling. In the riding the feeling is almost split on the issue of whether or not to log during the moratorium.
The point I want to make is that it's imperative that we don't get carried away with rhetoric on either side of the situation and that the opposition environment critic put her opinions in front of the Stephen Owen commission in the next 20 months so that the right decision is made on the Blue Lead, on the Cariboo Mountains.
As I said, the decision that was made was a very difficult one. In light of the circumstances, it was the best decision, because it allowed a large part of that area to be put under study, and at the same time it prevented what could have been a massive layoff as far as the logging community was concerned. In that regard, I applaud the ministry on their decision-making. I know that I and the hon. David Zirnhelt burned the midnight oil with these people in coming to the conclusion that they did.
I'm repeating myself now, but the next 20 months are crucial. I urge all groups, including the environmental groups and the share groups and the logging industry, to get before Mr. Owen's commission and let their voices be heard, because that's the whole idea of the situation, not only in the Blue Lead but in all other areas that are controversial.
Being personally involved, it's not as simple for me as for the critic, who stood up and said: "It's a beautiful area; just shut it down." It wasn't that simple. There were a lot of jobs involved in doing that kind of thing. Had the ministry closed it completely, the people would
[ Page 1972 ]
have been just as strident down here wanting the logging to be continued in the Blue Lead as those who wanted it shut down.
I just wanted to make that point for the record. Under the circumstances, it was the best decision that could possibly have been made.
Hon. J. Cashore: I would just like to say that I really appreciate such a reasoned, intelligent and profound recognition of the way we've had good government in the context of a difficult issue.
I would like to thank the hon. member especially for making a point that I had not made, which is that the next 20 months are absolutely crucial. They will be months in which British Columbians decide whether they are going to make use of the opportunity to come to a table, to come and seek a common ground, to come forward with well-thought-out decisions that are in the context of sustainability and that recognize the need to leave a viable future for our children and their children's children and at the same time recognize that our economy is based on a resource at this time and it behooves us to protect that resource, to have appropriate silviculture and to have appropriate practices. And we are moving on all of those fronts. So I thank the hon. member for that reasoned comment.
R. Chisholm: I suggest that there are some ways we can, in the interim, help out with the pollution in the valley and in the province, possibly in the licensing reduction or tax breaks to encourage the use of natural gas as an incentive for people to install it in their cars until they come off the assembly line into this province as a possibility.
Another suggestion I would mention in the area of car-pooling is maybe an ICBC incentive that would apply to people using a car singly to run back and forth to Vancouver from, let's say, Chilliwack. Maybe they should be paying a higher price to help ward off the costs of pollution.
On to another subject, which was the point of my question: has the minister thought about the use of ethanol fuels as some companies have done in smaller percentages, which makes it still economically viable and a much cleaner form of fuel that can be burned in our automobiles at the present time?
Hon. J. Cashore: This is an area that I'm quite happy to discuss because it is an important issue in our estimates. It's also an issue within the purview of the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations, because the matters of tax policy are, of course, part and parcel of all that. With regard to incentives, I would point out to the hon. member that natural gas, at the present time, has no road tax on it, so there is an incentive there. I think he's right. We need to be looking at the adequacy of those incentives, and we do recognize.... I think we agree that we have to find something that is working a lot more effectively than what's happening now, because the people still build up on the roads and we get the gridlock and people idling.
[5:45]
I've sometimes heard, as I know the hon. member has, the recommendation that there be a carbon tax. What concerns me about that is that that would send people across the border, since so much of our population is close to the border. While they are down there they gas up, and then they end up in stores buying non-British Columbia products. Then they come back to that line-up where they idle sometimes for an hour and 25 minutes sending pollutants into the air. Again, pollutants are no respecter of the Peace Arch. They flow across the border.
I think that perhaps -- and I'm flying a kite here -- in terms of looking at suggestions alongside the suggestions that the member has made, we might consider that once we look at that AirCare program with motor vehicle testing, that it should really be an incentive based on the degree to which the vehicle pollutes. In other words, if there was some scientific way of ascertaining the amount of pollution that is being emitted by a vehicle; even if it does fit into the minimum standards, there could be an incentive for those with the cleanest vehicles and a disincentive for those with the more polluting vehicles. Those are a couple of things that need to be looked at along with the array of suggestions that are in our paper. We would be interested in any suggestions that aren't in that paper.
R. Chisholm: On to another area, hon. minister. How much in your ministry is spent for the education and the use of pesticides in the urban or agricultural area? Do you have any responsibility in that area whatsoever?
Hon. J. Cashore: Our ministry has responsibility for pesticide permits. Our budget for education is limited, but we have participated with the Ministry of Agriculture in addressing an education program regarding applications for agricultural enterprises. There is no question that we do need to be taking initiatives in the area of education on this issue.
I was pleased to be able to report earlier that there is, I guess you'd say, an improvement in terms of a reduction in the use of pesticides and also a reduction in the use of pesticides in aerial spraying. Education is certainly an important part of that. I take the hon. member's point.
R. Chisholm: Do you test the chemicals -- not only pesticides, but herbicides, fertilizers and such -- before they're used in this province, or is that strictly under the Agriculture ministry?
Hon. J. Cashore: A certain area of the testing is the responsibility of the federal government. I have been advised that we require the applicant to provide information with regard to testing.
R. Chisholm: I realize that testing chemicals is an expensive procedure. Might I suggest that a lot of these chemicals have been tested in other countries? For instance, a chemical by the name of Ronilan, which you can use with beans, was tested in the United States. Does your ministry utilize their testing and just add
[ Page 1973 ]
ours to it, or do we start afresh to identify chemicals that are good or bad?
Hon. J. Cashore: Agriculture Canada does that testing. We only accept the substances that Agriculture Canada finds acceptable. That means there's no duplication, but we make use of their testing.
R. Chisholm: We'll leave that one.
My next question has to do with manure. We do have a problem with our water supply due to the great amount of this type of effluent, which is very prevalent in this province with the farming industry and whatnot. Are you involved with the Ministry of Agriculture in developing new systems to deal with the problems of mortalities in animals and the manure situation, for example?
Hon. J. Cashore: Two months ago we brought in a regulation to control the release of waste pursuant to agricultural practices.
R. Chisholm: This may have come in, but we are having problems -- for instance, with mortalities. If you talk about Matsqui, they are taking them to the dump and just dumping them in the local landfill. I wondered if this problem had been addressed. I knew it was a problem throughout the rest of the province too.
Hon. J. Cashore: We're working cooperatively with the Minister of Agriculture to address that issue, and it's under active review.
R. Chisholm: My last question to the minister is about the biomedical waste incinerator plant that was planned by Med Track Inc. I submitted a question on that a while back, but I haven't received any answer. I was just wondering if such a plant had been planned for the Sumas Mountain, or if this was a hypothetical rumour that was running around the province.
Hon. J. Cashore: I apologize to the hon. member that I have not yet provided an answer to his question on the order paper. I have been on the verge of doing so a number of times, but an announcement will be coming forward pursuant to the arrangements with regard to the toxics reduction commissioner. At that time we will be releasing a lot of that information, and that will be soon.
With regard to the specific question about Chilliwack, I think I have a responsibility to tell the hon. member that it is on hold.
R. Chisholm: My last question to the minister is in reference to the Round Table and the operating of the Round Table. Is your ministry pushing the concept of a Round Table at the constituency level or at the regional level?
Hon. J. Cashore: That's another excellent question. I recently met with the Round Table up in Smithers, and it was just a few days after the Round Table had released their paper on the establishment of regional Round Tables. The Round Table at Smithers was very interesting, because it formed without any level of government saying to them: "We want you to form this. We want to appoint you." It was a group of citizens who recognized a responsibility to apply the sustainable development principles to the Skeena River system right down to the coast, and they formed a Round Table. They continue to function as such.
The Round Table on the Environment and the Economy has studied the issue of local Round Tables. They've gone around the province and talked to a lot of groups. It's kind of an interesting issue, because we have different kinds of regional groups that have sprung up, and they don't all call themselves Round Tables. For instance, on Cortes Island there's a group of local citizens that got together and developed a shoreline plan so that they could have some influence over the burgeoning sea farm industry on the coast. They did that so effectively that they took it to the regional district, and it was accepted. We see some things happening that way, others where there's more of a government involvement. But I see the Round Table process as being something that really does need to spread to the wider community.
With that, I'd like to move that the 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.
Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
The Speaker tabled the annual report of the commission on conflict of interest for 1991-92.
Hon. G. Clark moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 5:57 p.m.
[ Page 1974 ]
The House in Committee of Supply A; D. Streifel in the chair.
The committee met at 2:45 p.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ADVANCED
EDUCATION, TRAINING AND TECHNOLOGY
On vote 10: minister's office, $315,100.
Hon. T. Perry: I don't usually refer to notes, but given the momentous occasion, I'll make some brief references. Hon. Chair, I am very pleased to have this opportunity to present the estimates of the Ministry of Advanced Education, Training and Technology.
Before I begin formally, I'd like to introduce the senior staff of the ministry, who are with me today, to members of the committee: the deputy minister, Mr. Gary Mullins; the assistant deputy minister for universities, colleges and institutes, Mr. Shell Harvey; the assistant deputy minister for skills development, Miss Joyce Ganong; the assistant deputy minister for science and technology, Mr. Ron Woodward; the director of budget analysis, Mr. Jim Crone; as well as my ministerial assistant, undoubtedly known to all of you, Mr. Randall Garrison.
In today's world, post-secondary education, training and skills development are of paramount importance. If Canada is to successfully compete in a global, market-driven economy; if British Columbia is to recognize its potential in both social and economic terms; if our citizens are to enjoy satisfying and productive lives; and, to refer to remarks made by Mr. Ivan Head Saturday night at a recognition dinner at the University of British Columbia, where he described the deepening crisis in south-north relations worldwide and rapidly expanding number of some five billion people now unable to afford the basic standards of living and democracy that we take for granted, if we, as a society, are to extend our horizons to comprehend the rest of the world, to assist it, and to come to terms with the problems of global sustainability of development....
In view of all those goals, we must make a substantial commitment to the development of our human resources. The ministry's skills development division plays an enormously important role in human resource development. Skills development programs and initiatives are the means by which we support training and retraining and ensure our post-secondary training and education programs are able to give British Columbians the skills required to meet the needs of the workplace.
We are undertaking a number of skills development initiatives in response to recommendations in the report of the Task Force on Employment and Training. I note that many members of the committee were present in the Ned DeBeck room when the Task Force on Employment and Training chair, Dr. Ken Strand, presented his report a little over a month ago. I'm pleased to acknowledge the intense interest that that provoked among members of all parties.
First, through the Canada-British Columbia agreement on labour force development, we are developing action plans which will address issues raised by the task force, such as increasing cooperative education, facilitating adjustment and reducing structural unemployment.
Second, we are continuing to develop sectoral partnerships to address the unique human resource planning, development and adjustment needs of specific industry sectors.
Third, I have accepted the recommendations of the Provincial Apprenticeship Board endorsed by the task force as the ministry's policy direction for apprenticeship training, until such time as new legislation is in place.
Finally, I am pursuing with my colleagues the recommendations for an integrated model and for a provincial training and adjustment board. Although we must ensure these fit within the context of broad government policy, preliminary review shows that these may be appropriate responses to the recent direction given us from the first ministers and the western Premiers. Apprenticeship has a long and a valued history in our province. We are looking at ways to enrich apprenticeship by expanding the system and branching out into new areas where apprenticeship is not currently being applied. I note that one member of our committee was, until her election to the Legislature, a member of the Provincial Apprenticeship Board, and I acknowledge the valuable discussions I've had with her about the future of that board.
An important aspect of skills development is vocational rehabilitation, a service intended for people who because of physical or mental disabilities have traditionally been marginalized from our workforce and, in many ways, from society in general. The present vocational rehabilitation service of the ministry has done much, through partnerships with industry and communities, to provide retraining, counselling, and job placement for those injured or disabled in the workplace.
But it's not perfect. I've had very productive initial discussions with the Community Review Committee, an agency which represents most of the prominent voluntary organizations working with disabled people in B.C. They have expressed some of their concerns about how the service can be improved, made more flexible, resilient and more rapidly responsive to the needs of people utilizing the service. We are working very cooperatively with them to try to ensure that we make those changes.
In order to build on the existing strengths in the vocational rehabilitation system, I will appoint a special advisory committee shortly. The committee will be a mechanism for consultation and development of new partnerships to enhance employment levels for those with disabilities. I take this opportunity to salute not only the people in our ministry who work in that field, one which is relatively little recognized by the public, but also the Community Review Committee for taking the initiative to come constructively to government
[ Page 1975 ]
seeking ways to make our programs more effective and efficient than they are and to better serve the people who pay for them.
Equity and equal opportunity are fundamental elements of this government's commitment to post-secondary education, skills development and technology. Barriers to the participation of visible minorities, aboriginal people, women and persons with disabilities must be removed. All British Columbians must have the opportunity to participate not only as students, but on boards of governors, as faculty, staff and in other components of the infrastructure of the advanced education and skills development system. This is particularly true in light of the demographic data that suggests rapidly increasing growth of visible minorities and other underrepresented groups in our society.
For example, visible minorities currently make up nearly 10 percent of B.C.'s population and nearly 20 percent of Vancouver's. In fact, 13 percent of Canada's visible minority people live in Vancouver alone. In just a few short years at the beginning of the twenty-first century, it is anticipated that 70 percent of immigrants to Canada will be visible minorities and that they will account for over half of the annual growth in the labour force.
Women comprise more than half of B.C.'s population. Their participation in the workplace has grown rapidly: from 35 percent of the total female population in 1966 to nearly 60 percent in 1991. But significant barriers remain. Although women are well represented in the professions, their participation is low in many other occupations. In trades, technological and operational work, female participation is also low. Barriers to advancement, due to dual work and family responsibilities, keep many women from career advancement. In our universities and colleges, women comprise half of the undergraduate student population but are severely underrepresented on faculty -- especially senior faculty. This is particularly true in faculties of science and engineering.
I would like to refer briefly to the Society for Canadian Women in Science and Technology, otherwise known as SCWIST. I'm not sure how that's pronounced, but I do know what they do, having been able to attend their annual meeting about a month ago. Here is a group of very vigorous women from across the fields of science, technology and government departments -- both federal and provincial -- dealing with science and technology policy, who are taking steps to break down some of those barriers, not just in the areas where women have made major strides in the last 20 years, such as medicine, law and some of the scientific fields, but in the non-traditional areas, such as engineering, mathematics and technological occupations of a non-academic nature.
Special attention must be paid to increasing the participation of aboriginal peoples in post-secondary education and skills development. At the 1986 census, over 20 percent of aboriginal people of working age had a grade 9 education or less, compared to 10 percent of the non-aboriginal population. At the post-secondary level, only 3 percent of aboriginal people had university degrees, while nearly 10 percent of the non-aboriginal working-age population had completed a university education. It's little wonder, then, that the 1986 census revealed that the average annual employment income of aboriginal people in British Columbia was under $14,000, compared to about $20,000 for non-aboriginals.
When the census was taken, there were nearly 400,000 people with disabilities living in British Columbia. Unemployment rates for those with disabilities who were limited by their disability were twice the rate for the non-disabled population. The poverty rate for adults with disabilities was also double that of non-disabled adults. These statistics come from a report entitled A Closer Look: A Profile of People with Disabilities in British Columbia. I released this report to the public at the recent international exposition on persons with disabilities, Independence '92, held in Vancouver in April. I hope that by having the facts at hand, we can work together to address some of the outstanding inequities facing British Columbians with disabilities.
Addressing these disturbing inequities is a policy imperative of this government. Women, visible minorities, aboriginal peoples and people with disabilities deserve the same opportunities in post-secondary education and skills development as other British Columbians. They deserve every opportunity to enable them to live productive and satisfying lives. They have a right to make a rewarding contribution to the economic and social well-being of this province -- the same right as any other British Columbian.
The government has already taken important steps to ensure that equity and equal opportunity will prevail throughout the post-secondary and skills development system. This spring I appointed a special committee to review student financial assistance and barriers to participation in post-secondary education and skills development. The committee, chaired by the distinguished senior financial aid officer at BCIT, Miss Jennifer Orum, is gender-balanced and includes students, university and college faculty and staff, and representation from the aboriginal community. People with disabilities are represented by a member of the B.C. Educational Association of Disabled Students. People marginalized, almost completely outside the post-secondary system, are represented by a senior member of End Legislated Poverty. The committee will identify significant financial and other barriers that may impede British Columbians from obtaining post-secondary education.
I have also assumed the chair of the steering committee of the Human Resource Development Project. The project seeks new directions in all forms of education, training and learning, in order to ensure that British Columbians can meet the social and economic challenges we will face in the years ahead. In order to ensure equity in the Human Resource Development Project, four equity group representatives will shortly join the steering committee. The four new members will represent visible minorities, people with disabilities, women and poverty groups, and the unemployed.
[3:00]
I have asked the committee to provide me with a progress report by the end of June, a report that includes areas of consensus identified by the project's
[ Page 1976 ]
eight working forums. I understand that a formal comprehensive report, outlining detailed policy recommendations, is likely to be available for review by the cabinet late this fall.
The boards of governors of our universities, colleges and institutes play a key role in our post-secondary system. The board is the institution's link with the community. The boards must ensure that community needs are addressed in curriculum and program development. They must also ensure that community needs are met in the development of facilities and student support infrastructure. In order to enhance equity -- in order to ensure all community groups are represented on college, university and institute boards -- the government has appointed new members to many boards of governors. These appointments ensure gender balance and appropriate representation from aboriginal and multicultural communities. For example, the board of Northern Lights College now includes three men and seven women, and the board at Douglas College has two men and seven women. Northern Lights College has an aboriginal representative and Douglas College has a representative of the community of persons with disabilities. The board of BCIT is now more gender-balanced and includes representation from the multicultural community and from regions throughout B.C.
I've been speaking about what must be fundamental to the post-secondary system if it is to meet the changing needs of British Columbia's communities. I would now like to turn to the challenges faced by the post-secondary system and the specifics of how this year's budget will be applied to help our partners face those challenges.
No longer can British Columbians expect to find a job after high school that will continue until retirement, like many people working in our primary industries have enjoyed in the past. Employment and Immigration Canada predicts that by the year 2000 most jobs will require some post-secondary education. They also say people can expect to have five different jobs in a working life, on average, and change careers at least twice. That will only be the average worker. Others will require even more training and retraining to keep up with a workplace fuelled by rapidly changing technology. We may or may not wonder whether this is desirable and whether that degree of instability is socially constructive, but it is a reality we face to which we as a society must respond.
We feel our ministry, combining advanced education, training and technology, is in a strong position to help integrate technology with education and training, so that each strengthens the other. Education develops the talent to conduct the research, create the technology and foster the innovation that leads to environmentally sustainable economic growth. Economic growth, in turn, creates the demand for a more skilled and knowledgeable workforce. Expanding that workforce, in turn, fuels the demand for post-secondary educational opportunities.
In keeping with our commitment to provide those opportunities, this fall we will fund 2,400 new spaces in academic programs and 600 new spaces in applied programming. In all, the operating budget will be increased by $40 million, or 4.2 percent.
The elder three of our four universities will be involved with one or more of the university colleges to provide third-and fourth-year academic courses and the granting of degrees. You will recall that last year was the first year students graduated from the four-year university degree programs at Okanagan College in Kelowna, Malaspina College in Nanaimo and Cariboo College in Kamloops. This year, due to the success of these partnerships, Fraser Valley College will be the fourth institution to offer university degree programs. Hon. Chair, you might even allow yourself a small smile, recognizing that your constituents will be served particularly well by that institution.
The Open Learning Agency is another good example of partnerships working to provide British Columbians with career-related curricula and programs. OLA can be proud of the fact that it was recently awarded this year's national award for excellence in business-education partnerships for its Access Ability program. Access Ability combines industry's requirements for skilled computer programmers with the needs of people with disabilities for stimulating lifelong careers. Access Ability provides people with disabilities quality training in computer programming, local area network management and business skills. That the program is successful there is no doubt. The job placement for graduates is over 90 percent. This year, in addition to continuing Access Ability, the Open Learning Agency will coordinate more than 20,000 enrolments through the Open University and the Open College and serve 650,000 Knowledge Network viewers per week.
Hon. Chair, for the interest of other members, I'm told that tonight at 7:30 the Knowledge Network will begin a series of programs on the United Nations environmental conference in Rio de Janeiro, including some live updates from Rio. Although I personally am without cable television for the next few weeks, I hope that other members may get a chance to tune in to some of those reports from the Open Learning Agency.
Academic research is a vital component of our post-secondary system. UBC, SFU and UVic can be proud of their accomplishments in that regard. They are involved in no less than 14 of the 15 national centres of excellence, and are the lead institutions at four of the 15 -- an accomplishment unparalleled by any other province. Within a period of 20 to 30 years -- in the case of SFU about 25 years and in the case of UVic slightly longer -- our three universities have leapt from a position where, despite the often wonderful work they were doing, they were regarded as provincial institutions by their peers and on the temple mountain in central Canada, to a point where now they're the leaders in scientific research in Canada.
As well, these universities generated more than $130 million in research income external to the B.C. government in 1991, and will likely be equally successful in the future. Let me give you and the hon. members just a few brief examples of the kind of exciting work going on in academic research in our universities. When I was privileged to visit Simon Fraser University briefly in February, I was shown an experiment, run by the
[ Page 1977 ]
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council industrial professor, John Borden, which can identify the pheromone of an insect in as short a period as one week. Dr. Borden had with him a Costa Rican palm beetle which had recently arrived in his laboratory, and within a period of a week he had already succeeded in identifying the chemical substance produced by the female palm beetle to attract the male palm beetle.
Many hon. members probably wish he could do the same thing for you, but he's not offering that service at the moment. But the biological implications of this experiment are startling. They, of course, provided the basis for the pheromone traps used to isolate Asian gypsy moths. But in the future this technology offers the potential for controlling insect pests by the development of pheromone traps for literally thousands, or perhaps closer to millions, of insects worldwide, thereby reducing the need for use of dangerous pesticides, particularly in developing countries. It is a technology which is startlingly elegant, very difficult to master and a very fine tribute not only to Dr. Borden's laboratory, but to the basic research performed in that and other universities which for decades has underlain this kind of technological development.
Another example is a product of collaboration of the universities and private industry -- Quadra Logic Technologies. It is a discovery of the University of B.C. department of chemistry: photo-activated porphyrins, molecules which can be activated by light and which concentrate in cancer tumour cells. The company Quadra Logic has now developed a second-generation photo porphyrin which bids fair to revolutionize the treatment of many types of cancer with remarkably few side effects and can be extremely beneficial to patients -- something very exciting developed originally out of the laboratory of Dr. David Dolphin in the chemistry department at UBC and Dr. Julia Levy in the microbiology department.
At the University of Victoria, for example, a new program in environmental toxicology is perhaps going to set a world standard in understanding how compounds in the environment affect people, cause environmental mutagenesis and environmentally derived cancers, and warn people who may be at extra high risk so they avoid those kinds of exposures.
MPR Teltech, a national applied-research project called the intelligent graphic interface, is combining advanced computer graphics with expert systems and human-factors engineering to produce expert assistance for systems operators in pulp mills and other industrial settings. This will increase their operational safety and environmental security and put Canada in the lead of process control development worldwide.
Another example is the MAGIC program from UBC -- which I think, hon. Chair, you and others, perhaps the opposition critics -- saw during UBC's lobbying days back in February. The Media and Graphics Interdisciplinary Centre in the computer science department is developing applications for computer-based media and graphics technology in science, medicine, arts, forestry, education and many other fields.
One other exciting example is from the riding of the hon. member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale. The Ballard fuel cell technology has excited international interest for its ability to convert hydrogen into water and electricity and to provide a small, reliable, cost-efficient, non-polluting electrical power source for particular applications where it's convenient to not have electricity imported from outside, or where it's essential not to have the release of carbon dioxide and other pollutants.
I could give many other examples. Perhaps I'll give just one more: the Neil Squire Foundation, a charitable organization founded in the memory of a young quadriplegic man named Neil Squire, which develops technology to enhance the independence of persons with physical disabilities. They've had many collaborative projects with other agencies -- including one I'll refer to in a moment, with Capilano College and our ministry. They are doing so many exciting things. Then, of course, there is Science World, which all hon. members with children will be aware of; it's become a magnet for children not only in the lower mainland, but throughout British Columbia. It is an important new focus of science education, and the popularization of science, to involve kids who might previously have thought that science was not for them, or young women who might have thought that science was only for boys. All kinds of new exposures to exciting things are going on in our world, which have hitherto been hidden behind the barrier of intellectual impenetrability. Dr. Sid Katz and his colleagues at Science World have been breaking down barriers, along with their predecessors for years. But I think they are getting ready to go into orbit in the near future.
Hon. Chair, as you know the government has frozen tuition fees for a period of one year. This was done to alleviate cost pressures facing students. In order to compensate our institutions for this, $4 million is being made available for 1992-93. In addition, a $4.8 million increase to student financial programs will dramatically increase the number of students who will receive grant assistance under the adult basic education student assistance program -- henceforth known as ABESAP -- the assistance program for students with severe disabilities, the part-time assistance program and the work-study program. Funding for the part-time student assistance program will increase by $100,000, to permit 850 part-time students to receive assistance. Funding for the work-study program will increase by $305,000, to $3.4 million in total, to permit 3,800 students to obtain on-campus work. This is the first increase in funding for this program since 1987-88.
[3:15]
A key component of the post-secondary system is adult basic education. To demonstrate its importance and effectiveness, let me tell you the story of Chris Yeoman of Vancouver. In 1985 Chris was out of work and on unemployment insurance. With reading and writing skills of less than a grade 10 level, he enrolled in the adult basic education program at Capilano College. Last term Chris was one of four outstanding students in Capilano's English department; he is currently studying at Simon Fraser University to be an English instructor. He told us that without adult basic education, he would not have completed college, much less made the
[ Page 1978 ]
transition to the academic program. Chris Yeoman's success clearly demonstrates that adult basic education is the path to the future for many British Columbians. In recognition of that fact, we have doubled funding for the adult basic education student assistance program from $1 million to $2 million this year.
The assistance program for students with severe disabilities will also increase 100 percent, which will enable....
The Chair: We regret, hon. minister, your time has expired. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale.
D. Schreck: Hon. Chair, I'm finding these remarks so fascinating, particularly with respect to North Vancouver-Lonsdale, that I beg the minister continue and tell me what other exciting developments are happening in North Vancouver-Lonsdale.
Hon. T. Perry: If the member will restrain his impatience for just a few minutes, I will make a few more complimentary remarks about institutions within his riding -- but which belong to the province as a whole, I might add.
Assistance for students with severe disabilities will increase 100 percent, which will enable 34 students to receive funding for equipment and personal services needed to access post-secondary education.
Earlier I said that this government is committed to enhancing opportunities for aboriginal peoples to participate in post-secondary education. To honour that commitment, $4 million will be provided to fund initiatives aimed at improving the participation rates of aboriginal peoples. More than $1 million of that total will provide for several native adult education programs comprising adult basic education, literacy and transition projects. Funding will continue to be provided to the Nicola Valley Institute of Technology and the Native Education Centre. Non-formula funding will be provided to Toti:Ithet in the Fraser Valley, Secwepemc in Kamloops, En'Owkin in Penticton and the Vancouver Native Adult Education Resource Centre. This money will also help develop curriculum to meet aboriginal learning needs, help academically strong aboriginals in the transition from high school to university and develop an aboriginal post-secondary policy framework, to provide direction for increasing aboriginal participation in, and completion of, post-secondary education. I see the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale smiling, and I invite him to visit any of the three institutions with me and attempt to pronounce the names more accurately than I did.
This ministry is also committed to supporting programs for persons with disabilities, older workers and apprenticeship programs. Programs to assist persons with disabilities will increase from $5.9 million to $6.5 million, which will ensure that 600 more persons with disabilities will take part in vocational rehabilitation programs. The program for older workers' adjustment, which aids older workers who have lost their jobs in major permanent layoffs and whose prospects for full-time employment are slim, will receive $3 million. The apprenticeship budget will increase by $400,000 to fund increased updating of course-outline and training materials, as well as to assist with skills upgrading for people whose jobs have been impacted by technological change.
As you know, our ministry already announced $1.62 million in support of students working as travel counsellors for travel info centre networks. This program will create 460 student jobs in communities across the province.
My ministry, in common with all ministries, was faced with some tough decisions with respect to fiscal restraint. I see the opposition critic smiling or laughing, but I can assure him that these were often extremely tough decisions. In order to maintain program funding....
D. Mitchell: I was rolling my eyes.
Hon. T. Perry: Forgive me. He wasn't laughing; he was rolling his eyes.
In order to maintain program funding, and even increase it in high-priority areas, we have had to reduce fiscal support for some ministry initiatives. To those who say that the government, in preparing its budget, made no cuts in expenditure, I regret to say that we were obliged to make some cuts; but we made them where we felt we could most afford to support the cut, at least on a temporary basis. For example, expenditures for science and technology are being reduced by 10.4 percent in 1992-93. However, within that envelope, we will continue to build partnerships with the private sector and the technological research community, particularly partnerships that apply technology to learning and skills development.
I want, at this point, to depart a little bit from my prepared remarks and give some examples of the enthusiasm in the field of science and technology. The community is far more diverse than I had imagined when I assumed my position as minister -- and probably more diverse than most members will realize, having grown up in a British Columbia which was primarily a resource-based economy. Within the last five to ten years, our economy has been transformed in many respects. Hon. members will, no doubt, be aware that the majority of new job creation is in the small business sector, but perhaps not so aware of how much of that job creation is in the high-technology sector -- or even in the science and technology sector, broadly defined.
For example, I was privileged to be invited to meet some of the high-tech electronics companies at a dinner at Simon Fraser University several months ago. I learned that companies with anywhere from ten to 100, or perhaps 120, employees are doing a roaring business in areas one might not have imagined, and certainly not traditional in British Columbia. Interestingly enough, some of them have been around for quite a while -- one of them since the end of World War II -- supplying radios to such unpredicted countries as Vietnam, or other rather poor developing countries. Others, like Advance Light Imaging, are making products to store information digitally from radiological investigations
[ Page 1979 ]
-- for example, ultrasound investigations of pregnant women -- onto a very innovative new optical storage system, which can replace the need for massive filing systems in a department of radiology in a hospital and which we hope, through their exposure to the market in places like the Grace Hospital in Vancouver and the Mallinckrodt Institute in St. Louis, Missouri, will rapidly assume a major share of world markets with this wonderful new innovation. These kinds of things are happening right here in our own back yard in Vancouver. The Ballard fuel cell technology is an example of technology regarded worldwide as a major innovation. In British Columbia in the past few years we've had a few other excellent ideas, like the Moli Energy battery, which unfortunately failed to take off but were probably also very sound ideas technologically. A host of exciting ideas like this are coming through the pipeline.
I see hon. members hoping that I'll complete my remarks so the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale won't have to stand up again to rescue me.
I do want to convey to you something of the excitement in the field, to encourage hon. members to get out and visit the science-and-technology-based industries in their communities and to signal to the industry that I will be undertaking a major tour of those industries as soon as the Legislature rises, and doing my bit to promote public understanding. Clearly, this government sees science and technology fields as one of the major thrusts of our economy in the future.
We do have the remarkable advantage, in contrast to some other countries and jurisdictions in North America, of having a basically civilian-based science and tech industry which is producing useful products that help people rather than harm them. It's a major priority of government to help make that go forward as rapidly as we can. We'll do that, because in a world where technological breakthroughs and developments are becoming commonplace, it's important to remember that technology has a very human application -- an application with a potential for providing immediate and long-term gratifying results.
Just weeks ago, for example, at Independence '92 in Vancouver, I had the pleasure and honour of meeting one of the students at Capilano College enrolled in SARAW, the speech-assisted reading and writing program. It is a very important technological development: a talking computer program designed to teach basic reading and writing skills to adults with severe physical disabilities who are also unable to communicate verbally. Just think about that for a moment, hon. members. SARAW provides severely disabled people with the tools they need to develop their literacy skills. In short, it offers this special group of adult students the means to communicate and participate fully in their education. That is no small accomplishment.
If you have the opportunity to visit this program, to see the students at their work at Capilano College, and hopefully soon in all the other colleges around the province.... There's nothing quite like seeing it. People with severe cerebral palsy, for example, who, although unable to speak, have perfectly active minds, are for the first time now able to communicate clearly, directly and permanently in writing. I had the privilege to visit the project as well at Capilano College in January. Afterwards, within days, I received letters written by some of the young students I had met, who were writing a letter perhaps for the first time in their life. Some of those students are in their teens; some of them are a little older and have been frustrated by their inability to communicate through many years.
Projects like this are fostered and developed through creative partnerships. SARAW is a very beautiful example. It was developed through a unique group of partners, including the Neil Squire Foundation; Capilano College; Digital Equipment of Canada Ltd., which made the donation of computer equipment to enable the project to go forward and which is planning another major donation to extend the technology to colleges throughout the province; and my ministry. Thanks to the partnership, those students can now look forward to a brighter future instead of permanently facing that isolating frustration. They can look to a future including the opportunity to develop full literacy, to enjoy enhanced personal independence and to participate as students and as active members of society.
Faced with the necessity of fiscal restraint as we are, our partnerships in post-secondary education skills development and technology have taken on greatly added importance. Throughout the system we must work together to ensure that British Columbians are able to obtain the education and skills needed to meet the requirements of our increasingly knowledge-based workplace. We must work together to ensure equity and equal opportunity for women, visible minorities, aboriginal people, and people with disabilities.
I want to say that in spite of the severe economic constraints we are facing, B.C.'s post-secondary institutions are to be commended for developing unique programs and initiatives to ensure the delivery of high-quality education to our students. Hon. Chair, let me give you and the hon. members a few examples. The hon. member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale will have to share the limelight for a while with some of his colleagues.
Camosun College's environmental technology program, which provides general training in the sciences, has received an outstanding response from industry. I might also add, for any members so inclined, that Camosun College is only a short distance away, and it has one of the finest dining-rooms in the province -- one which threatens to put even our own legislative dining-room to shame. I strongly recommend a visit to the opposition critic and to all other members who may wish to visit that college. The students in the culinary program are known for providing extraordinary meals.
[3:30]
Douglas College is providing exemplary programs and support for adults with special needs, integrating students into the whole range of courses and programs. Douglas is also developing a coordinated approach to the curriculum for social science programs in early childhood education, child and youth care and community care.
[ Page 1980 ]
Kwantlen College is working with industry to develop a horticulture training centre, which should open with the new Langley campus in September 1993 -- the first of its kind. The college has also developed a unique program -- employment and educational access for women -- that is proving to be very effective in helping women explore a variety of occupations and vocational interests.
Vancouver Community College offers a skills program that combines English-language instruction with specific vocational skills training in subjects such as baking and auto mechanics.
Capilano College offers the SARAW program, which I already alluded to, and also continues B.C.'s pioneer labour studies program -- an initiative dedicated to the democratization of the workplace and the enhancement of social justice. Until recently it was also home to Mr. Lavalle, the president of the CIEA -- the College-Institute Educators' Association. It's still home to him, but he has just stepped down as president. The computer laboratories enjoy a very productive collaboration with outside partners educating and training students at the same time that they are solving problems for clients; once in a while perhaps even bridging the gap between the college and the ivory tower, for example in their project to train Simon Fraser University bookstore workers. The college also runs the Asia Pacific management cooperative program, which prepares students to meet successfully the challenges of doing business with the Pacific Rim.
These programs have been built on partnerships with the community, a key factor in their success.
The Chair: I regret, hon. minister, that your time has expired.
D. Mitchell: I might just ask the minister.... If he doesn't have too much longer to go and he wishes to conclude his opening remarks, I'd be more than happy to do that. However, if he does wish to go on for the rest of the afternoon and anticipate all of the questions that I might have to ask, then maybe I might get a question in here. I'll leave it up to him.
Hon. T. Perry: I'll be succinct if not brief, but I'm getting very close to the end. With the assurance of the member's deference, I'll accelerate my delivery.
The Pacific Marine Training Institute, perhaps the smallest of our post-secondary institutions -- but the one with the nicest tie -- provides a new diploma program in shipping and marine operations, along with specialized courses in the care and handling of dangerous goods. It also combines English as a second language with technical instruction for Vietnamese immigrant fishermen -- an innovation not only necessary but quite bold, and a great compliment to their imaginativeness.
Northwest Community College has decentralized its operation to better serve the whole region. This has proven to be very successful, as evidenced by the large increase in its student population.
Northern Lights College has an aircraft maintenance program that attracts students from all parts of Canada. In addition, it is involved in international education ventures -- an area one might have been surprised at -- in southeast Asia.
Selkirk College has a very cooperative relationship with the University of British Columbia in the teacher education program, which has resulted in a successful program with high student demand. It is widely recognized for the success of its forestry and aircraft pilot training programs.
East Kootenay Community College has made substantial inroads into relationships with the tribal council and Indian bands in the region. There are now more aboriginal people enrolled in East Kootenay than ever before.
North Island College continues to meet the challenges of delivering post-secondary education to remote communities in the region while improving student and instructor support services in the major compuses of Comox Valley, Campbell River, Port Alberni and Port Hardy. For example, at Alert Bay two young women who themselves took upgrading locally went on to Simon Fraser to become teachers. These two sisters now share a literacy instructor position. When I visited there I was fortunate to meet a young man of 28, who had dropped out of school early in his life and was coming back to learn how to read and write -- a very challenging job and one in which he was doing extremely well.
The College of New Caledonia is working cooperatively with the University of Northern British Columbia for the delivery of degree programs, and it's prepared to make program adjustments, where necessary, in the interests of efficiency for the taxpayer.
The University College of the Cariboo in Kamloops has the highest participation rate of all college regions in B.C. It offers nearly seven full degree programs and nearly 100 different diploma and certificate options.
Okanagan College last year granted 30 degrees. This year, 72 students are expected to receive university degrees through the college. Okanagan plans to expand degree programs for the coming year by introducing courses in social work and fine arts. At the same time, it retains its comprehensive role in campuses like Vernon by providing adult basic education and life-skills training for people losing employment in the traditional industries like the forest sector.
Last fall Malaspina College enrolled its first students in the new bachelor of arts in liberal studies. This program has received international attention and is the first of its kind in British Columbia. I have a particular interest in this program, as an alumnus of a new Arts I program at UBC. I'm personally thrilled to see that an interdisciplinary humanities program has been introduced into the colleges as part of the degree program, something I feel is long overdue in this province.
This fall the University College of the Fraser Valley will enrol its first students in a new bachelor.... Forgive me, Mr. Chair. I must insert some recognition of Professor Rowan and Prof. Stan Persky -- otherwise known as Stan "Pesky" to some people, but in this case he has not only been the critic in his media role but has had a major influence on the development of that program at Malaspina College.
[ Page 1981 ]
This fall the University College of the Fraser Valley will enrol its first students in a new bachelor of arts in criminal justice and bachelor of business administration degree programs. The Fraser Valley is also continuing to expand its successful early childhood education program and is currently looking at day care requirements at its two major campuses in Abbotsford and Chilliwack.
The Justice Institute of B.C.'s certificate program in conflict resolution is the only program of its kind in Canada. It meets the needs of a wide range of professionals for increased skill and knowledge in dealing with conflict in their work environments. It provides participants with the theoretical understanding and practical skills needed to resolve conflicts in which they are directly involved. The institute is also a leader -- in fact, the leader -- in providing training relating to violence against women and children.
The Open Learning Agency has responded to the growing demand by business and industry for flexible workplace-centred training. The Open College has made workplace training the focus of its activities by working with employers and employees to develop and deliver training and retraining programs.
The Knowledge Network will be well known to anyone who gets the occasional moment to watch television. It not only provides excellent local, national and international programming for people like me who watch it at home, but it also provides a wide variety of school programming.
The Emily Carr College of Art and Design and the Open University have developed the first of several capstone programs. Graduates of the college's four-year diploma program can cap their fine arts training with an additional 60 credit hours of courses through the Open University to obtain a bachelor of fine arts or bachelor of design degree.
The B.C. Institute of Technology has established the BCIT technology centre, an exciting new venture that fosters innovation and the application of technology to practical problems of industry. With a high percentage of its students already in receipt of degrees, it exemplifies the transition that our post-secondary system is going through towards lifelong learning and towards the upgrading of practical skills in new, innovative areas where one has not acquired those in the first phase of one's post-secondary education.
Simon Fraser University's new graduate program in aquaculture is the only one of its kind in Canada. The university will graduate its first professional aquaculturists in June 1992. SFU's education faculty is well known. Dr. McClaren is now up in Kelowna. It is also involved in projects along the Alaska Highway to train teachers for an area that has traditionally had difficulty in staffing schools. SFU's David Lam Centre for International Communication is leading an international effort to help China strike a balance between economic development and environmental protection.
The University of Victoria has recently initiated a campus-based program in administration of aboriginal governments. It already has a very distinguished school of public administration. People like Law Dean Maureen Maloney and Prof. Murray Rankin have done enormous amounts to help this government and the former government deal with complex public policy issues such as the freedom-of-information law. It has also been generous enough to donate one of its professors to the cabinet, I might add. It is now expanding into the field of environmental toxicology, as I mentioned earlier, with two major research chairs and a burgeoning program of important research.
The University of British Columbia has established the first interdisciplinary graduate program in industrial hygiene in western Canada, which will serve to improve the occupational health standards for workers in B.C. UBC has also established the Centre for Research in Women's Studies and Gender Relations, which will be the first graduate program in western Canada to include a PhD in women's studies and gender relations. As well, UBC's new Sustainable Development Research Institute will contribute to improved management and sustainable development of natural resources in B.C., Canada and the developing world. I'm glad to add that having heard Prof. Ivan Head on Saturday night, I can see the continuation of the long UBC tradition of interest in the Third World and an intensified focus on finding ways in which we can help developing countries to do so in an environmentally sustainable way.
The University of Northern British Columbia will be enrolling its first students in the fall of 1992 in partnership with the three northern community colleges. The development of UNBC is perhaps the most exciting challenge that I have to deal with as minister. Anyone who has worked in northern B.C. will understand how excited people in the north are about this project. They have certain criticisms, but at heart they realize that this is a major undertaking of the province to recognize the historical inequities in how we have developed B.C., sucking resources out of the north and returning relatively little in services to the people compared to what they contribute to our economy. No one could be happier or more privileged to be associated with a project like that.
With these widely diverse and unique programs, it's no wonder that our post-secondary system is considered by many to be the finest in Canada. If our post-secondary system is to continue to provide quality education for British Columbia students and meet growing enrolment demand, a substantial investment must be made in facilities. Over the next year the government has plans to invest over $300 million to ensure that there are expanded opportunities for British Columbians to benefit from the system.
The University of B.C. will announce construction of a multidisciplinary centre for the study of advanced material science, and a major addition to the faculty of education. Simon Fraser University is planning a consolidated student services building. Of course, there is ongoing construction of the new campus of the University of Northern British Columbia in Prince George. BCIT will construct a new engineering technology building, Camosun College will expand the new Interurban Road campus and Capilano College will expand its North Vancouver campus. The University College of the Cariboo plans an addition to the arts and
[ Page 1982 ]
education building, and the Emily Carr College of Art and Design will also build a major addition. The University College of the Fraser Valley will expand facilities at Chilliwack and Abbotsford to serve the new university college. Kwantlen College will acquire a permanent site for its shop-based programs, which hitherto have been in rental premises. Construction of a major new campus will commence at the Justice Institute of B.C. in New Westminster. Malaspina will build a business programs and student services building, while North Island College will construct a permanent new campus at Port Alberni and start planning a new campus at Campbell River. Okanagan College is also planning a major expansion.
[3:45]
The faculty and staff of our universities, colleges and institutes are the critical resource for defining the quality of post-secondary programs. Students, on the other hand, are the key to ensuring the successful outcome. Fortunately for British Columbia, we are blessed with both quality faculty and quality students -- quantity students as well; some people see that as a problem, but I see it as a major advantage for our province. We have engaged in extensive dialogue with them, aimed at improving the quality of program offerings by institutions. We have done so as their partners in the post-secondary system.
In this year's budget, my ministry has allocated funds in a manner designed to continue the very successful partnerships we currently enjoy and to build new partnerships to build equity and equal opportunity into the system. I would like to conclude by saying that there is perhaps no greater responsibility to our citizens than creating every opportunity to participate in post-secondary education and career-oriented learning and skills development.
I will conclude with a proverb. It gives me the inspiration to say something that I don't think could go without saying. There is no greater friend of post-secondary education in this province than the Lieutenant-Governor, David Lam, and his wife, Mrs. Lam. Virtually everywhere I have been in British Columbia in support of advanced education, the Lieutenant-Governor has been there before me many times, has usually been there on the same occasion as I have been there, and will be there many times after I have come and gone. His wife, Mrs. Dorothy Lam, accompanies him virtually everywhere, in an exhausting schedule. Although he always receives wonderful applause and appreciation, I don't think anyone understands how much he has contributed in spirit, enthusiasm and philosophy to our post-secondary education system in the three short years he has been Lieutenant-Governor. I hope he stays for a long time yet, because he's doing a wonderful job for our post-secondary institutions. I think he is an appropriate inspiration for the Chinese proverb I'm going to close with: "If you want to plan for a year, plant rice. If you want to plan for ten years, plant trees. If you want to plan for a hundred years, educate humanity."
D. Mitchell: If the committee would agree, and if the minister would be in agreement, what I would like to propose in a procedural way is that, while we're on vote 10, which is the minister's office, we take all of our discussions on this ministry. Once we conclude it, we can go through the remainder of the votes in this ministry in an orderly fashion and in an expedient way. So if I could get the sense of the committee that that's acceptable, I'd like to have a broad-ranging discussion on vote 10.
The Chair: Proceed.
D. Mitchell: I'd like to thank the minister for his opening statement, which was certainly comprehensive, if not encyclopedic. Thanks to the ministry officials for preparing a prepared text, because I know that tightens up the minister's presentation considerably, usually.
I'd like to say that I agree with much of what the minister has said in his opening remarks. The only point I might disagree on is whether or not the budget we're being asked to review in this committee today will provide the means to the ends which we may be in general agreement on. That will obviously be the point of discussion during this review in this committee: whether or not this budget is going to achieve the laudable goals the minister has referred to in his opening statements.
Certainly the minister has demonstrated some tremendous enthusiasm for his job. I really believe it's one of the best jobs in government. He runs what I believe is one of the best ministries in the provincial government, and he works with a group of stakeholders or partners, using a term that he employs, who are very stimulating and creative and are really helping to build the province of British Columbia. The links between his ministry and the economic development of the province are very strong. I was pleased to see that he referred to that on more than one occasion in his opening remarks.
The state of the ministry, though, is something that I am concerned about, and I would like the minister to comment on it. I find that the ministry is unique; it's a unique ministry in government in Canada. In no other province or jurisdiction do we find a centralized ministry or department of government that consists of responsibilities for not only all post-secondary education but also job training and technology, all included in one single ministry of government. It's unique.
It's interesting to note that it was the previous administration that brought together a ministry in this fashion. You know, the previous administration comes in for a lot of criticism. Here we are on the very day when the former Premier is in court in the city of Vancouver with final arguments in a case involving breach of trust. Clearly the previous administration had lots of political problems, but not everything they did was bad. One of the very good things they did, I think, consists of this ministry pulling together all responsibilities for post-secondary education, job training as it relates to provincial government initiatives, skills development, technology and science together in one ministry, recognizing the synergy that exists among those different elements and pulling them together in a very creative, visionary way.
[ Page 1983 ]
However, based upon this budget and upon the first seven months of this administration, I have to question whether or not our new government has a commitment to maintain this ministry as it is presently constituted. Could the minister comment on whether or not he and the government are committed to maintaining this ministry? I would hope they would be, because I think it's laudable to pull these elements together in one ministry. I'd like to see and to sense and to have a statement on the record that there is a firm commitment to maintain this ministry in this fashion. The reasons I raise some concerns about it are obvious ones. We have this new government taking responsibility for KAON away from this ministry and giving it to the Minister of Finance. The most high-profile and the single largest science project in British Columbia has been taken away from this ministry. Of course, we won't be discussing that during these estimates, but it raises some concerns about the science and technology portion of this ministry when the premier project in the province is no longer a responsibility of this ministry.
I have some concerns in the training area as well. When we see programs related to job training dispersed throughout a number of other ministries of government.... Whether we look at Social Services, Forests or other ministries, certainly the prime responsibility for job training and skills development seems to be dispersed quite broadly throughout government. What is this ministry's role in that? That is one area I would like to ask the minister to comment on.
I won't go on for too long here, even though I don't have a prepared text. I would like to ask about the system. The minister refers in his comments to the system of post-secondary education. I'd like to ask whether or not we are satisfied that we have a system. Is the government satisfied? Is the minister satisfied that we have what we can call an integrated system of post-secondary education in British Columbia today? Certainly we all aspire to that. We all want to have an integrated system where there are linkages among institutions and linkages between business, government and labour and where there is complete transferability of credits in various post-secondary institutions in British Columbia, whether they are training institutes, colleges, university-colleges or universities. Are we satisfied that we have that system? Or is it simply a goal that we are aspiring towards?
Certainly, if we want to have a system, there should be some flexibility within it and some preservation of institutional autonomy. That is one of the concerns that I've certainly heard and I'm sure the minister has heard when travelling around the province visiting various institutions. He has heard a concern, I'm sure, about the need for institutional autonomy. I think there is a desire as well to work within an integrated system, but I'm not sure we're there yet. I'd like to ask the minister to address that as well, because I think that overall we do need a systemwide approach to the responsibilities of his ministry.
I also think we need a needs-based approach. The minister has talked about some of the accomplishments of the partners within the community that his ministry is responsible for. We talked about the needs. I really believe we have to take a needs-based approach to advanced education in British Columbia. By that I mean looking at the needs of individuals, the needs of our economy, the needs of British Columbians collectively as well as individually, and building from the ground up, through consultation with British Columbians and all the communities within the post-secondary education area, identifying those needs and satisfying them, rather than simply identifying needs from Victoria's or centralized government's perspective and then imposing them on British Columbia. Shouldn't we be taking what I might define as a classical marketing approach, finding out what the customers want before delivering the product, rather than delivering a product and asking the customers to buy it? Shouldn't we be trying to identify those needs and taking a needs-based approach? I think that might be useful. I'd be interested if the minister might comment on whether he agrees that a needs-based approach might serve the purposes he addressed in his opening statement today.
A couple of other brief comments before I take my seat and allow the minister to address some of these concerns. Clearly, post-secondary education and advanced education is an investment. I don't think the minister has to apologize for spending money in this area -- not at all. Clearly, we want to do more with less. I'm sure that the minister is probably not happy that he wasn't able to do better at Treasury Board this year. But we want to make the most of what he has done. I think, as I said earlier, that this ministry is one of the most important in government. It is clearly one of the most exciting. In order to look at government's priorities, we look at where government spends its money, where it directs its energies and activities. Certainly, this is one of the larger ministries in government. I don't think we have to apologize for money spent in this area, because I think we have to look at it as an investment. Every dollar spent by this ministry is an investment. We might call it a social investment in British Columbia's future. The payback will be short; the return will be very high. We need not apologize for spending money in this area, because it is going to contribute to our economic competitiveness in the future and it's going to contribute to British Columbians' individual ability to compete within the increasingly competitive world that we are all facing.
We don't need to apologize for that, but what we do need to address is the access issue. The minister referred to this a few times during his comments. He and I have certainly discussed the issue of capacity as well. I think these are obviously two related issues: access and capacity. We have a system -- if we can call it a system -- that has a capacity problem. It can't absorb the demand. British Columbians want to undertake post-secondary education. They want training; they are asking for it; they are lining up at our institutions to partake in it. They are being turned away far too often. This government says that it wants to increase access. I'm questioning whether or not this budget presented to us -- the one we're reviewing here in this committee today -- is going to increase access. I really have to seriously question that.
[ Page 1984 ]
The minister referred to adult basic education and to the story of Chris Yeoman. Adult basic education is something that we all want to see more emphasis on. We want to see British Columbians who haven't had the opportunity to finish high school or their education go back to school, retrain and obtain the basic skills, so that they can join the workforce and contribute to their own families as well as to society. Unfortunately, as a consequence of this budget, we've not had an increase in adult basic education; we've seen some institutions cut back.
I need only remind the committee, Mr. Chairman, that at Vancouver Community College as recently as about a week ago -- as a consequence of this budget -- spaces in adult basic education were reduced by over 8 percent. Students were in the street protesting. They marched at the Premier's constituency office over this very issue. If this budget indicates this government's commitment to adult basic education, then unfortunately -- and tragically, in my view -- we're not going to see many more success stories like that of Chris Yeoman, who the minister referred to in his opening comments. I think that was a poor example that the minister used. We want to address the issue of access. We will be doing that in a much more significant way during our discussion in this committee.
In concluding my response to the minister's opening statement, and in addition to the two or three questions that I posed, I'd like to ask: does he feel comfortable that this budget, which he's presenting to the Legislature and asking the Legislature to approve through this committee, demonstrates the basic commitment of his ministry, as it's presently constituted, to a systemwide approach, which we all aspire to, to increasing access and addressing the capacity issues that are really putting a tremendous strain on our community of institutions within British Columbia today? Does it demonstrate the commitment to advanced education that we all want to see? I think not.
Hon. T. Perry: Briefly, in deference to the member's politeness for my relatively lengthy introductory remarks, I might answer yes, no, yes, no and yes. But I think the hon. opposition critic would like me to answer a bit more comprehensively.
[4:00]
His first question was regarding my commitment and the ministry's commitment to the combined role of Advanced Education, Training and Technology, which was the most recent of several incarnations of the ministry under the former government. The answer to that is reflected in the fact that the name did not change with the change of government. The responsibilities were left entirely intact. We gained some adult English-as-a-second-language responsibilities. Other than that, our responsibilities changed not one iota.
I think the hon. member is operating under a slight misapprehension with respect to the ministerial responsibilities for the KAON project. Those had been assumed by the former Minister of Advanced Education and Job Training, the Hon. Stanley Hagen, and followed him to his other ministries -- Regional and Economic Development, and, ultimately, Education. He retained the ministerial responsibility; so at the time of the change of government, and for two years before that, the responsibility for KAON did not rest with this ministry. We were not stripped of the responsibility. The Premier made a decision as to which minister he wished to assume those responsibilities for a complex project requiring the difficult job of persuading the federal government to honour its commitment -- which, as hon. members know, is proving extremely difficult. It in no way affects the responsibilities of our ministry.
I think it would be a mistake to assume that that denigrates our ministry's responsibilities for science and technology in some way. KAON is a particular animal. It's a very important project. It's one in which, as hon. members know, the federal government made a firm commitment. It reiterated that commitment on the eve of the provincial election in a way which was clearly rather political. It has since attempted to back away from that commitment, and the hon. Minister of Finance is trying -- very ably, I think -- on behalf of British Columbians to hold the federal government to that commitment.
In terms of the dispersion of job training roles through other ministries, the historical development of labour adjustment policy in British Columbia is extremely complex. It may be that the opposition critic knows more about it than I do, but there are practical reasons why various ministries, such as Forests, Social Services and Labour, undertake some job training responsibilities. I don't think our ministry feels that we have the ultimate wisdom -- or that anybody does, for that matter -- on how to ensure the most efficient, effective job training system in British Columbia. The needs of people vary so much. There are the people we serve through vocational rehabilitation; Social Services clients, people who have been on social assistance for various reasons for long periods of time and have great difficulty acquiring the skills and self-confidence to gain employment in a very tough job market; the Forests ministry, which may employ people in, for example, training programs for native people in remote areas of B.C.
The short answer is that we remain fully committed. It was our ministry, after all, that commissioned the Strand Task Force on Employment and Training, and we've been vigorously pursuing implementation of its policy recommendations. We expect in the relatively near future to have some productive output of the work that we've been doing relatively quietly. We work with all of the ministries that the member referred to, and with other ministries, to meet those kinds of objectives.
In response to the second question, the official opposition critic, the hon. member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi, asked whether I was satisfied that we have a fully integrated post-secondary education system. No, I'm not fully satisfied. If I were, I wouldn't be performing my role as minister, which is in many respects not only to defend the system but to attempt to nudge it gently, and occasionally to give it a somewhat more vigorous push or shove, towards maximum efficiency as a system. It's noteworthy that we share the
[ Page 1985 ]
view of the post-secondary service as a system, rather than as a set of individual, competing institutions.
Although I'm not satisfied, I think a great deal has been done to ensure integration in recent years -- the Open Learning Agency's partnerships with, for example, Emily Carr College of Art and Design, Capilano College, BCIT and a number of other institutions to award degrees added onto the basic training offered by those institutions. The Open Learning Agency's credit bank -- still incipient, still gaining its legs -- is a very innovative device to award credit for transfer, recognizable by academic institutions, for various life experiences. This is a possible solution to some of the problems of immigrants who arrive in Canada already highly skilled, but with credentials not recognized in Canada or in British Columbia. It's a solution, perhaps, to the situation of the woman who had forgone advanced education 30 or 40 years ago at a time when it was common for women to make that sacrifice -- not that it still isn't, but when it was more common for them to do so -- and who has gained enormous, inordinate experience in the lessons of life, which her male counterpart has not gained, much of which may be related to a degree in social work, education or health care, but which receives no credit whatsoever. That's an innovative and bold move by the Open Learning Agency.
University colleges are another initiative to attempt to work the system to get the maximum possible output for taxpayer dollars and the efforts of students, which are counted in hours and days and weeks, and of teachers and faculty, rather than so much in dollars. Another example is the new Council on Admissions and Transfer, which was established about three years ago with representatives of student groups and the various post-secondary institutions. It attempts to cut through some of the absurd, arbitrary barriers erected by one institution to prevent students from another institution from gaining access. I've certainly given the Council on Admissions and Transfer a very strong message that B.C. cannot afford arbitrary barriers. Taxpayers are already straining at the bit, and we need to get the maximum possible efficiency. I've given that message directly to the Advanced Education Council, and I will do so again in a couple of weeks when I meet them. I've given it to the university presidents, and I will continue hounding them on that, because although a lot has been done, a lot remains to be done.
Fourth, the member asked whether I agree with a needs-based approach to defining educational patterns for students. I hope the answer I just gave makes it clear that of course I am. I think we're not nearly innovative enough; we're still too rigid. One of the lessons I've learned in my almost seven months now as minister is that the colleges, thank heavens, are more innovative and less rigid than the universities, sometimes just waiting for a little bit of encouragement. Often they've gone ahead without that much encouragement.
One of the exciting things as minister is to learn how much has been going on for years that I perhaps wasn't aware of, coming from a profession so rigid and institutionalized that in many ways it comes out of the age of the dinosaurs.
In terms of the access issue, the member referred particularly to adult basic education and raised the example of Vancouver City College. I would point out that in adult basic education and English as a second language, we had a modest increase this year: 264 full-time-equivalent positions. That will translate, of course, to a larger number of students. Of those, 50 of the new positions will be in adult basic education and 214 in English as a second language. There may be some minor adjustments yet to be made; that's where it stands as of today. We had modest discretionary room within the increases in enrolment we were able to afford this year. Much of the enhanced enrolment had to be committed to programs such as the university colleges, where students were finishing second year and required a place in third year to proceed to a degree, and where the former government had made commitments which were generally sound and which we felt needed to be honoured.
Yes, I would have liked to have done more. Am I comfortable with the budget? I think that in the context of the provincial economy and the projected $2.8 billion deficit, which was whittled down to a planned $1.79 billion deficit this year, the Ministry of Advanced Education, with a 4.2 percent overall increase in funding, fared reasonably well. While I would naturally agree with the member -- I would have liked to have been able to expand post-secondary access much more -- the answer is yes, I am comfortable that we were fairly treated and that the government did get its priorities right. If we can persuade the economy to be a little less sluggish and to pump up revenues without having to raise taxes through the roof, hopefully we will be able to do that much better next year.
In response to the particular point on adult basic education at Vancouver Community College, I think there has been a lot of misunderstanding in the press about the government's position. To the extent that Vancouver Community College was able to demonstrate that the capacity for adult basic education exceeded demand, we were prepared for them to transfer some of their FTE entitlement to other areas where demand was higher. But we have made it very clear to Vancouver Community College and to other colleges that we put tremendous emphasis on the importance of adult basic education and other continuing educational services. We expect Vancouver Community College to come to grips with the real needs of its community, which include very substantial needs in adult basic education. I am comfortable that in due course Vancouver Community College will do so.
D. Mitchell: I don't necessarily want to engage in a long philosophical discussion about the role of the ministry or about the benefits of advanced education, because I think we want to get into some of the specifics here. Just let me say that I'm pleased that he has put on the record his commitment and the government's commitment to maintaining the ministry as it is presently constituted. I think that's positive; that's something we look forward to seeing fulfilled as a commitment. If in fact that commitment is there, we are going to continue to ask questions and to inquire about
[ Page 1986 ]
some of the portions of the ministry, and about whether or not they are performing the function for which they are intended and pursuing the synergy that is expected to be there between post-secondary education, training programs, science and technology, since they are grouped together in one ministry.
[4:15]
If we are to realize those benefits, surely we should be taking a look, when it comes to something like job training, at this ministry spearheading the efforts of government, spearheading the efforts of British Columbia not only in the area of skills development but in job training, because that's a key issue in our province today. People are looking for training and retraining opportunities. This ministry must definitely show a strong leadership role in that area, not simply allow that function to dissipate among a number of other ministries so that there is no leadership or coordination among all the various programs. We're going to be looking for that, because I'm having a hard time finding it.
With respect to the comments the minister made about kaon, I know that kaon does not come under his responsibilities, but his ministry is responsible for science and technology. I'm well aware that in the last administration the responsibility for kaon travelled with one particular minister, Stan Hagen, who I think did a tremendous job of keeping that project alive under difficult circumstances. Under circumstances which seemed impossible, he was able to keep that project alive. It's the leading science project in our province today -- potentially, because I'm not sure that there is a project there. We will be pursuing that further in Committee of Supply with the Minister of Finance, I'm sure.
What I would like to see, and what I think we would all like to see, is the responsibility for the number one project in terms of science and technology in British Columbia being retained within this ministry, which after all is mandated to have science and technology as one of its responsibilities. That is the reason I asked the question. It wasn't simply to raise questions about what may or may not have happened in the past. If this ministry is the ministry responsible for that area, then surely the kaon project -- if there is going to be a kaon factory and a kaon project; we hope there is; I have fears about that project right now, in terms of its status -- once we determine the viability of the project, will hopefully be "returned," and I use the term returned in quotation marks, to this ministry, where it should rightfully belong.
In terms of the system, I think the minister and I, according to his comments, share the view that we do not yet have the integrated, comprehensive system of post-secondary education and training that we would like to have in British Columbia, but we're working toward that. We're working toward creating a system, or continuing to create a system, that we'll all be happy with. If we are going to have that kind of system, then perhaps a needs-based approach makes sense, an approach where we don't say in Victoria what the system is going to be composed of and what the interrelationship among the various institutions in the system will be. We take a look, through a process of consultation with all of the stakeholders and partners in that developing system, and allow that system to create itself over the course of time, rather than have Victoria impose the structure of the system. If that's what the minister is referring to, then I think we can be in agreement on that.
I'd like to raise a more specific question which relates to operating grants of the ministry. I'd like to talk about funding and to start dealing with the issue of funding in terms of operating grants and the impact that operating grants have had, based upon this budget that we're reviewing in this committee today. Operating funding was increased by about 2 percent in this year's budget, according to my reading of the budget. That compares with a funding increase last year, under the previous administration, of some 4.5 percent. My understanding is that in their joint submission to the government, the universities alone sought an increase of close to 10 percent. Colleges and universities, alike, contend that their expenses are increasing at a rate of somewhere between 5 and 7 percent. We're taking a look at percentage increases, and that's what I want to talk about in terms of operating grants. Costs and expenses are increasing at a rate of somewhere between 5 and 7 percent in this system that we're trying to create. Each of the institutions, colleges and universities has to deal with a number of increased, recurring committed costs. Most of them are not under their control; most of these costs are externally imposed or obligatory. They might be Workers' Compensation Board costs, utility costs or a variety of costs which they don't have any control over. Those costs are increasing at a rate of somewhere between 5 and 7 percent.
Looking at one specific institution, Simon Fraser University, water costs increased by 38 percent this year; UIC payments are up 6 percent; Canada Pension costs are up 10 percent; utilities have risen by nearly 7 percent; and with the built-in merit and step increases for faculty and administrative staff, it's anticipated that payroll costs are up at least 3 percent. The limited grant increase will be allocated, first, to meeting these expenses. In order to balance the budget, this one institution within this system that we're discussing, Simon Fraser University, is having to cut $4.4 million from its operating budget. I understand that equates to something like a 3.2 percent cut from its operating budget. Given that kind of scenario, and given what the minister indicated in his opening statement in terms of commitment to the system and commitment to access, what I'd like to ask is: was the minister aware of the real rate of inflation at B.C. post-secondary institutions when he decided to increase the operating funding by 2 percent? Was the minister aware of what the impact of that 2 percent funding increase was going to be, given the fact the costs and expenses were rising at a much higher rate in a number of other areas? Given that this decision has imposed serious financial difficulties on our colleges and universities, is the minister satisfied that a 2 percent increase is going to do the job that he's expecting of the institutions within the system?
[ Page 1987 ]
Hon. T. Perry: Well, the member's asked some interesting questions. I'll just go back very briefly to the first two and then come to the questions relating to costs and inflationary adjustments.
With respect to our ministry's commitment to job training, I simply point out it's not the minister who decides responsibilities for ministries; ultimately the Premier does that. I can make you no guarantees. I can tell you we would very much like to retain those responsibilities within our ministry; we're working at them enthusiastically. It's no coincidence that I've placed, in my prepared remarks, skills development and job training first -- something which may surprise university presidents, college presidents or others, if anyone is following this debate.
Second, in regard to the KAON project -- I forget if that was second or third -- again, the Premier decides what minister will have what role in our parliamentary system of government, and the Premier has made his decision on ministerial responsibilities for kaon. I explained the rationale of how they were not, in the last two years, directly under the responsibility of our ministry. We do continue to work. Not only do the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations and I enjoy a congenial relationship and sit only a few seats from each other in the Legislature, but ministerial officials have extensive involvement at the senior level: officials committee of ADMs, Assistant Deputy Ministers; staff support to the KAON project office through our science and technology division; financial support to the KAON ventures office of $114,000 this year; and various interactions with federal officials and Ministry of Advance Education, Training and Technology staff. A lot is going on quietly behind the scenes, as well as the attempt to more publicly prevent the federal government from reneging on its commitment.
In terms of the needs-based approach, the three-year planning process that we undertake with each institution is designed specifically to encourage them to focus on the needs of their own community. In the case of a community college, it is more locally defined; in the case of a university, it is a little broader. We are constantly encouraging them to focus on the real needs of their community. I might add a small caveat. There's an old rule of ecology which I was taught in the 1970s -- I believe it's still considered a viable principle -- that resiliency is directly related to diversity. Not only do we want a highly diverse post-educational system to be stimulated, from our position, but in some respects it's to the public's advantage for that diversity to evolve on its own. We certainly do not wish to prescribe to the colleges and universities everything they do.
I'm sure that the member would agree with me that there is some role.... Governments -- even social democratic governments -- do not have absolute and unique wisdom about the future. Sometimes it is useful to allow the institutions their traditional free rein to figure out what is likely to be an important program in the future and where students may need to be educated or trained in the future, even though we can't see it. Yes, we believe in the needs-based approach. Yes, we also believe in a healthy institutional autonomy to see into the future perhaps more clearly than we can.
The cost question. Last year the overall grant increased 4.5 percent, at a time when the expectation for inflation was 7 percent. This year the grant increase was decided not by me as minister but by Treasury Board on a pan-government basis. The inflation factor was set at 2 percent. My staff have suggested that current inflation expectation is about 2.5 percent. I believe that at the time Treasury Board made its decision -- if I recall correctly -- the expectation was that CPI inflation might be closer to 1.5 or 2 percent. Ministry of Finance estimates were constantly fluctuating at that time. When the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations defends his estimates, one would have the opportunity to understand that process better. We attempted to adjust approximately at the expected rate of inflation.
Were we aware that this would be difficult for universities and colleges? Of course we were. They had been living for the last several years with increases which were relatively generous, as had the Health ministry and general government spending. We were even more acutely aware that the present Premier made an absolute bottom-line commitment during the recent election to attempt to get the budget in order, to live within the means of British Columbians. He was widely quoted many times as saying: "We will not do that which we cannot afford."
Facing a much larger provincial budget deficit than anyone expected, aside from well-informed officials within the Ministry of Finance, who were not in a position to disclose that information, and perhaps the former Minister or Ministers of Finance, no one was aware of the size of the deficit. Certainly I wasn't aware -- I suspect the hon. member was not either -- of how tough things were and how much overexpenditure British Columbia had undertaken compared to our real means. When we look into the future, we see a difficult situation in the near future as well. Therefore the inflation allowance was made not with the feeling that it would be comfortable and a pushover for universities and colleges, but with the knowledge that it would be difficult, but that everyone in our society would have to do their bit to try to bring the budget deficit under control.
The example the hon. member raised is interesting, because it also caught my eye. To a certain extent it raised my ire -- the reference to increased water costs at Simon Fraser University of 38 percent in one year. If the university cannot hold the line on water costs by controlling the grotesque waste of water, I don't know what it will be able to do to live within its budget.
[4:30]
At the Partnership Walk sponsored by the Aga Khan Foundation yesterday in Vancouver, it was pointed out that the average Bangladeshi consumes two litres of water per day as an adult and the average Canadian consumes 1,000 litres of water per day. Universities, in my experience, are no exception. It would astound me if the university were not realistically able to control its water costs by instituting a water conservation program, be it merely as simple as inserting bricks in toilets or the equivalent into the valves of institutional toilets, or controlling wasteful use of water in laboratories, on lawns or wherever. Given the low snowpacks this year,
[ Page 1988 ]
it might be in the broader public interest for them to do that as well.
Do they have other costs that are much more difficult to cut? Of course they do. What I've just said should not be taken as a criticism of Simon Fraser or any other university. I think they've faced a difficult situation with dignity. They have dealt very honourably with our ministry. The president of Simon Fraser University in particular is now in his ninth year of service, doing an excellent job. I think he understands as well as anyone in the province that we had no real alternative. We would have liked to have been more generous, but the public made their views clear in the democratic process.
D. Mitchell: I'm having a little difficulty with this -- while we're on the issue of operating grants -- and I'd like to ask another question on this. Before I do, the difficulty I'm having is in believing that the members of this government can continually lay all the blame at the feet of the former administration. We hear it time and time again. It's tedious repetition. We hear it in the House; we hear it in the committee as well -- that all the fiscal problems are because of the previous administration and because of some projected budget deficit, which was never projected by anyone but their own hired political firm of Peat Marwick, which had some grossly exaggerated number.
We all had a sense that the last budget brought down by the previous administration had some difficulties with it, but no political manipulation of those numbers can justify this budget. This budget has to stand on its own.
I think it's interesting to note that even the minister has told this committee today that the previous administration was generous when it came to funding advanced education. We would look for the same generosity from this administration, if only because of the recognition -- and we've discussed this already in this committee -- that every dollar invested in this area is going to have a high return. Rather than waiting for the economy to turn around, why not use this ministry as an engine of economic growth to help turn the economy around, not only in the short term but, more particularly, over the long term?
I don't think, with all respect to the minister, that bricks in toilets are going to fix the problems, as constructive as the suggestion might be and as well intentioned as it may be.
I don't think we can penalize our universities, colleges and institutes within the system for managing well, because the reality is that over the last ten years most of the institutions within the community of advanced education have managed under difficult circumstances. They've been growing; they've been managing under growing circumstances; they've been dealing with access and capacity issues; and they've been doing that under difficult circumstances from a financial standpoint. They have managed well. I don't think they should be penalized for being excellent managers. In fact, I think the best managers in the public sector are found within our community of advanced education, within the institutes, colleges and universities in our system. So I don't think that's going to save us.
But I wonder if the minister might want to comment about something a little bit more technical when it comes to operating grants, with respect to the economy of scale factors in the funding formula. I have a question about whether or not there's an impact here. The four university colleges, as well as Kwantlen College, have also received cuts in this budget as compared to previous years. I believe it has something to do with the economy of scale factors in the funding formula, because they've been updated to reflect the current funding of FTE levels. This adjustment recognizes that larger colleges are generally more efficient and that their fixed costs ought to be smaller than those encountered by smaller colleges. I believe that's the rationale. So the economy of scale redistributes funding so that smaller colleges receive more than larger colleges. It's a kind of equalization formula, the way I understand it. The way I look at this economy of scale factor, the adjustment that took place this year in this budget took $160,000 off the top of the budget of Malaspina College's operating grant and $121,000 off Kwantlen College's budget. The Malaspina administration contends that this adjustment is unwarranted, because although the college has increased in size in the last few years, it has yet to develop an infrastructure to accommodate the school's population and reduce its expenses at the same time.
So my question to the minister is with respect to this economy of scale factor and the adjustment that's taken place this year. The minister has claimed that he wants to encourage growth in the system, but in particular in the four university colleges. Is the minister aware of the detrimental impact that updating the economy of scale factors has had on these institutions he's referring to?
Hon. T. Perry: There are some complex and good questions there. I don't mean to imply the other questions weren't good ones as well.
First of all, just to come back to the general issue of funding: yes, the former government was relatively generous. In retrospect, one might even say profligate. The problem was that while they made expenditures which most of us applauded at the time, for example, large increases in expenditures in health -- 10 or 12 percent in one year as I recall -- in retrospect it was profligacy, because the province could not afford it. And it drove everyone in the system and society at large to assume that there would always be more on the same scale. It was divorced from reality. At the same time, thousands of people were being laid off in the forest industry.
The government of the day knew that the Cassiar mine was in trouble, although perhaps that wasn't public knowledge. Four hundred people were laid off, 1,000 people discombobulated, a major new task and financial burden handed to the government. There's another good example, incidentally, of the seriousness with which we do take the job-retraining function of our ministry; and our assistant deputy minister, to whom I introduced you earlier, was one of the lead agents for the government policy attempting to stabilize
[ Page 1989 ]
Cassiar. Many such things were going on. Yet public expenditures were expanding almost, as it were, in a vacuum, divorced from the social and economic context that British Columbia was shifting from an economy in which we could rip off our natural resources as if there were no tomorrow, in a world where there was apparently unlimited demand for our products, not in the context of a declining pulp market, a declining market for many metals worldwide, and an almost certain significant decline in the level of the annual allowable cut, some of which has already been realized.
There were many other economic adjustments, plus the inevitable influx of some people from other parts of Canada disemployed by the consequences of an aging industry in Ontario, the free trade agreement in Ontario and elsewhere, and the economic difficulties in Saskatchewan. Those people have the right to migrate within the country. Many of them end up in British Columbia for reasons that those of us who come from other parts of the world know very well. They have the right, like others, to social assistance, to avoid the world deprivations of poverty.
Those expenditures were rising. The former government was secretly aware of it but did not inform the public. I frankly admit that even those of us who were at the time members of the official opposition had no idea of how serious the economic problems were. To say that the former government was generous to advanced education is to state a fact.
D. Mitchell: Were they spending too much?
Hon. T. Perry: Whether or not they were spending too much is a very difficult question. Certainly they were spending more than the province could afford. They did not appropriately increase revenues, and they drove us into a very large deficit at a time when many of us had been led by the machinations of the BS fund to believe that in fact there were surpluses.
To cite one example, this hon. member entered politics partly coming from a university background, wondering why we were being pinched so tightly at UBC in those days and thinking the government was sitting on an enormous surplus, like King Midas counting his coins, unwilling to dispense any of it. Little did I realize how rapidly I would be disabused of that notion. Even at the time of the election, this hon. member believed there was a $1.2 billion real budget deficit, as did the accounting firms -- not only Peat Marwick, but Price Waterhouse and all the other leading accounting firms at the time of the 1991 provincial budget. In reality, as we learn, that budget deficit was much closer to $2.4 billion. In that sense all of us were deceived, and we have to make adjustments.
Universities, colleges and others in the post-secondary sector, although they do have a difficult assignment to live within the means that we provide them, have no more difficult a time than anyone else operating in the public sector. We must all face the choice, as hon. members opposite would in our shoes, to decide whether we should spend more than we can afford. If so, how much more? I think in that sense I recognize and appreciate the questions, partly for the opportunity to recognize that our post-secondary institutions do face difficulties. It would be unfair to them to pretend otherwise and not to respect them for the energy they've shown in trying to come to grips with those. They'll surmount them, as they have in the past, and they will come out of it stronger. Should we, in a time like this, spare them any fiscal pressure? I think not. I think that although it's painful, it's sometimes healthy to be exposed to fiscal reality. I think that post-secondary institutions ultimately will emerge stronger from having to come to grips with finding areas where they can be more efficient.
The Japanese have a management philosophy which has served their industry in many ways much more successfully than ours has, which is summarized in a few short words: "Every defect a treasure" -- not to be embarrassed about, not to hide, not to put into a closet like a skeleton, but to be searched out almost joyously. Because in the defect, the treasure is the ability to correct it, the ability to save money through the elimination of wasteful practices, making practices more efficient and finding new, innovative ways of doing things. Anyone with any background in entrepreneurship or understanding of the entrepreneurial ethic will understand that without that pressure, the ethic doesn't really exist.
In terms of the specific question about the economy of scale and the funding formula, the adjustment does not reduce the previous base but does modestly reduce the funding associated with growth that exceeds the system average. The assumption is that a rapidly growing institution is more likely to be able to find that treasure in the defect and, through normal economies of scale, perform more efficiently when it's growing than if it were static. For example, the increases to the four university colleges are not static, associated as they are with enrolment growth, naturally. Malaspina will receive 6.38 percent more this year; Okanagan 6.03 percent more; Cariboo 5.61 percent more and Fraser Valley 15.89 percent more. I note that the honourable member for Abbotsford should be pleased that we have recognized a commitment made by the former government to that institution, on a non-partisan basis.
The needs were intense in the Fraser Valley. The institution has been doing an excellent job. The former government had made commitments which were sound, and we've respected those commitments. That is the reason that in this particular year Fraser Valley University College receives a larger percentage increase than other institutions. At Kwantlen, the total increase is 7.5, compared to a system average of 4.2 percent. So those institutions are, in fact, getting more money, but they're just not getting quite as much as they would have liked. Had I the ability to print money without increasing inflation, I might have been happy to dish out a little bit more.
[4:45]
H. De Jong: I suppose, not being very familiar with the profession of academics and the whole ramification that goes along with colleges and universities, that I can't speak very eloquently about the education process at that higher level. However, I believe that generally
[ Page 1990 ]
the three As are very important -- that is, access, accountability, and achievement. I would prefer not to ask my questions on a political basis. I think we're all interested in providing the education at that level in the most economical and sensible way -- and that it is accountable to the people of British Columbia so that their dollars are well-spent.
My overall question that I would like to put first to the minister is: while there has been a lot of emphasis placed over the last number of years on advanced education and, in particular, the various fields of professionals and high technical types of education, have we perhaps overemphasized that to some degree? If we look at all the students now attending colleges and universities who hope to pass the final exams of those institutions, can we accommodate those large numbers on an annual basis within the professional field, the academic field and whatever other fields those types of academics would enter? Perhaps the minister may have some comment on that.
Hon. T. Perry: I think that's a very interesting question. In the area of professional education, the government, along with all other provincial governments across Canada, has begun to stake out a position -- perhaps for the first time a carefully thought-out position -- that relates to the education of physicians. The Barer-Stoddart Report, commissioned by provincial ministers of health and the federal minister, recommended that the supply of physicians in Canada be curtailed, because it was growing out of control. Eventually, if one projects it logically to its natural conclusion, at one point virtually everyone in Canada would be a physician. We might not get there until several centuries from now, but I hate to think what the rallies would be like at the Trade and Convention Centre at that point.
In the area of other professions, I think the situation is somewhat less clear. Perhaps, if one were starting again, we might direct less emphasis toward the legal profession, and possibly we're getting close to, or have already saturated, the market for engineers in British Columbia. I think those are issues we are going to have to look at very closely now, although it's difficult to predict far into the future. Sometimes, as in the case of engineering or nursing, for example, just when you think you've got a surplus, you find that you have a shortage, and vice versa; just when you react to a shortage, for example, in nursing or education, major expansions were made by the former government, with my full support as the health critic at the time. We may possibly find ourselves in a position of oversupply. I think that's difficult, but we will be looking at that carefully.
I think that an even more interesting aspect of your question, perhaps, relates to whether we give appropriate weight to non-academic training and education. I strongly believe, personally, that our society, in contrast to the Europeans, Japanese or some other highly industrialized societies, gives too much relative status to academic education and too little to skilled trades training. The highly skilled trades person has every bit as much ability, if not more, to contribute to society as many people who have benefited from an academic education. I strongly believe that we need to diversify and expand our training in a multitude of areas not even recognized now for formal training. It's been controversial recently, but one area in which there seems to be clear evidence of industrial demand is the hotel and tourism industry. Our training is very different from the training afforded in that field in Europe. Maybe we have something to learn from the Europeans.
Another would be in new trades not defined in the traditional terms of guilds, such as carpentry or electrician training, but in new areas and emerging fields where perhaps we need to develop a much more diversified apprenticeship system. In general, I agree with the hon. member for Abbotsford. We need to diversify the system as much as we can to recognize all kinds of training and education as being equally valuable, to the extent that they either lead to stable employment or to the ability to successfully change employment during one's life, or to the development of the individual in order that they can function as a full member of society in a democratic capacity in a world that's rapidly changing, where environmental and social issues are increasingly complex and where we need the most educated citizenry we can get; or ideally, to educate and train people in a way that gives them both of those characteristics.
H. De Jong: On the grants that are available, or the student loans, I'm not sure exactly what is available. I understand that if a student wishes to enter college or university, or perhaps even BCIT.... I'm not sure if the same type of funding is available for all three, or whether there are different categories or different levels of funding available to those institutions. Perhaps the minister can enlighten me a bit on that.
Hon. T. Perry: The assessment of eligibility for a student loan is based on the need of the student, not on the type of program they're enrolled in. For example, a student without dependents who qualifies for the maximum weekly income supplement would receive $216 per month in the current fiscal year -- that's up $6 per month from last year -- whereas a student with dependents, typically children, would be eligible to receive up to $331 per month; that's up $16 per month from last year. They're not identical, but they're related in a complex way to the Canada student loans program. The general principle is that anyone who is undertaking a serious program of post-secondary study and who requires assistance is equally eligible, regardless of what they're studying, who they are or where they live in B.C.
Just before I forget, I might make one correction to what I stated earlier. Ministry staff are suggesting to me that the present evidence is that we need more engineers in most areas, and that the only surplus at the moment is primarily in civil engineering. I confess to having met a couple of unemployed young engineers recently, which may have biased me; but no offence to the engineering profession was meant by my remarks.
[ Page 1991 ]
H. De Jong: In case I leave politics, that may open up a field for me if I want to go into engineering.
On the student loans, a lot of noise was made last winter about the write-off of loans. I understand that any loan provided for attending a university or college consists of a loan by the federal government and a grant by the provincial government. It's about fifty-fifty, except that when the numbers are higher there's a little difference, I understand. The loans that were talked about with the write-off: was the money provided by the federal government only? What was the amount written off, and over what period of years was it written off?
Hon. T. Perry: I'll begin the answer while my staff are figuring out the answer to the more detailed question.
The Canada student loan is guaranteed by the federal government and made by banks to individual students. The student is responsible and the federal government is the guarantor. We do not take direct responsibility for that, although we help administer that program. With the B.C. student loan program, the loans are again made by banks to the student, but the provincial government is the guarantor for the loan. We also have an equalization program, which affords grants to students from more remote regions of the province during the first two years of study in an approved post-secondary course. That is the only direct grant that we apply, aside from special programs to students with severe disabilities or with very particular examples....
The comments in the press and the Peat Marwick audit refer to default on British Columbia student loans. Like most other provinces, approximately 20 percent of the students who borrow money from banks under the British Columbia student loan program default on the repayment of their loan. That means that 80 percent of the students at present are fully repaying their loans at the time they graduate or finish their studies and the loan becomes due. During studies -- just for clarification -- the interest on the principal is paid by the government of British Columbia, in the case of B.C. student loans, and by the government of Canada in the case of Canada student loans.
Of those 20 percent who at present are defaulting -- and I emphasize that rate is approximately equal in all provinces across Canada -- their loans are then turned over for collection to the loans administration branch of the Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations, which attempts vigorously to collect on the defaulted loan. In the event that this cannot be done, the province is then liable to make the bank whole on the principal plus accumulated interest.
[5:00]
The Peat Marwick study made the ultraconservative assumption that the government will never recover any of the money from those students who default on their loans. They make that assumption for accounting purposes to portray, in effect, the worst possible case. Rest assured, hon. member and hon. Chair, we do not accept the worst possible case. In this case the loans administration branch is actively attempting to pursue repayment from students who are capable of doing so. One expects that if 20 percent default, some of that money will be collected. The 100 percent is a very conservative assumption, which we hope will not be realized.
The total value of defaulted student loans as of March 31, 1992, is approximately $37.3 million. That would be the value of the capital plus accrued interest as of March 31, 1992. I might add that we are obviously not happy, nor is the federal government or any other province, with a system in which 20 percent of the recipients default. At the same time, we are cognizant that many of the students are doing so because the burden of debt is excessive at the time they graduate. Typically the student would be one who is not successful in finding employment immediately. Payment kicks in on the first day of the seventh month following the completion of studies. One of the purposes of the review committee headed by Jennifer Orum, which will report in late August, is to look at measures we can take within our defined budget to ensure that if possible, the default rate goes down. There are a variety of approaches that the committee might recommend.
[H. Giesbrecht in the chair.]
H. De Jong: Again, I want to emphasize that I'm only pursuing this line of questioning because I believe that the taxpayers of British Columbia are indeed owed accountability -- not only by those who provide the moneys for the studies, but also by the students that benefit from these studies. In that context, I want to pursue the line of questioning a bit more as to what is in fact being done, what may not be done and perhaps where changes are needed as I see them.
It would appear to me that there has been quite a strong increase in students not repaying their loans over the past years. It raises some concern not only among politicians, but also perhaps among those who are administering the loans, as well as the taxpayers of British Columbia who are paying these funds.
I understand that in the United States when a student loan is not being repaid, the federal government withholds tax refunds to that particular student should he be earning money afterwards. I believe that is not the case in British Columbia or perhaps even in Canada. One way to overcome that is to put out garnishees, once the student is earning money, as soon as he fails to repay. It appears that is not being done at the present time either.
The other point is that there appears to be no suffering to the individual's credit rating if he decides not to repay the loan. Perhaps I could get some answers to those questions.
Hon. T. Perry: It's a complex area, and I'm just trying to refresh myself, because there have been a number of changes in the last few months. I'm going to answer them in reverse order.
On the question regarding credit rating, for about the last year students applying for loans in British Columbia are informed on the application form that
[ Page 1992 ]
they will be registered with the credit bureau so that if they default it may well affect their future credit rating.
Second, in reverse order, was the question regarding the garnishment of wages. That would be a matter for the loans administration branch of the Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations, which serves as the collection agency not only for student loans but for other government-backed loans. I'm informed that they have not been that aggressive. It has been seen in general as, I guess, too harsh a practice. I'm sure they are reviewing all such practices in light of the Peat Marwick report, but that is a question that might be put more appropriately to the Minister of Finance during his estimates.
Third, in regard to the federal government withholding the income tax refund, this was discussed at a meeting of provincial ministers of advanced education and the federal Secretary of State, Honourable Robert de Cotret, in February. My understanding is that the federal government is taking steps to withhold income tax refunds from those people who do not repay their loans in a timely fashion.
H. De Jong: I'm rather pleased with the answers the minister has given. At least some attempt is being made to stop a practice that I believe has been the practice for the last number of years. There wasn't much consideration given to reclaiming those loans. Whether you owe income tax money to a government or any other type of tax, or you have received a loan, be it in the area of farming or education, when a person takes out those loans, they should expect to repay those loans. I would applaud the government for taking any initiative to put them all at the same level, be they students, farmers or business people. If they owe money to the government, I think the same rules should apply.
Given the situation where apparently different levels of money are available to students through institutions, and if the academic institution that accepts the students' registrations received the student's tuition money and is also that institution that assesses the financial need of the student and processes the applications for assistance and recommends to Victoria how much of a loan or a grant the student should receive, isn't that a bit of a conflict position for the institution to be in?
Hon. T. Perry: I suppose one could, in a very superficial sense, regard it as a conflict. In the same sense one would have to regard as a conflict the effort of institutions to recruit enough students to, as we put it, deliver all their FTEs -- to fill all the student spaces and produce the graduates that we expect of them in order to get the money we give them. In that sense, I think, it's not really a conflict; in fact, it's a manifestation of their real interest, which is not to pack them in like sardines but -- what's slightly larger than sardines? -- to get a substantial number of students into the institution, be it one with walls or one without walls, like the OLA, and to educate them. We wouldn't want to discourage them from doing so.
Ultimately, the final decision on eligibility for the loan is made by the Ministry of Advanced Education in our student loans division, and the loan is made by a bank. My staff are telling me that the institution really acts like a mortgage agent. I'm not sure if that clarifies things any further. Basically they're helping the student to complete the form and to make sure it's completed properly. It's a very complex form.
The chair of our review committee, Jennifer Orum, assigned to members of the committee the task of completing a sample form, and the forms are being followed through their natural history in our ministry right at this minute. I undertook to complete a form as well, and it was sufficiently complex that I admit to not having completed it yet. I invite opposition critics and any other members who are interested to take the challenge with me and to try to complete one. It's a fairly sobering experience. One of our goals will be, if possible, to design a simpler form.
The fact is that we're a fiscally conservative government. We're looking for solid information in order to determine the students' real needs. We're not trying to humiliate or penalize them, but we are trying, within the limited resources we have available from the taxpayers' pocket, to ensure that the money goes to those students who most genuinely need it. Unfortunately, this does require some highly skilled staff, not only in the institutions but also in the ministry, to process the applications.
H. De Jong: I can appreciate that through the ministry, or through the institutions within this ministry, we do not want to humiliate students, and that sort of thing. I think it's very appropriate. On the other hand, I don't think that because of lack of desire to achieve the result from education -- which I believe is quite apparent in a number of institutions and among a quite a number of students that apply for student loans.... I don't think we should allow the people of British Columbia to feel humiliated as well because of the lack of enthusiasm and desire to achieve the goal which they have put out on paper in order to get the student loans. It's my understanding that students can take as little as 60 percent of a full course load and apply for maximum aid. That is, I believe, not bad for the first year if you want to get them into the habit of studying. But it's also my understanding that quite a number of students flunk the first year and the second year and, in some cases, the third year. In fact, students must flunk three consecutive semesters before funding is denied. I don't think that that is really a good enough standard for the Ministry of Advanced Education to continue with.
[5:15]
Perhaps the minister may wish to make some comment as to whether they have thought of any changes in that process to make what we have started out discussing -- the access, accountability and achievement -- really come through.
Hon. T. Perry: It's another interesting question. I'll attempt to get the precise answer from our director of student loan programs. You referred to the necessity to
[ Page 1993 ]
fail three consecutive semesters before being discharged from the program. None of us has at our fingertips that level of detail, but we'll try to get it for tomorrow.
In general terms, this issue is under review, and it needs to be reviewed flexibly. At the February or March meeting of provincial ministers with the federal Secretary of State, the federal secretary proposed revisions to the federal guidelines upon which all of the provincial programs are based, and specifically recommended raising the minimum standard from 60 to 80 percent of full-time studies for the typical student. It's very important to note, and it is crucial that members understand, that there are students for whom 60 percent of full-time study, or even a lower percentage, would be fully appropriate. A typical one would be a woman supporting children by herself, without additional resources, where the demands of child care make it virtually impossible to undertake full-time study. The financial needs remain the same, and the student loan provides a very marginal level of subsistence for the woman and her children.
Many such people are completing a university degree and going on to gainful employment, for example, as teachers or nurses -- in the case of a nurse, often without a university degree; with a two-year college program -- and become very fully contributing, functioning members of society, in addition to their home child care responsibilities and other responsibilities. One would not want to penalize them.
What we need is a policy sufficiently flexible to weed out the person who is a malingerer or a lazybones, and to actually be, if anything, more generous to people who are penalized because the present requirements are too strict. Another example of that would be students with significant disabilities: deaf students, blind students or students with major physical disabilities. The demands of the disability are such that it can be nearly impossible to complete a full-time program, which is usually demanding enough for the average student without such disabilities. One would not want to discourage students with disabilities. Yet some of the present policies are doing exactly that, which is one of the reasons we're so keen to review them -- not only provincially, but we've pushed that at the national level.
I've been passed a note saying that Jennifer Orum's review committee is going to be.... I'm not sure if this says inciting or inviting. The hon. members for Abbotsford and West Vancouver-Garibaldi may wish to meet with them. I would certainly invite them, and Ms. Orum may incite them if she wishes.
D. Mitchell: For the minister's information, I will certainly be making representation to that committee.
The minister has indicated to the member for Abbotsford that he is going to get back to him with some information with respect to Canada student loans tomorrow. Perhaps what we might do, then, in the interests of the committee, is come back to that at a later time in this committee and review in a more comprehensive manner some other issues relating to student financial assistance. Not to anticipate the work of the committee, but I think there are some other questions that we're going to want to ask.
I would like to address the issue of access, and ask a few questions about access. The minister, certainly in his opening remarks, talked about increasing access as a goal, and that's a laudable goal. We all want to see the issue of access addressed. We want to live in a province where every British Columbian who desires to participate in the post-secondary educational system that we were referring to earlier, and who wants to undertake some kind of training or retraining, has the opportunity to do so. So access is key.
I refer to an election promise from the New Democratic Party, from their election manifesto. Promise No.41 says that B.C. "...lags far behind the national average in providing the opportunity to go to college and university. With a New Democrat government, B.C. will catch up." That's the quote from the election campaign platform. I wonder, what is British Columbia doing to catchup with this budget? With this budget that we're reviewing, how is British Columbia catching up? It's an important question, and I really want the minister to try to address this specifically. It's a specific question, so it shouldn't take long. As of 1989, which is the most recent year that we have national statistics for, the national participation rate of the 18-24 age group in full-time post-secondary education was 21.9 percent. British Columbia is at the lower end of that scale, with a participation rate of only 15.5 percent in 1989. In its election platform the governing party indicated that it promised to close this gap. My question to the minister is: what is the minister doing to increase participation in post-secondary education in this province? What does this budget do? Does it close the gap?
Hon. T. Perry: This year it basically holds the line. I think it was music to my ears to hear that campaign promise reread to me, because it's a sound promise. It was placed at the time in the context of respect for a balanced budget overall and, as the Premier said at the time and since, "placed within the context of the taxpayer's overall ability to pay."
I think that nationally we do face what in the long term will amount to a crisis, if it doesn't already. We are lagging behind other industrialized and developed nations in defining a strategy and a commitment to advanced education and job training and education in general. Other countries are setting targets which exceed our wildest dreams at the moment, and, as a country, we will have to address that. As a province, within the overall context of this country Canada, we're not doing too badly this year. Our increase of 4.2 percent in total spending in this budget on post-secondary education compares with roughly 3 percent in Alberta, 1 percent in Ontario, zero or a negative percentage in Saskatchewan and similar figures in the other provinces, which are facing even more severe economic difficulties than we are.
I think when the hon. member asks, appropriately, what I am doing to address this, I suppose I'd say I've taken a long-range strategy. To borrow a line from the hon. Minister of Labour, I've not set my hair on fire. I prefer to retain a full head of it as long as I can, and in
[ Page 1994 ]
all deference to the barbers and hairdressers, I don't rely on them to restore it if I do set it on fire. My approach has been to begin the process of convincing the public that we do need to do more; that we need, as a society, a sustained commitment -- not only in British Columbia but across Canada -- to a much more ambitious educational system, a much more highly integrated educational system and a much more diverse one, in which we act not only as a province but as a country. Not every province needs to do everything. As long as we keep the country together, we should be able to profit from each other's strengths, rather than exploit each other's weaknesses. I see it as a long-term process. I believe we will, within the course of this government, make significant progress toward the goal we outlined. I certainly hope we'll achieve if not surpass it. I count on the support of the official opposition and the third-party critic to help us get there.
D. Mitchell: I can assure the minister that he has the support of the official opposition in helping him to meet his election promises. But by reading them back to him, if the minister believes that was intended to be music to his ears, then perhaps the minister is a fan of the blues. Maybe he is a fan of the blues as a form of music, because I'll tell you he should be ashamed. He should be ashamed that this election promise is not being fulfilled or addressed in any way in this budget. It's too easy to simply say that it's a long-term goal. Are we to believe that the election campaign promises of the New Democratic Party were intended for 1995; that they weren't really for this election, but were intended for the next election? They were promises made last fall; they were created with the intention that they were going to be met.
We're dealing with a situation where the minister and this government are lagging way behind the public. We don't have to deal with a public relations campaign or launch some kind of initiative to try to get the public onside with improving access to post-secondary education -- not at all. The public is demanding it today. The public is demanding access to training and post-secondary education today. The minister need not waste his efforts, or any of the energies or any of the expenditures that he has under his control, in trying to convince the public to get onside with this. No, the government is lagging behind the public on this.
I'll list only one example. In my own constituency of West Vancouver-Garibaldi I recently distributed a questionnaire to every household asking what the priorities for government should be. Where should government be spending more money or less money? One of the areas of significant unanimity from a majority of respondents to the questionnaire -- and I had a very high response rate -- was post-secondary education. They clearly said that the government should be spending more time and money treating this as a higher priority.
The government is lagging behind the public if it thinks that it needs to try to persuade the public that access to education should be a goal that this government should promote. It should be; it can be. But the minister says that his government's budget is holding the line. It's just not so.
Let me show you why it's not so. On an FTE basis, the budget provides for some 3,128 new FTEs in the system, of which 2,380 are targeted to academic programs and 748 to applied programs. Some 850 of these FTEs are for the universities, and 2,278 are for the colleges and university colleges. A total of 3,887 additional spaces were funded in the previous fiscal year; 1,076 of these were funded through a special warrant passed by the cabinet in January of this year. But in terms of academic spaces being made available, 1,286 fewer academic spaces are being created this year than last. Is this budget a hold-the-line budget?
I'll just go on with a few more statistics to try to make this point. I want the minister to address this, because I don't believe this is a hold-the-line budget at all. I think this budget might, on a net basis, reduce access to post-secondary education and training. The demand for post-secondary education has been consistently increasing. We know that over the past decade it has been increasing rapidly. This year, application numbers at the three public universities that are operating on a full-time basis right in British Columbia, and at the more centrally located colleges, are up anywhere between 20 and 40 percent. Applications are up in that range. We know that they're not going to be able to accept that many more students. Last year, for example, SFU received funding for 566 new student spaces. This year the number is 236. UBC is admitting, this year, 400 fewer undergraduate students than last year. Okanagan College is accepting 9 percent fewer first-year arts and science students for the fall term to permit larger percentage increases moving into its degree programs in second, third and fourth year. This is dealing with the crucial issue of access. Was the minister aware that this budget that he's asking us to approve today in this committee would create 50 percent fewer new spaces than last year at SFU, 10 percent fewer at the University of Victoria and decrease enrolment numbers by 400 at UBC? Did he realize that first-year enrolment at Okanagan College would be cut by 10 percent as a result of this budget? If so, is he satisfied with this result, given the goals that he set for himself with respect to access? How does the minister plan to increase access to post-secondary education in this province if only a limited number of new first-year spaces are being created? What does this say about access?
[5:30]
Hon. T. Perry: The reality is that there are 3,129 new spaces on top of the additional spaces created last year and on top of the additional spaces created the year before that, and so forth. The new spaces created in 1991 did not mysteriously disappear; they remain there. The system is growing. It may not be growing as rapidly as the hon. members or I would like, but it is growing substantially and faster than in any other province in the country.
[D. Streifel in the chair.]
[ Page 1995 ]
I'm informed by staff that it may, in fact, be appropriate or rational for Okanagan University College to rationalize its allowances in order to ensure that students already in the program have a program to continue through to graduation.
I can assure you that 400 fewer students at UBC will not be the case. The university is expected, as a condition of its budget letter, to fulfil the FTE requirement that we have set, and if it were to choose not to do so, we could find plenty of other institutions to spend that money, institutions that would be only too happy to more than fulfil the requirement. I say that not without some deference to UBC. They have, historically, more than fulfilled our requirements and have done an excellent job of it. We simply expect them to continue to do that, although we recognize that there is some pain for them. But there is some pain for everybody in coming to terms and beginning to live within our means.
I know it's not the tradition in the committee, so I can't really formally ask the question, but I would be interested to know whether the hon. member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi asked his constituents, if they felt that the government was not spending enough money on advanced education this year, whether we should have raised their taxes more than we did, whether we should have raised tuition fees, or whether we should have diverted spending from some other department of the government. I'd certainly be interested in the views of the hon. member on that issue. I'd like to hear what he's learned from his constituents.
D. Mitchell: For the benefit of the minister, the questionnaire that I referred to -- and I'd be happy to provide a copy of it to you -- does have a breakdown of issues relating to post-secondary education. The minister may be interested to know that in a breakdown of areas in post-secondary education, my constituents in West Vancouver-Garibaldi believe that increased emphasis and spending should be directed toward capital construction of facilities, laboratories and scholarships, and reduced spending should be directed towards salaries, particularly of faculty and administration. But I will give you a more detailed breakdown of that questionnaire. I will pass that on to you for your information.
But the question is on access, and how this budget, this year, is going to address access. The government has predicted that between now and the turn of the century, 75 percent of the new jobs created in British Columbia will require at least some post-secondary education. The large increase in applications for this fall in British Columbia at our colleges and universities, at our institutes, compared to previous years, reflects, I think, that both high-school graduates and those hoping to retrain are well aware of this fact. They are well aware of the fact that their employment opportunities -- continued employment opportunities, new employment opportunities -- are geared towards their training, their post-secondary education. Very specifically, in this budget this year, what does the minister plan to do to respond to the increasing demand for post-secondary education?
Hon. T. Perry: Although it's bad form for the minister to pose questions, the hon. member eluded the implied question in my comment. It's worth noting, if I recall accurately, that the hon. member represents the riding with the highest per-capita average income in Canada; therefore the observation that it would be interesting to know whether his constituents favour higher taxes, or how they would, for example, suggest that the ministry, without violating university autonomy, divert money from salaries to capital construction. For example, the ministry does not directly fund university, administrative or staff salaries. We fund, through the funding formula, full-time-equivalent students.
It's in our interest as the paying agency for the salaries to be kept as low as is consistent with fairness and reasonable labour relations, and the retention of good faculty within the province and the country, in competition with other universities and colleges which are actively recruiting. But we do leave that to the boards of governors of institutions to decide. In fact, we are allotting our money specifically for the creation of new student spaces. That's the condition upon which we deliver it to the institutions. If they fail to achieve what we regard as reasonable production, they don't get the money; if they do well, if they overachieve, then we try to reward them. I think historically the ministry has done a pretty good job of doing that.
Just to come back to the overall access question, I point out that, yes, there are large numbers of new students wanting to study in our post-secondary institutions. We don't yet have very accurate statistics on exactly how many get turned away. We're trying to achieve that. I've given instructions not only to the ministry, but to the various post-secondary institutions, that next year I would like to have reliable figures on turnaways: who they are; where they went; and what happened to them -- whether some of those turned away from one college successfully entered another college in the end, or whether they ultimately sought employment. Those statistics have not been collected as rigorously as they might have. We're making efforts to redress that problem. I think we'll be in a better position next year, in these estimates, to know how much of a deficit there is between the real capacity of this system and the real demand of qualified students. I don't think we're in a very good position to know the exact figures, although we all know that there are students who will not be able to achieve a place or a full course load, as they would like to.
Are we improving this situation? Yes. Are we improving it as fast as I would like, or hon. members might like? No. We would like to do it faster. As I said earlier, we have a lot of work to do yet to convince the public that the investment is so important for our society that we all have to make some sacrifices to achieve that, and perhaps more sacrifices than we have hitherto been prepared to make.
D. Mitchell: Just for the record, because the minister again referred to the survey in my own constituency that I referred to, West Vancouver-Garibaldi does include West Vancouver, which, of course, is
[ Page 1996 ]
a very wealthy part of British Columbia. But it also includes unique communities such as Bowen Island, Squamish, Pemberton, D'Arcy and Mount Currie. It provides a representative cross-section, I believe, of British Columbians' hopes, expectations and dreams for training and post-secondary education. The minister might be interested to know that respondents came from all portions of that large and diverse constituency. Of course, I will share the results with him.
In terms of this budget, it's too bad that the minister has confirmed that the issue of access has not been addressed in this budget. It's not addressed at all in this budget. In fact, we're led to believe that we have to come back next year and hope that it will be addressed. That's tragic. Of course, I hope the minister is still the minister next year, and we can be back here and revisit this one again. I for one hope that he is the minister, and he can come back and try to live up to the expectation that he set. But this budget clearly does not address the access issues that the minister himself referred to in his opening statement today.
There is one particular element which I'm concerned with, and it deals with university transfer credits. The minister himself referred to this earlier. The four universities in our province are having some difficulties with this budget, in terms of what it does on an operating basis, and whether or not they are going to be compelled -- as the minister has indicated -- to admit a growing number of students at the undergraduate level. It's hard to say, but we have a college system where great emphasis has been placed by his ministry in terms of funding and direction, and that college system is generating university transfer students. I'll just mention a couple. There has been a 9 percent increase in the number of first-year students, and a 15 percent increase in second-year students, who have registered as university transfer students at Camosun College. However, the University of Victoria is decreasing the number of university transfer students it is admitting this year by 10 percent. SFU is admitting 127 fewer university transfer students from community colleges in 1992-93. How the does the minister plan to respond to the large numbers of students who have completed university transfer programs at British Columbia colleges, but are unable now to complete their degrees because they can't gain entry to one of the four universities in this province?
Hon. T. Perry: I was listening to the question; I was simply asking the staff whether we had on hand a letter which would clarify my position. We might be able to hunt it up for tomorrow, but the position of the ministry is very simple. We expect college transfer students to be treated on a level playing-field with university students continuing on to third year. We understand that the universities have felt some obligation to their own students -- I suppose you could call it the young boys' and girls' network -- to ensure that a student accepted into first or second year could continue into third year. In practice, that might be discriminatory against an equally qualified student who has entered a college and completed the second year of a university transfer program on the understanding that, with satisfactory completion, they would be treated equally to those who entered the university system directly.
We intend to enforce the latter. I have written to all of the three universities concerned, at the moment, to remind them that we expect all British Columbia students to be treated equally in that respect. We are aware that it causes some difficulties for them -- that students within the university might feel they are entitled to some particular privilege. But we don't think the taxpayers would see it that way. We expect to insist on fairness. I'm being reminded from both sides that I'm meeting with the chairs of the university boards of governors and the presidents on June 19 to reinforce that concern and discuss some of the issues of coordination.
I'm also being prompted that members of the committee feel they've absorbed enough wisdom for one day. Therefore I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 5:46 p.m.
[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]
Copyright © 1992, 2001: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada