Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, JUNE 2, 1992

Volume 3, Number 24

[ Page 2039 ]

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

L. Hanson: In the audience today are two constituents and very good friends of mine, Ken and Joyce Little. Ken is a former fire chief, as well as a former alderman, in the city of Vernon. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. G. Clark: Hon. Speaker, I am delighted today, on your behalf and on behalf of members of the House, to introduce the High Commissioner to Canada from Tanzania, Fadhild Mbaga. I ask all members to make him welcome.

Hon. P. Priddy: It's my pleasure today to welcome 30 grade 5 students from Panorama Park Elementary School in the riding of Surrey-Newton. I'm not sure if they're in the House yet, but they are due to arrive. With them is their teacher, Arlene Cooper; teaching assistant, Donna Hall; and two parents, Wendy Phillips and Barb Nilsen.

This particular school has worked really hard -- as schools do in all communities -- to make the community a better place to be and has participated in such events as a salmon release into the Little Campbell River and the Terry Fox Run, working, in general, to make their school and community better places to be. It's an additional pleasure when we can welcome students to the House.

G. Brewin: I would like the House to make welcome a very special guest who lives in Victoria-Beacon Hill. Her name is Janine Wear. She represents OXFAM Vancouver Island and is chairman of the steering committee. I'd like the House to make her welcome.

S. O'Neill: We have with us today Derrick James Allen, along with his mother-in-law and father-in-law, Anna and Benny Ouellette, who are visiting here from Nova Scotia. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. G. Clark: I have a couple of people to introduce today. One is a mutual friend of Keith Baldrey's and mine, Chris Gainor, who is a constituent of mine. I am delighted to see him in the gallery today, watching the proceedings. I would also like to introduce to the House someone who was the president of the Vancouver East NDP when I joined the Vancouver East executive at the age of 17. He is in the gallery today, and his name is Chester Jantzen. I would ask all members to make him welcome.

Introduction of Bills

HEALTH STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1992

Hon. E. Cull presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Health Statutes Amendment Act, 1992.

Hon. E. Cull: In this bill there are amendments to eight statutes administered by the Ministry of Health. These amendments make minor housekeeping amendments to a number of acts to remove unnecessary or obsolete wording. A number of amendments are made to legislation administered by the division of vital statistics. Amendments to the Name Act remove unacceptably restrictive provisions for the election of a surname upon marriage. Amendments to other acts will permit the division to function more efficiently in providing its services to the public.

Some revisions are made to the legislation governing licensed practical nurses and psychologists, to remove some procedural impediments to permit the governing bodies of these professions to discipline their membership more effectively in order to ensure the protection of the public. These are consistent with the general directions in professional legislation and with the directions suggested by the British Columbia Royal Commission on Health Care and Costs.

These amendments, though minor, will ensure the continued efficient delivery of services by the Ministry of Health and the effective regulation of the health professions.

Bill 30 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

NANAIMO COMMONWEALTH
HOLDING SOCIETY

W. Hurd: My question is for the Attorney General, and it pertains to a letter on file at the gaming branch. This particular letter, which is on MLA stationery and is addressed to the Gaming Commission by the hon. member for Nanaimo, deals with a decision by the gaming branch to lift the bingo licence of the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society and was written in support of the society's reapplication for a licence in October 1990. This letter, addressed to Commissioner R. Macintosh, reads: "I implore you therefore to re-examine this matter, and I am writing with a view to overturning the decision to cancel this bingo licence" -- by the society. My question to the Attorney General is: is he aware of any other members of the NDP caucus or the executive council who have written letters supporting the restoration of the bingo licence for the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: No. Nor was I aware of that letter. I think the best thing I can do is take the question on notice.

The Speaker: Is there a new question, hon. member?

W. Hurd: Yes, a new question to the Attorney General. Can he confirm that the member for Nanaimo is a past director of the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society? Has he questioned this particular 

[ Page 2040 ]

member to determine what links may exist between his society and the laundering of charities bingo money by the New Democratic Party?

The Speaker: Hon. member, the Chair is not clear how that falls within the ministerial responsibility, but the Attorney General may wish to answer.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Hon. Speaker, I took the first question on notice. This is clearly supplemental. I don't want to use the rules to appear to be avoiding questions, but at this point I can't answer that question any more than I could the first one.

The Speaker: Hon. member, please keep in mind that the minister has taken the questions on notice.

W. Hurd: My question is to the Premier. I'm wondering if the Nanaimo Commonwealth Society is a society that this government goes to bat for. At least the last government was scamming billionaires; this government and its friends are ripping off charitable organizations in Nanaimo. Will this Premier stand and say that his party will divest itself of all links with this society that stands accused of skimming money from charities, and in 1988 was the subject of an RCMP investigation? Will he stand today and do that?

The Speaker: Hon. member, the Chair does have difficulty with much of the wording of that question, particularly with some of the language used in it. I noticed that the Premier did rise, and if he chooses to respond to the small portion of the question that may fall within his responsibility, I would recognize the Premier.

Hon. M. Harcourt: I said yesterday that if there was a relationship between the Nanaimo Commonwealth Society and the New Democratic Party, all dealings between the two should stop. I have requested that if there are any dealings between this society and the New Democratic Party, it be conveyed to members of the New Democratic Party that they stop.

SCHOOL FUNDING

P. Dueck: My question today is to the Minister of Education. Information has been faxed to me with respect to severe cutbacks in the elementary school system, namely in District 34, which is the Abbotsford and Matsqui communities. Of 18 elementary schools, 13 schools reported music programs cut completely, 13 schools reported band eliminated, nine schools reported swimming programs discontinued, 14 schools reported libraries severely cut back, 14 schools reported....

[2:15]

The Speaker: Hon. member, can the Chair assume that you're getting to your question very quickly?

P. Dueck: Well, I have to explain what I'm talking about and what the question is going to be. I take your advice, and I will ask the question.

It has never been this bad in 40 years. Does the minister agree that children need a balanced education? What is she prepared to do?

Hon. A. Hagen: I thank the member for his concern for the children in his district and for forwarding that question to me. First of all, yes, of course I care about every child and every school in the province of British Columbia, hon. member. I'm not able to provide you out of my recollection the increase in funding to the Abbotsford School District this year, but one of the highest increases in funding in recent memory was to that school district. That acknowledges the increase in the number of children in the district and the increase in the number of ESL and native children. It is part of our plan to ensure that that school district can manage in the interests of all of the children of the district.

P. Dueck: We're talking about our children; we're talking about the most important resource in our community. We are not asking the minister to say how much the increase has been. Our district is very frugal and has operated very well for years. It has never been like this in 40 years. My question is: will the minister, since she is also the Deputy Premier, plead with the Premier and cabinet to restore these programs? We're cutting back programs that children need, and we ask that they be restored. It is a matter of priorities, in my opinion, because....

The Speaker: Your question, please, hon. member.

P. Dueck: Will the minister take that as notice and lobby cabinet, which she is a member of, to restore these programs for my community?

Hon. A. Hagen: As the member well knows, it is the responsibility of the province to provide resources to the school district that will enable it to provide those programs. We have indeed, as I've noted, increased the resources to Abbotsford -- your school district -- by the largest measure in recent history. I am hopeful, as I have said to parents who have written about their concerns, that that district will use those resources wisely in providing a balanced range of programs for every child in the district. There is $300 million more in funding to the school districts of British Columbia this year, almost a 10 percent increase, as well as capital funding -- significantly for your district, hon. member -- to build new schools for children in all areas of the district. There has been very significant attention paid to your school district by my government.

NANAIMO COMMONWEALTH
HOLDING SOCIETY

G. Farrell-Collins: In response to the Premier's answer to an earlier question, I would like to say that it's simply not good enough to sever past NDP ties with the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society. Will he 

[ Page 2041 ]

commit as the leader of the New Democratic Party to pay back the money that was skimmed from the charities and funnelled to the New Democrats?

The Speaker: Again the Chair is having difficulty relating the question to the ministerial responsibility. If the minister chooses to comment....

Your next question, hon. member.

G. Farrell-Collins: I assume that he as the Premier is responsible for his government and responsible for investigations and activities of his government. That is why I'm asking the question of the Premier. The only difference between the Vander Zalm government and the Mike Harcourt government is that Bill Vander Zalm took money from billionaires while this government takes money from old age pensioners, handicapped children and single mothers. Will the Premier, as leader of the NDP, today order his party to stop the reverse Robin Hood tactics of stealing from the poor and giving it to the New Democrats?

GAMING COMMISSION APPOINTMENT

J. Weisgerber: My question is to the Attorney General. Will the Attorney General confirm that he has received communications from an umbrella group of charities in New Westminster, including longtime NDP activist Margaret Birrell, objecting to the March 27 appointment of Lynda Fletcher-Gordon to the Gaming Commission, and will he further confirm that Miss Fletcher-Gordon is the same person his ministry staff recommended that action be taken against respecting irregular bingo activities dating back to her days in New Westminster?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The first question relates to correspondence that the member suggests was received in my office. I don't know whether that's true or not. I have not seen correspondence to that effect. Lynda Fletcher-Gordon was involved as executive director of an organization in New Westminster which, several years ago, was in receipt of bingo revenue. To my knowledge, she has not been involved for some time and is not now involved in any activities that relate to bingo licences or the Gaming Commission. Her experience in the field, in the community, was such that I felt she would be an important and useful addition to the Gaming Commission. As a result she was appointed to the Gaming Commission earlier this year.

J. Weisgerber: A supplemental to the Attorney General. Given that Ms. Fletcher-Gordon is the same individual that Bob Williams went to bat for in an appeal to have her licence reinstated for bingo, and given her close ties to the New Democratic Party, the Burnaby Purpose Youth Society, Bur-West and the lower mainland youth society, will the Attorney General agree today to rescind her appointment to the Gaming Commission and investigate thoroughly the allegations of impropriety in his office now?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: First of all, I know of no allegations of impropriety. Secondly, the member suggests that Lynda Fletcher-Gordon was in receipt of bingo licences. In fact, she was executive director of an organization that had a licence to operate a bingo.

I really am not sure where the member's questions are directed. I'm clearly happy to assist if I can, but I don't know where you're going.

NANAIMO COMMONWEALTH
HOLDING SOCIETY

J. Weisgerber: Can the Attorney General confirm that following the 1988 RCMP investigation of the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society the RCMP recommended charges be laid? Can he further confirm that it was the then Deputy Attorney General who decided not to proceed with charges, and would he tell us on what basis that recommendation was made?

The Speaker: The Attorney General could try to keep his reply as brief as the question allows.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I can't confirm the answer to that question. I don't know.

D. Mitchell: I have a question for the Premier. The Minister of Finance is quoted in this morning's Victoria Times-Colonist as saying that he cannot distinguish between putting his own money or the public's money in a bank. As a result, we are developing yet new concerns about the appropriateness of the use of a Revenue Canada charitable organization number by the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society. To the Premier, who stripped away some of the responsibilities of that minister last week, would it be appropriate today for the Minister of Finance to give up that portion of his ministry which deals with the interrelationships between British Columbia and Revenue Canada?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I find the links that were suggested very difficult to connect, and I will take that question on notice.

D. Mitchell: I'd then like to direct a new question to the Minister of Finance. We have established that the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society has a charitable tax number from Revenue Canada. Yet because it has not remitted the appropriate amount to the umbrella charities in Nanaimo and stands accused of funnelling money to the New Democratic Party, it may be in violation of Revenue Canada statutes for charitable tax status.

Did the Minister of Finance ever advise Revenue Canada of any concerns he might have had about his friends in the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society and their responsibilities as a registered charity under the Income Tax Act?

Hon. G. Clark: The short answer to that is no. However, let me go a little further and say that the member should know that I have had no dealings with the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society. I deal 

[ Page 2042 ]

with Marwood Services Ltd., a private company. And I might just correct the record while I'm standing. I requested the Premier at the first opportunity to remove the societies and registries from my ministry just to ensure that the appearance of any concern would be dealt with. Frankly, I think we're getting further and further obscure in the questions.

Orders of the Day

Hon. D. Miller tabled a petition on health care.

Hon. G. Clark: I call Committee of Supply, both sections. In section A will be the Ministry of Advanced Education and in section B the Ministry of Environment.

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).

[2:30]

Hon. J. Cashore: I would like at this opportunity, which is early in the afternoon, to make an announcement that carries with it a great deal of sadness with regard to the parks branch of the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. I want to take the opportunity to make this announcement while other members are in the House because, as I said yesterday, we often take for granted the role of people who work in the public service, and often these people are in situations where there is danger. Indeed, sometimes that danger occurs in the most unlikely of circumstances.

[M. Lord in the chair.]

I'm very sorry to have to report the death of a parks employee. Dave Brewer, age 62, of Westbank, B.C. was killed yesterday by lightning strike -- of all things -- in Wells Gray Park. He was on a trail adjacent to Helmcken Falls, which is an extremely beautiful place in this province. It is a trail that I understand was developed by Derek Thompson, who is a senior staff person in the parks branch.

Dave was a seasonal employee during the last 15 years, and he had worked for B.C. Parks in a number of park locations around the interior, including Hamber Park and Bear Creek Park. He was also involved in the Outdoor Recreation Foundation. Dave is survived by his wife Helen and two children, one of whom graduates this year.

At the time of the accident, Dave was working with Troy Jones, who was also slightly hurt as a result of electrical shock from the lightning strike. Troy tried to assist Dave, but unfortunately the death was instantaneous. I understand the situation was one in which lightning struck a tree, travelled down the tree and then went through Dave, causing his death.

It was the first shift of the year going into that area, after three days of safety training. I know that all members of the House would join me in expressing profound sympathy to the family and co-workers of Dave Brewer. I would like, in writing a letter to the family, to include the deepest sympathy from all members of the House.

J. Tyabji: I would certainly like to reflect the sentiments of the minister. Unfortunately, these are things that even the minister has no power over, and obviously it would come as a great blow to the family. I know that we on this side of the House will be sending a card and expressing our condolences. It happens to be in the riding of the environment critic for the third party, and although he is not here to express the feelings on behalf of the third party, I'm sure he would share the same sentiments as the minister.

The Chair: Shall the vote pass?

J. Tyabji: Hon. Chair, I was assuming that the minister would be starting off the estimates again with some introduction. Or should I?

Hon. J. Cashore: It still is a question-and-answer phase in these estimates. When the opposition environment critic advises, I will then give some introductory remarks with regard to the Lands part of our ministry, and then again when she advises later on with regard to the Parks part of our ministry.

J. Tyabji: I was waiting. I thought there might be some transition from the minister's announcement to the estimates. That's my mistake.

For the minister's information, then, as we had given over the majority of this morning's estimates debate to the third party environment critic, we are now back to our format -- the format of the official opposition -- where we have our five categories. We are still technically in the first category under land use. Our critic for agriculture asked you some questions today. We will be going back and forth between category A and category B -- category B being solid waste -- because there's some kind of overlap. With that I'll pass the floor on to one of our other members.

K. Jones: I'd like to talk to the minister about my riding, which is quite involved with farming, and how farming and the residential buildup of the area are interfacing and some of the difficulties that we're running into. In the South Surrey-Hazelmere-Kensington area of my riding there's considerable concern being expressed through a series of experiences last year in relation to problems where children were sprayed by aerial spraying of blueberry fields. There was quite a bit of concern. As a result of that, the Ministry of Environment implemented a series of regulations under which spraying would be done. One of those 11 points was that there shall be no agricultural aerial pesticide application within the municipalities of Surrey and Langley. I think that was a very good move, and I commend the ministry for taking that action. It was one which, at the time, relieved residents of a great deal of concern about a serious area that was affecting them. 

[ Page 2043 ]

That ban on aerial pesticide applications did not include the area of Delta and other parts of the lower mainland.

I would like to make it clear that I recognize that the farm people -- the people growing various crops, including the blueberries in our area -- require certain applications to make their crops continue. There has to be a definite control of it. I understand the ministry is working closely with the agricultural people in maintaining and adapting to safer types of application so that we have less impact on the environment of our community. We have a very deep concern about the fact that the majority of the area is fed by groundwater wells, which receive their sources from runoff in the regional area.

All of these are of concern to people. We have salmon streams and salmon enhancement programs in the general vicinity, and these are also of concern. Of primary concern is children as they're going to and from school, and also the fact that we have organic farms in the immediate vicinity. Organic growers really have trouble with their status as an organic grower if there is over-spray into their areas from a chemical spray. There has been a lack of control in spraying in the past. There was spraying while children were walking to school, and there were indications of serious illnesses. In one case there was a suspected brain tumour which caused the death of one of the children -- an 11-year-old who was walking to school and came under the spray as they looked up, got it in their faces and breathed it in their noses. It's a very tragic situation. There is a great deal of concern. The results of your action relieved many of the members of that concern.

Just lately this year, one or two of the helicopter companies that do aerial spraying made an appeal to the ministry to permit them to spray these areas again, within the boundaries of Surrey and Langley. This has created a renewal of that fear and concern. It's rather ironic that the particular field that was of concern last year -- one of the largest blueberry fields in the area -- is today able to be sprayed by ground spraying with backpack, and it's actually employing people through that process. So there is an alternative to aerial spraying.

The spraying company has said in its application that they should have the right to be able to do it, based on the fact that the ministry has allowed spraying to occur in Delta, Richmond and other parts of the lower mainland. The concern now is that the decision pending on this application may be in favour of the helicopter company and, as a result, will mean that there is again the problem that was previously addressed. I'd like to ask the minister if it would be more responsible in this situation, rather than having an appeal process giving these spraying companies the feeling that they could come back and request an opportunity to spray, not to have that appeal process -- that the minister set down the rules; that it be clear to everyone that there will not be any spraying within these built-up areas of the lower mainland, so that this fear is removed and the farm people know the basis under which they have to do their spraying.

Hon. J. Cashore: I think the hon. member makes several very good points, with a lot of awareness of the difficulty of achieving balance on many of these issues. We see those issues especially in areas where the urban landscape has recently come upon former rural areas. This is certainly a factor where there is that interface. I'm advised that within the last two weeks, the internal appeal procedure that was conducted within the ministry has denied the application to aerial spray in Langley and Surrey. Therefore the decision is the one that I would expect the hon. member was hoping would take place. It was an internal appeal within the ministry, and it comes under Mr. Ron Kobylnyk, I believe. Again, as I said yesterday, he has that authority. The minister doesn't have that authority with the way the statute is presently written.

K. Jones: I'm very pleased, if what I heard was correct. The appeal has been rejected, even though it was only last week that the appeal was heard. Is that correct?

Hon. J. Cashore: Yes.

K. Jones: That's wonderful. Our people will be very, very pleased. I hope that that will give the clear message to all of those people who think that aerial spraying is appropriate in this area that this will no longer come up for further appeal. Is that the indication you have -- that you will be taking that position?

Hon. J. Cashore: It continues to be appealable under the statute, which enables recourse to the Environmental Appeal Board.

[2:45]

K. Jones: It does concern me, hon. minister, that these people will have to continually battle against any future appeals. It's very onerous and very stressful on their way of life when they have to constantly be alert to the chance that somebody will be coming up with an appeal to take away the protection that is established there. It is time for this government to take a very clear stand: to eliminate this apprehension that can always be held over these people and to make a very clear position that it is not acceptable to have this type of spraying in the community. Could this minister please give us more of an assurance that he's not going to have this open-ended?

Hon. J. Cashore: This is the situation for this year; the appellants have not filed for an appeal. Therefore, de facto, there will be no aerial spraying this year. That is a given. Whether or not they would file an appeal in time for next year remains to be seen. I think, though, that the hon. member, in examining his advice, has to ask himself, and has to be prepared to say to the House in order to inform our debate, how he would apply that recommendation as an alternative, given the rights that we cherish in our society of recourse to due process and natural justice. I know that it is very frustrating for people who feel wronged, whatever side of the issue they happen to be on, to feel that they have to go through a further process. I think that we know that the processes in democracy, and in our courts, do 

[ Page 2044 ]

grind all too slowly, and sometimes it appears that justice delayed is justice denied.

However, in order to criticize and condemn, we have to be able to come forward with alternatives. I haven't heard this hon. member articulate a clear alternative that would be responsible to the rights of members of our society to due process and, at the same time, be ensuring that these processes move on appropriately quickly. If he does have that kind of advice, and if he can outline that kind of a program, by all means, we'd be willing to look at that.

K. Jones: I'm rather disappointed with the response of the minister. Literally what he's saying is that the people who want to spray poisons on our houses and on our children should be allowed to have the right of appeal, to continue to appeal and appeal so that everybody could continue to wait until the next time the person will sneak their appeal through, maybe, without having sufficient opposition on board to do it. I've seen this type of process done in city councils before. You just keep on appealing until you finally break down the opposition, so you finally get the results you want. This is unacceptable.

People should have some security in their homes, security in their lives and security in their farms. They shouldn't have to be continually going out there to protect against a commercial enterprise that wants to spray poisons in the air and onto the people of our community. You have to take a position, Mr. Minister. Today is the time when you need to take that position, not put it off.

Hon. J. Cashore: On the contrary, the hon. member has it all wrong. I've explained to him that under the present legislation the appeal goes to Mr. Ron Kobylnyk. Under the present existing legislation in this province, which is based upon principles of due process and natural justice, that's how it works. The hon. member, in calling on me to make this decision now, is calling on me to make a decision that is not within my authority, given the way in which the legislation is set up.

If the hon. member is saying that he would like to see the legislation change; if he's saying that he would like to see a bill introduced in the House that would take away that authority, then I would suggest he exercise his right as a private member and introduce a private member's bill so that we can see how he would go about that, and so that those constituents of his, who would obviously want to know that he was doing that, could see what his alternative is, how he would deal with this balance and how he would deal with the issues of natural justice and due process.

He makes a good point when he says that people who see this substance being sprayed are deeply concerned, and they have a right to not be harassed by this type of situation. But he also said in his comments that he was concerned about the farmers and the people who live in those residential areas, etc. Presumably it's farmers who are contracting with these private enterprise people to come and do the spraying.

I've pointed out that there will be no spraying this year. That's under the present, existing act. The process works such that they factor that it will not happen this year.

If this hon. member has a really good alternative for how the Pesticide Control Act should be drafted or applied or amended, we're willing to look at that. One of the things this House should be about is not just standing here and taking shots at each other but coming up with alternatives. Frankly, hon. member, I don't think it's enough of an alternative to say: "You, Mr. Minister, should take a stand." I have explained to you what the present legislative circumstances are. It's not within my power at this point in time to do that even if I wanted to. Clearly he has an idea that this should be changed. I'd like to see his proactive recommendation that covers the whole gamut, because that would be something we would look at very seriously.

K. Jones: I appreciate the offer from the minister. I'm sure that the minister is well aware that private members' bills are just a token approach. They really have a very poor record of ever getting through the process, particularly in a case like this, where it would be controlling government direction. It would be unacceptable to the government to proceed with it. I think you have the ability in your own ministry to set down guidelines. You have staff to prepare that. I would certainly be glad to consult and work with them in preparing the legislation if you would permit me to. I'm sure I would have the support and assistance of many people who have done a lot of research in this area. To pass the responsibility that is truly yours onto me is reprehensible. You have a job to do. Your ministry is mandated to protect the people of British Columbia. You can't expect everybody to do your job for you.

Hon. J. Cashore: The new environmental protection act will include pesticide control. That whole area will be reviewed. The hon. member will have a chance to have input into that. I think he should look seriously at his comments in view of the fact that he hasn't responded to the issues of natural justice and due process. As a responsible member he should do that.

I take exception to his remark that private members' bills are mere tokens. That's an unfortunate putdown of a very important instrument that we have available to us in this House, one that I exercised fully during my time as the Environment critic and one that I think had a key role in the fact that I'm now over here, implementing some of the very good ideas that I put forward at that time.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: Take that.

K. Jones: Pardon? The hon. minister is being quite entertaining.

I think you have given an indication -- and perhaps you didn't mean to -- that private members' bills have a very good record of being passed in this Legislature. Could you tell us how many private members' bills were passed in the last Legislature?

[ Page 2045 ]

The Chair: Could the Chair take a moment to remind members on both sides of the House that we are debating the estimates of the administration of the Ministry of Environment. Could we please confine the debate to that topic.

Hon. J. Cashore: Private members' bills are very valuable, because they're an opportunity that you have to put an idea out there, but not just as some knee-jerk epithet that you toss across the floor of the House. But when you're willing to put your money where your mouth is, to sit down and burn the midnight oil, work it out and deal with all the anomalies that you have to deal with when you're trying to come forward with something constructive and usable for the people of the province, I encourage you to do that. That suggestion is given in very good faith.

Of course a lot of private members' bills aren't actually passed. But what is wrong with putting an idea out there? I have pointed out to you that I am now implementing ideas that I put forward during my years in opposition. I did my homework, and because of the confidence the electorate has shown in my party, I now have the opportunity to bring those ideas forward. That's a good process. Hon. member, you have an opportunity to participate in that. So don't ever downgrade the efficacy of private members' bills. That's a very important resource that we have within this House.

Be willing to take the chance, too, that you might get shot down in flames for what you put out there. That's part of the process as well: being willing to take some risks, putting your ideas out there and getting something a little more productive out of this House, rather than just taking shots. We don't want to work with that process; we want to work with ideas. It's not good enough simply to say: "Minister, you're the one who should shut this down."

I'm dealing with situations all over the province. It behooves me to manage our legislative framework with care and fairness and with the recognition that we live in a diverse province of people with diverse interests. While it often seems to be too slow, the fact is that when you have to have that overview perspective -- which I think the people of British Columbia really want their leaders to have -- then you have to consider all aspects and not just the one aspect that you're looking at.

K. Jones: Hon. Chair, to the minister. You're talking about taking potshots? You got into this topic, literally, by taking potshots. Do you want to look at the documentation on the meetings I've had with people in my community and the preparation I've done for this? You call this a potshot? I'm aghast. It's totally unacceptable.

I'll work on getting this for you and doing your job for you. Maybe one of these days we'll have a different minister over there. I think that you're totally abrogating your responsibility.

The Chair: Excuse me, member. Could I remind you to address your comments through the Chair.

The Chair recognizes the member for Richmond Centre.

[3:00]

D. Symons: For fear of being chastised for asking a question that has been asked before.... I was incorrectly chastised, I think -- and the minister can correct me and chastise me again if I'm wrong on this -- when he missed some of the words in the question that I asked quite a while ago this morning. I asked about any new regulations for the testing -- and I think you missed the word "testing" -- of pesticides. I was concerned about what the federal government has allowed through. All too often the provinces simply accept what Environment Canada says. They will accept a chemical -- herbicides and all the rest -- to be used in spraying or for other purposes, without adequate testing. Too often we find that these chemicals are accepted simply because the manufacturer has said to the people: "Here are the results of our tests on it." I am somewhat concerned that there is no adequate testing on these chemicals that are being used on our fields and in our environment in British Columbia. I'm wondering what your government is doing in regard to seeing that the materials that are used are safe, and that we aren't going to suffer something in ten, 20 or 30 years down the line when we find out that these are carcinogens or have some other effect on the environment that we will be sorry for. That was the intent of the question before, and I think we took the wrong track on it.

Hon. J. Cashore: There was a major federal government review of all aspects of pesticide use that included testing procedures being reviewed. The provincial government had input into that process. That is an ongoing need. The member makes a good point. As long as we as a society accept the use of pesticides, I don't think we will ever get away from the need for that.

D. Symons: Again to the minister, somewhat in the same regard, I am concerned about the gathering and disposal of hazardous wastes. A year or two ago someone sponsored -- maybe it was greater Vancouver -- a gathering of hazardous waste from people who might have had tins of DDT and various things of that sort, along with paints, oils and other things. Has the provincial government considered doing that sort of thing, where people can dispose of these things so that they will be collected and then safely disposed of? Has the provincial government thought of some way to coordinate, sponsor and pay for this, so that the people who have these hazardous wastes around their homes, businesses and so forth would have some safe way of disposing of them?

Hon. J. Cashore: Yes, we have had hazardous waste collection days throughout the province, which were joint projects of the provincial government and municipalities -- or whatever the municipal entity was. There continue to be six sites around the province where the hazardous waste collection process continues.

[ Page 2046 ]

Also, while the Hazardous Waste Management Corporation was in existence, it was the entity that operated that program on behalf of the provincial government. They had the hazmobile at that time, which ran into difficulty and ceased to exist. As the hon. member knows, I have announced the demise of the Hazardous Waste Management Corporation, and an announcement will be forthcoming with regard to the appointment of our toxics reduction commissioner and some other attendant initiatives relating to that.

The member makes a good point. In the continuum of dealing with various kinds of waste, people need the opportunity to dispose of the hazardous products around their homes.

D. Symons: I have another question in a slightly different area that deals with what had been a moratorium on uranium mining in the province. I notice this would come under the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, but the aspect I'm looking at is the environmental effect of uranium mining. I'm wondering what your thoughts are on allowing exploration or possible development of uranium mining, and whether the Environment ministry may end up making sure this will not happen in our province.

Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Chair, I'm sure it will not happen as long as the present government is in power.

One of the difficult things when we're talking about the problem of uranium mining.... I acknowledge this is a question that my colleague the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources is more fundamentally responsible for. But from an environmental perspective, it often concerns me that someone could be out there mining for something else, and it could be that there's an incidental factor involving the presence of uranium. There I think you get into both an ethical and a management problem. That's a question I often put to myself, and it is a difficult question coming from anybody. We're not out of the area of difficulty when it comes to the danger of uranium being released, given that just to go out there and explore for minerals sometimes will disturb it while we're looking for gold or some other mineral. But if it releases uranium, then the problem is still there. We have to consider that a very serious problem that we have to address in different ways.

D. Symons: I don't think your suggestion that it might be discovered accidentally is likely to be accepted. Uranium isn't like lead, zinc and silver, which you find in similar formations; when you find one you often find the others. I don't believe that's true of uranium ore.

I have a concern with an answer you gave earlier on the water supply at Naramata. It was a question asked by one of my colleagues over here. In promise 22, during the election campaign, these words were in there: "Clean air, clean water and uncontaminated soils are our heritage and our right." Yet I found, when somebody pointed out to you the difficulty the people around Naramata have had with their water supply.... This is something I became fully aware of very soon after I was elected. I got a rather large document from those people up there outlining to me the problems they have -- to me, as just a new MLA. I'm sure this information had been supplied to the government then in power and had been supplied to your government when you were in opposition, so you would not be unaware of what I was being informed of at that time.

As I read through that document, I couldn't believe that cows were allowed to walk around the source of water for this community, and that logging was taking place in their watershed, right up to the water itself. The answer that was given when the hon. member here asked about that very issue was that maybe they can be looking at some alleviation, or some act, and so forth, that will address that problem by 1994. It seems inconceivable that we would have a situation where we realize that the health of people is at stake, and that we're going to delay on this. This is something that you should have had ready and in place the moment you took power and addressed the issue. Can we look forward to something more immediate than 1994 for the community of Naramata and their water supply?

Hon. J. Cashore: I think I gave most of the information yesterday about the integrated management that has been worked out, where we have achieved a consensus or where the people of the area have achieved a consensus in seeking to address this issue. I have no hesitation in reiterating that clean air and clean water is a right. It's unfortunate that we as a society have impacted on that right. I think that is something all of us have to answer for. I don't think there's anybody in this House who is particularly proud that we have seen circumstances develop in our province where our water supply is impacted. If the member is trying to suggest that somehow that should have all changed on November 5, I think that that's a bit presumptuous -- maybe give us to next November 5. It's going to take a little while to get some of these really difficult issues sorted out where there is a heritage and a tradition of mixed use. If the member is saying, "Okay, you take every site in the province where a similar problem occurs and remove the agriculture," then say that, but say it outright. If you're going to say that, then make that a very clear statement so people know exactly what you mean by that.

The hon. member is from Richmond Centre. I suppose that's a good place to look at water contamination issues, the issues of the water coming down the Fraser River. When the people in Kitimat talk about their river, they talk about it as their table; it's the table where they find their food. Yet we know about the impacts on the Fraser River, we know about sewage going into the Fraser, we know about illicit dumping into the Fraser after dark, we know about the gauntlet that salmon have to run when going up to spawn. We are seeing some beginnings in addressing those issues with the Fraser basin management agreement, but, hon. member, we have a long way to go. We have a long way to go in Richmond. We have a long way to go in Naramata. In addition, isn't it interesting to learn that British Columbia's drinking water is not among the best-quality drinking water when compared with other 

[ Page 2047 ]

provinces? That's quite a shock for all of us -- something that, whether you're in government or not in government, is a real concern that we all share.

D. Symons: I'm not sure if this is a question, but just in response, because I seemed to be asked if I would take a stand then, and indeed I would. When it comes to the drinking water of communities, I will say definitely that that water must be kept uncontaminated. That means keep the animals out of it and see that that water source is preserved for people's health. I have no hesitation at all in saying that is my stand.

J. Doyle: Hon. Chair, I'd like leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

J. Doyle: It's a great pleasure today, hon. Chair, to make an introduction of a school group down from the riding of Columbia River-Revelstoke. They're from Invermere. This is the first student group that has been down to Victoria since I've had the honour to be the MLA for that area. They are 46 grade 7 students from J.A. Laird Elementary School. With them are their teachers, Mr. David Sharp and Mr. Brent Gillis, and parents Pat Andreychuk, Anne Plassinar, Elmer Green and Mel Casey. I'm really pleased that they could be with us today and that the weather is so good. I really hope they enjoy their visit here. I'd like everyone to join with me in welcoming them to Victoria.

K. Jones: I just wanted to go back to an item that the minister was talking about, with justifiable credit being given to the work that B.C. Tel's been doing in the environmental areas. I particularly wanted to relate to the Langley project, where the office is located in Langley on a trial basis. I'd also like to give credit so it would be on the record that it was a partnership. B.C. Tel was in partnership with the Bentall Group of companies: Bentall supplied the offices and B.C. Tel provided the workforce and the equipment. I think due credit should go to both partners in that. I don't take away from B.C. Tel's participation and its very active initiation of it, but the Bentall Group also was very much involved in the initiation of this concept. I think it's the beginning of many more to come.

I would like to go over to another area, hon. minister: construction waste landfills. I have a proposal for recycling that has been brought to my attention. Right now it is not feasible because of the low dumping fees charged by the commercially operated construction waste dump, which I believe is the only one in the lower mainland.

[3:15]

I'd like to give you some idea of the cost difference between that and the sanitary landfill price charged in the lower mainland. For a container of approximately 30 yards -- a standard unit used in the construction waste area -- the sanitary landfill cost, I'm told, would be about $1,035, whereas a person can dump construction waste into the construction landfill for only $85. That's the difference. If this was raised to something in the range of what New York City is charging for its landfill -- $600 per 30-yard bin -- this project would be quite feasible from an economic standpoint.

Are you prepared to take on these privately operated dumps and have them charge appropriate prices so that we can initiate proper recycling rather than continue developing landfills with construction wastes? It's similar to that problem in Richmond where the landfill caught fire. It burned and burned and created noxious smells and smoke for quite an extensive time.

Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Chair, that Richmond landfill fire is an excellent example. It was my second day on the job, and I was out there observing that fire and also the one out in Maple Ridge. Those are two good examples that support the point the hon. member is making.

I know we're not supposed to discuss bills, but a bill is before the House that would provide for regional districts -- given that they conform to an approved plan -- to have the authority to set fees. The purpose of that, hon. member, is to do precisely what you are requesting. It will be done on the basis of the regional district, which has the expertise to know what the market should be in their given area to set that in place, as long as it's done within an approved plan. So I'm very pleased to see that the hon. member is supporting Bill 29.

K. Jones: Does that mean that you are giving the regional district the ability to set fees for both private and public landfills? The construction waste landfill is a private landfill.

Hon. J. Cashore: In an approved plan, yes.

K. Jones: I'm not quite sure what you mean by "in an approved plan." What are we talking about?

Hon. J. Cashore: A plan approved by the Ministry of Environment, put forward by the regional district.

K. Jones: Is that plan that's put forward by the regional district and approved by the ministry a plan for all dumps, controlling both private and public dumps?

Hon. J. Cashore: It's the solid waste management plan, which was a process that came into existence by virtue of 1988 legislation, which is underway to help achieve the goal of 50 percent waste reduction.

K. Jones: When will this proposal be ready? What schedule have you got for implementation of these higher rates, if there are going to be higher rates? Basically, I don't hear that you're going to implement any higher rates. It could stay the same as what they are presently.

Hon. J. Cashore: I'm absolutely appalled that this member is not aware of something that is known by people in municipalities all over British Columbia. This 

[ Page 2048 ]

is a process to get plans in order to help get on board with achieving the goal of reducing municipal solid waste by 50 percent. It's most interesting to hear this member advocating for haste in terms of: "When are we going to see these plans?" We had this filibuster going on in the House that would simply achieve the opposite, to avoid us being able to take steps that would enable regional districts and municipalities to be involved in developing their solid waste plans through the beverage container strategy. So this doesn't make an awful lot of sense.

The Chair: Excuse me, minister. A member has risen on a point of order.

J. Tyabji: I think we were allowing some flexibility as far as the minister's initial comments with regard to the bill. If I could remind the minister, we're not debating a bill here; we're in estimates. We'll have time to debate the bill in committee tonight.

The Chair: That's a prudent reminder for all members on all sides of the House.

Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Chair, I think your point is well taken. I would remind the environment critic, though, I was responding to her colleague's question.

K. Jones: I'd like the minister to respond to my question. What date do you have for implementation of this plan to determine the rates for the landfills? There must be a date. You must have a schedule. I'm not trying to rush things or anything like that. I just want to know what date you have for it so this constituent of mine can do some planning. He wants to be part of the recycling process, but he needs to have some idea of how to set up his business.

Hon. J. Cashore: These plans have to be completed by 1995. Those communities that are completing their plans earlier are, obviously, very much ahead of the game. But I would advise the hon. member that if he's going to insist on seeking to discuss the bill, when the direction that he's getting from his own critic is pointing out that he should be staying off that turf, I would hope that in terms of solidarity with your own bench, you might consider whether you want to pursue that type of question.

K. Jones: Hon. minister, we are not discussing the bill. We are talking about your ministry and your plans for a schedule to deal with waste management in the lower mainland of British Columbia. What timeline have you got to set down to bring forward an increase in the construction waste costs so that they can be made reasonably and will encourage a proper recycling business?

Hon. J. Cashore: We have met with the GVRD, and they have agreed to set up a joint task force with the provincial government to speed the process up. I've already answered the question. I said that the plans have to be submitted by 1995, but if they're submitted earlier, that's better.

I'd also point out to the hon. member that I'm glad we're discussing my ministry's estimates -- as he puts it -- but it seems that when I give an answer that the opposition doesn't like, I then get called out of order by the environment critic. You can't have it both ways, hon. member.

K. Jones: If we could get an answer instead of a filibuster, it'd be okay.

Hon. J. Cashore: You've got an answer.

J. Tyabji: I would like to ask some general questions with regard to the estimates. I know that we're still in the first section on land use, which is going incredibly quickly, wouldn't you say, hon. minister? I would like to ask the minister about the changes in the budget. I'm happy to see that it's gone up by approximately 7.5 percent, but I would like to ask the minister if he feels there have been any changes with regard to the financing due to the amalgamation of the Environment, Lands and Parks portfolios. Also, why does vote 32 show a decline of 44 percent for the minister's office?

Hon. J. Cashore: Starting with the last question, the simple answer is that we've consolidated two ministries into one, and therefore there's only one minister's office; economies of scale.

With regard to the first question, if I understood it, it was with regard to the.... Hon. Chair, I'll sit down and listen to the question again.

J. Tyabji: Perhaps the minister was so flustered from the previous exchange that he was distracted. I believe the hon. minister has answered the first part of the question with his answer to the second part.

Very briefly, I'd like to take this opportunity to congratulate the minister on a decision that he made yesterday with regard to the Tsitika. In this House we often get fairly adversarial. I think it was an excellent decision. I'd really like to commend him and the joint initiative that was taken there. I know all of us on this side of the House share your feelings with regard to the value of that area of the province.

With regard to the land use section of the estimates, I have some fairly specific questions with regard to conservation officers and wildlife. First of all, I have some information that the minister may be considering an auction of Rocky Mountain sheep. I believe that would be in the Kimberly area of the province. I'd like to know whether the minister is planning that or if he knows whether his managers are planning that, and how he feels about this.

Hon. J. Cashore: The answer is no.

J. Tyabji: Am I to understand that no, you're not considering an auction, or no, you're not aware of...?

Interjections.

[ Page 2049 ]

J. Tyabji: Okay. Great. Further to that, conservation officers have an incredibly enormous job. I know that they are all extremely capable and very committed people, but I would put to the minister that we don't have enough of them right now. I'm sure he feels the same way, and I know he's going to talk about budget restrictions. However, there is a growing concern on two fronts among some of the conservation officers with whom I and my researchers have spoken. One is with regard to potential dangers on the job when confronting poachers or hunters who may be in violation of their hunting licence -- with the bounds of it and potentially then levying a fine. I'd like to know if the minister is taking any steps.

I know that this was covered this morning to some extent, but I would like to also mention to the minister that although we allowed a lot of generosity with regard to the third party's environment critic, we would like to canvass some of the same issues in this forum, because we believe we have a different approach. Having said that, with regard to conservation officers, we on this side of the House are concerned with some of the increases in fines -- if you have an armed hunter in violation of a permit, who may be facing a fine, being confronted by a conservation officer. Is this minister considering any steps to provide a support service to the conservation officer, or is there any planned prescribed action that officers can take so that they can avoid the kind of dangerous situations that may arise with armed hunters in the bush?

[3:30]

Hon. J. Cashore: That question reflects a really important concern, and I take that question very seriously. First of all, in terms of professional development there are ongoing programs in Malaspina College, the University of Lethbridge or wherever it may be from which we recruit conservation officers, that deal with safety, firearms training and a wide range of methodologies to try to avoid getting into dangerous circumstances. Indeed one of the reasons that we have put $2 million into hiring 20 full-time employees is to try to address the safety factor of one-member conservation service offices, where sometimes a person goes out on their own. That's a dangerous situation. I guess it's similar in some ways to the one that I described earlier, about that unfortunate lightning strike in another part of the ministry.

Where a conservation officer is going out into a situation where it's potentially dangerous, and if that individual's aware of that, he or she can often ask for backup service from the RCMP. There's that type of availability. I do agree with you, hon. member, that we don't have enough conservation officers in the province. I think we need more, especially in a province such as British Columbia. I do recognize that what I have said doesn't cover all the possibilities that are out there. It continues to be a job that can be very dangerous. Tragically, drinking is too often associated with hunting and fishing. My own feeling about that is that it's really inappropriate with regard to the outdoors and the wilderness environment. I would hope that through various processes it might change over time.

I mentioned earlier that I've been trying to get around and visit our employees in the regional offices. I've talked to a number of COs, and invariably the discussion gets around to some of the situations they have found themselves in. Some of them are really hair-raising. So we do rely on their training and their ability to discreetly move away from a situation if it appears that they need a backup.

J. Tyabji: With regard to the whole issue of conservation officers, as this minister is aware, there is a growing problem with B.C. being the supplier to the black-market trade in animal and wildlife parts. Poaching has become a more and more significant issue with regard to black bear parts and some of the ungulates.

I'd like to know what the minister is doing and what his ministry plans to do to change the access or to somehow monitor poachers better. Does this minister have a five-year plan to increase the number of conservation officers so that the northern and interior parts of the province are better represented in terms of having the staff to monitor the kind of poaching and environmental degradation that could be going on and that falls under the conservation officers' jurisdiction?

Hon. J. Cashore: I wouldn't describe it as a five-year plan, but I see my role as continuing to advocate for increased conservation officer services. That always has to be in the context of a number of other priorities that are being addressed. So I can only reassure the member that I will continue to advocate for that. That's all I can say.

I didn't want to leave the wrong impression when I was talking about drinking being associated with hunting and fishing. I would like to qualify that drinking is associated with a very high proportion of the problems that result in a potentially dangerous situation. The vast majority of those who are involved in organizations like the B.C. Wildlife Federation are very responsible people who certainly don't abuse that. In fact, they are good at monitoring the situation and trying to ensure the appropriateness of those who are out there. It is true that there are people who often aren't associated with such organizations and who, from time to time, are involved in situations that are potentially dangerous for our staff.

The hon. member asked about how we are addressing the issue of poaching and the illegal trade in animal parts. As we have announced, we have a special investigation unit right now. I am somewhat careful of what I say about that because of the covert nature of their operations. We don't want to telegraph our methodology, because we want them to strike in areas where they aren't expected. Their work, of course, is very important.

J. Tyabji: I understand the minister qualifying his statements. I assume he doesn't want to receive bags of mail from those who may have thought they were included.

Further to those comments, does the minister have any plans on the drawing board with regard to monitoring? I agree with the minister that the majority 

[ Page 2050 ]

of hunters are generally responsible, and that there are those who, as in all areas, will spoil it for the rest of them. Does the minister have any plans to monitor those who could be drinking and hunting or fishing?

Hon. J. Cashore: We do keep track of all the situations that we encounter out there, and there is data kept. It's not what you would call a scientific survey, but situations are logged in. So we do have some sense of the incidents out there.

J. Tyabji: For information purposes, would the minister share with us what the general penalty is if someone is caught drinking and hunting?

Hon. J. Cashore: The problem would be associated with drinking and hunting if the person did anything that violated the Wildlife Act. It's my understanding that the liquor part of the offence would come under some other act, not under the Wildlife Act. As I said before, it could involve a member of the RCMP in circumstances such as that.

J. Tyabji: Would this minister be considering any kind of amendment to the Wildlife Act that might make it an offence to be caught armed and hunting in the woods with a level where you would not be able to drive?

Hon. J. Cashore: That certainly isn't in the Wildlife Act now. It's my understanding that it's covered under other legislation. The answer to the question is: yes, I would consider it. I'm not going to say yes, we would do it, but we would consider it. I think it's worthy that we review that recommendation in the context of the array of existing law that is presently there. Obviously the Attorney General's ministry would be consulted on such an issue.

J. Tyabji: I'm happy to hear that the minister would consider a law like that, because that tends to protect those who are not abusing their recreational privileges.

I would like to canvass the minister's feelings on the black market toxic waste trade that is a growing concern to many conservation officers. To provide the minister with some of the specifics from the conservation officers we have been talking to, our understanding is that there are those who are willing to collect toxic waste from companies and dump it illegally in areas where they cannot be monitored. This is because some companies -- none that I would be interested in discussing now -- would not want to pay the fines that currently exist for the existing methods of getting rid of toxic waste; therefore there are those who are willing to enter into a black market.

Obviously the monitoring of this black market is the responsibility of the conservation officers. There are those who feel that one of the most dangerous aspects of their jobs right now is having to deal with those who are being paid to dump illegally on behalf of a company. And because this minister, very commendably, is going the polluter-pay principle in some other areas within his ministry, this may become a concern of even greater magnitude as the fines get yet larger. Obviously, then, it puts more pressure on the conservation officers.

Hon. J. Cashore: When I was in opposition, there was a situation out in Langley. I won't say the name of the farm, but it was a farm close to where there was a residential area. People had a complaint that went back 15 years about just the situation the hon. member has described. The smell was terrible, not to mention the potential impacts on health. For 15 years conservation officers from the ministry tried to nab this combination of a trucker and a farmer and get the goods on them. There were some times that it actually -- if it weren't so tragic -- played out like a Keystone Kops scenario. As a matter of fact, there was one incident where a conservation officer waited up all night for this truck to come into the yard. Finally the truck came in with its lights off, and the conservation officer was sitting there. He raced into the yard and tried to get the evidence, but the trucker had installed a high-speed, super-efficient pump and managed to sewer the load within half a minute. I think the conservation officer ended up reaching in and turning off the switch, and he broke the pump, and that ended up with him sending a bill to the Ministry of Environment. It's just bizarre when you try to get evidence that stands up under the rules of our courts. A bit of an irony was that the very first news release that I signed, on November 6 -- the day after I was sworn in -- stated that the Ministry of Environment had charged that individual. Of course, I told all my friends that on my first day on the job I had success.

Anyway, I guess you would call it a black market. Obviously, that is an area where it is really difficult to get the evidence that stands up in court. I'm not sure, for instance, if the administrative penalty approach could apply in a situation like that, but we should look at it and see if it could. We should try to find ways of dealing with those situations that don't have to go through costly court procedures. The other thing is that the vast majority of people in the agricultural community, when a conservation officer knocks on the door and talks to the people, try to do the right thing. This is another area where our undercover team would be of use.

J. Tyabji: I would definitely encourage the minister to try to get some kind of recourse or penalty without going through the courts, because obviously that is extremely costly and often not that effective.

I would like to find out from the minister how much money he feels will be coming into the general revenues as a result of the increase in fines for pollution.

Hon. J. Cashore: The estimate is $1.6 million.

J. Tyabji: What is the increase over last year with regard to just pollution fines?

[3:45]

Hon. J. Cashore: I will get that for you in a moment. That's an estimated increase based on the year before. It's a target; I mean, that's the best you can do. But I would point out to the hon. member that, as I said 

[ Page 2051 ]

this morning, I did some research between the years 1986 and 1989 and found that the total amount of fines collected under the Waste Management Act, averaged over those three years, was less than $35,000 a year for the entire province.

There has been a dramatic increase even to the point of some historic high fines having been levied against some major polluters. That's kind of important too, because I don't think that it should always be the smaller businesses that are being nailed. I've noticed that two jail sentences have now been issued against individuals. That's historic. One was here on Vancouver Island, and the other was just last week in the interior. You don't like to see that happen to anybody, but we have to send out a clear message that some of these practices are simply inappropriate. I'll get you that figure in a little while.

J. Tyabji: I would say to the minister that it's about time we started to get serious with polluters in the province.

I would ask the minister if he plans to have a special fund set aside that comprises the money brought in through fines and other sources of revenue generation under his ministry that would pay for cleanup of some of our waterways -- for example, the Fraser River. Is he planning to use the money that comes in because of pollution to pay for getting rid of pollution or some of its by-products?

Hon. J. Cashore: On the question of the amount taken in in fines, it was $1,059,000 for the year 1990-91. We're still trying to find that for fiscal '91-92. I believe it was more.

With regard to the question of where this money goes -- I think that was the question -- it goes into the sustainable environment fund. That fund is within government, dedicated to an array of environmental measures. I read them into the record this morning. I think I left the copy of that document up in my office. I could read them into the record again.

J. Tyabji: I know the minister was canvassed to some extent by the third party Environment critic this morning with regard to the Environment Youth Corps. This is something that's of concern to me as well. We have a number of members in my constituency, and I've been contacted by past participants of the Environment Youth Corps from around the province. The minister said that the budget restrictions have resulted in cancelling this program.

It seems to me that provisions have been made in the Social Services ministry for a very similar program. We have seen that initiatives in the Advanced Education ministry and in many other ministries to train youth have been more or less eliminated. I understand that the minister has numerous priorities in his ministry. I'd like to know when we on the opposition side can see some investment from the government side in the youth of the province, to train them in necessary job skills, whether it be through the Environment Youth Corps or volunteer programs.

If the minister doesn't have any money to pay them, would he still be willing to work out something in conjunction with the federal government so they still receive job training, even if they're not getting paid a salary? A lot of these youth said that what they liked about the program was the access to information, experience and training. I understand that the minister can't afford to pay their wages anymore. There are so many employees in the Ministry of Environment that surely somewhere in there we could find someone who would be able to offer the same services and provide some guidance to them. If nothing more, could the minister commit to be a liaison or to have some staff who would work with community environmental groups to bring some youth on stream? Many of the youth have said that they would like to have some way of being included in the system. Even if the minister has a financial constraint, perhaps he could then work to have youth volunteers, who at least are acquiring job training and experience. They may be able to go out and get a job afterwards.

Hon. J. Cashore: As I said before, I really wasn't happy about having to see the end of the Environment Youth Corps, but in going through our mission statement and listing our priorities and trying to make some decisions so that we could have an expanded conservation officer service, so that we could have wildlife biologists, so that we could have the $10 million that we needed to catch up on inventory, which would require 40 full-time employees, we had to make some tough decisions. As important as the Environment Youth Corps was, it did not rank high enough in our listing of priorities. I think all of you who have families know what that's like, when you're looking at the family budget and there are some things where you say: "Okay, we can't do that this year." It's really unfortunate, because our young people certainly are very valuable and important in terms of a sustainable future.

I should point out that the dollars in that program were our dollars and also the dollars of the Ministry of Social Services, which were used.... Both of those envelopes, in a sense, were used to administer the Environment Youth Corps program. The Social Services portion of that money has gone back into the Ministry of Social Services for them to continue to administer a somewhat different program, but still dealing with youth.

As to the point about the ministry finding a way to work with young people and to facilitate and enable the worthwhile way in which young people would like to be part of the solution in working on environmental issues, I think that's a good suggestion. I do have to recognize that within the job descriptions of all of our employees, they are full-time jobs, and they are also doing vital things. We can always use more staff for a variety of needs. However, in the work that I have done in visiting staff I find that our staff are very open to those kinds of initiatives. We see it in different ways. We see it in the environmental education program. We see it in the kind of work that goes into programs involving the Ecosaurus and the program that is taking place in schools in environmental education. Also, I have dis-

[ Page 2052 ]

covered that people who work within the ministry living in different parts of the province are very community-oriented, by and large. Just as we're talking about volunteers working in some of these ways, our own staff do that in those communities. In those settings they probably are now working with a lot of the young people of the province.

Finally in looking at the role of youth, yes, I will continue to look for opportunities to facilitate the role of youth in working on environmental subjects.

J. Tyabji: I notice that the minister, on January 24, released the province's non-compliance pollution concern list. This is obviously a practice carried over from the former administration. There are 102 industrial operations and municipalities on this list. Would the minister please tell me what action he has taken subsequent to the releasing of the list to remove some of those groups from the list, when he plans to come out with another list, and if he feels that some of the initiatives he's undertaking in his ministry now will result in the list getting longer?

Hon. J. Cashore: I was talking, and I didn't hear the question.

The Chair: Could the member repeat the question?

J. Tyabji: Yes. Perhaps I should write everything down and shoot it across in paper airplanes or something. The question was with regard to the non-compliance pollution concern list which the minister released on January 24. There were 102 either industrial operations or municipalities on the list. What has he done since the release of the list to remove these people from the list so that they are no longer in non-compliance? Is he coming out with another list, and if so when? Does he believe that the initiatives...? Now you're not listening again. I'm going to have to repeat this last part of the question. Does he believe that any of the initiatives in his ministry are going to result in the list getting longer?

Hon. J. Cashore: I'm not sure. The way the question was phrased -- the list getting longer.... I think the goal is to get it shorter, to try to eliminate the list. The complution -- the pollution compliance list.... I think I'd better have a glass of water here.

J. Tyabji: Is it half empty or half full?

Hon. J. Cashore: This one's half full.

The compliance list is something that came about in the previous government, but with a great deal of encouragement from the official opposition at that time, and also from organizations like the West Coast Environmental Law Association. It comes out twice a year, so it's due to come out again, I would estimate, in about two and a half months.

[E. Barnes in the chair.]

How do we work with the 102 that are on the list? I think I've met with most of the municipalities that were on the list, because they don't like to be on the list and they want to talk to the minister about it. There are some situations where they feel that it's a bit unfair, given their circumstances with regard to primary and untreated sewage and that sort of thing.

The purpose of the list is to recognize that the public has a role in moving the environmental agenda forward, in the sense of public will leading to political will. So if the information is out there, that means that people's attention focuses on that, whether it's a corporation or a municipality. Our staff meets with these companies and with these municipalities. I can't say if they've met with all 102 of them, but one of the functions of the Ministry of Environment is to work with these people to help them get off the list.

R. Neufeld: Could you tell me what the rules are at present for leases on remote lakes for guided fly-in fishing? Do they compare much the same as with leases for the big game guiding associations?

Hon. J. Cashore: It's my understanding that a lease is a Crown land issue, but if you're referring to the guide outfitter, I believe that's a tenure situation. We may be able to answer some of those questions in more depth when we have Lands staff present in the House, which I think will be a little later on. There is an element of your question that relates to officials who I have here now.

R. Neufeld: I can wait until that time. I was just going by the list here and it said "Recreation," so I may have confused it a little.

Your ministry is going to allow a certain amount of bison hunting, up to 60 animals, in the Pink Mountain area. As I understand it, that's going to be bulls only, which apparently poses a bit of a problem because with bison, they're hard to distinguish. The big game guiding associations feel that there may be a lot of wasted meat left in the fields if that's the case. Do you have any information on that for me?

[4:00]

Hon. J. Cashore: The hon. member for Peace River North has outlined the scenario pretty well. Some bison there are not indigenous to the area. Those are the ones for which the licences are available, and 60 is about the right number. There is that potential problem, although we'll be monitoring it closely. In view of the management consideration involved in this process and given that we will be watching it closely, it should go ahead.

R. Neufeld: Yes, I understand. There are wood buffalo. I know that there are some historical problems which go back a long time. The major question that I have is: why bulls only when it is difficult? It could end up with carcasses being left behind, rather than being taken out, because hunters get a female. Couldn't there be a relaxation of that rule so that if they do happen to take a cow, there would be no problem, and they could 

[ Page 2053 ]

take it out? As it stands now, they could be charged, I guess.

Hon. J. Cashore: The wildlife management science feels that since there are only about 600 in the herd, we would rather retain the reproductive capability of cows; therefore the licensing would be done for the bulls. But we do recognize the problem in identification.

R. Neufeld: It has probably gone far enough now, but maybe it's something that we could take into account next season. If there is a presumed waste or if they find that a number of cows have been shot and left that.... I agree with you about target bulls. But if by mistake they take a cow, the hunters should not be penalized. I think that would go a long way towards making the guiding association a little happier with the rules.

I'm going to go on to some other areas here. One is the difficulty faced by municipalities and regional districts with landfills, specifically in the north. I'm sure you know how large the north is. My constituency covers 600 miles of highway and has very few people. You have places that are maybe 150 miles apart where small groups of 20 or 30 people live. They have dumps, but the rules in place to cover those dumps daily become difficult to enforce because there's such a small amount of waste. Also, in the winter it's frozen pretty hard. That happens even in Fort St. John and Fort Nelson. Does the ministry staff look at that in a favourable way? Or do they enforce the rules as they are? Down here it's fine to cover it up every day. It works; you're not frozen up. But up there it's a little different. Is there a little bit of lax like: we will just watch it and make sure that we don't get out of hand?

Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Chair, if there's one characteristic of this province that I think we all agree on it's that every area is unique. To apply a blanket policy to any part of the province and deny its unique aspect would simply not work.

Therefore in the plan to reduce solid waste by 50 percent, we are calling on regional districts to come forward with their solid waste management plans. These plans must be approved by the Ministry of Environment. Giving the authority to the regional districts to come forward with those plans ensures at least a degree of recognition of the unique aspects of those different areas. There are constraints when you realize that we have this goal in place that is time-driven, and we want to see those plans by 1995 at the latest. We'd like to see them sooner rather than later. We have an enormous problem in the province with regard to losing landfill space and also with the fact that some potentially worthwhile resources are being turned into garbage, when using the three Rs of reduce, reuse and recycle would be a much better use of that resource.

Yes, we are trying to recognize the differences by enabling that planning process to be driven by the regional district. I agree there needs to be flexibility.

L. Hanson: I ask leave of the House to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

L. Hanson: In the gallery today we have a number of grade 7 students from St. James School in Vernon. They are accompanied by Mrs. O'Leary, Mrs. Chan and Mr. Nick Shaigec. Would the House please join me in welcoming them to Victoria.

R. Neufeld: On landfills and toxic waste dumps, has the ministry been successful in negotiating for some part of British Columbia where this waste can be stored until it can be handled? I know they have been looking for a place for a number of years, and it's always "not in my backyard." I was wondering if you have a place now where batteries and those types of things can be stored.

Hon. J. Cashore: As I understand the question, it's about the process for establishing a toxic waste facility. We're going to be making a major announcement shortly with regard to the appointment of a toxics reduction commissioner in order to carry forward the work that we have brought into the ministry. We now have a toxics reduction branch headed by Mr. Don Fast. We are going to be using the principles of reduce, reuse and recycle and applying them to toxics. We will be going beyond that, because we recognize that once we apply those principles, we still have the problem that you have outlined; I guess we could call it the residual.

We need to be careful about how we go about it, so that we're not creating a monster which then has to be fed. This is sometimes the problem with certain types of facilities being set up; they're so costly that it requires the production of toxic waste in order to justify their cost. That's a sticky wicket that we need to address in tackling that issue.

We are also looking at the whole question of biomedical waste in this context as well, recognizing that much of the volume of so-called biomedical waste is really packaging and isn't toxic or biomedical at all. It's just that there is a great deal of packaging associated with waste, especially in hospitals. We need time to review that appropriately. It is true that we're going to need a facility that can deal with the residuals. As long as we don't have a facility, we're still going to see people going out under cover of darkness and dumping in the Fraser River. We don't want that.

R. Neufeld: Do you have a time-frame in mind, Mr. Minister, when you think that you're going to be able to secure a site for all of this toxic waste?

An Hon. Member: Is there any room in your riding?

Hon. J. Cashore: The question was just asked if there's any room in the Peace River North riding. So we get into the old NIMBY syndrome.

No, hon. member, I'm not going to give a time. I'm going to say that we're working on this appropriately with careful planning. We will be announcing time-

[ Page 2054 ]

lines, though, after we have the office up and running and are able to do the initial planning stage. Then we will be able to announce the plan and the program, and there will be dates attached to it.

R. Neufeld: The one problem with waste -- and I guess there's an awful lot more of it down here in comparison to the north -- is used oil. There is a tremendous amount of used oil. I've been in the oil industry for a number of years. I know that the governments before had told the oil companies that they had to do something with their waste oil, but most refineries won't take it because of the stringent rules regarding metals that are in the oil. They are faced with storing it. Specifically in my area there is a waste facility for used oil, but they have to send out a sample from each container that they get the oil from to get it tested to make sure it can be recycled. If it can't, it's just stored. The storage areas get bigger and bigger. Possibly the rules that the Environment ministry has on what constitutes reuseable and non-reuseable oil are a little too stringent. Do you have any thoughts on that?

Hon. J. Cashore: An excellent question, because this is one where we have announced a program that is working quite well. We've expanded the requirement to all retail outlets that they have to have facilities to receive oil back so that there's an alternative for people who change their own oil at home to take it back. As we know, Mohawk has been a good corporate citizen in being much in advance in this whole process. I think it will result that Mohawk, since it has the technology, will be receiving used oils from a number of retailers and, in doing that, rerefining themselves. I believe that we in government have a real responsibility through procurement policies to set good examples whereby our government vehicles use rerefined oil, which is in fact the situation in British Columbia. We have to be looking at other ways to get fleets in industry to use oil which we know is perfectly good. As for testing for possible contamination of the oil, I believe that the Mohawk facility has that testing capacity in their rerefining process, although I could be corrected on that.

R. Neufeld: Yes, they have that testing capacity, and they do recycle used oil, but they don't recycle all the used oil in British Columbia. Most outlets that sell oil have containers, but I guess some stores previously didn't have containers for bringing back used oil. In the north the service stations that I know of have tanks for the used oil. But the rules are set by the Ministry of Environment as to the amount of metals in the oil and what can be recycled. Is there any way that we can relax those rules so that more of that used oil could be recycled?

Hon. J. Cashore: We as government don't set the rules on what can be recycled, given the breakdown of the components. But I'd be interested in the information that the hon. member has. I've been advised that the member for Delta South has had a role in the Mohawk Oil process. I repeat that they're a good corporate citizen and have been a source of re-refined oil for provincial government vehicles for quite some time. We want to take that procurement policy and expand it within the Ministry of Government Services. I've had discussions with the hon. minister, and we're taking a look at a wide variety of ways that we might expand procurement of supplies to government that address a number of these issues.

R. Neufeld: Excuse me. I thought it was the ministry that set those guidelines, but I've just been informed that it's the industry itself that sets them.

I want to go to land use in the north with regard to seismic, oil-related activities and the crossing of creeks. In my constituency this is always a bone of contention. The problem is that the ministry has some fairly strict guidelines with crossing creeks and bringing in portable bridges.

[4:15]

If you're familiar with the north and through the muskeg, you will know that some of those creeks dry up totally in the summertime, but they wind tremendously. It's not as though it's just a river heading over that way; it goes all over. A seismic line is generally straight and can cross the creek quite often. Although the oil companies make a point of trying as often as they can to not cross the creek, it does happen. So having to facilitate quite a number of bridges just for a few days' work gets very expensive.

Is there some way that maybe the ministry could relax the rules there a little bit to allow these oil companies to use more of just a straight snow-fill? I think that this would suffice in most cases, because the creeks do dry up later in the summer.

Hon. J. Cashore: The short answer is yes. We're currently working with the industry and with the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources to address that issue. It's just as the member outlines, and hopefully we're going to come up with some agreements that will be more reasonable.

R. Neufeld: That's good to hear.

The other question with this section is on ice bridges across major rivers. Do the same rules apply for everyone in the building of ice bridges?

Hon. J. Cashore: I am advised that the problem in the past has been that once one of those bridges is established, there's a great deal of debris added to it. But when the member is asking about the rules that apply, I recall seeing something recently -- I think it was in the evening news -- where there was one set of rules for one industry and another set of rules for another industry. I wonder if the member could expand on that a bit, because that might help us get focused on where he's heading.

R. Neufeld: As I understand it, for crossing major rivers -- and there are a number of them in the north in my constituency that the oil companies cross almost every year, as do the logging companies; in fact, they will cross the Liard or the Fort Nelson River probably 

[ Page 2055 ]

half a dozen times or more -- in the logging industry you're allowed to use logs and then you freeze the water in, whereas in the oil industry you have to build an ice bridge out of straight ice. They can be across the same river going in the same part of the country. But I just wonder why there are different rules.

The reason I ask is that bridges enforced with logs are stronger, and it doesn't take nearly as much ice. If you're going to build a bridge with straight ice that's going to haul heavy loads for the oil patch, it has to be fairly thick, in excess of 48 inches, to haul an average load for an oil rig. It becomes very difficult to build those bridges without logs.

Hon. J. Cashore: At this point it's not clear that the Ministry of Environment has the authority over these roads. We're going to find out about that. It could come under the portion of our water legislation in and about a stream. The way the hon. member describes that situation, as I remember it, it was an ice bridge where logs were not required, while in another industry it was required.

We'll find out.

R. Neufeld: It's just a process where it would make it a lot easier for everyone to understand. I know that there's a little more debris with logs in the bridge, but the rules are that those bridges have to also be taken out, as I understand, so there isn't a lot of debris left in the river. Usually the rivers in the north flood pretty heavily in the springtime anyhow.

F. Gingell: If I may, I'd like to just go back to cover the subject of the disposal of lubricating oil, which the member for Peace River North brought up. Mr. Chairman, I'm sure you can appreciate the necessity for the company that is doing the rerefining to first of all ascertain that the material is lubricating oil, not bunker oil. You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

The second problem, of course, is whether or not the oil might contain any PCBs. All the members of the minister's department are aware of the problem that one company has up in Kamloops with what is really not a very great concentration. They just happened to go over certain accepted levels for transportation. Also recognizing the discussion that went on earlier with regard to toxic waste disposal facilities and the need to feed them with sufficient materials, I wonder whether the minister has considered the -- what seems to me to be obvious -- tie-in of the Alberta government's facility at Swan Hills and the need to dispose of certain amounts of PCB-laden lubricating oils from our province.

Hon. J. Cashore: I'd like to thank the member for Delta South for his input on this issue of lubricating oils and the role Mohawk has had. I think it would be good sometime to be able to chat with him more about this. We want to be making the best possible decisions to make use of that technology.

With regard to Swan Hills, I can only say that that is a possibility. We're looking at it. There is some thinking in the environmental community that it's inappropriate to transport waste across a border. I have some personal concerns about that. However, it may be that in certain circumstances, if you saw that there was a real, genuine, honest exchange, something might be worked out. For instance, we're receiving lead acid batteries from Alberta into the Cominco plant. I am not writing that off. It's one possibility that we would consider along with others. We have to wait on the process that would ensue from the appointment of our toxics reduction commissioner and the work of our toxics reduction office in the ministry.

F. Gingell: I appreciate that response very much. Recognizing the vast amount of money that the Alberta government has spent on the development of Swan Hills and the even vaster amounts of money that are required to maintain and operate it, rather than having British Columbia involved in duplicating similar facilities, it may well be worthwhile to consider working with Alberta. That would avoid B.C. having to develop such a facility, and we could compensate them in the environmental field in some other manner. The only reason that you know you've travelled from British Columbia to Alberta is that you've passed a sign in the road that says: "Welcome to Alberta. The price of gasoline is 33.9 cents."

Hon. J. Cashore: Again, we're willing to look at that as one possibility. We have to be awfully careful, though, when we look at certain types of options. For instance, if we are contracting into a process that you can't get out of, it means that you've contracted into a method which is not high on the hierarchy of reduce, reuse and recycle. In fact, it falls off that hierarchy. It's either the fourth or the fifth R. We really do have to take a look at it. But I think there is also probably some sensitivity on the part of Alberta with regard to the potential for importing. It's something where we would have to go cautiously. We have to be able to demonstrate to ourselves that we have really got a grasp on the need to reduce, reuse and recycle. If we start making it look as though we've come up with a magic solution, then it tends to say that we really don't have to worry too much about the basic problem; and yet we know we do.

F. Gingell: If I could just go back to the subject that was under discussion prior to that from the member for Peace River North, we were discussing the problem of landfills. You'll appreciate that in Delta South we have the Burns Bog landfill, something that really does cause us a lot of problems. All you've got to do is drive down Highway 99 in the middle of summer, and you know when you're close to Burns Bog.

The previous administration had given quite a bit of encouragement to proposals for the development of a private-enterprise solution at Burns Bog that would look into the composting of materials, the generation of power through stuff that was burnable and the recovery and recycling of all metals and materials. From sitting on the outside and listening to what was going on, it's my understanding that it required cooperation and decisions to be made by the Greater Vancouver Regional District with respect to it. The work and 

[ Page 2056 ]

encouragement of the previous administration in trying to make something happen fell upon somewhat stony ground. Perhaps you would comment, Mr. Minister, on the future of the Burns Bog dump, whether you see it as a high priority, and what the solutions might be.

Hon. J. Cashore: The Burns Bog landfill is in the solid waste plan of the GVRD. We're trying to control its growth by phasing out solid waste from the waste stream. Hopefully, that process is going to have some success.

With regard to the plan for a resource-recovery plant, which would produce pellets, that's really the fourth R of the recycling hierarchy. We really prefer the first three Rs, which means source separation. At this point in time, I would see that as a non-starter. We do have a resource recovery plan in Coquitlam. I haven't seen the latest statistics, but I think it is less than 18 percent successful in finding markets for items that they remove from the waste stream there.

J. Tyabji: Since we're on the Burns Bog issue, I'm sure the minister is aware that some very successful projects have been done in other jurisdictions -- particularly in the eastern United States -- by tapping into the methane that's being produced for the purposes of running electrical facilities and plants and basically using that energy very efficiently. The methane being produced is being utilized to produce energy rather than being released into the atmosphere. There was a pilot project in the Burns Bog. There have been some difficulties there. I wanted to know if the minister is planning to put any money towards this kind of initiative, if he's looked at where it's been successful in other jurisdictions and if he's planning to work with municipalities and regional districts to implement this kind of energy initiative in B.C.

Hon. J. Cashore: Methane is a greenhouse gas. We are looking at that whole thing under the greenhouse gas policy, which is part of the process that we're going through right now. I understand that the GVRD has conducted a study with regard to methane at Burns Bog. I think the member makes a good point: if we can find ways of using the energy that's there, we certainly should do that.

[4:30]

The answer to the question of whether we have dollars going into that at the present time is no. In combination with one other ministry of government, it certainly is an issue that we could well be looking to, depending on what comes out of those studies.

F. Gingell: If I may, while we're on the subject of methane gas recovery, I would like to add a little to this discussion. You will find that there has been as much work done in British Columbia as has been done in many other parts of the world. The original project was up in North Vancouver, where methane gas from an old landfill has been heating a field house and some other facilities at Capilano College for some time. When I was on the Fraser River Harbour Commission, we signed a major contract for the recovery of methane gases from the Richmond landfill, which is on federal land and controlled by the Fraser River Harbour Commission. There are many wells on it -- somewhere in the region of 50 or 60. The methane gas is sold to the Lafarge Concrete plant, which is immediately east of that facility.

The ability to recover this methane gas, which is really another part of the recycling process in its greater sense, can be better done and more greatly helped by proper planning of the disposal sites in the first place. It just happened that it did work well at the Richmond site. They had the right kind of situation. I am afraid that that may not be the case at the Burns Bog. I was wondering if the ministry would have given any direction in the development of any new landfill sites that will assist in the recovery and sensible use of methane gases that will be produced from that garbage in future years.

Hon. J. Cashore: I'd like to say that we want to avoid the development of new landfill sites. I don't think we would want to consider planning the placement of new landfill sites when we're actually trying to find measures to avoid them coming into existence.

Listening to the hon. member with regard to his knowledge about the use of methane gas, I was not aware of some of the very interesting information that Capilano College is actually.... Their field house is using methane, and also the Lafarge cement plant is. I wasn't aware of that. I would like to suggest that perhaps we could arrange for you, hon. member, to meet with our staff sometime to pursue some of these ideas, because we don't want to see them lost.

This morning when we were talking about natural gas, I made the comment that natural gas is not a renewable resource. Somebody sent me a note saying it is, in this Legislature.

J. Tyabji: When I was referring to some of the successful projects that are happening right now, I know there is one city in the east that is tapping into the landfill's methane. I don't know if we're pronouncing it "methane" or "meethane," to tell you the truth. Anyway, they're tapping into that, and I understand they're getting paid by Toronto to accept their garbage. So they're not only making money by taking in the garbage, but they're producing energy from that garbage and running the city on it.

My understanding is that they've made an artificial hill out of it. With the mass that's created, they got an artificial hill that they've tapped into. I know that landfills have been made into ski hills back there, because they don't have the beautiful mountains we have out here, and I guess that's as close as they could come.

I have here an article from the Vancouver Sun on Tuesday, January 29, 1991, so it's a bit dated. It's with regard to the Burns Bog landfill project to collect methane gas and burn it off. At that point it was not only behind schedule; it was 40 percent overbudget.

I'm wondering if the minister is considering in the future any projects similar to this by municipalities and regional districts and offering the resources that the 

[ Page 2057 ]

ministry has in terms of the research and the ability to look at the successful projects in jurisdictions like the eastern United States, where landfills have been tapped for this very purpose or, as the hon. member for Delta South pointed out, where we have field houses being run on it in B.C. Is the ministry looking at collecting all this data and doing similar pilot projects in B.C.?

Hon. J. Cashore: We would certainly be willing to look into that, and our staff would be available to discuss that possibility.

J. Tyabji: I would really like to encourage the minister in any support that he could offer through his staff to the other levels of government in this initiative.

Going on to the subject of air, which is further down -- I think we have canvassed most of the subjects in the first two sections -- I understand the minister will be joining many other environmentalists around the world in Rio toward the end of the week. I wish him all success on that trip. I hope he can solve all the problems of the world. I know it's a very ambitious convention and a very necessary one, and I hope there are a lot of very constructive decisions made there.

I also would commend the minister on the fact that he has proclaimed tomorrow as Clean Air Day. I think it's very important for us to have a day set aside to recognize that we must be working toward clean air.

Having said that, I would like to know what the minister is doing in the portfolio with regard to the two overriding global concerns: what he can do locally with regard to the greenhouse effect and the further degradation of the ozone layer.

Hon. J. Cashore: With regard to the greenhouse effect, the towards clean air strategy is a discussion paper that is inclusive of that concern. That means that process is going to be completed pursuant to any particular actions being taken other than those already in process. With regard to the ozone layer, we have stated that we are wanting to move towards a target of no production of CFCs and of facilitating the recovery of CFCs so that they're not reduced into the atmosphere. We've been moving in that direction.

J. Tyabji: A few things in response to that. With regard to the greenhouse effect, I know the minister has a discussion paper, but is there any research and development investment underway to look at alternatives, so that B.C. can be on the leading edge in terms of the global approach to alternative methods to the traditional fossil fuel-based methods of transportation? Is B.C. also looking at forms of transportation similar to what Japan is doing, where they're moving toward the railways? We have a terrible tendency in Canada in recent years to move away from the railways as an efficient form of mass transit, whereas they're expanding their railways in Japan. Has the minister looked at that as a possibility for mass transit?

I also wanted to know if the minister is working with some of the other ministries, specifically the municipalities minister, with regard to sustainable cities, and the whole issue of sustainable cities being built in such a manner that they don't result in a lot of traffic that also contributes to the general emission of greenhouse gases. I've canvassed this with the Minister of Municipal Affairs as well. He recommended that I ask you some of these questions.

Hon. J. Cashore: The point about railways is well taken. I think that the minister responsible for transit is in the House, and I know he's listening very closely to this emerging political will that we're seeing here. I think options such as, obviously, light rail transit and transit that make use of existing rail lines really need to be looked at. One that has been in the news a lot over the years, and it has certainly been a political football, has been the rail line on the south shore of Burrard Inlet. Every time an election would come along, somebody would announce that that thing was going to go ahead. I know it would go right past your house, hon. Chair. But when you really got down to looking at it, what they were talking about was three trains a day going in each direction. I don't see any transit system working unless it's frequent enough for people to get on board it and use it, and get in the habit of using it. We have to look carefully at those different possibilities, but there's no question that transit is a significant part of the solution to the air quality problem.

As we've said before, 75 percent of the pollutants are caused by the automobile. The AirCare program, which is going to start in September, is going to be very important because it will help to deal with vehicles that are emitting far beyond the standards that they should. As I said yesterday, I have some personal concerns about solving that problem in that it ends up impacting on people in poverty who often can't afford to have the more up-to-date state-of-the-art cars. That's another issue that we have to be concerned about. Obviously we can't afford to take any more chances with the air quality, and we have to try to move towards a really good achievable target.

As I have said, I'd like to see a 20 percent reduction in CO2 in 15 years and realistic targets addressing a lot of the other gases that are going into the atmosphere.

As you know, the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment has approved a stabilization concept. In my view, that simply isn't good enough, but at least it's a base line and a start. We have to move forward from that sort of approach.

I've mentioned also that we need to look at high-occupancy vehicle lanes. I know the Minister of Transportation and Highways is interested in that. There's an array of considerations that have to be put in place, including the bicycle as a means of getting to work. I will leave it at that.

J. Tyabji: I will defer to the minister.

Hon. G. Clark: I am delighted to take part in the discussion on B.C. Transit, for which I have responsibility. I want to assure all members of the House that we agree with the member opposite and are delighted that she shares our concern about transit issues as they pertain to clean air.

[ Page 2058 ]

One of the problems generally in government is that most strategies to deal with pollution deal with point sources, when many of the real problems we're facing as a society are non-point sources. In many respects, the automobile has always been viewed as a non-point source and as a difficult one to control in some respects.

[4:45]

Clearly, when you look at the southeast corner -- we have members here in the House -- and see the traffic problems with cars going by in rush hour with one occupant and spewing out tremendous problems in an airshed which has serious environmental problems compounded by other pollutants in the area, such as cement plants.... Burrard Thermal is a problem that needs to be dealt with.

When you look at that whole area and how to deal with air quality, the answer is so obvious: we have to do better on transit. We have to do better in terms of high-occupancy vehicles, and that is being addressed. We have to do much more when it comes to transit. I look forward to my estimates. Maybe I can ask this question again, because I hope we will have some exciting announcements soon. We're working very hard on some major initiatives in public transit, so that we can deal not only with the efficient movement of people, which is good for the economy, and not only with the equity considerations, in terms of individuals who can't afford to buy a home, but also with insurance and other matters, and also with the air quality question, particularly in some parts of the lower mainland, where there are very serious problems.

Most of the last studies done on air quality in that region were done between 1972 and '75 -- in fact, all the major studies done on air quality that were dusted off by the previous administration when air quality became a matter of concern. They show that we have, in some cases, the potential to be almost as bad as or worse than Los Angeles because of the air inversions in that area. So we need to take some action. We are determined to take some action. The Minister of Environment, who comes from that region, is acutely aware of that, so we can anticipate some major announcements over the coming months and years of this administration to deal with this very important concern. We are glad the members raised it, and we look forward to the Liberals supporting our initiatives over the next few years.

J. Doyle: Mr. Chairman, I'd like leave of the House to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

J. Doyle: Today in the galleries from the riding of Columbia River-Revelstoke, which I'm honoured to represent, we have 17 students from Edgewater in the beautiful Columbia Valley. Along with them is their teacher, Mr. Veysey, and parents Bonnie Hamilton, Margaret Feldmann, Jim Gilbert and Ruth Wingert. As we know, it's a long trip for these people to come down here by school bus, and I know they worked very hard over the last months on bottle drives and other things to make sure they could get here. I do hope they enjoy their trip. I'd ask you to join with me in welcoming them to the Legislature.

D. Lovick: Yesterday I took advantage of the opportunity in the minister's brief absence to sketch out in some detail what the consultation process was for the issue of environmental assessment. As you well know, our government has introduced a discussion paper called "Reforming Environmental Assessment in B.C." What we intend to do is table legislation on that very subject after some rather elaborate consultation processes.

What I want to do is simply offer to the opposition critic an opportunity, as I extended to one of her colleagues yesterday, to ask any questions about that environmental assessment initiative, and see if she wants to pose any questions while I am in the House. I'd be happy to answer them if she wishes to do so. Failing that, Mr. Chairman, I'm perfectly prepared to sketch out some of the detail of what we're actually looking at under the heading of environmental assessment. But I defer to my colleague should she wish.

J. Tyabji: I apologize for having missed the first part of the comments. However, with regard to environmental assessment, I understand that we're talking about the review of the environmental assessment process. I do have a lot of concerns. When I was talking to the minister yesterday, he indicated that 90 percent of the appeals are currently turned down. So we have a 10 percent success rate. If that means that 90 percent of the appeals are really not legitimate, then that's a huge waste of money. However, if it doesn't mean that 90 percent are not legitimate, it means that some legitimate claims are not going through, are not being successful, and that in itself is a concern. Where I have a concern is that the way it has existed so far is really, for a 10 percent success rate, not worth the money. However, if a lot more than that are justifiable claims, we have to be seriously concerned with the process. That would be the main gist of what I would be bringing up.

D. Lovick: The question is perfectly legitimate, and I had the advantage of listening to the conversation that took place in the House the other day. I would point out, however, that it's only tangentially connected to the specific issue of the environmental assessment review process. The important point that emerges -- and I think it's probably instructive for us to focus on this, albeit for just a moment -- is the issue of what in fact is being appealed. Ultimately, one of the purposes of the new environmental assessment legislation will be to make very clear what is on the table and what can be appealed.

The difficulty we have right now, quite frankly, is that environmental assessment as a concept tends to be not rigorously defined or at least defined in a way that is universally accepted and understood. The result is that all kinds of people will look to the environmental assessment process or the Environmental Appeal Board as a court of last resort, and therefore they will bring to that all kinds of questions and concerns about the nature of all development and all processes going on.

[ Page 2059 ]

What we are trying to do at the moment, essentially, is clarify the regime under which we are governed, so that everybody knows the rules of the game vis-�-vis the environment. The assessment process at the moment is effectively under the aegis and responsibility of three particular processes. One has to do with mining development, another has to do with energy and the third is a kind of catch-all, which deals with the others, called the major projects review process. The attempt of the new legislation will be.... I hope I'm in order, Mr. Chairman, talking about proposed legislation.

The Chair: You're sort of in and sort of out. But I understand, hon. member. Proceed.

D. Lovick: All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I waver from the straight and narrow, please advise.

The intention is to try to combine the three processes under one heading, thereby to streamline them, to make them more efficient and to prevent unnecessary duplication and overlapping. I think that is a noble and necessary initiative and aim for environmental assessment.

The predicament is compounded by the fact that many people are convinced that the existing regime of legislation doesn't provide us with an opportunity to grapple with what I have, on occasion, referred to as the existential question -- namely, whether or not development should go ahead -- rather than focusing more specifically on what the impact of a given development might be. As the member well knows, that, of course, opens the doors to a number of other initiatives that are currently ongoing, among them the Commission on Resources and Environment.

In any event, I think that the member's references to the Environmental Appeal Board probably deal more specifically with something like pesticide permits, and that, of course, is an existing regime of the ministry.

I see that the minister is back in the House, so clearly he is the one to whom I ought to defer and give that back to.

J. Tyabji: Through you, hon. Chair, to the minister, this is a very confusing format, by the way: to have questions to you, then to the Minister of Finance and then to the parliamentary secretary.

However, to pick up where we left off, we were talking about air quality and specifically about greenhouse emissions. You mentioned that you were looking at a 20 percent reduction in CO2 over 15 years. I would put it to the minister that just based on the advancing technology in cars, we would see a 20 percent reduction in CO2 emissions because they're going to become more efficient. As the minister knows, the gas mileage in cars has almost tripled. So even though there may be more cars on the road, I would assume that based on the initiatives of this minister, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Transportation, we could do a lot better than 20 percent in 15 years. In fact, with some of the gasohol products currently on the market, if there were some encouragement in the way of financial incentives for people to go in that direction, we would see a much higher percentage. Either that or you'd see the 20 percent achieved a lot sooner. You'd see a lot greater than 20 percent achieved in 15 years.

Having said that, though, we were talking about initiatives with regard to the ozone layer. The minister mentioned that he wants to reduce the production of CFCs or anything that has to do with CFCs. He didn't talk about HCFCs. As the minister knows, the federal Standing Committee on the Environment has called numerous times for a reduction in all HCFCs and related products that are continuing to degrade the ozone layer.

When the minister said CFCs, was he also talking about related molecules that result in the same degradation but perhaps at a slower rate? Is he prepared to expand the definition of items to be excluded from production?

Hon. J. Cashore: We've been working on the draft regulations for about a year within the ministry, and it should be about three or four months until we come out with those. The question of compounds and substances that go beyond the strict definition of "CFC" will be included. So we'll be looking at all aspects of that.

J. Tyabji: Keeping to the subject of air, I would like to talk about an issue with regard to Chapman Cedar's waste permit and the air emission problem that has been brought to my attention -- and, I'm sure, the minister's and also the Municipal Affairs minister's attention -- with regard to air quality and burning. This is not an isolated issue. As the minister is aware, there are all kinds of problems. I know that there is a bill on the order paper that we won't be talking about here with regard to some air emissions. I'm wondering if the minister has a policy in place or is planning to implement some kind of legislation wherein we won't see businesses and residences so close together that you will get the kinds of air emissions that are not compatible. I know that in my riding, for example, development has taken place at such a rate that you have residential encroachment in industrial areas and vice versa. They just don't mix. This is definitely an environmental concern, in that the air quality in the residential area degrades dramatically when it's adjacent to these kinds of businesses that have these air emissions. I'm just wondering what kinds of policies the minister has in place.

Hon. J. Cashore: The member defines the problem quite well: urban encroachment. We have an interface there, which is a problem, between a tepee burner, which has been there for some time but that we already know is a problem.... As we've stated in our air quality paper, we're flying a plan where we'd like to see them phased out within five years. But at the same time, when we talk about the kind of zoning that would prevent that situation from occurring, the fact is that so often it's the urban area that moves into the area where that industrial activity or, in some cases, farm activity is, when there are other kinds of conflicts. Therefore it becomes a zoning issue that would involve the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, if we're talking about controlling 

[ Page 2060 ]

the proximity of the two types of activity -- housing on the one hand and an industrial use on the other. Obviously the Minister of Environment would be involved in that, but the lead role would be the Ministry of Municipal Affairs in terms of the locale of a housing development vis-�-vis industry. I think that the main line of defence or attack from the point of view of the Ministry of Environment is to be addressing the issue of point sources of pollution and finding the standards and also the cooperative approach that enables us to get rid of those problems.

[5:00]

In terms of the problem as the hon. member outlines it, there's also the issue of the local authorities and their approach to zoning. Recently I had occasion to fly over the region that the hon. member was describing. I was shocked to see the growth on the hillsides. It was pointed out to me that the way some of those housing developments are set up, there's a real fire hazard that could be similar to what we saw in southern California. In some cases it was quite obvious from the way those plans were laid out that people might not have an escape route if the forest started to burn, as one did a few weeks ago. So there are some real concerns about the way that urban encroachment relates to the environment.

J. Tyabji: That brings me back to the issue that I just briefly discussed earlier but which I would really like to spend some time on, and that's with regard to sustainable cities.

I know that obviously the Minister of Municipal Affairs, to a large extent, should be developing initiatives with regard to the layout of cities in conjunction with the other levels of government. However, I do believe -- and I would beg the minister's indulgence in this -- that it's the minister's responsibility to take the lead role in developing a strategy for sustainable cities. I believe it's the minister's responsibility to look at the strategy for sustainable cities in terms of things like the village node concept, wherein you would have -- as the minister is no doubt aware -- as in Europe.... I know they have done this very successfully in Holland, where they have very densely populated areas and yet have managed to deal very successfully with things like this. They have walkways and boulevards, and the internal structure of the village is all walking and bicycling, but the village nodes are then connected to the main centre by the arterial routes. I put this to the minister because the area that I come from is a good example of what happens when growth occurs without an overriding strategy that takes into account the environment.

As I am sure the minister is aware, we have had a series of conferences in Kelowna called Choosing Our Future. The municipality has taken the initiative in bringing together the people of Kelowna to talk about what they see as the number one issue. And the number one issue is environment. I believe the number one issue is environment, because the way that the growth has expanded has taken the environment into account least of all. We are now faced with issues of water quality, water quantity -- which will be somewhere, I would say, probably.... Throughout the province, with the exception of some of the northern reaches, we will be facing those issues in a lot of jurisdictions.

I'm sure the minister has read a book by Paul Ehrlich called Population Explosion, which goes into the whole issue of the underground aquifers that feed the cities; and that there are these limits to growth that are currently not being addressed in the decision-making that's in place, because the decision-making in place takes into account one-year and two-year plans and the aquifers might last for another 20 years and then they're gone. At the current rate of growth of the population of B.C., if we don't have a strategy for sustainable cities in place now, by the time we get to the point where we have run out of things like water or land or agricultural land, it will be too late to develop that strategy.

So I put to the minister: what is his concept of a sustainable city, and what has he done to bring that about? He will obviously have to work with some of the other ministers -- and the first one who comes to mind, of course, is the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

Hon. J. Cashore: I think that's a very good suggestion, and it is a process that is under active consideration by government. When I say "by government," I would say municipal government, provincial government, federal government, regional government. It's under consideration not only by the Ministry of Environment, because all ministries have an environmental mandate; therefore the Ministry of Municipal Affairs addressing zoning issues is an aspect of it.

I was at a meeting this morning where we talked about the possibility of putting covenants on land that would be based on ecological principles with regard to how land would be used and developed. I think that the conference that the hon. member described up in Kelowna is a good example of the type of an event that brings in representatives of all those different governments and departments of government. Even more importantly, local citizens are involved in that visioning and that process of developing those ideas. That's how the solution really comes: by people coming together. It's not the responsibility of one ministry. No ministry should avoid its responsibility. Every ministry, every government and every individual should recognize that they have a responsibility to have input into that process and enable that to happen.

It is reflected in the kind of leadership that our Premier brought forward with the Georgia basin concept. He realistically indicated that there are development approaches to livable regions that need to be addressed. He had a good track record on that during his time as the mayor of Vancouver. We have to recognize that we can't just put a freeway through a city and destroy neighbourhoods. All those factors have to be considered.

The other day I saw a photograph that was taken from a satellite at nighttime. There is no distinguishable border between Vancouver and Seattle; it's just a continuous glow of lights. There are larger globes of that light up in the Vancouver area and again in the Seattle-Tacoma area. We're seeing that that is increasing. Obviously we have to be coming forward with better and more livable communities. The kinds of 

[ Page 2061 ]

suggestions that the hon. member is making are appropriate.

Also, the Round Table on the Environment and the Economy has been doing some work on developing sustainable communities. We need to remember the resources that the Round Table provides. They've been working on developing social equity goals, adopting a series of ecological limitations and working toward economic viability. Those are all factors that come into the concept of developing livable types of cities, sustainable communities. There is just one that I would mention, up on Saanich Inlet, the Bamberton development. If the hon. member hasn't had the opportunity, she might be interested in looking into that. That is being developed on the concept of a sustainable community. It's running into some opposition with regard to those who do not want to see any development there at all. But if we're going to have population expansion, we have to take a look at building those values into the places where we will have people living.

J. Tyabji: I would really encourage the minister in his concept of convenants on land. That would definitely avoid a lot of the problems we've seen in terms of rapid development in the Okanagan. I would put to the minister, too, that if he has the powers -- and he does -- to be dealing with the municipalities and the regional districts with regard to waste management plans, that's all tied into the whole issue of sustainable cities. It would be a very good idea for him and the Ministers of Finance, Transportation and Municipal Affairs to sit down and polish up the idea of the sustainable city so that we can all share in the development process.

[M. Lord in the chair.]

The Round Table is doing a lot of very commendable work. Some of the things that perhaps they don't have access to are the research resources that the ministry has on the successful concept of sustainable cities, which are going on around the world. Of course, when the minister is in Rio at the end of the week, he'll be meeting with people from around the world who are developing very exciting initiatives similar to this. I'm sure that we in the House would be happy to hear him report back to us on some of the initiatives that perhaps could be implemented in B.C.

The minister was talking about having flown over Kelowna and seen the development that took place. He may be aware of an issue with regard to Coronado Crescent. It's quite a convoluted issue and has been going on for about two years. A Ministry of Environment official came from Penticton to deal with just the basic geological problems. As I'm sure the minister is aware, there's a subdivision at the base of a hill. Some developers wanted to develop a spot on top of the hill and on part of the side of the hill. Through the various convolutions of municipal and provincial governments and developers and residents, they've reached a standstill.

The bottom-line concern is that there has been a lot of removal of vegetation. Because of this removal of vegetation, there is the potential for some very serious erosion, even to the point of a landslide, which would have the hill ending up in the back yards of the people who live in the subdivision. Or it could be worse than that. This is obviously a serious concern.

What I'd like to know is if the minister is looking into this issue and, if so, what he would propose be done. Is he considering reviewing the current ministry regulations as to acceptable standards with regard to vegetation removal from steep hillsides? As the minister is aware, we had a very serious problem in my riding -- before it was my riding -- with regard to the Philpott Road slide, where there were two fatalities. It could be seen to be within his mandate to introduce some regulations with regard to vegetation removal above or on a steep slope, because the existing regulations in both cases are not adequate to remove the risk of a landslide.

Hon. J. Cashore: Under the present legislation that exists in the province, this issue, if it's within a municipality -- and I assume it is.... Perhaps the hon. member could indicate if Coronado Crescent is within the municipality.

Interjection.

Hon. J. Cashore: It is. Okay. This is a zoning issue which would relate to the municipality; or, if it is outside the municipality, the issue as described would relate to Transportation and Highways. Under the present legislation, the Ministry of Environment would become involved if there was an application for a water licence or a waste discharge permit. I know the hon. member is saying: "Well, you're the Minister of Environment. You should have concern for all of these areas." That is true. We would certainly be involved in a consultative way where appropriate, but the present legislative regime makes it very clear that the first line of responsibility is within those other two ministries.

J. Tyabji: I'm sure the minister is aware that the Ministry of Environment has been involved for two years in this area with regard to the potential for waterway contamination. There are problems currently, because some of the vegetation which has been removed -- including many trees -- has been put into troughs where water runs off the hill, and this could cause a backflow. It's all related.

With the Philpott Road situation, obviously the Ministry of Environment is involved there as well. As the minister is no doubt aware, what happened was that the water built up at the top where there had been a clearcut. Because of the many different conditions, as the report spelled out -- and there are many people, including myself, who are not happy with the conclusions of the report, but believe that the data was very good -- when the water was finally released, and it came down the hill, it became the Ministry of Environment's problem.

It's the same thing with Coronado Crescent. It has been the Ministry of Environment's problem, in that there's the potential for erosion and waterways being blocked. It will be the Ministry of Environment's 

[ Page 2062 ]

problem if a severe landslide occurs because of water diversion. Is the minister prepared to take preventive action so that we don't have another Philpott Road and so that we don't end up with any further problems on Coronado Crescent?

The regulations as they exist are not strict enough in terms of guidelines. When the minister talks about covenants with regard to land use, I would inform him that any hillside in this area with a grade over a certain steepness would qualify for a covenant that would not allow the removal of vegetation which could then contribute to potential erosion.

I think those kinds of things are very much in his ministry. I know the zoning problem is the city's, but the city will not move to do anything with the zoning when there's this kind of potential, because the regulations aren't tight enough right now.

[5:15]

Hon. J. Cashore: In this specific situation, the way in which the ministry becomes involved is exactly as I described it where the water licensing or the waste discharge situation is involved. We will get specifics on this. I can't possibly have the details on every specific situation in the province, but we will get them and get back to it later on, hon. member.

J. Tyabji: I would like to move on to the area of water now. We're going through some of these sections a little bit more quickly, and I know our Agriculture critic will be joining us because he has some questions with regard to aquaculture.

First I'd like to ask you how much money you're spending and what your initiatives are with regard to some kind of alternative weed control in the lakes. Of course, I'm getting at the issue of the Eurasian milfoil that we've had in the Okanagan, where the control of the Eurasian milfoil is critical to the operation of tourism and to the valley's economy. Because of the budget cuts -- I believe there's a 25 percent cut from the ministry to the Okanagan water basin -- the entire program has been cancelled. That's going to result in some areas, such as Vaseux Lake, which is in the Minister of Agriculture's riding, being completely choked with milfoil. I understand that the minister is under budget restrictions. However, this is a very high priority. I wonder if the minister has adequately assessed the impact of the budget cuts, because he may not have been aware that the Okanagan water basin would completely cancel the program as a result of those budget cuts. Is the minister aware of some of the alternatives to the cutting of Eurasian milfoil, such as the release of sterile carp, which has been studied to some extent in the Prairies? He hasn't listened.

Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. member, the fact is that it was a 12 percent cut provincewide, and it is something that I am concerned about. We certainly need the milfoil control program continued. I think it behooves the municipalities in particular areas to recognize the importance of sharing the cost of that with regard to the benefits that are quite considerable to any particular area in the province. Since the province has been carrying the lion's share of the cost, I think it's not inappropriate for the local municipalities and the people who live in the district to consider taking up their share of the cost in order to enable the program -- which is a good program -- to continue.

J. Tyabji: My understanding is that there's not going to be any consideration for an increase in funding, despite the fact that the program has been cancelled. Is that correct?

Hon. J. Cashore: I wonder if the hon. member could clarify what she means by "cancelled." That doesn't fit in with the information I have.

J. Tyabji: My understanding is that the Okanagan water basin has decided not to go ahead with the program to cut the Eurasian milfoil this year, because of the cuts from the ministry. That's my understanding.

Hon. J. Cashore: I'll come back to that. That doesn't fit with the information I have, so we'll try to get an answer to that right away. First of all, I think we have to clarify that point before we can go on with that issue.

With regard to Coronado Crescent....

J. Tyabji: Where can I get some guys like that?

Hon. J. Cashore: Well, hon. member, that's exactly what I said when I first started doing my opposition role as the Environment critic, and before that, as Social Services critic.

Anyway, with regard to Coronado Crescent, the Ministry of Environment has requested the developer to install drainage culverts in several gullies, and the developer has complied.

J. Tyabji: I would urge the minister to personally go to the Philpot Road area and take a look at the situation -- if he hasn't done so already -- and to also take a look at the Coronado Crescent issue, and then consider that the regulations are not strong enough and should be reviewed.

Going back to the question that I had asked with regard to Eurasian milfoil, I would again like to ask the minister if he has considered some of the alternatives to the cutting of Eurasian milfoil, which include the release of sterile carp -- which they've been piloting in the Prairies -- or alternatives that I may not be aware of.

Hon. J. Cashore: There are scientists within the ministry who are professionals who are aware of the literature that is coming out on such issues, and they keep apprised of it, so I can only assume that in that process they are aware of procedures taking place in other jurisdictions. If the member wishes to make information that she has available, I'll see that it is made available to our staff.

J. Tyabji: I'd be quite happy to share the information with regard to the programs that are occurring in 

[ Page 2063 ]

the Prairies. Of course, I understand you have scientists on staff, and I know that they are very aware of all the programs that are going on. However, I'm asking the minister in which direction his leadership is taking the staff, because I'm sure the hon. minister would not be leaving decisions of that magnitude to his staff, but would rather be looking to his staff for the data to provide him with the material so that he can make those kinds of decisions.

I would like to now move on to an issue that is in a riding that is very close to where we are right now -- and I know the minister is extremely familiar with this -- and that's with regard to the Bilston-Metchosin Creek watershed group's concerns with regard to the Lilydale Cooperative and the minister's authorization or permit, where he actually increased the amount of discharge that was being allowed rather than deal with the issue of trying to address the fact that they were in excess of their permit. I would like to canvass the minister for some general thoughts on this issue.

Hon. J. Cashore: I'd like to ask the member.... She said "Metchosin." I'm not familiar with the specifics of this issue. I'm sure she can appreciate that I have hundreds of specific issues from all over the province coming in regularly. No, I'm not personally intimately familiar with this issue. I think she said "Metchosin," but I didn't get the name of the committee that she was referring to.

J. Tyabji: I'm talking about the Bilston-Metchosin Creek watershed committee. Their goal is to preserve the Bilston Creek watershed system. Their concern has been an ongoing concern. They have been dealing with the Ministry of Environment, and also with the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services, whose riding it's in. It's with regard to the Lilydale Cooperative, which is a poultry-producing plant. They were emitting effluents in excess of their permit, and when this was brought to the attention of the Ministry of Environment repeatedly by the local residents, they were then issued a permit to increase the amount of effluents.

If the minister is not aware of it, I would like to flag this as an issue that I think he should become aware of. If it is the tendency of the ministry -- and I am sure this is not the intention of this minister -- to increase the emissions allowances for a permit when a company is found in violation of it, then I would definitely like to call the minister to task on that and encourage him not to go that route, because I think that obviously the reason you have a permit in the first place is to stay within the guidelines of the permit. Beyond that, it really defeats the purpose of having a permit in the first place if as soon as they're in contravention of it, you issue a different permit.

Hon. J. Cashore: We'll get that information.

J. Tyabji: Actually, one issue that I hadn't canvassed in air -- I would like to back up slightly -- was with regard to slash-burning. As I am sure the minister is aware, this is an issue that will not go away. We understand the constraints on the forest industry, and that the forestry companies are hard put these days to make ends meet. However, I think that the issue is not one of economics but one of air quality. I'm sure the minister will agree with me when I say that in my area, and I'm sure in many other areas where there's a local inversion, when slash-burning occurs, people who have prior sensitivity to asthmatic problems and bronchial infections are adversely affected, and there is a resulting cost to the health care system.

What I would put to the minister is: first of all, what are his plans with regard to slash-burning? Does he have any alternatives to offer the Minister of Forests? Could he and the Minister of Forests and the Minister of Health work together to divert the funds that would be used to address the respiratory problems that are caused by slash-burning and put those into alternative methods of dealing with the wood waste in the first place so that we don't have a need for slash-burning?

Hon. J. Cashore: We put out a discussion paper on smoke management. We're seeking the input of members and others with regard to the ideas that are put forward there. We are working with the Ministry of Forests and the Ministry of Health. We share the concern. We're very cognizant of the fact that given a combination of point sources, this often results in inversions that cause increased visits to emergency wards because of respiratory illnesses. I don't think we can resolve this by taking a doctrinaire position on any one issue that has been identified here. That's the reason that we are moving forward with this discussion paper at this time. That discussion paper will lead to action. At this point we are dealing with the input. I pointed out earlier that in that paper we recommend phasing out beehive burners within five years.

When it comes to smoke management issues vis-�-vis slash-burning, it involves the Ministry of Forests. It also involves the Ministry of Environment in some areas. There's a wildlife management technique that involves some controlled burns as a prescription to enhance wildlife habitat in some instances. That is an approach that some people might take exception to, but it does fit in with a wildlife management procedure that has existed for quite some time. If you were to take that one particular method by itself, you may see it continuing in that situation. Maybe not, but that's why we have to have this time to review it.

J. Tyabji: First of all, I'd like the minister's explanation for how slash-burning enhances wildlife habitat, in his opinion. I would like the minister to tell me if he is comfortable with the previous administration's approach to slash-burning. Does he feel comfortable that this is a proper way of approaching wildlife habitat management?

Hon. J. Cashore: I feel as comfortable as anyone who is moving forward can feel, as we are moving on a number of fronts. I feel very comfortable about the fact that the Minister of Forests has announced a new forest practices code process, which is under way.

[ Page 2064 ]

With regard to the earlier question, this is a process that has been used for a long time to create a food source for ungulates.

J. Tyabji: I'd like the minister to be more specific with regard to the food source for ungulates. I know that's also the justification for clearcutting. I'd like to hear this minister's interpretation of how the area is enhanced in terms of the food source.

Hon. J. Cashore: It's not clearcutting. I didn't say clearcutting. I said that it was a prescribed burn with regard to habitat for wildlife. The way it works is it removes decadent wood and enables new growth to take place, and that new growth is a food supply for wildlife. That is the process that has happened naturally throughout many centuries, but we're into a situation in many parts of the province where we have opted for a management approach. If the hon. member is opposed to that management approach, then I think that we have to take a look at what the potential ramifications of that are.

[5:30]

One area of the province that I understand is really the most intact wildlife area where those management procedures have not been applied and where there is still a balance is the northwest corner of the province, the area of the Tatshenshini River. But the fact is, hon. member, most other areas of the province are into a management situation, especially in some areas in the Kootenays. I'm not saying at this time that that method is going to continue to be the method. I'm just advising the member that it is a process at the present time.

I don't think it's right to say that this is a continuation of the program of the previous administration. That shows a great ability to state the obvious. I would say that good government involves the fact that there are good people in government who aren't dependent upon politicians, but who have policies in place that they've been carrying out almost in spite of politicians for an awfully long time. These are good people following scientific procedures, which are often subject to change that involves a combination of political and other concerns. But the fact that we haven't turned the world upside down in six months is something I'm proud of. We've moved forward with logical, consistent, intelligent procedures in a timely manner, and that's good government.

D. Symons: I have difficulty with slash-burning as well, because in farming techniques I know that you must put something back into the land if you expect the land to produce in perpetuity. You have to plow back in and leave land fallow or add fertilizer or do something, but you have to put nourishment back into the land. It seems to me that when you're burning slash, you're taking nutrients away that could otherwise work back into the cycle and help produce trees in the future. I believe they'll find out on investigation that.... I remember that when I was a youngster they were producing not videos at that time but movies showing -- what did they call it? -- the "super tree." It was going to be this new tree of the future, because they were picking the best, fastest-growing ones. But what they're discovering now is that second-growth forests are not as good lumber as old growth. That's part of the reason the forest industry wants old growth.

Hon. D. Miller: You should have raised those during the Forests estimates.

D. Symons: I'm doing this from the environmental viewpoint. I'm thinking that if you're going to keep taking the trees out and harvesting the trees but not putting something back into the soil, you're only going to perpetuate this business of each growth, 50 or 75 years on, being poorer and poorer quality.

We're not building up for our future generations. Would possibly slicing this up as they do now in the local areas...? If you have your trees cut down, they'll come and chop it up into sawdust and cart that away. If this was done out in the forests, and it was left on the forest floor, would this not possibly produce some nourishment for future forest growth?

Hon. J. Cashore: Yes, hon. Chair. Maybe we could hire a few beavers that would chew up the wood forest out there, so that we wouldn't have the problems with economies of scale of getting the wood to where it could be chipped, so that we could get that biomass back there.

Hon. member, as I've said before, we have a very good paper out there pursuant to some new policies that are going to come forward in consultation with the Ministry of Forests. This is an appropriate method of input, and we would be glad to hear what you have to say about that.

It is true that if you do a scorching-type burn at a high heat, you destroy the soil. That's quite different than the wildlife management technique that has existed in this province for a long time. It continues to exist in a number of jurisdictions, and it is considered one of the major methods of maintaining the ungulate population. Again, if the hon. member is going to say, "Stop doing that; shut it down" -- and by the way, that's not an intense burn; it's done in a way that enables a very fast regeneration of a new growth of food supply for those ungulates -- that's fine, but bring forward your alternatives. The people of British Columbia want to see those populations held in balance.

D. Symons: I thought I was making a suggestion. You said bring forward alternative suggestions. I certainly wasn't saying that we're scorching the ground, as you say; I was saying that you're removing this. It's not that you're burning the nutrients out of the soil; it's simply that you're taking away a crop. When the farmers finish taking the wheat off the field, they do not scorch the soil. I'm simply saying that they plow back something into the soil to make it useful for the future.

Could the debris that's left after the logging has taken place be chipped? It's chipped in the cities. The chips could be spread around somewhat, so at least when they rot and break down, it would put some nutrients back into the soil, rather than see them go up in smoke, adding to the environmental degradation of 

[ Page 2065 ]

the air -- putting something back in rather than removing it, and creating problems rather than solving them.

Hon. J. Cashore: I find the member's comments interesting. I have invited him to participate in the process, pursuant to our smoke-management paper and also with regard to our ensuring-clean-air process. I'm not sure that extending this to-ing and fro-ing on this point is going to be that helpful.

J. Tyabji: I'm happy to see that the Minister of Forests has joined us.

Hon. D. Miller: I'm happy to be here.

J. Tyabji: It's very timely for him to be here, because we are talking about slash-burning.

Interjection.

J. Tyabji: Perhaps if he were a more pleasant sort, we would have talked about it in his estimates.

However, I would like to address a couple of comments that the Minister of Environment made. He keeps going back to this idea of a population imbalance and that somehow slash-burning and its enhancement of the wildlife habitat is going to help the population imbalance. I'm sure the minister is aware that as man has interfered with the process of nature, you can't then go back to nature's way of doing things and say: "In this case we'll interfere, and in this case we'll leave it to nature." It's inconsistent.

The hon. member who talked previously had an excellent point when he talked about the way that farmers manage production. When we're talking about the environment, obviously we're talking about two different things: the Minister of Forests is dealing with the working forest, and the Minister of Environment is dealing with the forest ecosystem. They're very different. I think that's a fundamental difference that governments have failed to recognize.

Interjection.

J. Tyabji: The Minister of Forests would love to participate in this estimates debate. He is dealing with something very different from what the Minister of Environment is dealing with. It's a very important distinction to make. The Minister of Environment is responsible for making sure that ecosystems are maintained and that slash-burning is something that the Minister of Environment has to deal with. The Minister of Environment has been suggesting that we should make a specific recommendation or a specific statement with regard to slash-burning. I'm prepared to make that. As I mentioned in the Ministry of Forests estimates, I would like to see an end to slash-burning. I don't think it's an acceptable way to manage the forests.

Where I come from it causes serious problems in the human population with regard to respiratory problems. I know that it interferes with the type of weather we're having; we have local inversions when we have slash-burning that interferes with the ability of the sunlight to come down. It changes the temperature of the area we're living in because of the smoke in the air. That is a Ministry of Environment concern. It's a very serious problem. Every spring and fall when slash-burning occurs, people get very upset; you see the letters to the editor, and then it's something that is done away with.

I would very seriously recommend to the minister: please end slash-burning. There are alternatives. The Minister of Forests can, perhaps through his heckling, enlighten me in this area. I don't know if the Minister of Environment is aware, but my understanding is that in some of the countries that have investments in B.C., their forestry practices do not allow for slash-burning.

Interjection.

J. Tyabji: That's my understanding. Obviously we'll have to continue that discussion some other time. If that's not the case, then I would suggest that B.C. take a leadership role.

Another thing that the minister has been saying that I'd like to question him on right now is that he keeps referring to the very excellent staff -- and I don't question him on that -- the discussion papers, CORE, the Round Table and all the processes that are in place. I'd really like to ask this minister where he sees his leadership coming into play in his portfolio. Because the way things have been put to me right now, we're either dealing with the policies of the former administration, we're dealing with the recommendations of his expert staff, or we're dealing with the process of the Round Table and CORE. The minister isn't really stating where he stands on any of these issues, which is why we can't.... I'm prepared to say how I feel about slash-burning. I'd like to hear what the minister thinks. Does he want to see slash-burning in perpetuity? I'd like to hear what the minister thinks about effluent discharges and about the potential for landslides. I really want to know what the minister feels and where we will see his personal views come into play in the leadership of his portfolio. He is an elected representative, and that's why we're here.

Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Chair, what a gift! The leadership of the Minister of Environment is something I'm very proud of. One characteristic of leadership, hon. member, is that you work with your colleagues, your resources and also with what already exists that is worthwhile. You don't throw out the baby with the bath water. There are a number of things about the previous government that in my opinion -- which is very clear and on the record -- had a role in digging their grave. But the fact is that you don't take it and say that we're going to ignore that which is worthwhile. Perhaps in spite of politicians, public servants managed to keep certain functions going within government, and those functions within the Ministry of Environment, given that we have a staff of 2,400, are very significant.

Any minister who decided to start willy-nilly slashing here, slashing there, and don't do that, do this, would certainly be suffering from delusions of grandeur. Any minister who didn't realize the importance of the staff being able to bring their creativity and talents 

[ Page 2066 ]

to the floor simply would not be worthy of being a leader.

In terms of where the leadership is within this ministry, the leadership is very clear, hon. member. We are completely revamping the environmental legislation in this province. That is happening under my leadership. I am directing that process, and I am making use of all the resources that I can marshal in order to make that work well. We are functioning as a team. Hon. member, in order to nurture that team I've been getting out and working with staff around the province, getting to know more about their problems and how to deal with things.

Hon. member, I have made changes. I will continue to make changes. Not only have I got rid of the Hazardous Waste Management Corporation, but we're in the process of putting a new instrument together that is going to make a real impact on this province. It's going to address some of the issues that the hon. member and other members have raised. That's leadership. I am very proud of the fact that we have a clean air strategy steering committee not only functioning within the ministry but coordinating among the Ministries of Forests, Municipal Affairs, Energy and Tourism.

[5:45]

We have processes and initiatives taking place that are a result of the excellent leadership that we are seeing from this government and the excellent teamwork that is taking place within this government. We have initiatives that are focused on the discussion papers and will be leading to the kinds of solutions that the people of British Columbia want. The people are tired of the conflict that has too often beset the various watersheds of the province, and they want the kind of leadership that has come forward with such initiatives as the CORE project, the extended moratorium on bulk water exports and so forth.

So if this hon. member is trying, in some way, to say that leadership is not present in this ministry or this government, she will have to wait four years and let the voters and the taxpayers be the judges of that. I will say to the hon. member that after that process takes place, we will still be here and will continue to give good government.

L. Fox: Given that response, perhaps I shouldn't ask my question.

Mr. Minister, I do want to ask questions in a couple of areas that have been a concern to me as a municipal leader and as a regional district vice-chairman for eight years. Those two issues are biochemical waste and special waste.

In the more remote areas of the province, we have had great difficulty in getting rid of both of those subjects. Everybody agrees that toxic waste and special waste have to be addressed, but nobody wants the tool to address them to be in their backyards.

Similarly, with the biochemical waste, we've had difficulties transferring it, as I know the minister is aware. Perhaps you could give us some idea as to where you're going with respect to these two concerns.

Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Chair, I'm glad to do that for the third time during these estimates. But I will be brief.

I have announced the removal of the Hazardous Waste Management Corporation; we've replaced that with a toxics reduction office, which is up and running within the ministry. Shortly we will be be announcing a number of initiatives including the appointment of a toxics reduction commissioner. That person will have a role to consult with the public in addressing the issue that the hon. member has identified.

The principles that will undergird the process will be the first three Rs: reduce, reuse and recycle. It's being done in the context of recognizing that, while those principles are fundamental, we are still left with the residuals, and we have to deal with them. That will be a very clear part of the mandate of that person.

As I have got rid of the Hazardous Waste Management Corporation.... And here's leadership again. It's recognition that you can't lead by having an arm's length so you can blame somebody else if it doesn't work. I've brought that back inside the tent, so I, as Minister of Environment, will be squarely responsible for resolving that issue, that problem. It shouldn't be at arm's length; it should where it belongs, as my responsibility. I intend to fulfil that commitment in an appropriate process, as I have outlined it.

The hon. member referred to hazardous waste, saying "biochemical waste," but I think you meant biomedical waste. We know that a portion of the problem of biomedical waste needs to be addressed by recognizing -- if you do it in the context of the three Rs -- that a lot of packaging is considered biomedical waste but is really cardboard and stuff like that. We think that forming committees in hospitals that are more reflective of the people who work there -- like the cleaning staff, nurses, practical nurses and others -- can help us to address that issue of how you get the three Rs working.

We're considering bringing the biomedical waste issue into the tent of the hazardous waste issue. Instead of dealing with them as two separate issues, we'll look at the possibility of addressing them jointly. That's another way that we are seriously considering approaching that.

With regard to the location of a facility, there are such things as mobile facilities. We look at Swan Hills, in Alberta, where there's an existing facility. As I said before, I have some personal problems with waste going across a border, but I'm not going to be doctrinaire on that. We have to take a look at that as if it were a possible alternative in a wider context -- considering that we now import lead-acid batteries from Alberta that are processed at the Cominco smelter in Trail. There may be some consideration there that we could look at.

By and large, we know that we have to solve the problem of residuals and deal with a number of things, including the illicit dumping that goes on while people who are really not good corporate citizens don't have other alternatives. We know that most of the corporations that are out there are very responsible in the way they handle waste.

[ Page 2067 ]

L. Fox: Thanks to the minister for his response.

I have only one more question. We've talked about it before, to a limited degree: the issue of groundwater contamination. The minister is well aware of the concerns within my home community and the fact that the sale of ex-service station sites is being held up because there's no measurement for what's satisfactory in terms of groundwater. Could the minister perhaps enlighten me as to how we are making out with this process and whether he expects there to be some permanent goalposts set with respect to those criteria sometime within this budget year?

Hon. J. Cashore: We have two legislative drafting procedures underway: one is for storage site legislation; the other is for contaminated site legislation. That's how we are addressing it, by drafting legislation to deal with that issue.

We know that we have to recognize some of the difficult problems there, such as an underground storage tank formerly owned by a large oil company and now owned by ma and pa, and we don't want to put them out of business. Some members of the oil industry have been helpful in working with us in dealing with this.

L. Fox: I see that Committee A has adjourned, and perhaps it's the appropriate time to move adjournment.

Hon. G. Clark: I move the committee rise, report great 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.

Hon. G. Clark: I move that the House at its rising stand adjourned for five minutes, and that the adjournment hour tonight will be 10 p.m.

Motion approved.

Hon. G. Clark moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:54 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

The House in Committee of Supply A; D. Streifel in the chair.

The committee met at 2:36 p.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ADVANCED
EDUCATION, TRAINING AND TECHNOLOGY

On vote 10: minister's office, $315,100 (continued).

D. Schreck: Throughout the shipbuilding industry, hundreds of workers have lost their jobs. A good deal of the shipbuilding industry is on the North Shore of the lower mainland in general, and in my constituency in particular. What was formerly known as the Versatile yard has closed, and literally hundreds of workers have lost their jobs. Prospects of returning to the industry are slim and none. I certainly hold the federal government responsible for the betrayal of the west coast shipbuilding industry. With the loss of the Polar 8, the hopes of the shipbuilding industry in British Columbia were certainly set back very far.

There appears to be a double standard at work. In the east coast yards in Quebec and Ontario, when downsizing of the shipbuilding industry has occurred, extremely generous compensation arrangements have been made, and retraining packages and early retirement incentives have been offered. Those same provisions are simply not available for west coast shipyard workers.

I would like the minister's comments on why British Columbia has been betrayed.

Hon. T. Perry: British Columbia entered Confederation voluntarily in 1871 upon a set of conditions. This is not the first time those conditions have been betrayed. Our relationship with the central government.... Although British Columbians have been as patriotic in two world wars and in serving the economic development of the country as any other Canadians, our relationship has always been strained, in the sense that where it held discretion, the central government, typically dominated by Quebec and Ontario, has usually awarded more generous allowances to those areas which most faithfully toed its political line. I regret to say that this is another in a long chain of examples in which Confederation has worked to the relative disadvantage of British Columbia, even though we retain our faith in the country and none of us would want to leave it. At times we've been sorely pressed to see how the central federal government has manifested our concerns. If there is to be an effective Senate to justify the $65 million or whatever is spent on that essentially useless body now, it's imperative that the regional representation for parts of the country outside of the centre be dramatically increased.

We have worked as hard as we could in attempting to get the best deal out of Ottawa. I can't say that we're particularly satisfied, but perhaps this is the price of British Columbians exercising their democratic right to vote differently from Quebec and Ontario in their choice of federal members to represent them, and perhaps this reflects the weakness of our present government members in the Parliament of Canada. But there it is. It's not a new issue.

[ Page 2068 ]

We've done what we could. Within the resources at our disposal, we're trying to do the best that we possibly can for the laid-off workers. Our ministry, along with the Ministry of Economic Development, Small Business and Trade, and its predecessor ministry, has worked as diligently as it can with the SWAG task force. The Cabinet Committee on Sustainable Development met with representatives of the SWAG task force, if I recall, in December or January. The Minister of Labour and Consumer Services, the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations, the Minister of Economic Development and I have met with members of the SWAG task force, attempting to pursue the best possible agreement. We are negotiating with Labour Canada regarding a POWA -- program for older workers' adjustment -- agreement for the Versatile Pacific workers and those in other companies affected by the rationalization. We have taken the position that the severance payments requested by the SWAG task force were, in fact, the responsibility of the employers. We will do everything possible within the budget at our disposal to ensure the optimum retraining of laid-off older workers. At the moment we expect to go before Treasury Board by June 30, 1992, to seek approval for agreements we have negotiated with Labour Canada.

D. Schreck: I appreciate the statements made by the minister. The problem that my constituents have, however, is that being 50 years old and having worked for 30 years in one industry disqualifies one for eligibility in the POWA. It makes it extremely difficult to pay a mortgage, or to buy groceries for the rest of one's life, for that matter, when one is dislodged at age 50 from an industry that has disclaimed any responsibility for dealing with those workers. In our case on the North Shore, those constituents are represented by Conservative Members of Parliament. One is a cabinet minister, the other has the shipyards in his constituency. That individual is known not only for saying that Canadian books aren't worth reading, but also for saying that shipyard workers should stop crying and that the federal government is going to do nothing for them.

I say that is simply not good enough. I understand very well why the province cannot do more for displaced workers in the shipyard industry in my constituency than they can for displaced clerks in my constituency or displaced miners in Trail or displaced sawmill workers or pulp workers in Port Alberni. But in this case the federal government has a particular responsibility for abandoning British Columbia and for abandoning my constituents.

[2:45]

I understand POWA will provide a pension for those aged 55 and older of roughly $1,200 a month, or slightly over that maximum; it may be slightly better than welfare, but is certainly going to make life very difficult for people who thought they were in the pre-retirement years of their life. For my constituents who are in their forties and fifties, or right at the borderline age of 54, and who have been victimized by this federal government decision to write off the west coast industry, I say that more pressure needs to be brought on Ottawa. What's been done is just not good enough.

I understand that the parties are still at the table now. I would like to hear further from the minister on how we are going to hold the federal government accountable, not to the faceless mass of humanity but to the people whose doors I've knocked on in North Vancouver. They don't know what they're going to do with the rest of their lives. They are 54, have 30 years in one industry and have no place to turn.

Hon. T. Perry: The situation is a very difficult one. The member has just described it eloquently. I can add that for those workers between age 50 and 55, who by definition do not qualify for the program for older workers' adjustment, a POWA-like program is being negotiated between the Ministry of Economic Development, Small Business and Trade and the federal Department of Industry, Science and Technology. We are optimistic that an agreement will be concluded. The hon. member has described the limits of the POWA, which are considerably better than social assistance in the sense that they recognize the contribution made by the worker in having earned those benefits. Perhaps they provide an additional measure of dignity that cushions the blow for a worker who finds it unacceptable to go onto social assistance. They're not rich benefits, by any means. The hon. member has identified correctly the dilemma for the provincial government in that we cannot offer benefits to one class of workers that we would not be able to provide to a similar class of workers facing similar circumstances. As the member and others will know, the province faces a series of similar dilemmas -- most recently in Cassiar -- where communities may be on the verge of disintegration as a result of a corporate failure, often representing a grotesque failure of planning, overexpenditure and padding of corporate executives' expense accounts without any regard for the long-term future of their workers. Sometimes, despite excellent management and good labour relations practices, such industries fail in a changing global environment. We have to be sure that programs we devise will be fair to all British Columbians and fair, for example, particularly to female workers in jobs with traditionally lower wages, but where the demands of everyday living and the real financial needs of the individual are the same as for a male worker in a relatively highly paid job.

In summary, we're doing the maximum we feel we can within our resources. We maintain our pressure on the federal government. I agree that it would be nice to see federal members standing up for the province a bit more vigorously, when despite a whopping federal deficit there always seems to be money for ventures like the completely useless construction in Quebec of $1 billion worth of useless military helicopters, which can only be used to destroy people and waste energy and precious non-renewable resources such as metals, at a time when the country can't afford that and could better use that money maintaining communities through programs like POWA.

[ Page 2069 ]

H. De Jong: In follow-up to some of the comments the minister made yesterday and as well as in the line of questions that I put to him yesterday.... In particular, when the minister answered a question from my colleague here from the official opposition, he said that this year it basically holds the line in terms of access to the various institutions. I suppose there are a number of things that contribute to that holding of the line. I suppose financial resources is the main one. However, I also understand that there are institutions, particularly federal penal institutions, where people go on parole. When they appear at a college and wish to enter an educational program, the college has no jurisdiction but to offer those programs to them and even to provide the moneys required to follow the courses. Can the minister give any assurance that that is in fact happening? Or is this just small talk around the town? That gives me quite a concern, particularly in communities such as ours that have a number of federal as well as provincial institutions in very close range.

Hon. T. Perry: I'm checking with staff to see if they know the answer. We're not sure we do. Our initial response was that the college probably wouldn't know the difference between a parolee and anyone else coming through the door to register. I can't attempt to clarify that answer. We have ministry staff standing by listening. I think the question was clear, but I'll make sure I understand it correctly. The question was whether people on parole from a prison enjoy a comparative advantage over other students in enrolling in colleges and are, in effect, guaranteed access to a college. We'll undertake to answer that, if possible, by the end of the afternoon.

I might say, in just a brief philosophical response, that I would generally be of the school who believe that it's an advantage for prisoners to have access to advanced education. I'm not a big believer, I guess, in retributive justice, but more in the potential, where possible, for the penal system to reform inmates. Without education, there's virtually no hope for reform and returning such people to a productive role in society.

H. De Jong: I suppose there's some truth in that. However, there's also the situation where the taxpayers that are in the community and this province for a long time.... People have abused their lives and the lives of others and, as a result, have entered into a penal institution and been given preference over people that live a normal life and should have rights afforded to them. I fail to see why there should be preferential treatment to those particular cases. I believe there's a fair amount of educational process available within the institutions as well -- not necessarily just when they're out on parole.

Secondly, I would like to ask the minister -- while he is looking into this question -- what the real success rate is of those parolees that have entered those programs within the colleges and the universities, particularly the community colleges. Perhaps he wouldn't feel too comfortable if he knew the actual success rate of those particular parolees.

On the access problem, as I said earlier, I suppose there is one way to remedy it, and that is to throw more money at it. But recognizing the limited moneys available, which is not uncommon.... I've been here in Victoria for the last five to six years. Basically there is always a limit to financial resources, whether it is in good or bad years. I don't think that this year is any different than other years in that respect.

The way I see it, and from the information that has been given to me, perhaps the availability for access is not simply cutback because of additional people wanting education at the college level. I'm sorry that this committee hasn't gone around the province earlier to find out what really is the matter in our colleges, particularly with those that receive the grants.

There are quite a number of grants: the B.C. equalization grant, the B.C. supplemental fund grant, the loan remission program, the Canada student loans program, the forgivable loan plan for disabled students, the B.C. student assistance program for part-time students. A whole raft of various types of programs are available. But as I understand, and perhaps the minister could clarify for us today.... He said yesterday that he would have some of those figures: the percentage rate of success of those outside of the penal institutions during the past couple of years; and if, in fact, there is an improvement in the rate of success, or whether it has been declining over the last few years.

Hon. T. Perry: With respect to the one of the questions, this morning I brought back answers to the hon. member's question yesterday afternoon dealing with federal and provincial policies on the number of terms that a student might fail to satisfactorily complete before losing their eligibility for student financial assistance.

Yes, in general, I agree with the member. There are people who view the ministry and the government as a cash cow. The hon. member has some professional expertise with the bovine species; he will agree that the ministry is not a cash cow.

We have a variety of student financial assistance programs because students are not all the same. There are single parents, disabled students, students in rural areas with much greater needs to access a post-secondary facility. We do need some diversity of our programs. The Orum committee is attempting to review those programs and, I hope, may succeed in simplifying the programs. That is certainly our goal.

In terms of the statistics on the completion rate of parolees, inmates or anyone else, good statistics, regrettably, have not been historically kept. We're trying to begin the collection of reliable statistics, as we are for statistics on the number of students who get turned away from institutions, so we will have meaningful figures which can guide public policy.

The recent Stuart Smith report on universities in Canada made the same point that, nationwide, virtually no information is collected on the success rate. We know a lot about the inputs, but relatively little about the outputs. I hasten to add that outputs are not so simple to measure as simply the number of people graduating with degrees or completing a year. Hopefully, most of 

[ Page 2070 ]

us recognize that education is somewhat more subtle a process than that, but it would be a good start for statistics. Nobody has it in Canada yet. We're trying to develop systems within the ministry, and are encouraging institutions vigorously to do that, so in the future we will have meaningful statistics.

[3:00]

H. De Jong: More specifically, hon. Chair, I would like to know what percentage of students who receive assistance fail to complete or fail to pass a 60 percent course load, which apparently is the minimum requirement today. That is my first question.

I also understand that the federal government is proposing an 80 percent course to be followed in order to receive or be eligible for assistance, and what the minister's thoughts are on the 80 percent versus the 60 percent.

Hon. T. Perry: The latest figures in 1991-92 show that there were 47,100 applicants for student financial assistance in British Columbia. Of those, 36,450 received an award. The balance between 36,450 and 47,100 failed to qualify. The maximum award for a student without dependents in a 52-week program -- that would be year-round -- was $10,920 for the year. For a student with dependents, the maximum possible award was $16,380. That's not the average; that's not the figure received by most students; that's the maximum one could possibly receive. The average loan award was $5,600 in 1991-92. The loan remission program, I might say a rather generous program developed by the former Social Credit government in response to the problem of rather staggering debt loads facing students upon graduation, numbered 1,800 students, with an average value of the loan remitted -- that is, the amount the student was not required to repay -- of $5,700. Equalization grants amounted in awards to 9,100 students, with an average value of $2,800.

In response to the other questions -- my position on the 80 percent load requirement for a full-time student proposed by the federal minister -- I think I made clear yesterday afternoon that that was discussed by provincial ministers with the federal Secretary of State in February, and I supported that, as did the other provincial ministers, with one caveat. Students with dependents -- for example, a single mother -- or students with significant disabilities frequently will find it impossible to complete even an 80 percent course load and should not be discriminated against, in the sense that their living needs may be identical. They are doing the best they can to become educated and productively employed, and I think the hon. member and most would agree that they require some special consideration.

H. De Jong: Well, I haven't received those figures now. Would the minister not agree, then, that if a stricter control was applied on the performance of the students.... After all, what we're all interested in is the performance of the student and the academic achievement that they will receive if they really put their mind to it. But if that was put into stronger terms, and greater accountability would be expected from the students that enter these programs, perhaps a large portion, in terms of unavailability for access, could be eliminated.

Hon. T. Perry: While I share the member's frustration that we don't have exact statistics -- and I think we should be, and we are, doing our best to obtain them -- neither do other provinces. You get what you pay for, and it does require money and work to collect such statistics. Governments in the past have judged that they weren't sufficiently important. I think it's very important to know such figures. However, I point out that there is no reason whatsoever to presume that students receiving student financial assistance perform less well than students who do not require it. If anything, common sense might suggest the other: that the student who must apply for a grant or a loan is more likely to take seriously the opportunity to be educated than a student who is born with a silver spoon in his or her mouth and who feels no financial pressure to finish his or her studies within a reasonable period of time.

It would be a mistake to look upon student loans as a gift to the student. A grant is a taxpayer gift in that sense, but it's also an investment by the taxpayer in a highly educated workforce and in having people around to work to pay for pensions for everyone of the generation of us in this room. The loan is exactly that. The interest is paid during the term of studies by the people of B.C., but the principal is repayable by the student. They begin to pay it -- and the vast majority of them do repay it -- starting six months after they finish their studies. Although I cannot, regrettably, provide the statistics that the member requests, because they don't exist, there's no reason to think that such students, as a group, are doing less well than others.

I will point out that the staff have reminded me that the proposed federal policy change of moving from a 60 percent to an 80 percent course load does pose a particular problem for students with dependents. If you imagine yourself as a single parent, typically, or possibly even a parent living with a spouse but looking after children, not only do such students have to undertake rigorous academic, technical or career training, but they also have to maintain their family responsibilities. The image that many of us have from our own student days, of the young 18-to-22-year-old college and university student, is no longer the typical student in British Columbia. Many of the students in the university and college system, for example those at BCIT -- and everywhere else -- are older people with children. They might be in their late twenties, early thirties or even up into their forties. It can be impossible for them to pursue a full-time course load at the same time that they are responsible for looking after their children.

N. Lortie: I represent Delta North, which, along with the constituencies of three other members of the government, is in an area called "south of the Fraser River." We're serviced to a great extent in your ministry by Kwantlen College. The four of us government members in that area, including the member for Surrey-Newton, the hon. member for Surrey-Whalley 

[ Page 2071 ]

and the hon. member for Surrey-Green Timbers, have met with the board of Kwantlen College on numerous occasions to be apprised of some problems in post-secondary education, especially post-secondary education financing in our area.

As the minister probably knows, the area south of the Fraser River is one of the fastest-growing areas in all of British Columbia. Geographically, it stretches from Richmond to Langley. It has lagged behind in many services, from health and pre-secondary education to post-secondary education, which is the responsibility of this minister. Over and over again the board of Kwantlen College has pointed out the inequities in funding for that education facility -- not only the Surrey campus, but in the newly opened Richmond and Langley campuses of what is to be a vast network of post-secondary education facilities in our area.

Does the minister understand the problem of the underfunding in that area? Has the minister a plan to deal with the underfunding?

Hon. T. Perry: Once again, the committee strays slightly into redundancy. I very much appreciate the question because it's an important area.

I also had the opportunity to visit two of the campuses of Kwantlen College with the hon. member -- the Surrey campus and the Newton trades training centre -- in January. Dr. MacLaughlin and board members made the points very effectively. The outgoing president and the new president of the student society came to see me about a month ago armed with the most beautiful collection of bar graphs and statistics that I've ever seen; they made their case very effectively as well.

As I've told a number of other members in earlier replies, I'm fully convinced of the importance of expanding access in the south Fraser region. I believe that we've made a reasonable start this year with a 9.49 percent increase in the funded full-time-equivalent students, or 433 new student positions, and a 7.5 percent increase in the operating grant, which is substantially more than the system average of 4.2 percent.

I would like to do more. The 433 student positions awarded to Kwantlen represent 19 percent of all of the growth in the college and institute system this year. Within the modest discretion that we had in this year's budget, we attempted to address those concerns. We would like to do much more; I'm confident that we will move gradually over the next three years, in the first term of the present government, to address those needs.

N. Lortie: I'm sorry; I'm a little behind in my reading. The reading load is horrendous, as we all know. I'm sorry if these questions are redundant.

There's a brand-new campus of Kwantlen College opening up in Richmond this year. That new college facility requires some start-up money. The regular ongoing funding of that and FTEs in that college isn't quite enough to kick-start a university or a college campus, which needs additional money in the first year for those things that have to be purchased on a one-time basis -- the cost of recruiting staff to work on that brand-new campus. I'm wondering if the minister has addressed the whole issue of the start-up costs. I understand other colleges within the system in British Columbia have received start-up costs in the past, yet the Richmond campus of Kwantlen College has not.

Hon. T. Perry: Again, an excellent question. We also dealt with this briefly earlier in the morning, but I will come back to it again because it's a very important one.

I hope and expect that the Richmond Campus will soon and in due course be operating at full capacity. The ministry has not always -- and in fact, typically -- brought on new campuses to absolute full capacity immediately. There are a variety of reasons for that, one of which is that sometimes it's difficult to complete the planning and staffing to open a large new campus and immediately have it full to the gills, just as it is in any hospital or other public institution. Another reason, this year, is that there is intense competition from all over the province.

[3:15]

I think the hon. member is aware that I met with the board of the college about a month ago, and I found their arguments very impressive. I must say I'm impressed by the calibre of the board and the enthusiasm and energy they brought, and I encourage them to continue to do so. I have no problem or fear with their acting as strong advocates for their community. In fact, that is exactly what they're there to do. If anything, I encourage them to continue to do so, but remind them that I have similar pressures from around the province. We're still working with them to examine ways in which we can help them to meet some of the intense pressures they're facing. It would be a little bit premature for me to disclose what possible solution may be achieved.

I'm reminded by staff that the start-up costs for a new campus are not normally provided for in ministry policy, with respect to other new campuses. However, Kwantlen did receive a special grant of $400,000 for equipment for the new campus.

R. Chisholm: I have a couple of questions for you, hon. minister. The first one is the participation rate in the Chilliwack area. The national average per thousand is 45 students, and provincially it's 33. In the Chilliwack and Abbotsford areas it's 17. In 1989 the previous government said that it was going to do something about this and get it up within the five-year program. Now, with this restraint budget, I wonder what your views are on how you're going to increase the student participation in the higher education program.

Hon. T. Perry: I'm delighted by the question, and I assure other hon. members that it wasn't planted. I'm absolutely delighted to receive it. In this case, it's a beautiful example not only of a sound initiative begun by the former government which this government elected to pursue but also an example of our non-partisan approach to the planning for the educational needs of the province.

Fraser Valley University College received the largest percentage increase to its base operating grant of any college or university within the provincial system of 25 

[ Page 2072 ]

colleges, institutes and universities: 17.22 percent. That translates -- if I understand it correctly, their university college full-time-equivalent student positions are somewhat more expensive than college positions -- to a 9.24 percent net increase in the number of funded full-time-equivalent students; from 2,334 to 2,553, a difference of 220. I might also say that I found the arguments of the chair of the Fraser Valley University College Board, Mr. Minter, and the president, Dr. Jones, rather persuasive -- at the risk or precipitating more such visits -- when they came to argue the case for increased ESL training at Fraser Valley University College. I see a member smiling. I take it he has been exposed to their persuasiveness himself in the past. I guess I was a little bit out of date in population trends and was mildly surprised and asked them to explain the request. They made a very convincing case. I think we were able to exercise some slight discretion -- within the room that we had -- to try to meet that.

I point that out as an example that I have tried to follow -- a strictly non-partisan approach. Although one would always like to do more for everybody, I feel that I can confidently stand here and say that the Fraser Valley University College has been treated more generously than any other institution within the system.

R. Chisholm: Does the minister see this trend continuing until we get the number of students up to at least the provincial average? For the students that are in the two-year programs, does he see more placements for people that are in non-degree programs for practical education and see keeping the balance between the academic and the practical side in check?

Hon. T. Perry: Yes. Another very interesting question. Our ministry's intent is that the Fraser Valley University College, because of the population pressures and relative needs, will continue to grow faster than the system average for the foreseeable future.

Yes to the second question. I've been pushing throughout the system to redress some of the imbalance of the last five to ten years, where academic programs grew largely at the expense of vocational-technical programs, and I've been trying to define creatively, with a completely open mind, the areas of new employment opportunities where trades and technical training ought to expand. So if I heard your question correctly, I'm pleased to say that we will try to maintain a balance and continue the role of Fraser Valley University College not only as a degree-granting institution but as a comprehensive community college.

R. Chisholm: For my last question, hon. minister, the 2 percent increase this year basically takes care of the increments of previous contracts with the educators in the system, which puts the educational system at a disadvantage when it comes to renegotiating new contracts. As we heard this morning, there's a difference between high school and college instructors by $6,000 to $7,000. The K-12 system got a 2.4 percent increase. I suggest at this rate that that difference between those two systems is going to increase in favour of the high-school instructor. Is there anything in the foreseeable future to try to rectify this situation?

Hon. T. Perry: We have very limited room within which we can manoeuvre. The education increment was set, as required by the School Act, on February 1, 1992, according to the best available estimate of inflation at that time. The Treasury Board set estimates of inflation slightly later -- I guess about the middle of March, during the development of the budget for other ministries -- according to the best available estimate of inflation from the Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations at that time, which was 2.0 percent. That's the explanation for the slightly larger increase, which had been set according to law, for education. I believe that otherwise the inflationary increase would have been, logically, similar across all ministries. It's an anomaly of present legislation where the School Act requires the disclosure of the global increase on February 1. I expect that that logical inconsistency in the budget development will likely be dealt with this year when we have a more normal budgetary development process.

The combination of that 2 percent inflationary increase and growth in full-time-equivalents could permit some modest increases in negotiated collective agreements, providing that ways are found to deal with workload issues to ensure that the needs of the students are met. We fund institutions on the basis of a formula which prescribes that they shall educate so many students. If they can find ways of doing it while maintaining their standard of quality, which the institutions naturally will seek to preserve, and find ways of achieving greater efficiency, we have no difficulty with them keeping the increase for themselves. In fact, we very much encourage them to do that. We've been beginning to discuss in a substantial way the possibility of developing three-year budget plans for institutions. One of the basic goals is to allow institutions the maximum flexibility to achieve that kind of benefit within the rather tightly constrained budgets that we're likely to see for the foreseeable future in B.C.

L. Stephens: I'll be very brief. I just wanted to add my remarks to the discussion of the previous members for Chilliwack, Abbotsford and Delta North concerning Kwantlen College's program. We won't belabour the point. I think we've made it quite clear that we all believe that post-secondary education is desirable. We recognize the difficulties that the colleges face. I'm sure you're also aware that Langley is opening a Kwantlen College in September '93, and we hope that the budgeting for 1993 will be adequate for operation of our facility there.

On the subject of the Fraser Valley University, I know the minister is very aware of the project that has been the subject of a great deal of discussion and study in the constituency of Langley. The township's economic development commission has been doing a great deal of work in that area. I know you've had numerous letters asking for some indication of what progress we would like to see from this particular initiative -- and, indeed, all those of the different communities in the Fraser Valley would like to see. I would like to know if the 

[ Page 2073 ]

minister could give me some idea of what the ministry's thoughts are on a freestanding Fraser Valley University, with regard to the Fraser Valley University College. Are we looking at two separate facilities? What kind of plans do you see happening down the road?

Hon. T. Perry: The first question is with regard to the Langley campus of Kwantlen College, which will open in September 1993. Planning for the enrolment will be required during next year's budget development. It's therefore not really part of these estimates. I can assure the hon. member, as she's heard in the discussion here, that I'm well aware of the needs of the region, and we will be putting great emphasis on maximizing the return on that investment and capital. We'll be looking to do the best possible job for that campus in the next fiscal year, in time for the fall of 1993.

With regard to the Fraser Valley University proposal, there is no question whatsoever in my mind that the south Fraser region will require greatly enhanced post-secondary educational capacity, not only at the college level but at the full baccalaureate degree level and likely at the post-graduate degree level. It's also likely that additional technical or technological and probably trades and vocational training capacity will be required. I've had an enormous amount of input, largely in the form of relatively simple letters from ordinary people in the Fraser Valley indicating their support for the concept. I can't say that surprised me. I was rapidly made aware of that once I became minister. It simply reinforced something which I was already well aware of. As the hon. member for Langley is aware, I've benefited from discussions with some members in the Liberal caucus with particular concerns in this area, as well as discussions with government members.

[3:30]

The exact shape that what I refer to as "the capacity for post-secondary education" should take is, I think, a very open question. The natural tendency for those of us of a certain age, shall I put it, is to think in terms of large institutions like the places where we were educated: the University of British Columbia, Simon Fraser, UVic or the colleges -- or the colleges with which we are familiar, for those who weren't privileged to attend them. That may or may not be the optimum model for the twenty-first century for a population as diverse as that developing in the Fraser Valley. It may be that the optimum solution will be a large fixed-site institution modeled after our existing institutions. It may be that the Open Learning Agency provides something closer to the optimum model for a society in the twenty-first century. It may be that something in between or completely different is what we should be striving for.

I'm not satisfied that any one person has that vision. I think if we could do things again, going back in the history of British Columbia, we would probably not build Simon Fraser University at the top of Burnaby mountain or the University of British Columbia at the tip of Point Grey. I've been giving intense thought over the last six months to how to address this problem so that, within a reasonable time-frame in this current parliament, we can arrive at a proposed solution to that need which meets the maximum possible consensual support. I expect in the near future to be in a position to reveal my strategy. I've been giving a lot of thought to it. I've benefited from discussion with the official opposition critic, with the hon. member and with others. I continue to welcome input.

I hope that the process we devise to get to an answer will meet with the approval of the public, principally in that region, but not only there, because whatever new capacity we devise must be part of the provincial system. It must not only meet the simple needs of all those new people and the population growing so fast in that area, but must also meet the environmental concerns of the worsening air pollution problem in the Fraser Valley. It must meet the need to build strong, stable communities throughout the Fraser Valley, and it must add something to the complement of our total provincial system and not merely duplicate what we already have.

H. De Jong: Just one or two more questions. In reference to the statement the minister made to my last question, I'd like to respond to his reference to people with silver spoons in their mouths. I take offence to that kind of a statement. While I have paid for all of my children going through college and universities, my children have never asked for a student loan, and I'm sure there are hundreds of thousands of parents like myself in British Columbia that have given of themselves to get their children through various educational institutions. I have yet to hear a story about any one of these children that have been supported by their parents like the stories that go around this province of students applying for student loans and going off to the ski hills for skiing instead of going to university or college to pick up their programs. I think you ought to be ashamed of yourself. To talk about students who have had parental support and to get the kind of a connotation as you've given in your last statement about those students -- that they're....

The Chair: Through the Chair, hon. member.

H. De Jong: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I'll mention you from time to time.

I believe that the minister should retract that statement. I don't think it's factual, and I believe that he's been offending the parents of British Columbia who have put every cent into putting their children through the advanced education system and have never asked for a penny of government funding.

Now I will go on to a question. I understand that back in the years '89-90 there was a personal responsibility criterion attached to those who were receiving B.C. grants. I also understand that there have been changes to that policy since October 17 in terms of responsibility and the lessening of that responsibility. In the previous comments the minister made, he tended to agree with me in imposing somewhat more stringent guidelines in order that those students would perform and present some accountability in return for the grant or the loan that they've received. Why did the minister, 

[ Page 2074 ]

since he's been in charge of this ministry, lessen that responsibility? I understand it's down from 560 hours to 360 hours.

Hon. T. Perry: I certainly apologize to the hon. member if I've offended him in any way. That was not the intent of my remark about the silver spoon, though there aren't that many people being born with silver spoons in their mouths these days. There still are a few. I think the member misconstrued what I was alluding to. I don't think we have any disagreement on the points to which he just referred. What I was referring to is that there are, there always have been and I'm sure there will continue to be students who come from highly privileged families -- families where tuition fees, costs of living for a student, cost of purchasing an expensive car or paying for a vacation in Hawaii at Christmas are not even weighed in the calculations of the budget for the year -- students who, if anything, may have less pressure on them to perform than a student who has taken out a student loan and has to deal with the daily knowledge that they must repay that loan upon graduation. Failing repayment, they must deal with the impact on their credit rating or the possibility of personal bankruptcy and the disgrace that goes with that.

The remark was in no way intended to criticize parents or families who struggle to make ends meet and to put their own children through without relying on society to support them. If the member interpreted it that way, then let me assure him it was certainly not intended that way.

The requirement for personal responsibility, in my view, has not been lessened. We did, as a matter of policy, reduce back to 360 hours the requirement for gainful employment, volunteer work or continued academic studies during the summer from the 560 hours to which it had been raised in fiscal year '91-92. The former Social Credit government had set a reasonable limit of 360 hours as a personal responsibility requirement in 1989-90 to attempt to ensure that students were not freeloading. Two years later, during the summer of 1991-92, it raised the limit to 560 hours. We felt that under the present economic climate -- when it was difficult for students to find employment, as it is for other people, with the relatively high unemployment rates -- it was unreasonable to maintain a level which many students, no matter how hard they tried, would find difficult to achieve. I think it's a mistake to conceive of the average student as somehow not working hard during his studies. Most of them are working darned hard. The competition is fierce -- not only to get in, but once in the institutions. Many are doing so on top of other responsibilities, be they family or part-time work.

In addition, we raised the limit for loan remission from $13,000 to $13,500 for the first degree, reflecting some inflation factor, and therefore students who borrow up to that limit will have to pay more back this year than they were required to last year. So it would be a mistake to believe that we have weakened the personal responsibility requirement.

H. De Jong: A final question then.

I didn't want to imply in my comments that a lot of students do not take that seriously and do not take up the loans. Certainly I know of some students who have taken up loans to get through the education system and are very conscientious about repaying those loans. I have no doubt they will repay those loans. In fact, I have had serious doubts about whether or not the number of write-offs that have occurred over the last couple of months are actual write-offs. There may have been a lot of them that did not get into the workforce on time; they may have all been gathered into that category of loans that will not be received back and therefore written off. I think the government may be pleasantly surprised with that.

However, I understand that the Orum committee's job will be largely to review access possibilities and related things. I'm just wondering, at this point in time, whether, upon the conclusion of the discussions of these estimates.... I'm sure that the member of the official opposition, as well as some other members that may bring questions, are all concerned about accountability. Whether in fact the committee keeps in mind the three A's: access, accountability and achievement through having been accountable.... I would just like to have the minister's assurance that as the committee goes around the province, it simply takes in all three of those aspects to improve the system within those limitations.

Hon. T. Perry: I can reassure the hon. member for Abbotsford confidently on that point. I've been looking to see whether by chance we had with us the written terms of reference of the Orum committee. I'll be happy to make them available; they're public information. They clearly identify their continuing requirement for personal responsibility by students. In my verbal instructions to the committee, when I met with them a couple of weeks ago, I reinforced those points. I continue to send copies of relevant correspondence: complaints from individuals with problems with the loan program who find it insufficiently generous and complaints from people who find it too generous. Anything relevant that reaches my desk is being turned over to Jennifer Orum. She has been administered the oath of secrecy so that she may have access, within the guidelines of the policy on freedom of information and protection of privacy, to any documents to which I have access and, if necessary, can take the appropriate steps to share them with the committee while protecting privacy.

[3:45]

If we find students who are not meeting their obligations to society, I'm tempted to paraphrase Sir Winston Churchill: "We shall fight them on the beaches." But I think it is important to remind hon. members that "all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy." We don't want to terrorize students. We think most of them are doing a pretty good job. The odd rotten apple we will try to find, but we are not prepared to turn the entire ministry upside down just to chase one or two people who might get into the Peat Marwick report. 

[ Page 2075 ]

They do not represent the average student requiring financial assistance.

D. Mitchell: I don't know what effect the minister's last comments are going to have, but I'm certainly pleased to hear that repudiation of the Peat Marwick manifesto. We don't hear that kind of repudiation from too many members in the executive council. That report can be criticized on many points, although that's a new one for me.

Interjection.

D. Mitchell: The criticism you just levelled at it, hon. minister.

I'd like to open up perhaps a new area of questioning on matching funding. What does this budget, which the minister is asking us to approve today in this committee, do to the matching-grant program of the Ministry of Advanced Education?

I find it interesting that we've had a lot of criticism of the previous administration. When members of this government, including the minister, were in opposition, they criticized the previous administration for being penny-pinching. Yet now that they're in government, they're now criticizing the previous government for being too generous. Mr. Chairman, I think you might find that interesting to note as well; there are some double standards here.

When we look at the matching-funding program, which is a very important program.... It is a program that institutions in our post-secondary system have had access to and have been able to use to help assist and raise funds from the private sector, from alumni and from a number of other groups. We want to encourage that because of the cost-effective manner in which the matching-funding program could help to build the system. Yet what does this budget do to the matching-funding program? In spite of strong representation from universities and colleges to increase the matching-funding program -- because it's a cost-effective way to help build the system, its infrastructure, scholarships, endowments and other programs -- this budget cuts it by 50 percent in the 1992-93 budget. Can the minister please explain why he decided, in this budget, to reduce matching funding by 50 percent?

Hon. T. Perry: It's taking all my self-restraint, hon. Chair, to preserve the decorum of the committee and not yield to the temptation to ask some questions of the opposition critic. I remember ministers falling into that trap before, so I shan't.

However, I will observe again that it would be interesting to know the hon. opposition critic's thoughts, because he has told us earlier this morning that he feels the total budget allocated to Advanced Education was appropriate. I'm not sure if he used the word "sufficient," but the record will show that he conveyed his satisfaction that the total budget was reasonable. Therefore if he feels that we ought to have spent more on matching funds, the obvious question arises: from which division of the ministry does he feel we ought to have taken in order to enhance the matching funds?

Having given that slightly irreverent reply, let me return to his question from a different angle. I share the hon. member's general enthusiasm for the matching program. In 1988-89 I can recall lamenting the unfortunate general lack of philanthropy in British Columbia, with a few notable exceptions. There were a few families famous for their philanthropic contributions to the universities of B.C., but a very small number which could probably have been numbered upon the fingers of one hand. The matching program did accomplish, beyond the expectations of even the government of the day, an expansion of philanthropic donations in British Columbia. For that I applaud it, salute it and enthusiastically endorse it.

It had one minor flaw. Where it was originally intended to encourage philanthropy, to some extent it succeeded so well that philanthropic donations began to drive government expenditure and to set the priorities for government, independent of the rational, budget-making process within the ministry and perhaps independent at times of the most pressing needs of the institutions. It's natural that people wishing to make a philanthropic donation often feel that they ought to have some say in how it's dispensed, but it's not necessarily always going to result in the most rational use of the public resource.

In this case, confronted with a limited global budget, we felt that we could better spend that portion of the matching funds, which were reduced this year, on creating access for new spaces in post-secondary education. Not only our ministry but also the Treasury Board directed that, of the funding that we were permitted, we should increase the emphasis on access and reduce the emphasis on matching capital programs. I point out that we also provided $1.5 million in the present budget for the continuation of college bursary matching programs -- a program to match contributions to colleges to create bursaries, probably the single most important use of philanthropic donations.

Having said that, I would be modestly hopeful that we can move in the future towards restoration of the maximum possible provincial contribution to matching, because, in the case of one university, contributions have exceeded the government's ability to match even with the $20 million annual figure. In the case of the others, the University of Northern B.C., for example, is relying on the present matching program to create a really powerful scholarship and bursary program which will serve as a magnet for students in northern B.C. to attend UNBC when it opens fully in 1994. We'll have to see how we do and how the economy does next year, but at the moment we're encouraging the institutions to prioritize their needs very carefully, and attempting to ensure that the projects they choose for matching are truly consistent with the more urgent priorities in the post-secondary system.

D. Mitchell: The minister refers to comments made by myself in this committee this morning. I think that if he checks the record he'll find that while I didn't express satisfaction with the numbers in the budget that 

[ Page 2076 ]

we are reviewing here in this committee, I did express a quarrel not with the numbers but with the rhetoric that is sometimes attached to the budget itself. If we take a look at this matching program we're discussing right now, the minister says that he has some enthusiasm. The minister says that he applauds, salutes and endorses this program. Well, my only caution to anyone working in the advanced education community in British Columbia is be careful of this minister's salutes. Be wary of this minister when he shows enthusiasm for the activities you're engaged in. Be very worried when this minister endorses your program, because you know what he's going to do. He's going to slash it by 50 percent. That's what he did with the matching program that he has some enthusiasm for. That's what he does when he has enthusiasm for a program; he slashes it by 50 percent. It's quite a remarkable statement that this minister makes. Shame on him! Shame on him for making such a statement!

I'd like to talk a little bit more about matching funding, because I think it's more important than the minister believes. In particular, with matching funding in the university sector not only has the minister cut funding by 50 percent, but this year the matching funding is distributed among four universities, not three, with the new University of Northern British Columbia. That is a further reduction in matching funding. Not only is there 50 percent less, but that amount is being spread among four universities, not three. Of course, the matching funding is used for supporting scholarships and endowments and research initiatives, as well as important capital projects on campuses. These are expenditures which cannot be covered by this year's levels of operating funding, as we discussed this morning. They simply can't because this budget doesn't address the operating funding issues at all those institutions, yet there is a further cut.

If the minister says that he's diverting money from matching funding to access, in light of our discussion about access this morning, where is it? We can't find any increase in access in this budget. In fact, as I indicated this morning, I think this budget might have a net decrease effect on access on a provincewide basis. I want to know about university matching funding. In particular, the significant impact of the $10 million cap placed by this budget on government-matched funding for the universities is that university administrators may have to break promises that they have made to donors to whom matching commitments have already been made -- and made in good faith.

For instance, the University of Victoria has recently launched a five-year, $25 million capital campaign, and many donors have been told that if their gift meets the criteria of the provincial matching program, it will be matched. That's what they were told in the past, before the budget came out. Now administrators are concerned that fund-raising may be quite difficult this year if they cannot promise all donors that their dollars will be effectively doubled. That's the same with many other institutions. Their fund-raising activities are going to be hampered by virtue of the fact that the matched-funding programs at the universities are slashed.

Did the minister realize, when he formulated this budget and decided to slash the matched-funding program, that by decreasing funding for the university matching program by 50 percent, he would be forcing university administrators to break promises made to their donors?

Hon. T. Perry: I'll clarify a simple constitutional matter for the esteemed official opposition critic, who I thought would have known better. Ministers do not set their own budgets in British Columbia; the Treasury Board determines budgets. Ministers make budget requests. The Treasury Board sets the budget, the cabinet ultimately confirms it, and finally the Legislature confirms it. The hon. member will have the opportunity to vote yes or no on this and other budget estimates in due course. I'll be interested to see whether he votes for advanced education, by voting for this budget, or whether he votes against it, by voting against the budget.

Yes, of course I'm concerned that the universities are placed in a position where they may have made commitments to donors or prospective donors which are difficult to observe at the moment. I do note that at $10 million this year, British Columbia's matching program is still the largest in Canada by far. The amounts already dispensed are very substantial. In the four years, for example, the University of British Columbia, which took the lion's share, received approximately $41 million in matching allocations. I make no apologies whatsoever for including the University of Northern British Columbia in its rightful share of the program. It's essential to that institution, in my view, that it establish a solid community base. The incentive that the matching program gives to local community philanthropy, and the university's intention to target its fund-raising specifically to bursaries and scholarships, I applaud wholeheartedly. I endorse it wholeheartedly; I salute it; and I expect them to double their goal, not to halve their goal, I might add. They'll do that in due course.

[4:00]

The institutions, nonetheless, operate as we do in the framework of the total provincial economy. Institutions would have been unwise had they not foreseen the possibility that the economy might take a downturn; that the deficit might balloon, as it did under the former government; and that government might not be able to achieve paper commitments which were made years in advance, sometimes on the spur of the moment by the former Premier. They were very nice commitments; I don't in any way disagree with that. Often they and their implications had not been carefully thought through. It behooves the universities to exercise some caution in that regard, just as anyone else would have to exercise caution in planning their own expenditures and budgeting into the indeterminate future.

I note also that the true measure of philanthropy is not how much credit you get for your gift or how much will the taxpayer of B.C. put up to match it, but is this project really in the public interest and is it so important that it's worth the individual's financial sacrifice to make the donation. I'm confident that those 

[ Page 2077 ]

people who have pledged donations to the universities of British Columbia are not going to be so jealous or so small-minded that, because of the government's financial difficulties at the moment, they will withdraw their donations. I will certainly do everything in my power to maintain the matching program and, if possible, to increase it. I think we all rely on the generosity of people who, after all, have benefited tremendously from the universities and colleges in B.C., and it's appropriate, in general, that they should give something back. I think the Lieutenant-Governor, as I referred to yesterday, has provided a very inspiring example that way which would be good for all of us to emulate.

D. Mitchell: I thank the minister for his comments. The minister was wondering out loud as to how I was going to vote on this budget. I'd just like to offer to him that my intention is to support this minister. That's why I'm here engaging in this debate today. I think it's a constructive debate and it's constructive criticism, and he shouldn't wonder too hard about that one. I'm here in the spirit of constructive criticism, but I am also seeking some answers to some questions.

When we talk about the constitutional matter of how budgets are made, I respect the minister's advice that he offered on that matter. I wasn't asking what happened in Treasury Board. I always believed that what happened in committees of cabinet was confidential. Clearly the minister has put his comments on the record, which would suggest that he was not in support of the cutting of the matched funding program, and I suspect he wasn't in support of a lot of the matters on this budget. That is why I flagged this yesterday in this committee. My concern is that the minister perhaps was not so successful in Treasury Board, although I'm not asking what happened there. In terms of constitutional matters, I think that would be improper for me to even inquire into it.

On the matching funding for the universities, I have one further question. University administrators are concerned about the impact that this kind of a sudden decision that was brought in with this budget, a decision to cut the matching-funding program, will have on their own financial planning for a variety of projects. They feel, according to the input that I have received from consultation with them, that it might be detrimental to live in this kind of uncertainty, not knowing from one year to the next whether they will have enough money to sustain capital projects, scholarships and endowments. The minister referred earlier to his hope that in the future he will be able to go back to the point where matching funding should be.

I wonder if he could just elaborate on that a little. Does he mean he wants to restore it to what it was under the previous administration? Is that the appropriate amount to match funding? At the end of this budget year that we're reviewing, are we to expect an increase back to the point where it was? Is a 50 percent increase the appropriate level for matching funding? Is it higher than that? Could the minister be a little bit more specific in the comment that he made earlier?

Hon. T. Perry: I acknowledge and I appreciate all of the constructive criticism I'm getting from the critic and other hon. members; it's always welcome. It's no secret that ministers traditionally go into Treasury Board and cabinet with many requests and demands that they don't fully achieve. I have no intention of divulging the details, but it doesn't embarrass me in any way, any more than other ministers, to say that naturally one would have liked to have had more. I would be satisfied to have 100 percent of the entire provincial budget for Advanced Education, although we could probably manage with less than that. I felt, as I said before, that on balance we were treated fairly by the budget process, although, like everyone else, we would have liked to have gotten more.

I think it's a little premature to say where the optimum target for the matching-fund program should be. I recognize and agree with the concerns expressed by the hon. member, and by the university presidents and board chairs and fund-raisers. There are genuine questions to be asked as to whether the matching-fund programs have always been targeted or directed as accurately as they might have been towards the most pressing needs of students, faculty and research. In general, my impression is that it has been a highly successful program, but I don't think it was perfect. On occasion, I think it has been driven more by the needs of the prestige of the institution than by the most compelling needs of students, faculty, research or society.

We will be reviewing that this year. I've had a number of opportunities to discuss it with representatives of the universities and colleges. I will undoubtedly be discussing it again with the university board chairs and presidents when I meet with them on June 19, and I would welcome formal or informal suggestions from the member and others as to how we might approach that.

D. Mitchell: While we are on this, I just have one question about college matching funding as well. We've been dealing with the universities. Funding for the college matching program has increased by 2 percent this year, I understand, according to the budget, to approximately $1.6 million. Under the current rules, though, only private sector cash donations for bursaries and scholarships qualify for the government-matched funding, and each college has a cap on the amount of donations that can be matched.

The implications of these rules are that donors often pass over colleges in favour of universities, because they get more bang for their buck, so to speak, with the latter. Furthermore, many colleges are forced to turn down computer donations because they don't have the funds available to set up and equip them. From what I believe, college administrators want gifts in kind and donations for capital projects to qualify for matched contributions, and they also want to see the cap for funding levels lifted.

In order that fund-raising campaign objectives are not compromised, and that individuals, corporations and foundations continue to support universities and colleges, is the minister prepared to review, in particu-

[ Page 2078 ]

lar, the college matching-fund program? Up until now we've been talking about universities.

Hon. T. Perry: Yes, I am certainly prepared to review that. My staff is reminding me that I've been very supportive of the college matching in general, so as to ensure that they were not unfairly discriminated against in the interests of the more powerful, or perhaps more prestigious, universities, but that this particular fiscal year, during the very tight development of the budget, was not the optimum time to begin a substantial new program. We'll be pleased to review these issues; they are the subject of ongoing review.

The question of matching donations in kind raises some complex issues of their evaluation in ensuring that the gift is in fact a gift and not a gift horse. But we are glad to review those issues, and will do so.

S. Hammell: Mr. Minister, I'd like to bring up the issue of Kwantlen again. We've spoken of it many times, so I'd just like to go over a few issues. I understand that both the opposition and another member have asked questions also, but I do want to make just a few points and ask a few questions.

I'm sure you're aware that the population growth in the Kwantlen area has been just astounding. I refer to my constituency in particular, and my municipality, where we have grown in population over the last five years by 70,000 people. I just want to go over a couple of things in terms of the area.

In 1989 two elementary schools were built in Surrey, and one elementary school underwent an expansion. In 1990 six elementary schools were constructed, four elementary schools had additions, and one secondary school underwent expansion. In 1991 three new elementary schools were constructed. In 1992 there were 11 new elementary schools, 13 elementary school additions, six secondary schools and one secondary-school addition.

Richmond School District, which is also in the Kwantlen area, is currently constructing a new secondary school in East Richmond which will accommodate 1,000 students. Although this is the only secondary school to be built in Richmond during the past three years, major additions have been approved for two junior secondary schools in 1992, and the expansion of three additional secondary schools is planned.

In 1991 a new secondary school was built in the Walnut Grove area of the Langley School District, and a number of secondary schools in that district have experienced major expansion, including D.W. Poppy Secondary, Langley Secondary, Mountain Secondary, Aldergrove Secondary and H.D. Stafford Junior Secondary.

This region has the largest population, the largest population growth over the last six years, the largest number of grade 12s, the largest number of 18- to 24-year-olds, the lowest per capita funding and the lowest participation rate of any region. The capital funding in Cariboo -- I'd just like to mention a few -- is $186 per capita, and in Surrey, or the Kwantlen region, it's $49. In Malaspina, it's $164.

The university colleges received some start-up money. I understand they received start-up money for the addition of years three and four. Cariboo received over $1 million; Fraser Valley, over $0.5 million; Malaspina, almost $1 million; Okanagan, over $1 million; and Kwantlen, which is opening a second campus in Richmond this year, received no start-up money.

We received additional money, or additional FTEs, but I want to emphasize that the FTEs do not meet the demand. In that region we have eight seats per 1,000 population, where the provincial average is 16. My concern about Kwantlen is for the students in the region. Our students have the lowest participation in colleges in any region.

[4:15]

What I need to know from the minister and the ministry is that we have a clear plan to get Kwantlen up to speed within the next two or three years. It seems to me it's similar to pay equity, where you have to give an extraordinary effort to Kwantlen to move it up to the provincial average, and I would like to hear that you and your ministry have these plans clearly in place and ready to fly.

Hon. T. Perry: Well, the hon. member for Surrey-Green Timbers knows full well that she has probably been the most consistent thorn in my side since I assumed my office. I'm not sure whether my skin is growing thicker or whether my pain threshold is growing lower. She always seems to impale me with a minimum of pain, but very effectively. And along with other hon. members who have raised this issue today and yesterday, she always seems to make a good point.

We in the ministry don't disagree with her. We recognize the pressing needs of the Kwantlen College region and the South Fraser region in general. In deference to you, hon. Chair, that region might include the upper Fraser Valley on the north side of the Fraser River, also served by Fraser Valley University College. We are doing as much as we feel we can within this year's budget in giving Fraser Valley University College the single largest percentage budget increase. Kwantlen College got the single largest increase in full-time-equivalent student positions at 433, which is 19 percent of the college and institute additional enrollment. However, we recognize that we need to do more.

Yes, I feel confident that although we may not yet have a fully articulated plan, we are in the process of developing one which will see, in the first term of the new government, a major improvement. It's very difficult to resolve these inequities overnight -- it's impossible. No matter what we did this year, we would not be able to resolve those inequities. We did as much as we felt we possibly could within our budget. Frankly, we're not satisfied and we'll be pursuing very vigorously additional resources next year and subsequently. I welcome the support of members on both sides of the House for that initiative because it does require the building of a public consensus that these are sound investments.

D. Mitchell: The member for Surrey-Green Timbers has obviously helped to reinforce a point that 

[ Page 2079 ]

has been made to the minister on more than one occasion now: the situation at Kwantlen is very serious indeed. It's not a partisan issue at all. I think all members of the House agree that the situation in terms of access for the students -- and I think the concern is for the students who can't get access to post-secondary education -- must be quickly addressed by this government.

I'd like to turn to a new topic that we haven't yet canvassed: capital -- in particular, capital funding. I have a couple of questions about capital funding. First of all, I'd like to address equipment funding for our post-secondary institutions. I have a couple of very quick questions on this because there are some very serious concerns in this area. The equipment replacement allocation for colleges and institutes was reduced to $7.5 million from some $11 million, a 31 percent cut -- a very significant cut. The president of the BCIT has been quoted as saying that "capital funding is the lifeblood for this institute and other colleges with technical and vocational programs. It is very hard to provide a quality education if the equipment is obsolete." In light of that, would the minister please explain why he decided to cut by more than 30 percent the funding for the lifeblood of our colleges and institutes?

Hon. T. Perry: The lifeblood of our colleges and institutes are the students and the instructors. The equipment is a very important ancillary, and in some cases it's virtually impossible to teach or learn without suitable equipment. We would have liked to have done better in this field as well. We are fully aware that the colleges regard this as a major priority. Ministry staff also regard it as a major priority. Within the difficult choices that we had to make in constructing a budget that the people of B.C. could live with -- which would not seriously damage our credit rating and further increase the provincial deficit beyond the already substantial deficit -- this was one of the tough choices we had to make. I hope that we will be able to address this issue next year and subsequently.

In the meantime, there's nary a cloud that has no silver lining. In this case, the silver lining must be for the institutions themselves to focus their attention very, very carefully on what is essential and what is less so. In any laboratory, in any computer laboratory or in any mechanical shop, some things are critical and others aren't. I'm very concerned by letters that I've had from college faculty or students pointing out that equipment in the vocational training sections of colleges is sometimes out of date. In one case I received a letter describing equipment ostensibly dating from before World War I in the millwright training program. I will ask when I visit that institution to inspect the equipment so I can see for myself. If the situation is as grave as it's described, I'll be in a better position to recommend that we may have to sacrifice in some other area in order to redress that situation.

As I said a moment ago, I think it's very important that the institutions themselves come to grips with the fact that in the foreseeable future we will face significant constraints on funding. There's no escape from that -- given the size of the provincial deficit and the state of the provincial economy, unless we work an absolute miracle or the world economy turns around miraculously in the next few years. Therefore we rely on the institutions to avoid hyperbole and to focus very, very precisely on what is absolutely essential to them and their students and what they could live without.

D. Mitchell: The minister says he's aware that colleges regard this as a major priority. Of course, we're talking about the equipment fund. The message here is clear to the colleges: do not let this minister know what your priorities are, because if you identify a major priority, what is he going to do? He's going to slash it by 30 percent. Don't let this minister know. That's the message for the colleges. If anyone's listening out there, please do not let this minister know what your major priority is, because he's going to slash it by 30 percent. That's what he's done. That's what he tells us he does when he knows that something is a major priority. I think it's ridiculous.

Capilano College is closing three computer labs this year. Camosun College is currently using out-of-date equipment in its mechanics, nursing and computer programs. The president of Fraser Valley University College has said: "Reducing funding for equipment replacement now is only going to create a much bigger problem in the future." In light of that, my question to the minister is.... Well, first of all, let me suggest a solution. One solution that occurs to me in this area -- something related to what we just discussed -- is that the problem of inadequate funding for equipment replacement might lie in changing the rules for matching funding, so colleges can use donations of equipment and funds for capital projects to qualify for government-matched dollars. I wonder if the minister might share with this committee today what his ideas are for overcoming this problem.

Hon. T. Perry: I think the suggestion made by the hon. member is a reasonable one. Another alternative I identified during a spot visit to Gilford village, this very tiny native Indian outpost in the North Island College region, halfway between Alert Bay and Kingcome Inlet, is for an innovative outreach approach by the colleges themselves. In that instance, the plane in which I was inspecting some outlying college districts was unable to land at Kyuquot. After three attempts to get through the passes to Kyuquot, we landed instead at Gilford village, since we were early for Alert Bay. While we were there, the vice-principal of the Port Hardy campus, or the individual in charge of vocational programs, spotted some equipment lying idle at Gilford village and made an attempt to grab it. I think if we'd been able to load it onto the plane, he probably would have got it onto the plane with us.

Sometimes the solution is sitting right under people's eyes. When I referred to the silver lining earlier, I meant that the ethic of simply going to government and saying, "We need more -- give it to us," in general will no longer work in Advanced Education any more than it will in Health, Education, Social Services, Forests, Economic Development or anywhere else. We are all going to have to learn to be more resourceful.

[ Page 2080 ]

Another alternative I see is.... I realize what I've just said will raise some hackles within the system. There is a certain level of comfort there, and an assurance that they have only to ask and their wish will be granted. If it were so simple, we'd probably have been through these estimates today and off out in the sun by now. Another possibility is more efficient group purchasing. When I visited community colleges and they complained about their computer equipment, for example, they referred jealously to the wonderful equipment in the schools -- maybe the public schools are slightly better funded in that respect. It may be that they have a more efficient purchasing system. I don't know, but I think that's something that our colleges need to review, as do the universities. We can no longer afford the territorial competitiveness of trying to one-up each other in that respect. The ministry, needless to say, is constantly looking for examples like that. I'm just turning to my staff to see if they've got any other exciting ones to share with you now. We're always welcoming suggestions as well.

D. Mitchell: I think it's safe to say, certainly from my perspective, that the solution is not in slashing the equipment-funding budget by 30 percent. We've been talking about colleges and institutes. At the university level as well, funding for equipment replacement has been decreased by approximately 30 percent.

I'll use an example here, for the benefit of the minister. The University of Victoria received $600,000 less in operating capital this year than last year. Nearly all of this year's funding will be devoted to outfitting its new human and social development building. Even then, there will not be enough to fully equip it with computer labs. UVic desperately needs to update the equipment in its physics labs, but will not be able to this year.

My last question to the minister on this matter of equipment funding: will the minister please tell us in this committee today how he thinks the universities and the colleges should respond to their needs for equipment replacement within the very tough confines of this budget?

[4:30]

Hon. T. Perry: In general, I think they'll have to sharpen their pencils the same way we have. We agree with the points raised by the official opposition critic, and we sympathize with the position of the universities as well as the colleges. Every time I visit an institution, I've got my eyes peeled for anything I can spot where they're wasting resources, where they're not quite as lean as they think they are -- and any good manager should be doing that all the time. As I pointed out yesterday, I think that we have quite a bit to learn from the Japanese management philosophy: every defect a treasure. Within tight constraints, sometimes innovation arises. In fact, innovation usually arises in the face of some constraint. We can simply reassure the universities and colleges that we are well aware of their dilemma. We will be working to try to address it. In the meantime, we hope that they'll sharpen their pencils, peel their eyes and look, for example, for savings in energy consumption; water consumption; and heat consumption, by turning down the thermostat in those sweltering classrooms that the hon. member and I used to fall asleep in at UBC and by encouraging students to wear sweaters -- to save a few hundred thousand dollars on their heating bills in a year. They may not only reduce global warming and air pollution, but free up some money that they could spend on equipment replacement. Although I'm sympathetic to them, they are no more immune to financial constraint than are the rest of us. I wish them luck, and we'll do what we can for them next year and subsequently.

D. Mitchell: I'm sure that students, faculty and other staff who are having to cope with a 30 percent reduction in equipment funding will take the minister's wishes for success well -- but I'm not sure that's going to solve the problem.

While we're on the issue of capital, I would like to ask a question on capital construction. We've already addressed some of that in comments made by the minister in answers to questions in this committee, but I have just a couple of questions I would like to ask him to address; they are rather specific. I want to know if there is a development plan in this ministry for capital construction, based upon population growth projections. I believe it would be a good idea, instead of having ad hoc expansion with decisions perhaps based on political reasoning, which may have been the case in the past and may be the case at present, to have a capital construction plan for expansion of the system. For instance, Northwest Community College has been renting facilities in both Houston and Hazelton for a number of years. Its programs are established in these towns, and the college would like to have permanent facilities. Will Northwest Community College be receiving capital funding this year to establish permanent facilities in Houston and Hazelton?

Hon. T. Perry: The ministry operates on the basis of a rolling five-year capital plan, which is developed independently of a minister by the non-partisan bureaucracy. The approach to small centres, like Northwest Community College in the centres of Hazelton and Houston, is flexible. In very small centres, it's often convenient and less expensive to lease or rent. In the longer term, I imagine that in a case like that we will be scrutinizing very carefully the possibility for collaboration between the college and the University of Northern B.C. As the university develops, it may or may not be appropriate to change those arrangements, depending on population growth in those areas, on the stability of the communities and on the fate of the regional economies.

In general, our capital projects are developed on the basis of population growth and on the basis of factors like, for example, in the case of the Justice Institute, the gradually increasing inadequacy of the existing facility, it's aging, higher maintenance costs and the fact that it wasn't really purpose-built for the expanding role of the Justice Institute as a provincial agency. I don't think there was meant to be any suggestion that there had been political interference in these decisions; there 

[ Page 2081 ]

certainly wasn't. The ministry staff basically developed, as part of their rolling five-year plan, the list of projects funded this year, and I've accepted the expert advice from the ministry.

I think there was political interference last year in the proposed relocation of the Justice Institute to Langley rather than New Westminster. The very clear consensus of opinion in the studies of the proposed relocation suggested it should be placed close to the SkyTrain terminus in New Westminster, where it would be much more central to the training needs for firemen, police, ambulance attendants and all the other diverse functions of the Justice Institute. The clear consensus was New Westminster. We followed through on that; whereas the previous government had interfered politically and attempted to displace it to Langley. In deference to the hon. member for Langley, there is nothing wrong with Langley per se. It just wasn't a suitable site for that particular institute.

D. Mitchell: I just have one further question to the minister on capital construction. There is a great demand for the services provided by Camosun College, but it doesn't have the proper facilities to accommodate a significant increase in FTEs. I know that the college has made a number of applications for capital funding for building projects. Can the minister tell the committee if Camosun will have its request approved this year, in this budget?

Hon. T. Perry: I'm trying to refresh my memory on the details. Camosun College is expanding its Interurban Road campus in Saanich. I'm just trying to remind myself of what exactly they're building there. When you've seen the plans, it's easier to remember. Planning and construction of additions are budgeted this year. I'm not sure if anyone here knows exactly what kind of a building they're putting up, but they're getting a major increase. It's a $15 million project at the Interurban site for non-academic programs -- trades training. It is mostly additions and some replacement of some of the older buildings now used for trades training. I will gladly get you more information in due course.

D. Mitchell: Yes, I would appreciate it if the minister could give me the details of the funding for capital construction for Camosun College in particular, compared with the applications that have been made for funding.

I wonder if I could, in the interest of expediency, move on to a different topic at this point. I'd like to ask the minister a question about governance of colleges and institutes within our post-secondary education system in British Columbia. The minister and I have certainly discussed this privately, but I think it's important for the record to receive his comments on plans to review the manner in which our colleges and institutes are governed. I would draw to the attention of the committee a post-secondary policy for British Columbia by the New Democratic Party, dated September 1990, which says that the NDP will provide for elected members representing faculty, staff and students on college, institute, Open Learning Agency and BCIT boards of governors. Can I ask the minister whether or not that is still the policy of the New Democratic Party, the now government of British Columbia?

Hon. T. Perry: If I may, just before I answer that question I want to respond to one raised by the member for Abbotsford earlier. Perhaps his colleague for Prince George-Omineca might undertake to notify him that I've tried to answer the question raised about an hour ago. The member for Abbotsford asked whether parolees get some preference in enrolment at post-secondary institutions. Parolees could get seats purchased from time to time by CEIC, the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission. In the event that CEIC purchased a seat specifically for a parolee, then the parolee would get that seat, which is fully funded by CEIC. But even those are given out on a first-come basis; that is, whoever first registers with CEIC for retraining or education would have the first call on federal government funds. We've spoken to the president of Fraser Valley University College, which would be the closest institution to the constituency of the member for Abbotsford. Dr. Jones informs us that Fraser Valley University College gives no special preference to parolees or, for that matter, anyone else.

Now I'll return to the other question, if I can remember it.

D. Mitchell: Governance and your policy for elected boards.

Hon. T. Perry: I'm not sure, hon. Chair, whether it's -- and I'd be guided by you, perhaps -- appropriate for the minister during estimates to explain the complexities of how the New Democratic Party sets its policy. I think it might be more appropriate for me to defer that to another venue. I'm prepared to deal with that if you instruct me to.

The Chair: Hon. minister, you are quite correct. It does not come under the purview of your office; therefore, in the examination of the estimates of supply, it would be out of order.

Hon. T. Perry: But I can deal with it anyway. I think I can deal more obliquely with the question raised by the hon. member. The ministry is presently reviewing issues of governance in the colleges. As the member is aware, and others will be aware, there is, in a sense, a historical anomaly in that the community colleges and now also the university colleges, which will shortly be in a position to grant their own degrees and now grant them through the aegis of the existing universities, do not share the same governance provided for universities under the University Act. The College and Institute Act specifically prevents the appointment of students or faculty at an institution to its board of governors, and it also prescribes that all of the board members shall be appointed rather than elected from within or without the institution.

[ Page 2082 ]

As a ministry, we're now looking at the issue of how to rationalize governance in the best long-term interests of the institutions. We're dealing with three related issues. One is the Korbin commission's review of collective bargaining issues and related issues within the public service. The second is the issue of the two tiers of government which universities currently enjoy: not only a board, which in that case is partly elected, but also an academic senate. So we're reviewing the issue of whether colleges and university colleges ought to have the equivalent of an academic senate, an academic council or whatever one might call it. The other is the broader issue of how best to define the responsibilities of the board of governors in a college or institute, how to ensure their accountability, what they are really accountable for, and -- beyond their accountability through the minister to the public of B.C. in general -- how they should be accountable to their regional constituency, and even what that regional constituency is.

Our intent at the moment is.... I'm being advised by my staff, who are a little bit ahead of me in-house on looking at these issues, that staff are now looking at the question, within those broad goals, of how best to appoint or elect or both, or to select members to whatever structures are determined at the two levels, both the board of governors and the possible academic senate or council.

[4:45]

My feeling has been, as the hon. member is aware, that it may be appropriate to publish a white or a green paper, or some other colour of paper, this fall, putting out some of the options and considerations for public discussion. One possibility is that a legislative committee might be asked to review these issues, and it's one that I personally think would be appropriate, although I know that there are many other items competing for the agendas of legislative committees later in this calendar year. In either case, I think that we can achieve extensive consultation around the province, whether it's done through a legislative committee or some other mechanism. My feeling all along, since the last election, has been that the earliest we could possibly address this matter through legislation would be the spring of 1993. I hope we can do that. I think it's not the most urgent of the issues we're facing in the field, and I'm not in a position to guarantee that we can, but I'm still hopeful that we can deal with that issue then.

D. Mitchell: On this issue of governance, another question for the minister. I share the concern that he's expressed in this area, and I too would favour some broad-based public consultation before we make any significant changes. I think some changes may be desirable. A legislative committee is one method that I might favour, and certainly the minister's aware of that. He and I have discussed that.

My concern about this whole area of governance is twofold, really. The minister hasn't answered a question that I asked. Before I go any further I'd like to ask the minister, without discussing New Democratic Party policy or how it's made.... In the policy statement of his party on post-secondary education there was a promise to provide for elected members on college and institute boards of governors. Since this government was elected in October of last year we haven't heard a lot about this -- not publicly, in any event. We haven't seen any evidence that it plans immediately to reform these procedures. Perhaps it's good that we're actually taking a thoughtful approach and not rushing headlong into it. But could I ask, in the wake of the flurry of late Friday afternoon announcements that we've been seeing over the last few weeks, with very significant numbers of changes to boards of colleges and institutes: when did the minister abandon this promise of the New Democratic Party?

The Chair: Hon. minister, before the Chair permits the answer, I would caution the members that we are now discussing the need for future legislation, and as such we're becoming out of order in the examination of these estimates and supply. I would caution the minister. The Chair will permit the exploration of this within fairly rigid guidelines.

Hon. T. Perry: Hon. Chair, I'm reminded that the riding of Mission-Kent is the home of the Sasquatch. I feel sufficiently terrorized that I'll attempt to restrain myself.

We've not abandoned that commitment. The ministry is studying policy options. In my view, it's certainly within the appropriate mandate of this committee for the hon. critic to ask how I'm approaching the issue within my ministry. I'm glad to assure him that we're attempting to define clearly the policy issues over the role of boards of governors before prescribing the solution. I think we will see democratic election of at least some of the members of college and institute boards in the future, in the same way that university boards are democratically elected. The policy issues are complex, and I think we need to try to define what we're trying to achieve first.

In terms of the Friday afternoon announcements, I point out that cabinet makes decisions on Wednesdays. Typically, orders-in-council are signed by the Lieutenant-Governor on Friday mornings. To avoid delay in the publication of information, normally the government seeks to release that information at the earliest possible date after the Lieutenant-Governor has signed the order-in-council. That's why appointments are normally raised on Friday afternoons.

I can assure you that we would not seek to hide the appointments we've made, because we took a very deliberate approach to this issue. We restrained our enthusiasm in the first six months of my tenure as minister. We have taken a very conservative approach to the replacement of existing board members. We have asked many of the most prominent and most effective board members to remain in position. I'm delighted to say that virtually all of those asked to remain have agreed to continue to serve the public.

I'm pleased to say that we've gone a long way in appointments to meeting the government's goal of enhancing the representation of women, aboriginals, people with disabilities and visible minorities on boards. I'm afraid the computer's broken down. I don't 

[ Page 2083 ]

have a current tally of people with disabilities, aboriginals and people from ethnic minorities, but the appointments we've made so far include 55 women and 44 men. We have been able to achieve a major redress of the former imbalance, where women were significantly underrepresented, particularly on university boards.

D. Mitchell: I'm pleased to hear that the minister hasn't abandoned the promise of his party. I'm also interested to know that on the one hand, while launching a review and a major reconsideration of how the governance of our college and institute boards is going to be composed, and whether or not there's going to be some democratic representation.... I think all of that is useful; I think it should take some time and some thoughtfulness. In the meantime we're going ahead, and we're making significant changes to the existing boards.

I wonder whether or not there is some kind of contradiction there, and what kind of message that is sending to the advanced education community. On the one hand, we're saying we want to reconsider this; we're not sure that the way it's been done in the past was right; we might want to have some democratic representation; we want to rethink this. But in the meantime we'll continue with the ways of the past, we'll have these Friday afternoon announcements, and we'll have dozens and dozens of changes. Why would the minister be doing that? Why would he be reviewing the matter on the one hand, and on the other hand continuing the practice that he feels is perhaps inadequate? I wonder if there's not some contradiction there. I certainly welcome the appointment of members who are reflective of the community as a whole and of underrepresented groups....

The Chair: Order, hon. member. The Chair recognizes the member for Burnaby-Edmonds on a point of order.

F. Randall: Mr. Chair, I'm having a problem knowing what all this discussion about appointments to boards has to do with the estimates. I think you should make a ruling on it, because we're just going around and around about New Democrat policy and conventions and who's going to be appointed and how they're going to be appointed and the mixture. I don't know what that's got to do with the estimates.

The Chair: The caution is well taken, hon. member. I understand that we have approached discussion of New Democratic Party policy. The minister has stated clearly that it's not under the jurisdiction of his office. However, the minister did suggest that discussion of the policy as an approach to a change in appointments or the method of choosing college and university boards was appropriate in the examination of the estimates of his office. If hon. members would keep in mind the separation of New Democratic Party policy and platforms from the operation of the ministry, we would all be within order.

D. Mitchell: Certainly the issue of governance of college boards and institutes is well within our purview of discussion in the estimates review of this ministry. While I don't intend to discuss the inner workings of the New Democratic Party in this committee, I don't think hon. members should be ashamed of discussing the policy of the governing party. After all, that's relevant as well. I think it's very relevant to discuss the spending of this government, their spending plans and their intentions.

To get to the question on this, the government has appointed to college and institute boards members who are reflective of the general community and of underrepresented groups as well. As members of the Legislature, I think we all applaud that. I can welcome these appointments. However, certain board members have been removed before their terms were up. I wonder if the minister could tell this committee what reason he had, for example, for removing competent board members before their term had expired. What causes were there for such terminations? Why would these changes have been made at this time, considering that this whole matter is under review in any event?

Hon. T. Perry: It's very difficult to give a meaningful answer without dealing in specifics. It would be inappropriate to do so in public; board members are entitled to their privacy. It's not a convention in parliament to discuss individuals in that way. I can say in general that I certainly disagree with the opposition critic that nothing has changed. In fact, the appointment process, from what I've been able to discern, has changed dramatically. In our ministry, under my leadership, we've sought a very open consultation with the Advanced Education Council of B.C. I'm referring in general to the colleges and institutes, because I've filled one vacancy at one university but otherwise made no alterations to the university boards. Within the colleges, we've sought the advice of the Advanced Education Council and the college board chairs and presidents. We've received much unsolicited advice. We've sought the advice of MLAs.

L. Fox: Not mine.

Hon. T. Perry: All MLAs have been welcome to submit names, and we've objectively considered every nomination we've received. We've received a number of unsolicited nominations, all of which have been carefully weighed. In cases like the search for qualified people with disabilities, we've gone out to groups like the Premier's Advisory Council for Persons with Disabilities, the Coalition of People with Disabilities and regional organizations. I know I can confidently stand here and state with pride that we've been able to greatly diversify the boards, and that every single appointment we've made would stand on her or his own qualifications. The current policy of the government is to observe the intent of the new Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, which precludes the release of the detailed curriculum vitae. The boards are under instructions from me, and in the normal course of events would compile a professional résumé for each of 

[ Page 2084 ]

their new members. I expect that once they've had a chance to do that, those will be available in due course. We've attempted to communicate in our press releases a brief résumé describing the qualifications of our appointees.

To deal with the issue of why some people were relieved of their responsibilities, in some cases they asked to be. In other cases, upon consulting the institution -- sometimes the board chair, sometimes the president -- we found that individual board members had not been regularly attending meetings and had not, in the view of the institution, contributed as fully as other board members. Frankly, we felt no obligation to maintain, with a new mandate from the people of B.C. at election, any given individual -- be they New Democratic, Social Credit, Liberal, Communist, Martian, or any other political or non-political stripe -- if we felt we could find someone who would serve the institution better.

[5:00]

I think it should also be made clear that in some cases individuals had served with great distinction but for very prolonged periods, and we felt it might be in the institution's interest to rotate the positions. That should not be taken in any way as a criticism of the existing board members, but as a natural principle of organizational renewal. When an organization depends for too long upon an individual -- in some cases as long as 16 years -- it's not always healthy for the organization. We recognize that some of the people no longer serving in that role have other contributions to make to the province, and they will make them. They can make them in the college foundations, where appointment is at the discretion of the college board itself. They can make them in other voluntary ways, and we encourage them to do so.

[D. Schreck in the chair.]

D. Mitchell: Just one final question on this issue of governance, because I'm not completely satisfied with the minister's answer. I think this whole issue of governance is a very important issue for the whole system. I'm pleased that it's going to be under review in a thoughtful manner. In the meantime, isn't it a contradiction for this minister to be saying "Yes, we want to review the matter," and "Yes, we want to have public input and we want to consult, and to have some thoughtfulness," and criticize the previous regime for having the minister of the day simply designate who was going to serve on the boards of the various colleges and institutes? In the meantime, while it's under review, Mr. Chairman....

And I welcome you to the chair, Mr. Chairman. It's pleasant to see you there. It's always nice to see a colleague from the North Shore take the chair. I know that you won't interfere with the game that's being played here, as some referees tend to. But I'll just carry on with my comments.

Hon. T. Perry: This isn't enough fun to be a game. This is an ordeal.

D. Mitchell: As we continue with the minister's ordeal....

Isn't there some contradiction -- some hypocrisy, in fact -- with this minister saying that now he will decide, in the meantime, what the composition of those boards will be? Maybe he has a better idea than the previous regime. But where is the democratic representation that he talked about? Where is the democratic representation that his party has preached about in the past?

Not only that but something more fundamental, going back to the minister's comments.... There is an implied criticism of the experienced board members who have been removed. Implied in the minister's comments is that there has been cause for dismissal of the members who have been removed. I wonder whether or not the minister realizes the effect of the removal of experienced board members on the governance of colleges and BCIT. I wonder if the minister would care to clarify his comment on that. There is definitely implied in his comments cause for dismissal. I find it hard to believe that experienced board members, who have given so much to the province -- certainly they don't receive significant remuneration for their service on the boards -- should be criticized in that manner. I would ask the minister to clarify his comments for the benefit of this committee.

Hon. T. Perry: No, I don't think it's hypocritical. If the hon. member inferred implicit criticism, that was not my intention. The graveyards of British Columbia and the world are full of irreplaceable people, as one of the hon. members reminded me the other day. No one is indispensable in that sense. I believe the true test of whether the appointments have been wise is how the boards function. I think it would be a mistake for anyone to draw the conclusion that renewal of the boards is -- or is not -- a criticism of those who served there before.

In general, the boards of colleges have been, in my view, well run but not perfectly so. I don't expect the current boards to be perfect, either. I think that in general they will more fully reflect the diversity of our society as it has evolved. I make absolutely no apology for that. The law requires the minister to exercise the responsibility of filling the boards and to have confidence in them, because they are accountable to the minister and through the minister to the public. I make no apologies for respecting the present law as long as it's on the books.

D. Mitchell: I'd like to move on to a different line of questioning. Not that I'm satisfied with the minister's answers by any means, but in the interest of expediency, I think we must move on if we're going to finish in this century.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to address a number of issues relating to students within our post-secondary educational system. I'd like to commence by asking the minister a question about cuts to summer employment programs. This is a serious issue; it's a timely issue. Unfortunately for many students, it's a very, very desperate situation this summer. First of all, there was a 

[ Page 2085 ]

delay in the announcement for cuts to summer programs. The minister has been quoted through the media as saying that it was a budget decision. He even said in the House that this was a budget decision. Yet the budget came down at the end of March. Why would the minister then wait until May 5 to announce the cut to summer employment programs, when so many students were waiting patiently, waiting with hope that there might be some summer employment for them so that they could continue with their education? Many of these summer jobs, of course, are career-oriented, research-related jobs on campus. Did the minister anticipate the impact on students looking for summer employment? Did the minister realize the impact that that kind of decision was going to have on access? Those two questions, I think, will start.

Hon. T. Perry: Yes, we were concerned. I don't think there was any conspiracy to delay the announcement. I note that the opposition was not particularly aggressive in fulfilling its role in broadcasting the information, in the sense that the announcement was actually made in the Victoria press, in the Times-Colonist, before it was raised in the Legislature or before we got around to making a formal announcement. In retrospect, it might have been preferable for us to have made the announcement earlier. I don't have any shame in saying that perhaps we ought to have done so and that we'll try to do better the next time.

Similarly, it may have been perhaps a little naive for students to conclude that in a time of extremely severe budget constraint everything would be the same as it always had been. We made no implicit promise to anyone that these programs would continue. We certainly did not dissimulate or mislead anyone. Perhaps we failed in an opportunity to advise people earlier in the year. If so, we'll try not to make that mistake again.

Yes, we were concerned. We had a limited budget, and we made, as I explained in a question period response a few weeks ago, the best choices we felt we could under the circumstances.

D. Mitchell: I commend the minister for admitting a mistake. I think it takes some maturity and generosity of spirit to admit that he was wrong, to admit that the ministry was wrong. I think this clearly was a mistake, and hopefully a mistake that will not be repeated. I would encourage the minister to take a second look at this, because clearly there was a problem of communication here. Clearly, we cannot assume that students are going to infer by some implied numbers in the budget that programs are going to be discontinued. I think there needs to be very clear and explicit communication on a topic like that. Here we had a tragedy this summer, where students a few weeks after the end of classes were still waiting and hoping for career-related employment on campus this summer before they found out that it was going to be cut.

The minister has talked about freezing tuition and what a benefit that is going to be for students. I have to question that. Why freeze tuition fees if students can't get jobs anyway to fund their education? Freezing tuition isn't going to be very meaningful for students who don't have access, can't get in or can't fund their education. This really has to be looked at in that light. Communication needs to be improved.

There is another impact, though, and that's the impact on research. Not only did this decision affect students, but it affected many of the faculty on campuses who, in the normal course of things -- what has come to be expected as normal in the past -- would have hired many of these students in research capacities over the course of the summer to assist in very important projects, a variety of research projects in both the arts and the sciences. I wonder if the minister realized the impact that this late decision, this miscommunicated or uncommunicated decision, had on research in British Columbia, and our institutions of post-secondary education?

Hon. T. Perry: Yes.

L. Fox: I just want to ask a few questions on CNC and discuss where that's going. But first, in scanning the Blues, it appears to me that the operational budget increases were done on a basis of development growth within those areas. Is that a correct assumption?

Hon. T. Perry: I'm not sure what the member for Prince George-Omineca is referring to. Could you just tell us which document? You're looking at the Hansard Blues?

[D. Streifel in the chair.]

L. Fox: I'm looking at the Hansard Blues for Monday afternoon, page 26a. It appears that Malaspina received 6.38 percent more this year, Okanagan 6.03 percent.... My question was to try to figure out the rationale for the funding for this particular year, and it would appear in scanning the Blues that colleges received different percentages of increase in the area.... Was that difference due to growth? On what basis were those increases given?

Hon. T. Perry: In general, the answer is that the inflationary adjustment was the same for everyone: 2.0 percent. The remainder reflects funded growth in full-time-equivalent students, which reflected judgments based on the local population, local demand, service relative to population within the college district, and a variety of other factors that the ministry determined itself.

L. Fox: Would the minister then tell me, beyond the 2 percent lift for the College of New Caledonia was there an adjustment factor there as well for expanded FTEs?

[5:15]

Hon. T. Perry: They got a very modest increase of 20 additional FTEs, from 2,560 to 2,580. The effect of that on their net operating grant was to yield an increase from $17,368,084 to $17,815,834, which is 2.58 percent of their total operating grant. To put that into context, you must realize that the University of North-

[ Page 2086 ]

ern B.C. is allotted 100 full-time-equivalent students starting this fall, September 1992. Probably the majority of those students will come from the Prince George drawing area, and the net local effect is substantially more than just what is reflected in the CNC enrolment.

L. Fox: In discussing the budget with CNC, I found it rather amazing that just a year ago the now-Minister of Government Services, then the member for Prince George North, chastised the previous administration and the previous minister because of the lack of opportunity for students to get a chair within the CNC network; in fact, over 600 students weren't able to enter the college program. The administration of the college inform me that this year they are actually going to have a decrease in staff. They are not able to fill those positions that have been vacated, and the disappointed-student list is going to increase substantially. That, of course, could be caused by the fact that there is not a lot of opportunity for jobs out there in the resource sector. There has also been an increasing awareness of the value of education, with the focus and the emphasis that have been placed on UNBC.

Obviously there has to be extreme concern on the part of this government and the minister that this particular budgeting process is not meeting the needs of that area, in terms of offering the necessary opportunities for those who aren't able to find jobs -- at all ages, I might add. It's not just students, as the minister is well aware, in that area. Perhaps the minister might just discuss that.

Hon. T. Perry: I think CNC was treated fairly, in the context of other colleges. I visited the board on April 2. I don't recall the board, faculty members or students who met with me making a suggestion that they had been treated unfairly in comparison to any other college. I think it is very important to recognize that in the case of Prince George particularly and northern British Columbia in general, under the previous government and with the support of the then opposition and now government, including the very vigorous support of the member for Prince George-Mount Robson as well as the former member for Prince George, or whatever it was called.... With consensus, a decision was made to pursue the University of Northern British Columbia, which was not the cheapest, most economically efficient solution to the problem of access in northern British Columbia.

Had we chosen the most economically efficient, easiest route, we would doubtless have pursued the university-college model at CNC; that was a reasonable option that might have been pursued. But under the influence of the people of northern British Columbia, as the hon. member is fully aware, the government, with the support of the opposition and now with the support of the present government, chose a more ambitious model.

I, as the hon. member knows, am an enthusiastic supporter of that model. I believe it will pay off in the long run; in the short run, it will involve growing pains which we perhaps would not have experienced had we chosen the university-college model. In the short run, it's possible that we may have to pay some price in less immediate access than we might have achieved had we chosen the cheaper model. If it is a sacrifice, it's a modest one worth making, in terms of the long-term interest of the north and its social and economic development. So I don't apologize for it, although I wasn't involved in making the original decision. From the first day of my being sworn in as minister, I endorsed it and have supported it and have aggressively moved it forward.

Northerners should be confident that in this budget, we have pushed very aggressively to ensure the future of advanced education in northern B.C. In the long term, the future is very bright; in the short term, there are problems, just as there are everywhere else around the province.

L. Fox: I certainly appreciate the minister's support for UNBC, as do the people of northern British Columbia. I don't wish to belabour the issue, but I am extremely concerned about the interim development, and the fact that there is going to be a lack of opportunity for those individuals wanting to get involved so that they can in two years' time enter the university program within UNBC.

Your comments lead me to another question. I know the minister is extremely aware of the master site development plan for CNC. Would the minister give me, at this time, some time-frames with respect to that? What are the plans?

Hon. T. Perry: Right now the University of Northern B.C. is engaged in a massive capital project of some $137 million -- slightly more than that in total -- which is expected to produce a significant pressure on the capacity of the construction industry in Prince George. The hon. member will know from a question recently in question period that, so far, we're satisfied that tenders are coming in, if anything, under budget. We're very encouraged by the tendering process followed by the University of Northern B.C. so far. The ministry has taken a careful, deliberate decision not to overheat the construction market in Prince George at the moment, because we're trying to shepherd the taxpayers' dollars as far as we can possibly go.

It also makes sense to consider the master site plans for CNC in the context of how the college will ultimately integrate with the University of Northern B.C. Again, as the hon. member is doubtless aware, I've been a defender of the integrity of the college against what it has sometimes perceived as the behemoth of a new university coming to absorb and swallow, if not digest, it. The college has made it clear that it will avoid digestion at all costs, and I sympathize with their position. After all, they've been there for 25 years now or longer -- since 1965, when it wasn't so glamorous a thing to be involved in advanced education in Prince George. They've been doing excellent work all that time. I think we will be evolving our plans in conjunction with CNC. The staff are pointing out that some delay in the construction will ensure the maximum continuity of local employment and avoid some of the problems that northern members frequently speak of -- 

[ Page 2087 ]

the need to import skilled labour from Alberta or elsewhere, purely because you have a labour shortage in the region. We will get the maximum return for the community as well as a careful, integrated planning process.

L. Fox: The minister should be aware that the last contract let did not -- with respect to UNBC -- go to a Prince George firm. In fact, it went to a firm from Alberta. I'm not sure that I understand the logic. However, given the minister's answer, am I to understand that he is not planning to get on with this capital project until UNBC's construction is nearly completed?

Hon. T. Perry: That issue is still under negotiation with CNC, and probably will be for quite a while. The bulk of the construction at UNBC is occurring in this calendar year, and in '93, and will be tapering off as they near opening in '94. I'm advised that we would anticipate a gradual shift over from emphasis on UNBC to a renewed emphasis on CNC during that time. The real goal of ministry policy is not only to live within our capital budget for the whole province but to try to avoid creating an artificial boom followed by a bust in the construction industry in Prince George, as a sensible element of overall government social and economic policy. I just might add that I'm aware, from having inspected the college -- I think that was my first visit to a post-secondary institution late last November -- that they have some serious problems. Without giving offence to the member for Bulkley Valley-Stikine, I believe they have what's called the Smithers unit, which is in a state of near collapse. I'm aware that they have significant needs.

L. Fox: Just for clarification, then, I would assume that if we're looking at a construction stage phasing in in two years, we would be starting the design and planning stage, and would have that done over the next two years. Would that be a fair assumption?

Hon. T. Perry: Well, as with any other institution, community college or university, we're hopeful that we'll be able to begin that over the next two years. I'm not in a position to make a commitment on that right now. It's a very unusual event, like the creation of a new university such as UNBC, when we make a commitment to a sort of global capital development. In general, that is not the way the ministry approaches colleges; we tend to do things more incrementally. We're certainly in active discussion with them; we're not ignoring their concerns. We'll likely be discussing that during the 1993-94 budget estimates.

L. Fox: I'd like just to follow up, so I have a clear understanding. I'm a bit confused. The minister suggested earlier that the rationale for moving this a few years down the road was that they didn't want to overtax the construction trades. It makes some sense, quite honestly. If you have too much construction happening in one area, obviously you're going to drive up the cost. I can appreciate the minister's logic, but I also know from my years of experience that it takes a couple of years to go through the planning process, the designing process and so on, to have the necessary tender documents ready to go in two years' time. I would hope that the minister would at least commit to having those two years as the stage in which to do the planning and the designing so that he's ready to go in 1994-95.

[5:30]

Hon. T. Perry: With respect to the member, I'm not in a position to commit publicly to decisions which have not been fully made yet. Our intentions at the present are consistent with what the member has just outlined.

L. Fox: I'll accept that; I understand that.

At a board meeting last week at CNC, there was an interesting proposal put forward by the regional district chairman about the Nechako. It was to deal with the inadequate premises at Burns Lake, similar to what the opposition critic put forward earlier with the Hazelton and Houston scenario. He made overtures to the board that perhaps it was time the regional district looked at putting forth a referendum to help fund more adequate post-secondary facilities within that region. I wonder if that would be something the minister might see as a way to deal with some of these satellite campuses. I'll just leave it at that and allow you to comment on it.

Hon. T. Perry: It's an interesting idea worthy of consideration. Off the top of my head, I think there are potential drawbacks as well. Referenda may tend to effectively discriminate against rural areas. My immediate concern would be that we might end up seeing a diminution of service to rural areas. Having learned something about the province in my role as opposition Health critic, and also having worked in some small communities like Houston and Hudson's Hope, and the Charlottes, I feel something of the importance of delivering services to the outlying areas. My intention as minister is to bend over backwards, to the extent I can, to protect programs in the small centres. I would prefer, at the moment, to take the suggestion under advisement and give it some thought. I don't think it's one to which I can respond intelligently on the spur of the moment. I do hope to make a tour of Highway 16 in September or October, and would look forward to visiting the Burns Lake site and others at that point, and get a better feeling, on the ground, of what they've got there and what their problems are.

D. Mitchell: I would like to return to our line of questioning on students. We addressed the issue of cuts to the summer employment program -- not satisfactorily, I must say -- but I think I'd like to carry on from that point and talk about access from the students' perspective. Certainly we've talked about access from a systemwide capacity viewpoint, but I'd like to address the issue of access of students within the system. I know that many of these issues have been dealt with previously in the committee. I don't want to repeat any of 

[ Page 2088 ]

those: participation rates, new spaces created. But I do want to talk about the students who fill those spaces.

As the minister realizes, there are many barriers to access. I acknowledge that he's taken some very positive steps, especially with the appointment of the Orum commission. I note, in particular, that in addition to that, he's taken an initiative that is going to allow that single parents no longer have to include tuition and books as part of their income from student loans. I know that, from the representation that I've received from a number of students.... For instance, I have a letter from a single mother who says that including tuition as part of income has really hurt her ability to attend school. She had her classes cancelled at Kwantlen, anyway. At least she has one more reason to continue in school now, now that this change has been made. So I compliment the minister on that. I think that's a positive move.

There are other issues, of course, when we address student access. Those issues include housing, day care, transportation -- which the minister and I chatted about late last week, and which is an important issue -- and, of course, the whole issue of family and community background. I realize that the student financial assistance review committee is going to be looking at these barriers, but it seems to me that the barriers are easily recognized. We know what the barriers are. The real question is: how are we going to reduce them? How are we going to break them down? How are we going to eliminate them over the course of time?

I'd like to ask the minister: what role does he see for his ministry, in terms of breaking down these financial and, in addition, non-financial barriers to post-secondary education? Clearly, there's a multidisciplinary approach that is going to take the will of all ministries of government to address these issues satisfactorily. What role does he anticipate his ministry will be taking to break down these barriers, financial and non-financial?

Hon. T. Perry: That's a very interesting question. I think we have a lot of potential roles. Some of them have been pursued quietly by the ministry. They haven't been always conventionally regarded as responsibilities of our ministry, but I intend to take, and I have already taken, the most aggressive approach I can think of to these issues.

Let me cite a few examples. I did not wait to assume the portfolio before pushing the university as hard as I could to develop more student housing. As the former representative of Vancouver-Point Grey, that was one of my hobbyhorses; some people might even have called me a warhorse on that issue. Similarly, in the city of Vancouver I have consistently advocated a more rational municipal policy towards the toleration of so-called illegal, or secondary, suites. I regard the city's present policy as woefully misguided, in that it tends to discriminate against homeowners who would like to have secondary suites. It's nominally in the interests of fire safety, but no one has ever produced evidence that students who don't smoke and don't become intoxicated in their secondary suites constitute significant fire hazards. The majority of students do neither of those two activities, and there is no evidence that I am aware of that they are more of a hazard than anyone else. As minister, I will continue to remind that municipality and others that their actions are sometimes actually very destructive to the post-secondary system, and they have unintended consequences that perhaps they have not fully thought through.

In Prince George I've been encouraging the mayor and members of the municipal council to consider the provision of secondary suites in new housing expanding out around the campus of the University of Northern B.C. I gather from them that there is a boom already in the construction of such suites, and it didn't require my encouragement.

The universities have been relatively aggressive recently in proposing new student housing. UBC has a target, I think, of housing 25 percent of its student population by the year 2000. We have recently funded the construction of a major new project at SFU and at East Kootenay Community College. There are plans at Cariboo as well. A very interesting recent example is the proposal by Vancouver General Hospital to evict or give notice to students resident within the former nurses' residence, where there are about 275 students now present. As the local MLA, I've been actively involved in attempting to get them to re-examine that issue and explore options, possibly including the acquisition of the former VGH nurses' residence and its renovation by one or another university, community college or consortium. At UNBC, their plans already predated me to provide 400 student spaces on the campus.

Transportation issues. I will be vigorously pressing the minister responsible for transit to consider the possibility of discretionary or concessional fares to students. I hope other members of the Legislature will do so. That's ultimately a matter for the regional transit commission, and similarly in Victoria.

Day care. I've been pushing that as vigorously as I can with the institutions. Our ministry is under very explicit instructions from the Treasury Board to deal with the day care issue. I guess we're still preparing a submission to Treasury Board, So we've had additional heat placed on us by the government at large.

Family and community background of students. We will, over the next months to a year, I expect, be developing a coordinated strategy, with the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs in particular, to deal with probably the most obvious sector of the population where community and family background discriminate against participation.

With disabled students, we've been working in a variety of ways, trying to draw the attention of the institutions to barriers such as physical access. I spoke yesterday about the financial commitment we've made to improve access for disabled students.

D. Mitchell: I welcome those comments from the minister. I might just draw to his attention and to the attention of the committee that there are examples of proactive programs in other jurisdictions that we might want to use as reference points for the goal of increasing access for students into the system. I refer the minister to Manitoba, where their access programs 

[ Page 2089 ]

were started as early as 1970. I understand that in Manitoba, at the height of the program a couple of years ago, a thousand students in 16 different programs were involved. Entering the program was based on three different types of eligibility: financial need; academic -- many were not necessarily prepared for university, obviously; and barriers of language, geography or culture. I understand that active recruiting is ongoing for these programs. They provide not only financial assistance but extra academic counselling and, perhaps more importantly, cultural and social counselling. Manitoba is one good reference point and an example of proactive programs geared towards access for students. I'd like to ask the minister whether or not his ministry is contemplating provincewide programs, coordinated by his ministry, to increase the participation rate of underrepresented groups.

Hon. T. Perry: There are a lot of different approaches one could take. I welcome the suggestions relating to Manitoba. I think one constructive way of exploring them further would be through the critic's participation in the Orum committee review. If there is other information to draw to our attention, I'm sure ministry staff would be happy to examine it as well.

I can think of two specific areas where we've undertaken relatively innovative programs in increasing access for an underrepresented group. The most obvious one is aboriginal people. Virtually all the colleges now have a native coordinator or counsellor. Earlier in the debate -- I think this morning -- I alluded to the importance of the colleges retaining these positions, even in financial difficulties. I have not fully understood that in fact these are specifically funded line items which the ministry mandates, and the colleges will be obliged to retain the positions. The native counsellors are gaining a very good reputation so far for helping students acculturate to an environment that's often seen as very foreign.

[5:45]

Another example, although it's not funded by my ministry, represents a broad government policy. I've been a strong supporter in the past, and will continue to be, of the native health care professionals program at UBC, run by Angie Todd-Dennis. That program reaches out to try to recruit students into the health professions; it recently recruited the first-ever aboriginal medical student in B.C., who I believe is now in third year. It has reached out earlier by sponsoring science summer schools for aboriginal students around the province, attempting to get students interested earlier on in taking the prerequisite courses. Although that one happens to be funded by the Ministry of Health, I share the interest. We have a variety of other specific grants to first nations institutions associated with colleges -- for example, Nicola Valley Institute of Technology, which is associated with Cariboo College -- where we're attempting to enhance access. We're always looking for good new ideas. I mentioned that yesterday.

D. Mitchell: Just in that vein: is the ministry involved in any initiatives to encourage the hiring of aboriginal people as instructors at post-secondary institutes in the province?

Hon. T. Perry: We certainly have encouraged the institutions. As a matter of policy, we don't interfere in their hiring practices, obviously. We've given strong encouragement. It's a challenging issue, just as it has been challenging for many institutions to find women to fill positions. I know the University of Northern B.C. is very actively seeking women faculty, deans and senior officials and is having difficulty recruiting -- as are colleges and universities nationwide. In the case of aboriginal people, it's probably even more difficult because there's a limited pool of available people. One of the solutions may be to redefine, somewhat, the skills required to teach and to take a broader, more holistic view of education. I certainly will be informally encouraging the institutions as I go around the province. I don't think it would be appropriate for me to begin to tell them exactly who or how they should hire.

D. Mitchell: We're making some good progress here in the committee today. I know that we have a few other issues to canvass. Seeing that the hour is getting close to 6 o'clock, rather than start a whole new topic of discussion right now, I wonder if the committee might entertain a motion to rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:48 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1992, 2001: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada