Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 3, 1992

Volume 4, Number 1

[ Page 2115 ]

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Prayers.

D. Mitchell: Hon. Speaker, I'm pleased to note that we have with us in the galleries three members of the Save Howe Sound Society. They're here today to accept the award that they've been honoured with, which is the 1992 Minister's Environmental Award. The three members of the society are Rozlynne Mitchell -- no relation to me -- Dana Taylor and Tracy Watchman. I would ask all members to welcome these three members of the Save Howe Sound Society.

E. Barnes: Hon. Speaker, I would like to ask the House to welcome a group of 46 grades 6 and 7 students from Brantford Elementary School, who are here with a number of adults and their class teachers. Would you please make them welcome.

K. Jones: Hon. Speaker, visiting with us today are 28 grade 7 students from William of Orange Christian School in Surrey, with their teacher Mr. Deglint. They have spent part of this morning in the halls of this Legislature. Would the House please join me in acknowledging their visit to the precincts and to beautiful Victoria.

F. Jackson: Hon. Speaker, it's family day for me in the Legislature. In the gallery is my wife, Nanette, and she has brought along her two sisters, Lorraine Chambers from Pritchard, B.C., and Suzanne Johnson from Drayton Valley, Alberta. All three of them were born in St. Joseph's Hospital in Victoria, so it's a kind of nostalgia trip for them. I'd like the House to welcome them back to Victoria and to the Legislature.

Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Speaker, this being Clean Air Day and Environment Week, I'd like to take this opportunity to introduce the winners of the Minister's Environmental Awards. We've seen over 170 candidates nominated for environmental awards this year -- twice as many as last year.

In the individual citizen category we recognize three recipients: Wilf Kipp of Kamloops, Wil Paulik of Richmond, and Gwen and Derrick Mallard from Victoria.

In the youth group or organization category it's the environmental consciousness class of Williams Lake Junior Secondary School; and Rozlynne Mitchell, Tracy Watchman and Dana Taylor are here on behalf of the Save Howe Sound Society of West Vancouver for its regional role as environmental watchdog since the mid-1970s and their ongoing accomplishments.

In the community or municipality category, Mayor Bill Copeland is here on behalf of the district of Burnaby, which has been selected for its many environmental initiatives to promote the concept of "Think globally; act locally."

The business or industrial category has two winners. Robert and Donna Jeal are here on behalf of Ames Paints of Victoria for successfully developing a consumer product from unused paint, thereby reducing hazardous waste. John Innes and Greg Rideout are here on behalf of B.C. Tel in Burnaby for implementing a multitude of progressive environmental protection policies for their company and for the province.

In the environmental education category, School District No. 59 in Dawson Creek.

Finally, in the communications and media category, Peter Busch of Squamish.

K. Jones: I'd like to also let you know that visiting with us today are 20 grade 7 students from Surrey Christian School in Surrey and their teacher, who have spent part of this afternoon in the halls of the Legislature. Would the House please join me in acknowledging their visit to the precincts.

Hon. T. Perry: With leave of the hon. Minister of the Environment, I wanted to acknowledge one other individual not mentioned in his list whose name, unfortunately, can't be mentioned in the House. But for the attention of other members, the hon. Speaker had a great deal to do with the distinction just awarded the corporation of the district of Burnaby, and I think it's appropriate that we recognize that.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: My ministerial assistant's parents are here in the gallery and are visiting the House and the Island from Winnipeg. I'd like members to welcome Leona and Pat McEvoy.

Introduction of Bills

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1992

Hon. B. Barlee presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Agriculture, Fisheries and Food Statutes Amendment Act, 1992.

Hon. B. Barlee: This bill establishes procedures for routing and a partial cost-recovery system for the processing of applications under both the Agricultural Land Commission Act and the Soil Conservation Act.

I move Bill 42, Agriculture, Fisheries and Food Statues Amendment Act, 1992, be introduced and read a first time now.

Bill 42 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.

FARMING AND FISHING INDUSTRIES
DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT ACT, 1992

Hon. B. Barlee presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Farming and Fishing Industries Development Amendment Act, 1992.

Hon. B. Barlee: The Agricultural Land Commission Act and the Soil Conservation Act are critical 

[ Page 2116 ]

components of my government's farmland preservation program. Agricultural land is an important provincial resource, and the Agricultural Land Commission Act, through the agricultural land reserve, protects 4.7 billion hectares of farmland. The Agricultural Land Commission Act provides an application system for land to be included in or excluded from the agricultural land reserve, for the subdivision of farmland and for the use of farmland for non-farm purposes. Landowners may seek changes by making an application to the Agricultural Land Commission. There are approximately 1,000 such applications annually.

[2:15]

The Soil Conservation Act provides a permitting system for removing soil from or depositing fill on land within the agricultural land reserve. A landowner may obtain these permits by applying concurrently to the Agricultural Land Commission or to local government. There are approximately 90 such applications annually.

Before a decision is made on applications under these statutes, the commission and local governments must cooperate administratively to ensure that each matter is properly considered. Both the commission and local governments must employ highly skilled staff to review and comment on the applications. This bill standardizes and clarifies the existing application process under both statutes. Most applications are first submitted to local governments for their review prior to being forwarded to the commission. It also recognizes the existing partnership and cooperation between the commission and local governments. It establishes the statutory basis to charge application fees and authorizes the sharing of the application fees between local governments and the commission. The sharing of fees will recognize the importance of the role that each plays in reviewing applications and the cost to them of providing that service. The fees themselves will be established by regulation.

I move that the bill be introduced and read for the first time now.

Bill 52 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

G. Wilson: My question is to the Premier, and it's in light of the comments that the Premier made yesterday denying that he had any knowledge of any connection between his government, his party and the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society. Would the Premier acknowledge that a letter written to the B.C. Gaming Commission in October 1990, in an attempt to reinstate the bingo licence of the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society, by a former director of the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society, who was then the vice-president of the NDP and as an MLA from Nanaimo.... Would the Premier acknowledge that that constitutes a connection?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I said that I would check into the relationship between the B.C. New Democratic Party and the Nanaimo Commonwealth Society. I have done that and had my staff check, and I can assure the members of this House that there is no constitutional or official status or relationship between the B.C. New Democratic Party and the Nanaimo Commonwealth Society.

G. Wilson: One wonders if the wisdom of Mr. Karl Struble, who was brought from the United States for the election campaign, is still at work among the ranks of the NDP. This has great similarity to the flawless Reagan execution of the famed Iran-Contra "plausible deniability" kind of concept.

The Speaker: Hon. member, could you state your question.

G. Wilson: My question to the Premier. He indicated yesterday that he would take action directly to find any kind of connection that there may be, and suggested that if there was a connection.... We have just demonstrated clearly, whether it's constitutional or otherwise, that there is an existing connection. There was past connection. Can the Premier tell us what he has done specifically in the last 24 hours? What specific action has he taken? Who has he asked? What documents has he reviewed to see whether or not there is any connection between his government, his party and the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society?

Hon. M. Harcourt: My staff and I have checked. As I said in my first answer, there is no constitutional or official status between the New Democratic Party of British Columbia and the Nanaimo Commonwealth Society. I can go on to say that the B.C. New Democratic Party, under my leadership and under the tenure of the present provincial secretary, has neither requested nor sought financial contributions from the Nanaimo Commonwealth Society or any of its affiliates. I said that I would check into this matter and report to the House at the earliest possible convenience, and I'm doing so.

The Speaker: A final supplemental.

G. Wilson: What we've demonstrated is a real moral blind spot here, that there is so much interweaving....

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please, hon. members.

G. Wilson: I have a supplementary question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Given that there seems to be such a tremendous blending between NDP personnel and government, will the minister confirm that Mr. Jim Woodward, whose name appeared on the bottom of a press release yesterday, is the same Jim Woodward who is a current NDP policy housing chair with the party? Can he tell us when he was hired, and what salary he's being paid at?

[ Page 2117 ]

Hon. R. Blencoe: Mr. Jim Woodward is not the chair of the NDP housing policy committee. Mr. Woodward is on an eight-month contract at $235 a day.

J. Weisgerber: A question to the Premier. Is the Premier aware that it was Dave Stupich who acted as auditor for the NDP and who signed their annual audited reports? Is he further aware that Dave Stupich was also involved with the Nanaimo Commonwealth Society and also audited the books of the Broadway Commonwealth Society, an organization which the NDP owed a considerable amount of money? Given all of these connections and the information that's been revealed over the last two weeks, will the Premier today join us in our request for an RCMP investigation into the affairs of the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society, and ask for a special prosecutor to be appointed?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I am not aware that Dave Stupich was the accountant for the New Democratic Party, certainly not in the time that I have been the leader of the party. I'm not sure how far back into the past the leader of the opposition party wants to go. I can take responsibility for my role as leader in the last few years, since 1986. Before that, hon. Speaker, I'm sure you're aware that I was not an officer, a member of the provincial council or the executive of the New Democratic Party. As a matter of fact, I was involved in a very important undertaking as the mayor of Vancouver and as a member of the Vancouver city council.

I am not aware of Dave Stupich being the auditor or the accountant for the New Democratic Party, and I may say that that question is quite out of order. If he wants to ask me a question as the Premier and as a member of the executive council -- which is what question period should be for -- I am quite prepared to answer that question.

The Speaker: A supplemental, but I would caution the hon. member that the question must be clearly within the area of responsibility of the Premier or the minister to whom it's being addressed.

J. Weisgerber: My question is again to the Premier. I think British Columbians are tired of seeing the government dance around this issue. I would refer to promise No. 3 of the NDP election platform, and it says....

The Speaker: Order, please. Hon. members, the Chair has in previous days expressed growing concern about questions that push on the limits of being within the responsibility of the people to whom they are being addressed. Clearly, to all hon. members who have the rules of question period in front of them, questions are to be short, to the point, without argument and without opinion. I will also say that so should the answers be. I'm urging all hon. members to review those limits of question period, and not to allow us to continue to stray progressively further beyond those limits.

I would now ask the leader from the third party to please state his question precisely and without argument.

J. Weisgerber: I will certainly attempt to do that.

Again to the Premier. Promise No. 3 of the NDP platform says "New Democrats welcome the Owen commission's recommendation for an independent prosecutor to guarantee the impartial administration of justice in our province." Will the Premier honour that promise and appoint a special prosecutor in this situation?

Hon. M. Harcourt: First of all, as the leader of the third party, an experienced member of this House, should know, this is not my responsibility; it's that of the Attorney General. It's not even the responsibility of the Attorney General; it's the responsibility of the Deputy Attorney General, as he should know by reading the legislation. He should also know, as somebody who was in the House when we voted on this particular bill, that there has to be an RCMP investigation, and there has to be evidence for a charge, and there has to be evidence against a specific person. None of those is present.

I think this is a way of making a very good idea, which we agreed to in this Legislature, diminished. I would urge the members not to diminish the very important innovation that was brought to the government of British Columbia by the appointment of a special prosecutor who is not decided upon by a politician -- not even by a politician with an independent role, as the Attorney General has -- but by the Deputy Attorney General and by the proper authorities, the RCMP, who do the investigation and prepare the charges. I think the member should not play fast and loose with that very important innovation that was brought to the people of British Columbia.

The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.

J. Weisgerber: Clearly the Premier doesn't understand the legislation. Perhaps the Attorney General can confirm that the purpose of a special prosecutor can be to oversee an investigation, and that one can be appointed before charges are laid and can be appointed by the Attorney General at his discretion.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: First of all, the act precisely requires that the assistant deputy minister in the criminal justice branch appoint a special prosecutor in a situation where one is required. There is not now an investigation by the police. There is not now a role for a special prosecutor or any other kind of prosecutor, and the member knows that full well.

W. Hurd: My question is for the Premier. The opposition has concerns about the 360 individual members of the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society and the $1.4 million in investments they have in this society. Would the Premier join with the opposition today in demanding that the parameters of the Hughes inquiry be expanded to include a review of all in-

[ Page 2118 ]

dividual investors in the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society, their individual investments and their links to members of this Legislative Assembly?

The Speaker: Order, hon. members. Unless the member can demonstrate clearly in the question how that comes within the purview of the executive council, I will end up ruling that question out of order. I ask the member again to clearly tie that in.

[2:30]

W. Hurd: Thank you, hon. Speaker. Was it not the Premier of this province who asked Mr. Hughes to investigate the relationship between the constituency allowances of individual members of this assembly and Marwood Services and the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society?

Hon. M. Harcourt: Hon. Speaker, obviously the member doesn't speak to the members of his own caucus who have been working with Mr. Hughes to put together his terms of reference. The member's House Leader has been involved in that process. Our House Leader has been involved and removed himself from that process because of the fact that it may be perceived to be some sort of a conflict, and we don't want to have that appearance at all.

We have asked that the question before Mr. Hughes be -- and this was a service not just to government members but all MLAs -- given the requirement that MLAs have to take their constituency allowances through an agent, what should MLAs do to see that those are distributed? We have asked Mr. Hughes to look at past and present practices, and there has been a letter from the Leader of the Opposition that this matter be investigated in that way.

I would think that the member, rather than addressing me as another member of this Legislature, should quite properly be having this dealt with through his caucus, and we could put this matter to rest and bring in reforms, if that is required, so that all members could benefit.

W. Hurd: My question is to the Minister of Government Services. The opposition notes bylaw 5 in the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society's bylaws, on the exercise of borrowing powers. Item (c): "To lend money to any person or company having dealings with the society or with whom the society has dealings, including officers and members of the society, and to guarantee the contracts of such persons or companies."

In light of the rather wide and possibly illegal borrowing powers conferred on this society, will the minister ask the Attorney General to freeze the assets of this society until the myriad of official inquiries have been completed?

Hon. L. Boone: As the members knows, on Monday I announced that an independent investigation will be taking place. We are currently working with the registrar to get a name and to bring forth a name to this House. That investigator will be looking into all aspects of the society, and I'm sure they'll be looking into those things as well.

The Speaker: The bell signals the end of question period.

NANAIMO COMMONWEALTH
HOLDING SOCIETY

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Yesterday in question period I took on notice a question from the member for Peace River South. The member's question was as follows: "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 taken?"

Because of the serious implications of the member's question, I have taken particular care in ascertaining the facts, and would now answer his question as follows: 1. The RCMP has advised us that, following their 1988 investigation, they did not -- I repeat, did not -- recommend that charges be laid. Further, a check of criminal justice branch records has shown that there is no record of any report to Crown counsel recommending charges. In fact, there is no report of any kind submitted to Crown counsel on the matter. The RCMP has confirmed that they made no such report. 2. The former Deputy Attorney General has made it very clear that he did not make any decision with respect to charges, and the question of charges was not discussed.

J. Weisgerber: On a point of order, hon. Speaker. The Attorney General yesterday did not take this question on notice. I have examined the Blues, and he did not take the question on notice. I assume therefore that he is giving a ministerial statement, and that that would allow a response from the other parties.

The Speaker: The Chair will have to examine Hansard and get back on that point of order as soon as possible.

Government House Leader on a point of order.

Hon. G. Clark: The government would be predisposed to give leave if the member wants to apologize to Mr. Hughes here in the House, if that's the purpose of....

The Speaker: With respect to the government House Leader, that is not a point of order.

J. Weisgerber: I request leave to table a letter to Mr. Hughes.

Leave granted.

[ Page 2119 ]

Orders of the Day

The House in Committee of Supply B; R. Kasper in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
ENVIRONMENT, LANDS AND PARKS

On vote 32: minister's office, $347,279 (continued).

J. Tyabji: I believe that we're still finishing off issues with regard to water under the Environment portfolio. I would like to speak with the minister today on an issue that I know is of great significance to this portfolio and to the portfolio of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. The issue that I would like to address is with regard to the Nechako River. I would like to ask the minister: is he planning to put this entire project through a more thorough review than it has currently gone through? Is he willing to interfere in the process, through the powers of his ministry, so that we don't set the dangerous precedent of allowing a federal ruling to determine what is done with a provincial river?

Hon. J. Cashore: I have answered this question in the Legislature. We are in the process of gathering information from various parties. This information will be used to enable government to announce the process whereby we will decide on the nature of the review that is to take place.

The government has said that there will be a review; there will be a review. Government has yet to describe the nature of the review because of some very important work we are presently undertaking to gather information. We're dealing with a problem that relates to agreements that were made in the early 1950s, again in 1987 and again as a result of a federal order-in-council in 1988.

This has to be done properly. It behooves us to take the amount of time that is needed to do it well; we intend to do it well. We have to take a look at the legal parameters within which we are functioning. We have to take a look at what is right in terms of our responsibility to all the peoples of British Columbia. We have to take a look at the emerging definition of fiduciary responsibility with regard to first nations. It's an enormous issue. If I understand the comments correctly, hon. member, I would expect that you also want to see an appropriate review process take place.

J. Tyabji: I would like to know if this minister plans to allow this to go ahead, if that's what the information indicates, based on some of the submissions with regard to the Kemano 2 project. I would also like to know what the minister has in mind in terms of consultation with the aboriginal people and with one of the other industries affected, which is the fisheries industry. I would really like to know what the minister actually feels about the proposal to divert the Nechako River.

Hon. J. Cashore: If "this to go ahead" refers to a review, the answer is yes, we do plan to go ahead with a review. If "this to go ahead" refers to the Kemano completion project, that answer obviously has to wait until the results of the review.

With regard to my own personal feelings on this issue, I have deep and profound personal feelings which I will not be sharing with the Legislature at this time.

J. Tyabji: I would really like to canvass the deep and personal feelings of the minister, because he is the minister and he is to take leadership in this.

When I was referring to "this to go ahead," I was definitely referring to the Kemano 2 project. As the Minister of Environment, I think that he should definitely be putting his feelings on record.

If the consultation or whatever process he decides the environmental review is going to go through is done in such a manner that it comes out with a conclusion that this project can go ahead without serious environmental impact, I'd like to know if this minister is going to take the initiative and realize that there's no way you can divert the Nechako River without serious environmental impact, and that he would then come in and express that view. I would like to know if this minister is going to stand up and say no if it turns out that the project will go through based on some kind of wishy-washy environmental impact.

I've received numerous letters from people who say that the review process to date is not satisfactory, and that any review process that has been done in the past might come out saying that this would not have serious environmental impact. I would put to the minister that there is no way you can divert a river of that magnitude with that much importance, in terms of fisheries, water and contributions to the Fraser River, without very serious environmental impact. I would really like to know what the deep, personal views of the minister are.

Hon. J. Cashore: There's a fundamental disagreement between the member and I over the role of a leader's deep and personal feelings. In my view, especially in this circumstance, it behooves me to not be forthcoming with my deep and personal feelings. We might need an analyst in the House if I were to do that. It might end up with us having to deal with all sorts of garbage that the House doesn't want to have to deal with.

[2:45]

Seriously, hon. Chair, leadership at this point in time requires evenness and appropriateness, and the feelings of the minister should not colour the decision with regard to the nature of the review, so that justice not only will be done but will be seen to be done. Therefore it's most important, in fairness to all people, who hold varying perspectives, that the minister carry through this phase of his responsibilities in a way that ensures that the interests of all British Columbians are considered, including the users of the river, native people and those who are parties to agreements and legal decisions.

[ Page 2120 ]

Therefore, hon. member, you can come at this from as many angles as you wish. You can make statements about me and my personal feelings, and about leadership. But I will not prejudge the process that we are in the process of establishing, and there's no way that the hon. member will get me to do that.

J. Tyabji: I have two follow-up questions for the minister. First of all, has the minister been to the Nechako and talked to the people who live there about the possible impact of a river diversion? Also, is this minister suggesting that he would consider allowing the diversion of the river?

The Chair: Would the member want to continue with another question?

J. Tyabji: I would like to repeat the questions, and I would like to get an answer. The first question is very specific. Has the minister been to the Nechako River and talked to the aboriginal people and other people who will be affected? Is this minister actually considering allowing the diversion to go through? Both of them are very simple questions.

Hon. J. Cashore: Arrangements are in the process of being made for me to visit the Nechako River. I have visited with people from the Nechako at a very significant public meeting in Prince George, which was very well received. Two weeks ago I met with members of the river's defence coalition and with the Carrier-Sekani Tribal Council. I have met with Bill Rich of Kemano. I'm continuing the information-gathering, as I have said. Yes, I will be visiting the people of the Nechako, as this is a very important information-gathering phase with regard to my work.

The question that the member keeps asking sounds something like one hand clapping. I'm not going to respond to that question.

J. Tyabji: It's very obvious by your lack of response that you're considering it. So you have, in fact, answered the question.

I would like to talk to the minister about water use in general. I know that the minister has put a two-year moratorium on with regard to water exports. I would like to know what the minister's long-term plans are with regard to allowing the use of B.C.'s water: whether it will be sent out in bulk, whether there will be some kind of packaging, whether there will be some restrictions involved and whether this minister is willing to go to bat for B.C. to protect our water resources.

Hon. J. Cashore: I will answer this question, but it's out of order because it's future policy.

Interjection.

Hon. J. Cashore: Questions of future policy are out of order.

I have stated on many occasions that we are revamping the environmental legislation, and included in that is water legislation. My plans for the future of water in the province are extensive. I have said on many occasions that the present legislation is totally inadequate. It is property rights legislation; it is not water quality legislation. It does not recognize the multiplicity of uses. It does not recognize the needs of fish. It's very inadequate legislation, and even the inadequate legislation that exists does not have proclaimed section 3, which would enable some reference to groundwater. The inadequate legislation that exists only deals with surface water. I've been very straightforward about this. Again, this is the third time this area of questioning has come up during these estimates. I have indicated that we will be releasing a paper on water, and that we expect to be hopefully bringing in legislation as soon as next spring, but it could be 1994.

With regard to the issue of bulk water exports, we have extended that moratorium for two years, which has been very solidly accepted by the majority of British Columbians with some dissenting views from some who wish to make profit on the export of water. Frankly, hon. member, I have stated publicly in speeches to water quality conferences and elsewhere that it would appear to make a lot more sense that if water was going to leave British Columbia, it would be better in the form of a value-added product rather than in bulk. I have expressed on numerous occasions.... In fact, I have been sought out by various groups such as the B.C. Wildlife Federation to give keynote speeches on water policy.

Again, I would want to note the contribution of the Klahoose Indian band on Cortes Island, which includes Toba Inlet within its traditional territory, because the research that was done by that native Indian band has been absolutely exemplary in drawing to the attention of British Columbians the fact that we almost -- during the previous government -- saw the thin edge of the wedge developing with regard to those bulk exports.

We know that trade law is a major issue with regard to this, and we have somewhat of a concern knowing, under the free trade and under GATT, that once we open the floodgates, we may not be able to close them. That's a very serious concern. That's one of the reasons we need to discuss this. But the fact is that we're now in a sense exporting bulk water from the GVRD down to Point Roberts. That's happened in 1987. There is a case of an interior stream where groundwater is being taken and transported to the United States, where it's being bottled. There are some serious, serious concerns here.

I appreciate the hon. member raising this concern. It is certainly my intent, my plan, to ensure that British Columbia has the very best water legislation in North America.

D. Jarvis: Could the minister tell me what his policy is with regard to the question that came out in the paper the other day on the transfer of water to the United States from the Columbia River, and would he mind relating whether he interprets that as bulk water or just a transfer of water, what his opinion will be, and when they are intending to make a decision one way or another? I would appreciate it if he could answer me without his usual sanctimonious grins, and that of his staff as well.

[ Page 2121 ]

Hon. J. Cashore: There are two issues the hon. member could be referring to. One is the question of a proposal that involved an inner basin transfer, which would actually see water taken from the Fraser River, diverted over to the Columbia and exported down into the Portland area. If he's referring to that proposal, I have spoken publicly and expressed opposition to it. That was in the context of a speech that I gave to a water association conference.

If he's referring to the fact that there's a low snowpack this year in the southern part of the province and the water that is being demanded by the Americans, my understanding of the status of that situation at the present time is that B.C. Hydro is currently looking into methods of mitigating the situation in particular by releasing extra flows from other dams on the Columbia system. This would allow the Americans to cut back on water releases from Libby Dam and allow Libby reservoir -- that's Lake Koocanusa -- to come within 15 to 20 feet of the full-pool level. There's a note here that in 1988 the maximum level reached was 17.5 feet below the full-pool. With regard to this question, I would have to defer, in terms of a major portion of this question, to the Ministry of Energy, because obviously that is a related factor.

Hon. Chair, I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Hon. J. Cashore: I'd like to take this opportunity to introduce my daughter Judy, who's visiting in the precincts today. Welcome to my daughter Judy.

D. Jarvis: To the minister, I was referring specifically to the article in the paper which said that the Americans -- according to the Columbia River Treaty -- were entitled to draw waters from the Mica, the Duncan and the Arrow Lakes reservoirs, and that they will be calling on that in the near future as they're running short of water. I don't understand all the ramifications of the Columbia River Treaty as yet. However, I believe that there's a clause in there that says that we have to give it to them, and the federal government is not prepared to back British Columbia up. Is the provincial government going to take a stand in this instance and consider that as bulk water? Because once we start the bulk water, as you appreciate, we get into the free trade agreement, and that's going to be a deadly situation for the future of this province.

Hon. J. Cashore: In regard to that question, that was the answer I gave a few moments ago. I would encourage the member to look at that. That was an answer that I technically should not have given, because it's a question that's appropriately directed to the Minister of Labour, who's also responsible for B.C. Hydro. That is a question that is pursuant to the Columbia River Treaty. It is not a situation over which the Ministry of Environment has jurisdiction. The Minister of Environment, however, in having announced -- as this member has acknowledged -- a process leading to a total revamping of water legislation in the province, will be dealing with interbasin transfers, will be dealing with issues of trade and will be dealing with all issues with regard to water in the province. That public consultation will inform the legislative regime that will come out of that. That is something that has been fully available. We've made that very clear.

The hon. member, in standing up and saying that he's concerned about bulk water and opening the free trade aspects, is simply stating the obvious. And it's obvious that we've stated that time and time again, both during our time in government and prior to that. It might be helpful if the hon. member would recognize that we are moving on this issue appropriately, and we're also reaching out to him and inviting him to participate in the process that we have set up.

L. Fox: I wasn't going to speak, but given that there were questions raised about Kemano 2, I wanted to talk on that very briefly.

First, I really appreciate the minister's answer that his personal views will not enter into this process. I think that's commendable and will help to meet the objectives that will be necessary through the review process. I purposely stated, when I spoke during these estimates earlier, that I believe that the Kemano 2 process has to go through a review process. I believe as well that it's not in the best interests of the people of the Nechako Valley that we play politics with this issue.

I purposely have given my commitment to the minister that I would not play politics with the issue, because it is an issue that involves many stakeholders and many interest groups. I've lived with the issue for 14 years -- and as a mayor for eight years -- and I know the complexities of it. I just want to suggest to the member for Okanagan East that the process has to be apolitical. It has to be a public process without political preferences so that everybody has a feeling when they come out of this that it was in the best interests of the people of the Nechako Valley, whatever decision is made.

[3:00]

I want to once again commend the minister, and I look forward to seeing the process and perhaps to critiquing it prior to it being made public so that I can give my input as the member for that area. If we still have differences, then I will take issue with it, but I thank the minister for his approach on the issue.

J. Tyabji: This is a funny situation, in that I feel like I should be responding to the third party statements. However, I would like the minister to know that I think there's a very dangerous precedent that could be set if we start diverting rivers. I think the minister should know that if we are dealing with ecosystems, the environment -- in the true sense of the word -- and sustainability, then something in the magnitude of that proposal should be considered from the new perspective of ecosystem management; from that perspective on the environment rather than the old perspective, which I think is the one that sometimes took into account interests that had nothing to do with ecosystem preservation.

Having said that, I would like to know if the minister is making plans -- whether in this budget, in a five-year 

[ Page 2122 ]

plan or what have you -- with regard to aquifer depletion. I am sure this minister is aware that the United States has had serious problems with their aquifers, in that they have tapped into them and in some of the states they have.... I know that in the central states they have an underground aquifer, built up during the last glaciation, that only replenishes at the rate of about half an inch a year. They're depleting it at the rate of about three to four feet per year. It will soon be dry and they will be in a very serious crisis situation with regard to agriculture and home use of water. In southern California, for example, they're depleting an aquifer at the rate of twice our entire consumption of oil per year. They are in a crisis situation in California with regard to water. They just do not have any water.

We in B.C. have a great opportunity to prevent the depletion of aquifers so that we don't ever end up in a situation like the one in the United States. I'd like to know what this minister is doing and what his policy is with regard to aquifers and with regard to planning the depletion of the aquifer so that we don't end up in a net loss situation with regard to water.

Hon. J. Cashore: The hon. member sounds somewhat argumentative, but she's really preaching to the converted. I can keep repeating over and over again what I've already said. Our policy on water is to completely revamp all the policy on water, and aquifers are a very top priority with regard to that policy.

The reason for us having announced this very far-reaching initiative is to deal with this very pressing issue that the hon. member is referring to. So I don't think we're arguing at this point. I think there may be some discussion over the modus operandi that the member might want to have input to, but everything that she has said we are in the process of addressing.

There is a serious problem in this province with the depletion of aquifers. The fact is that the previous administration was willing to be there for all the years they were there and not address the issue.

I want to make sure you hear this, because I don't want to hear the question coming back again without you having heard it. The current legislation in the province is property legislation; it is not quality legislation. Also, section 3 in that legislation, which would address groundwater, has never been proclaimed into law. It's property legislation, not quality legislation. We are going to be coming forward with a new water act. And again, I'm going to wait until the hon. member can hear what I'm saying so that I don't get this question again: we're going to be coming forward with a new water act. There will be a provision in the act for groundwater regulations that will enable the control of water quality aspects with regard to groundwater.

I think the most creative thing that the member can do is come on board with that process and give us the benefit of her experience, knowledge and research people, because this is something we can work together on to come up with the best possible regime for British Columbia, where we're all very concerned, for one thing, that in pristine British Columbia we have some of the most serious problems in Canada with regard to drinking water quality. It's a situation that behooves us to get working, but we need to take the time to do it right. I'm glad to know of your concern on this issue, and I'm glad to work with you on it.

G. Farrell-Collins: I've been reviewing the debates on estimates and also the debate on Bill 29, which is sort of ongoing in a continuous or parallel way with the estimates. My feeling from reviewing and watching them is that the confrontation in this process seems to be coming from the minister. The minister talks to the member for Okanagan East and tells her that she should be listening to his answers when he refuses to take the time to listen to the questions that are asked. I've heard the questions being asked, and I've seen the minister answer something way off base to what the question was. I would ask the minister to perhaps take a more conciliatory tone. If you would like to have a non-confrontational or constructive opposition, perhaps he could listen to some of the things that are being brought forward.

In addition, last night in the debate on Bill 29 there were, I think, two very solid amendments. We are in estimates, and I intend to stick to the estimates, but the minister has made a number of comments that simply don't have to do with the estimates either. I'm merely responding to the comments that he brought up earlier.

The Chair: The hon. member perhaps would be advised to keep close to the estimates and the business at hand.

G. Farrell-Collins: The reason for these comments is that they lead into a question. I am merely responding to comments the minister has been making during the estimates.

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: We have a member sitting opposite who's talking about sexism as it relates to me talking about the comments of the minister. I think she is very much out to lunch and perhaps has an axe to grind that doesn't apply in this case. If she'd like to enter the debate, I'd more than welcome her responses on environment issues, but if she'd like to get into gender equity, then perhaps she can grind that next week when we do Women's Equality.

We've been putting forward positive consultation or aspects to the estimates and suggestions. The member has just done that again. The minister takes it as a personal attack when the member brings forward a positive contribution to this debate and these discussions. I hope that he will take a more conciliatory tone and listen to what she has to say in some of the comments that she's making.

I do have a question for the minister. Again he's not listening, so I'm sure I won't get the proper answer.

Interjection.

[ Page 2123 ]

G. Farrell-Collins: If the parliamentary secretary -- not quite in cabinet, but in waiting -- would like to engage in the debate, I'd welcome him also.

My question is to the minister.

B. Jones: On a point of order, the member chooses to engage in accusations and name-calling. If he wants to check the Blues, he will find out who the sanctimonious people are, who the guilty people are and who is out of order. We had a perfect illustration of the tenor of debate and of the patience of the minister when we saw the kind of constructive role that a member can play, by a member of the third party, in these debates on the minister's estimates.

The Chair: As the Chair, I can appreciate the comments, but I don't find that there's a valid point of order. I will state, though, that members on all sides of the House should get on with the business at hand, to make this job easier.

G. Farrell-Collins: I would like to ask the minister a question. I hope that if....

Hon. J. Smallwood: As soon as he figures out what the question is.

G. Farrell-Collins: I know exactly what the question is. I am hoping the minister will answer it. I'm trying to couch it in very clear terms for him.

There is a problem in the Fraser Valley -- of which I'm sure the member from Surrey is well advised; I've yet to hear her speak on the issue -- dealing with gas drilling and how that relates to the aquifers and groundwater. That is of great concern certainly to the agricultural people in the Fraser Valley and to the township itself -- the people who draw their water from these aquifers.

I'd like to know if the minister has done a study of the effects on groundwater by gas drilling or by drilling for any types of petroleum products and what effect that will have on the aquifers in these agricultural and municipal areas.

Hon. J. Cashore: The Ministry of Environment actively monitors any incursions that are part of the drilling process, wherever they may be in the province. That's part of the role of the Ministry of Environment. The statutory authority for that issue comes under the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.

G. Farrell-Collins: The minister talked at some length about the new policy that his government hopes to bring on groundwater and our water in general. I think that's a good direction, and I commend him for it. But given the fact that we've had a natural gas well drilled in Delta, I'd like to know, first of all, what part the Ministry of Environment played in monitoring the effect of that drilling on aquifers.

Hon. J. Cashore: I'm advised that the Ministry of Environment monitored that situation. They tested the groundwater and the aquifers carefully and found no change in that particular circumstance. That comment is not stated as advocating or not advocating drilling; it's just a factual response from the ministry.

G. Farrell-Collins: Thank you. I'm glad to hear that. I accept that. I don't assume that it's an endorsement one way or the other. I wouldn't expect that. I'm wondering if the minister could make public the results of the ongoing study that took place during the drilling in the Delta well.

Hon. J. Cashore: I'm advised that the study was concomitant with the paper, I guess, of the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. I don't have an answer at this time with regard to the release of that study. Given that legislation is before the House with regard to access of information, once it is passed into law, that would obtain, as well, in such circumstances. But I would think that the goal in issues such as that -- although I can't give a specific answer on that right now -- is that we would want, as much as possible, to release such information at the earliest possible date, because I think that's in the public interest.

G. Farrell-Collins: I accept those comments at their face value. I'm sure the minister intends to do that, and I'm glad to hear that. If we can't see the results yet or if I have to go to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources to obtain those results, I'm willing to do that. I guess what I should be asking him is if he could outline, not in great detail certainly but in a brief way, the process used and how involved that is. I don't know how involved the process is. Do you monitor a number of wells, or right at the drilling site itself?

Hon. J. Cashore: We would require consultation with specialists on staff in order to be able to answer that adequately. Senior staff have advised me that they would be very pleased to follow up on these issues with you, and provide a briefing with an official if that would be helpful. That information is available, but we don't have the technical information with us at this time.

G. Farrell-Collins: I appreciate that, and I certainly will get in contact with the members of his ministry to determine what that process is and the parameters of those studies as they're ongoing. I was not aware when I dealt with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources in estimates that this study specifically took place or even that it existed. In fact, it was quite difficult to get any sort of information in that area. I thank the minister for being as forthright as he has been. I suppose I can obtain that information from the staff at the time of a briefing, but I am curious as to what process is planned if there are other sites that might go ahead. Certainly when we're looking at drilling, but also as far as a storage facility would go -- and they're actually using the aquifer itself to store the natural gas -- is there a different type of process that you feel should take place in that case, or would it be very similar to the drilling?

[ Page 2124 ]

Hon. J. Cashore: Under the existing law there would have to be a complete environmental impact assessment if that were to happen. And I say that's an awfully big "if."

[3:15]

G. Farrell-Collins: Just a point of clarification. Did the minister mean that before a storage facility would get ahead there would be a complete environmental impact? Do the same parameters, the same impact study apply to drilling for exploration when we're drilling through aquifers that may exist?

Hon. J. Cashore: I'm advised that the scope of the assessment would be smaller in the case of drilling an individual well. Again, we're in an area here that is, in a statutory way, that of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. It's my understanding that under the process that existed under the previous government, and which continues to obtain, if there were to be storage, there would be a very thorough environmental impact assessment if that were to be the case.

As I understood the question, it was: "if there were to be storage." I understand the question to be asking two categories of question. One is if there is to be storage. The other is where the drilling takes place. There is a less thorough environmental impact process in the case of an individual well being drilled, but when it makes that transition to say that it is no longer a project that has to do with drilling for gas or oil, this is now a project to try to find porous sandstone in which we can pump natural gas for storage in the off-season. If that were to have happened, even under the previous somewhat contentious set of circumstances, it still would have required a major environmental impact assessment. That was already on the books, if that were to occur.

G. Farrell-Collins: With regard to drilling for exploration, there is a bit of a controversy. I'm sure you're aware of it, but I will recap it for you. The people who live in the area are convinced, for a number of reasons, by statements that are made by members of the drilling consortium that, in fact, what is ongoing in the Fraser Valley is not drilling for exploratory purposes but rather drilling for exploratory purposes in a geological sense as opposed to drilling in hopes of finding a natural gas supply. They're exploring for geological reasons to establish whether or not it is viable to put a storage facility there. I'm wondering if your ministry is involved at all with the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources in determining what the general purpose of a project is when these applications are brought forward.

Hon. J. Cashore: We are involved in the sense of active advocacy on behalf of the environment. Again, the terms of the project certificates are not terms that we either legislate or develop. That happens within another area. I think the hon. member does make a good point that this happens often. There are probably lots of examples where you get a permit to do one thing, and it ends up that the major interest was in doing another thing. I don't know how you ever resolve that, because it would mean reviewing permit policy on a wide variety of applications. Again, I think there is a corrective there in terms of the requirement that there would be a major environmental impact assessment if the proponent was trying to make that kind of a transition.

G. Farrell-Collins: I'd like to thank the minister for his responses. I think they were in good light.

I would ask him to keep that in the back of his mind, as this is ongoing as the requests and permits come forward for drilling in the Fraser Valley. I'm sure I will be talking to him and his staff in the future to ensure that they continue with the advocacy portion that he mentioned with regard to this issue in the valley.

R. Chisholm: When the NDP were in opposition, they were very concerned about aquaculture -- fish farming -- in this province. They were so concerned that they made demands on the previous government. I would like to read a quote from a letter from the Premier where he states: "...a moratorium on any future expansion of aquaculture until the environment and fisheries impact has been determined and appropriate regulations are in place." Are there any ongoing studies? Do you plan a moratorium in the future? Are we going to accept this industry assessment of Aquaculture: British Columbia's Future as our guideline?

Hon. J. Cashore: It is not my role to answer questions in the Environment estimates on behalf of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. That jurisdiction clearly comes under that ministry.

There's no question that as the Minister of Environment I am very interested in that issue. The question about a moratorium is appropriately put to that minister. I can tell the hon. member, though, that I have discussed this issue with the minister. It's my understanding that work is taking place within that ministry that is timely and appropriate and in keeping with the values we have expressed in the past.

R. Chisholm: A quote from a letter that you wrote, hon. minister: "We continue to take the position that there should be no further expansion of this industry until appropriate environmental studies have been concluded." Have the studies been concluded on the parasites?

The Chair: The hon. member for Burnaby North rises on a point of order.

B. Jones: Point of order. We all recognize the importance of opposition in this chamber, and I think by and large they're doing a fine job. But the minister has said very clearly that this is not in his ministry. It's as if the minister had not said that; the member continues on a subject that is completely outside his ministry. I don't know how under this vote that can be allowed as in order.

[ Page 2125 ]

The Chair: It's my view, hon. members, that the questions or comments should relate to the Ministry of Environment. I would allow a certain degree of latitude where environmental issues are affected in different types of land use decisions or water use decisions. I would hope that the member for Chilliwack would recognize that and keep his comments or questions along that line.

R. Chisholm: As I stated in the quotes from the letters from the two hon. members, Environment obviously does have responsibility in this area; otherwise they would not have responded to the letters.

A question to the minister regarding the parasites which caused the disaster in Norway: are there any studies as to whether this could happen here and destroy our fisheries in British Columbia?

Hon. J. Cashore: The Minister of Agriculture would be responsible for the studies. I have no way of knowing if this member asked this question at that time. That's when it should have been asked.

I want to clarify one thing: when it comes to the environmental aspect of aquaculture, it clearly comes under the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Federal Fisheries would also have a concern because of the potential for impacts on wild stocks. That's another agency that comes into the picture.

I would want to point out that the Crown lands portion of this ministry does have a role in dealing with the applications for tenures, but those tenure applications are subject to consultation with the Ministry of Agriculture with regard to overall policy in this area.

I do have some information coming out of the Lands branch that the member may be interested in. First, activity, according to our statistics, has reduced quite significantly, especially in the past year. The applications now processed in a comprehensive way are primarily within areas which have been the subject of coastal resources identification studies. There have been a number of existing tenures that have declined in the past two years as the industry has gone into a downsizing phase. For instance, in the finfish part of the industry there are now 171 tenures, as compared to 200 in 1990. In the shellfish portion there are 398, as compared to 409 in 1990. Beyond that, these are simple statistical pieces of information that come from that branch of the ministry that deals with the tenures. When it comes to the policy with regard to the environmental issues that the member is raising, that clearly comes under the mandate of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I would say again that it's true that I have an interest in this as the Minister of Environment, but several ministries have an important environmental component within their mandate, and that certainly is a factor in this one.

R. Chisholm: I'd just like to clarify one thing. Is the minister stating that he has no interest in the parasites or the possible destruction of our wild stock in the province? Is that strictly the Ministry of Agriculture? Before I go on with any further questions, I'd appreciate an answer.

Hon. J. Cashore: No, hon. member. If you read the Blues of what I have just said, you'll see that I said the opposite. I said that as the Minister of Environment, I'm very concerned, and I work closely with the Minister of Agriculture, who has the lead role. Of course the Ministry of Environment is concerned about wild stocks. We have several programs that we're working on with the Steelhead Society and others towards the enhancement of wild stocks; that's certainly an active program within the ministry.

Insofar as there is a potential for the finfish industry to impact wild stocks, that's exactly what I meant a moment ago when I said, in response to a question, that I work very closely with the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I do recognize that there is a very appropriate environmental interest here.

R. Chisholm: I'll get back to the original question which resulted in this flurry. Regarding parasites that affect wild stock and destroy the finfish fishery, are there any ongoing studies at the present time with reference to these parasites?

Hon. J. Cashore: The Ministry of Environment is often in a role of advising the Ministry of Agriculture with regard to mitigating the import of stocks from other locations.

R. Chisholm: I'll refer to the catastrophe in Norway, where countless streams were sterilized to kill the parasites which developed as a result of fish-farming. Does this ministry require aquaculture farmers to carry any special insurance in case of mass infection of wild commercial stocks and wild sport stocks? What precaution is the minister taking to ensure that this disaster will not occur in British Columbia?

Hon. J. Cashore: This question should have been put to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. If it was not put to him.... As I said before, I am in constant contact with the minister, and I will be raising this question with him.

R. Chisholm: The minister seems to be confusing me as to whether he's involved or not involved.

A question to the minister. I'll quote some environmental regulations. Maybe we can get some answers for that. The environmental regulations state that fish-farms must be at least one kilometre away from native stocks. How many fish-farms at present do not comply with this regulation? If you want me to quote the regulation from MOE, Mr. Minister, I will.

Hon. J. Cashore: I wonder if the hon. member could clarify if that's a federal or provincial regulation.

R. Chisholm: Provincial.

Hon. J. Cashore: I would ask the hon. member to make available a copy of that so that we can review it and come back with an answer a little later. Could we have a copy of the regulation?

[3:30]

[ Page 2126 ]

R. Chisholm: The next question to the minister is with reference to fish hatcheries in the Okanagan. I'll quote from letters sent to me with reference to the wild stock in this province. "There were 310,000 freshwater licences issued to B.C. residents, and a further 150,000 to resident juniors who don't require licences...." There were 41,500 licences issued to non-resident Canadians. This came to a total of approximately 304,700,000 for British Columbia residents and 51,060,000 for non-residents.

[M. Lord in the chair.]

The point I'm getting at here is that we've had fish hatcheries close down in the Okanagan, and the stocks of wild fish are in decline. The fish hatchery we're talking about was the one in the Okanagan. There is now a second one for rainbow trout. I'm wondering if the minister is going to keep that one open, or is he going to enhance this fishery, considering the amount of money it brings into the province with tourism.

Hon. J. Cashore: I take it that the question is with regard to the Skaha hatchery. We've had staff in that area within the past week talking to local people about the hatchery. The position of the ministry has been that while the Skaha hatchery is desirable in this area of prioritizing our budget needs, the fact is that we're faced with reviewing our priority with regard to that hatchery in the light of costs and in the light of availability of stock from other locations.

The professional opinion of my staff is that we will be able to produce the necessary number of kokanee through upgrading the Mission Creek spawning channel and other tributaries. The function of the Skaha hatchery was simply to jump-start the spawning channel, and we feel that since last year about 94,000 spawners returned to Mission Creek compared to an average of about 24,000 over the last four years or so. It has been successful in doing so, so in a sense you could say that while it would be really great, in the best of all possible worlds, if we could continue that hatchery, it has fulfilled its mission. So our intention is to concentrate on improving the spawning channel, and this will probably mean that we close the hatchery.

I think that the answer makes it very clear in summary that it would be wonderful if we could keep the hatchery there. It has fulfilled its goal. We're going to watch it closely, and the need for stock can be supplied through another source.

R. Chisholm: Again we'll get back to the rainbow trout. The kokanee system did work, but meanwhile the fishery department lease on the Haase property in Kelowna, which is essential to the rainbow trout enhancement, may end with nothing done towards rainbow trout enhancement. I quote from this letter:

"It has been proven at Kootenay Lake that a good large rainbow trout fishery can inject $10 to $15 million a year into the local economy. That occurs mostly in the fall and winter, when the Okanagan needs it most. Surely that is reason enough for improved enhancement of our rainbow trout in Okanagan Lake. They did have a valuable fishery there many years ago. It was lost because the creeks were dammed for irrigation and domestic water. The fish lost most of their spawning area."

Hon. J. Cashore: We have five hatcheries across the province that cost us $3 million. We set in order of priority the needs every year to be supplied from those five hatcheries. The first priority of the ministry is to maintain wild stocks, and therefore the issue with regard to fish other than kokanee is dealt with through the resources of those hatcheries. As I said, five hatcheries, at a cost of $3 million, is sufficient to supply the need at the present time.

R. Chisholm: Have there been any Atlantic salmon introduced to British Columbia waters?

Hon. J. Cashore: Yes. I understand that there are -- this is off the top of my head before I read this note -- two sites where Atlantic salmon have been introduced into fresh water. I believe that one is in a lake in the northern part of Vancouver Island. Prior to the election, our ministry originally agreed to allow rearing pens for Atlantic salmon in four lakes on Vancouver Island. This included Kennedy Lake and three other lakes. We have taken Kennedy Lake off the list as a result of local concerns, and I would have to say that I too was very concerned about Kennedy Lake being involved in that.

I know that it raises the question of allowing any freshwater lake to have Atlantic salmon in it. It's a question that I'm very concerned about. When we recognize that within the finfish industry Atlantic salmon has been accepted for quite some time as the major source of that fishery, and given the way in which the fry will grow much more quickly in fresh water, I think that was the basis upon which the decision was made prior to the election. The member raises an issue that I'm very concerned about.

At the present time there are three lakes where that can take place, but I don't think it's happening in all three of those lakes at the present time. The information I have is that it is not happening in those other lakes.

R. Chisholm: Might I make a suggestion to the minister? We have a large number of quarries around this province which could be utilized for fish-farming, where there would not be any chance of species like Atlantic salmon getting into our fresh waters and destroying local fisheries. My question to the minister is on the antibiotics used with the fisheries: have there been any studies as to the effect on the human species?

Hon. J. Cashore: I understand the question was: have there been any effects of the antibiotics on the human species? The answer is: I don't know.

R. Chisholm: Have there been any studies on the effects on lakes from fish-farm effluent, which can be quite substantial?

[ Page 2127 ]

Hon. J. Cashore: I'm advised that that becomes a waste management problem and is covered under regulations.

R. Chisholm: I realize that, but what I'm asking, hon. minister, is: have there been studies on what would happen to the ecosystem of that individual lake?

Hon. J. Cashore: Apart from the ongoing research, I'm not aware of any particular study that the ministry has conducted or that has been made available on this.

R. Chisholm: Referring back to the letter from the Premier stating that he wanted a moratorium, does the minister foresee or has there been any discussion of a moratorium on fish-farming in British Columbia?

Hon. J. Cashore: I said earlier that the question about the future of fish farming in British Columbia comes under the Ministry of Agriculture.

D. Jarvis: I appreciate that your portfolio covers many borders. This may not be applicable to you, but I did want to ask: have there been any moneys allocated by your ministry or is there any research going on as to the treatment and/or pollution aspect of mine tailings and acid drainage?

Hon. J. Cashore: Yes, we're involved in a joint study with Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources and the industry.

J. Tyabji: I didn't mention it earlier, but I have to commend the minister on his taste in first names for his daughter.

I would like to ask the minister about the Brenda Mines tailings pond in the Okanagan. I'm sure the minister is aware that this tailings pond has been around for a while. There is a lot of local concern. There is even a local committee that is trying to deal with this issue, but the issue has not gone away. I'd like to know what the minister sees as a plan of action for the Brenda Mines tailings pond.

Hon. J. Cashore: That's one of the many issues that I need to have a briefing note on. It's on the way.

J. Tyabji: Since we're still on the water aspect, I'd like to talk a little bit about the problems with sewage throughout the province. As the minister is no doubt aware, we still have some primary dumping of sewage, Victoria being one of the largest contributors. I'd like to know what the minister sees as a plan of action for the elimination of primary dumping -- or if he sees that as a goal for his ministry -- and the movement from secondary treatment to tertiary treatment. Does he feel that most of the tertiary treatment facilities in the province are adequate? For example, there's the Bardenpho system that we have operating in the Okanagan.

Hon. J. Cashore: From what I've heard about it, the Bardenpho system is a very good operation. It's being looked at elsewhere, including in other countries.

With regard to sewage treatment, we are working on sewage plans with regional districts throughout the province. Our ultimate goal is zero pollution, as outlined in our environmental action plan and in our discussion paper on our new environmental protection legislation. We expect to be applying the municipal sewage discharge standards appropriately. In doing so, we have to be in consultation with the municipalities and the regional districts to ensure that it's done in a way that is time managed in view of financial resources. We have to move forward in a number of areas in the province toward a much more appropriate management of sewage.

Added to that is deteriorating infrastructure, especially in major cities. As we commented the other day, there is evidence that structures built 50 years ago are falling apart. This is obviously a major issue.

[3:45]

J. Tyabji: Am I to assume that the minister is definitely working on a goal to eliminate all primary systems of sewage disposal? If so, when does he think...?

The Chair: Do you have a question, member?

J. Tyabji: Yes, I do. I was just waiting for the minister.

The Chair: Could you please proceed.

J. Tyabji: Is the minister ready?

B. Jones: Aye.

J. Tyabji: Thank you for answering for the minister.

Am I to understand that the minister is moving toward the elimination of all primary and, I would hope, secondary methods of dealing with sewer? If so, what kind of time-line does he have?

Hon. J. Cashore: The goal, where sewage is untreated, is to help the regional district and the community get to primary. Where it's primary, the goal is to help them get to secondary. The goal is to work with the communities to help them improve the situation that exists now.

J. Tyabji: It's obviously a commendable goal to be upgrading the existing methods. Does the minister see any kind of time-line for when B.C. can be on either a full secondary or full tertiary method of sewage treatment?

Hon. J. Cashore: I think that tertiary is most often in areas like the Okanagan, and a lot of it has to be site specific and related to the needs of the area.

With regard to the overall goal, it is to move as quickly as we possibly can but in consideration of financial constraints. For instance, if we're looking at 

[ Page 2128 ]

Victoria, we have to recognize that there's a real problem there. If we were to decide that they have to do this in five years, the cost would be enormous. Hence we are working with the regional district, which I have met with, and we have committed our staff and their staff to work together toward the goal of identifying the best possible way of dealing with the problem and to do so by working on it together.

J. Tyabji: As the minister is no doubt aware, the Bardenpho system will take out the nutrients, but it doesn't deal with the contaminants. I have a concern -- I'm sure the minister will share this concern -- where we have systems of sewage going into a lake or any kind of closed body. If we have highly toxic products on the market that are going into the sewer system, then even tertiary treatment doesn't get rid of those contaminants.

To give the minister an example, you can have drain cleaners; you can have very toxic cleansers; you can even have non-biodegradable soaps that we're using daily. I'm wondering if the minister has thought of either a public education plan, or some way of monitoring what is available on the market.

I sent the minister, as one of the nominations for today's environmental awards, a company in the Okanagan called Samson's Soap. I sent it specifically to the minister because it's not only something that's produced in B.C. and 100 percent Canadian owned and operated, but also the whole concept is to have non-toxic, environmentally friendly and biodegradable cleansers so that anything that gets into the environment.... It's all refillable and reusable packaging as well. It's the height of minimization in terms of packaging, and also the products are environment-friendly.

Does the minister have a plan for public education for some kind of expansion of programs like that? Is he planning to promote that kind of initiative? We do have a real problem, and I don't know if the ministry's dealing with it. Even tertiary treatment of sewage is still only dealing with the nutrients and only the sewage part, and not all the other things that come into the system.

Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Chair, I agree with the hon. member. We have to be moving on a number of fronts with regard to education towards alternatives, and that one example the member gave was a good one. I think we have to find ways to positively support those who come forward with good plans, good alternatives. The environmental awards is one way of doing that. We also have our eco-education program, which is focused on school students at the present time. I know there's more that we can do in this area. I think it's a good idea. Having something, for instance, like Clean Air Day.... In a way it is a symbolic event, but in another way it starts to focus attention on the issue and raise awareness. One of the most effective things in public education on alternatives is the role that children have to play, because very often those children go home and ask tough questions; they raise the consciousness of the people at home, and then we see those people becoming more involved.

We have a lot of things that we could and should be doing in this area, and I agree with what the hon. member is saying.

J. Tyabji: I still have a very real concern about the contaminants that could be getting into local drinking-water supplies through the sewage system. I can only speak for the area that I come from in terms of a specific knowledge of what goes on. We have a body of water; it's a closed body with a 60-year turnover. There are still some traces of DDT in the sediment, because it takes so long to turn over. You've got basically a 60-year cycle just for the water, but if something settles out in the meantime, it stays in the sediment; there's very little cross-current movement. It's like a bowl-shaped setup: you have everything from the very top, where to this day you have aerial spraying of herbicides and pesticides, going down to the orchards, where we have that method of agricultural management, getting down to the residential areas, and then at the bottom the industrial sites. And everything is outletting into the same drainage system, which goes into the lake, and the treatment that it has takes out only the nutrients. So we still have a very real problem with the contamination of basically the source from which most of the city is drawing its drinking water.

Now I recognize that the minister has had very little time to deal with the fact that none of this was dealt with in previous administrations, or at least not that aspect of it. So it's not that I'm calling him to task on the fact that it hasn't been done. But I would like to know what the long-term plan is, starting from this year, to deal with a very real problem. I know that he's got a water study, but the problem goes much further beyond that in terms of sewage. The very best treatment that we have for the sewage system is tertiary treatment, and to me that's not adequate because it's not taking out contaminants, so whatever the sewage system is outletting into a closed body is then coming up in the drinking water. It's a loop, and unfortunately what we're outletting ends up coming back to us at some point.

I'd like to know what the minister's long-term plan is, recognizing that he may not have the money to do it right now. But there must be some plan of action with regard to the sewage outflow and what's coming out of the pipes, perhaps preventing it from getting in there in the first place.

Hon. J. Cashore: We definitely do have a long-term plan. I have met with the mayor of Kelowna and with other mayors and councillors in the area, because they have wanted to talk to me directly about some of these issues. Our assistant deputy minister will be meeting shortly with the Okanagan water board to discuss just this very issue of how we can work together to address that.

With regard to the Bardenpho system, it's my understanding that is a tertiary system and that it does remove almost all of the contaminants. I see that the hon. member is disagreeing with that, so I would expect 

[ Page 2129 ]

that we'll be receiving some information that will help us relate to that, but that's the information that we have. We should remember that tertiary treatment is added to secondary treatment; it doesn't replace it.

There is also the involvement in the fifty-fifty cost-sharing process between our ministry and local government of a great deal of consultation that takes place. There are local jurisdictions, there is the responsibility and the opportunity that local people have to comment on that process, and there are the resources of the Ministry of Environment that are also available to that process.

The long-term goal, though, is to move as quickly as we possibly can in cooperation with the municipalities and regional districts to achieve the best possible quality result that we can. It is interesting to hear the concern about the Bardenpho system, because I've heard very positive things about it when I've met with officials.

J. Tyabji: There's no question that the Bardenpho system is one of the best sewage treatment facilities. I think where the concern comes in is that there's a lot of other material that's going through the system other than the sewage. As I mentioned, there are the drain cleaners and any type of household cleansers, and sometimes you get people who dump things into the sewage system, either through the storm drains or through their household sewage system. That's where you get a big concern. As I say, that's the least of the concerns compared to the other methods, in which we see all kinds of primary and secondary sewage systems outletting into the water systems -- into closed bodies.

Where I have a lot of difficulty with the sewage system is that I think it's relatively archaic for dealing with this problem considering the alternative methods available. I'm sure the minister is aware of some of these new technologies like the chemical toilets, and the systems that are built into a house so you actually have your grey water going out either to irrigate your field or to irrigate your lawn, and you have the rest of the water being processed in-house. It eliminates the need for the trunk lines and for the auxiliary lines to the house and for the sewage treatment plant in the first place.

When we didn't have the alternatives, it seems to me that the sewage system was the best possible method. But we have better methods now and we have the technology available, and because it's so much cheaper and very accessible, it can be built into the construction costs of a subdivision or the construction costs of a home to begin with. This goes back to yesterday's comments about sustainable cities and about developing a long-term plan that would redesign the way we're doing things to cut costs and to be more environmentally sensitive.

I'd like to know if the minister is considering, or if he would consider, looking into revamping the whole way we do things with regard to the approach to sewage treatment and working with the Minister of Municipal Affairs to look to some of this alternative technology -- or perhaps he's already decided to do that -- so that we can get off the old habit of going to the trunk lines and the auxiliary lines in the sewage treatment facility and build everything in-house. Perhaps you would need some small central facility for the industrial complexes or the commercial buildings, but residences themselves would be self-contained.

This would also address what many of us see as the potential for a water shortage in the future. It becomes an internal closed system, so that you're not having a net loss of water or problems with things outletting into the lake. You're actually containing everything in a house, and it fits in with the new way of doing things.

[4:00]

Hon. J. Cashore: I agree with all of those points. When we think of alternative technology.... I discovered some alternative technology at our cabin on Cortes Island recently. My son and I designed and built an outhouse. It works very well. The point that the hon. member made about toxins going into the sewer system is a very real problem. We have to look at alternative technology in addressing that problem, but, as the member said before, we also have to look at public education, because it's awfully difficult to control what happens in the privacy of somebody's bathroom. They end up dumping a lot of discarded medicines -- or who knows what it might be. That's what quite often gets out there and causes that problem.

Another thing is that often public perceptions on some of these issues are way out. For instance, I think that some people in the Victoria area see the presence of pollutants in the water adjacent to the shores of Clover Point as an indication of a problem with the long sewage outfall, but they're wrong. It's a problem with the storm drain runoff, and quite often people don't distinguish between the existence of the storm drain and the sewage outfall.

We have a problem in the lower mainland where, during one-third of the days of the year, the storm drains with the water runoff mix with the general sewage, and of course that's an intolerable situation. I think with regard to alternatives that the Bardenpho system is sometimes seen as an alternative.

There are other systems being looked at that would actually result in some of the water being recycled into where it could be sprayed on fields and that sort of thing. Yes, hon. member, we have to be constantly vigilant in looking at new and innovative technologies, methods and model approaches to cities that are integrated on the best ecological principles.

J. Tyabji: That actually leads me to the next question with regard to spray irrigation. I know that was looked at in the Okanagan, and it is actually being done to some extent in Vernon. It seems like a good idea, but it may result in a net loss to the lake, so they're still trying to work out some of the mechanics of that. I was going to canvass you on that, but you've already more or less addressed it.

[ Page 2130 ]

I would really like to encourage the hon. minister to try to bring in as much of the new technology as possible to his new government. They are a new government, and they do have the ability to change the way things have been done in the past. I would encourage him in those initiatives.

I would also like to know if the minister is aware of the program going on in California, just south of Oakland, with regard to sewage treatment in the wetlands. They have actually increased the habitat for waterfowl and some wildlife. It's very interesting. What they've been doing is putting the sewage treatment in, and in effect it's been removing all the nutrients through the wetlands. It's been like a large filter, and it's a natural filter. They've had a lot of success, and the minister may have seen some of the television programs with regard to this. They have more or less reclaimed the wetlands, because the wetlands were in some kind of trouble before they did this. Now they have not only solved their sewer problem and increased their wetlands, but they have also restored habitat for a lot of the waterfowl. In the lower mainland particularly we could see a lot of value in piloting a project like this with proper controls. An area like this could be set aside, and we could probably see a lot of success.

I would also like to point out to the minister, in the event that he hasn't already gone in this direction, that in areas where there is currently only primary sewage treatment, this may be a wonderful way of upgrading and also expanding the wetlands and habitat for waterfowl.

Hon. J. Cashore: We in the ministry are familiar with that example south of Oakland. It's a good process, worthy of consideration for application here in British Columbia.

I met with the minister of environment from Australia last week. I'm going to be seeing her at the UNCED conference. She has a number of innovations that have been implemented in Australia and that are most interesting, similar to the one that the hon. member just described. All of this fits into the concept of sustainable development. When that process is really operating, in solving one problem we've solved several problems because of the interaction.

J. Tyabji: I'd like to talk for a little while about food and about production methods as outlined in the guide that I presented to the minister on management methods and possibilities for composting. As I'm sure the minister is aware, we're reaching a lot of turning points in how we deal with the environment, society, food production -- the list goes on. We as a society have to try to evaluate where we want to go with things that are this critical to the functioning of society.

There are numerous concerns in the food production industry that overlap the Ministry of Environment, the Ministry of Agriculture and, to some extent, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. I'd like to find out how the minister feels about some of the management methods with regard to food production. That goes through many areas. I'd like to start, first of all, with agriculture, specifically the production methods for tree fruits, field berries, field crops, vegetables and these kinds of things.

At this stage a lot of chemicals have been used to produce food. There is a lot of concern with food production and the use of chemicals. As the minister is no doubt aware, we have concerns with regard to pesticide use in the Fraser Valley and the resultant potential problems with drinking water. I'd like that to be a starting point for this discussion. We can have a fairly far-ranging discussion with regard to production and management methods. Of particular concern is the Fraser Valley. It comes into the minister's portfolio with regard to pesticide use and the potential for problems with the water system and possible impacts on the people and animals living there.

Hon. J. Cashore: A number of these points were covered in parts of the previous discussions we've had. For instance, we had the discussion yesterday about the fact that some farms have accepted waste. It was referred to by the opposition as black-market waste. One of the ways that the Ministry of Environment is involved is in monitoring situations like that and seeking to make sure that the regime of monitoring and enforcement works so it doesn't happen.

We've also talked about air pollution in the airshed and the way pollution accumulates and goes up over our breadbasket. There's a problem of fallout in our food production area. That's another concern that needs to be addressed within the ministry's concern for air quality and how that interacts and impacts.

With regard to pesticides, we have the work that has been done by the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Environment in developing a certification program for farmworkers and for the application of pesticides. I believe that the work of the ministry has seen a reduction, as I said yesterday, in aerial spraying and also in the use of toxic pesticides. There is a goal to see further reduction take place. We have a joint monitoring program with the Ministry of Agriculture on food and milk and pesticide residues. We found that 98 percent of samples are well within Canadian health standards.

I think that part of this question is a more philosophical one about how we view the whole issue of food production in the context of sustainable development. That's a serious issue that's exacerbated by the impacts on the family farm resulting from free trade, for instance. So we see that a squeeze has been placed upon farmers. As I get into waxing philosophical about that, I get into an area that's not within my ministry. I think I should stick within the ministry.

I think the ministry does have a responsibility in cooperation with the Ministry of Agriculture and the four regional districts in the Fraser Valley, the Okanagan and the Kootenays -- wherever we have agricultural areas -- to work cooperatively toward achieving the appropriate goals. The major statutory regime site specific to farm land comes under the Ministry of Agriculture.

Hon. member, I wonder if I might take this opportunity to respond to a couple of issues that have come up previously. One is the Brenda Mines reclamation issue. This mine was closed in 1990. Since closure, the company has been actively involved in site cleanup and reclamation. The Ministry of Energy is responsible for closure and has set up a technical advisory committee and public surveillance committee to monitor the site. B.C. Lands is represented on both committees. As the 

[ Page 2131 ]

mine is in the Peachland watershed, one of the major concerns is water from the site that may enter the watershed. Closure and reclamation of the site is the responsibility of the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.

With regard to a discussion we had yesterday in the House in response to a question on drinking and hunting, I replied that this situation was an offence not covered under the Wildlife Act. I thought it was dealt with under other legislation. I've since been informed that the Wildlife Act was amended in October 1985 -- the year before I arrived in the House -- to cover situations where abuses of alcohol or drugs are involved.

Section 90(1) reads: "A conservation officer or constable may, where he" -- here the language is sexist; it should be he or she -- "has reasonable and probable grounds to believe that by reason of consumption of alcohol, a person who is hunting and carrying a firearm is affected in" -- it should say -- "his or her ability to hunt or handle a firearm safely and responsibly, request that person to surrender any firearms in his or her possession and his or her hunting licence and firearm licence." You can see a little bit of editing there.

Section 90(2) provides authority to deal in a similar fashion with drugs. As a matter of interest, there have been 29 such warnings and seizures of firearms since 1985 under these provisions. I state that to correct the record.

Also, with regard to the milfoil program, staff have spoken to officials in Vernon yesterday and were advised that, according to field supervisor Greg Armour of the Okanagan Basin Water Board.... He stated that they are planning to start harvesting weeds in about two weeks' time, and Vaseux Lake's weeds are ready for harvesting now. The Okanagan Basin Water Board has not yet had a meeting since they received their reduced funding, so there's no way that they could have made a decision to stop the milfoil harvesting as of yesterday. The next meeting is scheduled for June 16, '92, in Penticton.

The water board members expressed concern with regard to the funding cutback; however, we expect that they will participate in discussions that are focused on ensuring that the program does go ahead, although the funding consideration is something that is under active review. This year the water board asked for $300,000 but received $230,000. Their funding last year was $265,000, and they apparently ran up a deficit in that year. Obviously there is a financial problem there, but that is not to downgrade the importance of the program. I believe it was stated in the House yesterday that the program was cancelled; it's my understanding that's not correct.

[4:15]

J. Tyabji: I don't have my milfoil research with me, so I can't refer to it right now. I may be able to bring that up again later, but I can certainly assure the minister that I have had discussions with the Okanagan Basin Water Board prior to bringing it up in the House. I talked to them personally. They definitely communicated to me that it had been cancelled, and certainly I remember reading that in the local newspaper. Perhaps what happened was that some members had made a decision prior to going to a meeting, so it's not an official one -- I don't know.

Going back to the statements with regard to the conservation officers or constables -- I believe that was what it said in the Wildlife Act -- am I to understand that it is a criminal offence if you are found...? Or is that just in contravention of the act, and therefore you lose your permit?

Hon. J. Cashore: It's actually a warning to the individual that they could lose the firearm. Again, it's still my opinion that in order to deal effectively with the problem of drinking and drugs and hunting, it requires more than the Wildlife Act to deal with all the possible circumstances. But certainly there is an availability there within the Wildlife Act to have.... It's really caused things to chill out. That kind of a warning, once a person has a sober second thought the next day, probably has quite an impact.

J. Tyabji: I would like to encourage the minister to follow up on his statement with regard to something stronger than the Wildlife Act. I do think that to protect those who are acting responsibly, there should be an adequate recourse for those who are in violation of what we would consider to be acceptable standards, just as we do with drinking and driving. It's just a good method of dealing with things so that it doesn't go any further. If the minister is considering bringing forth some kind of amendment to the legislation, I'd certainly support that.

I pass the floor now to our Agriculture critic.

R. Chisholm: I will give the regulations to the hon. Chair, and she can pass them to the minister after the question. Can the minister deny or acknowledge whether there are Atlantic salmon in Lois Lake near Powell River and in Georgie Lake at the northern end of Vancouver Island?

Hon. J. Cashore: I believe the hon. member is correct; Atlantic salmon are being used. I'm not sure if it's a pen or a net type of situation, but that was my understanding.

R. Chisholm: Then I go back to my original question: is there a moratorium or a study on the effects of having Atlantic salmon within our natural waterways in B.C. on either the mainland or the Island?

Hon. J. Cashore: There is no study.

R. Chisholm: Will there be a study?

Hon. J. Cashore: The monitoring that is taking place involving the Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of Agriculture could result in there being a study, but at the present time there's no plan for a study.

R. Chisholm: I will again refer to the letters that I quoted earlier. You and the Premier called for a study 

[ Page 2132 ]

prior to getting elected. You've been in government six months, and this is a potential disaster.

I will quote from another document that comes out of your ministry: "In the same letter you ask for confirmation of our policy related to culturing of exotics such as Atlantic salmon and arctic char. I confirm that the Fisheries program is not prepared to accept the culture of Atlantic salmon other than those current isolated locations on coastal British Columbia."

Can you confirm to me that this will not be expanded until a moratorium has been produced in this province?

Hon. J. Cashore: The policy before I got here was that it would only be four lakes because they were trying to confine it. Since I got here, we've taken one lake off the list.

R. Chisholm: That wasn't the question, hon. minister. I'm asking whether you will confirm that there will be a moratorium before there's any enhancement to this industry in the province.

Hon. J. Cashore: Would the hon. member please clarify what industry he's referring to? I'm not sure if he's referring to a hatchery industry or to the finfish industry in the coastal pens.

R. Chisholm: We're referring to the Atlantic salmon which at present are in the lakes. It comes under aquaculture. I'm talking about an aquaculture moratorium on coastal and interior waters as to the effects on our inland waters and our shore waters.

Hon. J. Cashore: With regard to the lakes, there is a de facto moratorium in that we have said there will be no further expansion. With regard to salt water, you'll have to ask the Minister of Agriculture that question.

R. Chisholm: I will ask the Minister of Agriculture, but I ask that you get together with him to discuss this situation and propose a study. If it gets out of hand it's a potential disaster to our inland waters that will take many, many decades to rectify.

N. Lortie: I have a short question that I'd like to ask the minister before we pass his estimates -- today, I hope. It's about an issue that is very important in my community: the conservation of Burns Bog, which is a large area of 9,000 acres abutting my constituency. Many houses, including my own, overlook Burns Bog, although it is primarily in the constituency of the hon. member for Delta South. This is an ecological wonder in British Columbia: the largest dome peat bog on the Pacific coast of the North American continent. Some flora, fauna and wildlife in that area are found nowhere else in British Columbia or on the North American continent.

Does the minister have a plan to acquire, in the name of the Crown, the 9,000 acres of land known as Burns Bog? Does the ministry consider that they have a plan for at least the preservation of it -- no more development or expansion of the garbage dump, the Vancouver landfill site, in that area? Will the minister give us a time-frame when people in my community can be assured that Burns Bog will be protected in perpetuity?

Hon. J. Cashore: First, with regard to the expansion of the dump, it's the goal of the solid waste plan to reduce solid waste by 50 percent. So the ministry is actively working with the regional district towards that goal. That being achieved, it should result in there being no demand for an expansion of the dump.

With regard to the 9,000 acres that the hon. member referred to, I understand that part of the bog is also in private hands. When it comes to the issue of what the ministry might do with that in terms of acquisition and the protection of habitat, it is an area that, given its uniqueness, certainly requires a very careful review. We need to do that along with reviewing several other ecological areas in the province, which, for obvious reasons, are of great interest. People like Bert Brink, for instance, have done worthwhile historical work to draw this unique system to our attention. As a matter of fact, it's my understanding that Burns Bog is a remaining example of the ice age. A similar setting is found only in the arctic. I also understand that it has a great diversity of wildlife.

At the present time we do not have a plan in place that deals with all the concerns that the Burns Bog Conservation Society would like to see dealt with, although it's something that we haven't taken off the table either. We're actively looking at it, along with a number of key areas throughout the province.

One point that interests me is in the context of representative landscapes. But at the present time there's a great deal of focus on the Boundary Bay area study, and that is requiring the resources and attention of government. As far as I'm concerned, Burns Bog is high on the list.

N. Lortie: I thank the minister for his response, and would just make one comment. My constituency office is right next door to the office of the Burns Bog Conservation Society, so you can see the kind of pressure that I would be subject to if I hadn't had to spend all this time in the House. When I get back there, their president, Eliza Olson, will be knocking on my door again, and I would hope that I would be able to deliver some good message about some plan. Could the minister have his staff start working on some long-range plans for the preservation of that ecological jewel that we have in Delta, so that some day we can think that land will be safe forever -- along with Boundary Bay? And by the way, it's part of the Boundary Bay system and should be considered in the same context as the Boundary Bay study.

Hon. J. Cashore: That point's well taken. I think that is an issue we need to look at in the context of the Boundary Bay study in that it wouldn't be part of that study, but would form part of a continuum when that takes place. We should not lose sight of the interest of the regional district and indeed of the municipality. I would like to invite the hon. member to meet with 

[ Page 2133 ]

officials of our ministry with a view to discussing how we might approach the Burns Bog issue. I think that would be helpful in terms of being able to report to the advocacy group in that community.

L. Reid: My questions to the minister this afternoon pertain directly to the riding of Richmond East. My questions revolve around the area of the toxic-soil dilemma that we experienced. Certainly we had toxic soil from the Expo lands being put onto the banks of Fraser River. The residents in my riding, the constituents, had tremendous difficulty with that, hon. minister, and we would wish some assurance that a similar decision will not be taken by this government.

[4:30]

Hon. J. Cashore: I agree with the hon. member with regard to the issue of toxic soil. There's an issue of the classification of soil involved. We are in the process of preparing contaminated-site legislation which will provide the ability to deal with that issue. In the meantime, a tremendous amount of work has been done among the various municipalities of the regional district so that the various communities address that issue to provide the assurance that there wouldn't be one community that would end up being the recipient of all the dumping; in other words, that Richmond would be seen as the community that would have to take all the soil that fitted into that category.

It is a category that would be classified as where there is slight contamination as compared to other soils that have major contamination. It's kind of borderline in that sense, but the concern that I have expressed in the past, and would continue to express, is that that particular site is adjacent to, I believe, cranberry-growing land. It was adjacent to food-production land, and I personally found that offensive.

When it comes to the fact that there is construction-grade soil that is constantly being moved all the way around the lower mainland, we should be absolutely sure that one municipality isn't the recipient of all of that dumping. In order to move forward with the work that has been going on in classifying kinds of soils.... I'm sure you're familiar with levels A, B and C, above level C and all of that. It gets very confusing. When it comes to construction-grade soil that is moved around the lower mainland -- which is done constantly -- we want to make sure that it's done in an appropriate way and not in a way that raises legitimate concerns about it being in proximity to agricultural land.

L. Reid: I share your concern about the proximity of toxic soil to agricultural land. The concern of the residents was absolutely in line with agricultural land, but more than that, it was sitting on the banks of the Fraser River. We do not wish.... An extensive lobby was underway in my riding. They received support from the municipal government for the riding of Richmond. However, we did not at any time receive any assurance from the government that Richmond should be treated differently because it sits below the waterline. I mean, it is the Fraser River delta. You can make the case that it sits next to cranberries, but it also sits on the water table and on the banks of the Fraser River, which we believe cannot tolerate any further deterioration.

I would appreciate your comments.

Hon. J. Cashore: I think the point is well taken. The proximity to the banks of the river is also a concern which I've expressed in the past. It's something that we all have to look at in terms of present practices that involve the movement of soil over a wide range of areas. Our response to that has to be cooperative, one where we enable the public to participate in the kind of planning decisions that will say: "Yes, this material can go there and not here."

L. Reid: Would you be able to outline this afternoon the plans or the agreements that you have reached with the federal government in terms of how the Fraser River is going to be handled and hopefully cleaned up in the near future?

Hon. J. Cashore: Just a bit further on that earlier question, there's a committee that has been working on a soils task force report. It has involved representatives of the ministry and of Richmond and other areas. That report will be released at the end of the month. I urge you to watch for the release of that report and give us your response to it.

I believe your question was on the initiatives of the ministry to clean up the Fraser River. Is that correct?

L. Reid: It was specific to the types of agreements, if any agreements have been reached, between this government and the federal government.

Hon. J. Cashore: There was a highly publicized event last week, which involved me, the federal government and Mayor Gordon Campbell, representing municipal governments. We signed the Fraser basin management agreement, which, under the Green Plan of the federal government, enables the spending of $100 million over five years. Our estimate is that when you factor in the costs that will be expended by the provincial and municipal governments over a period of five years, very close to $1 billion will be spent in this effort. This is a very significant improvement project, which should see those funds being spent in British Columbia on issues that are long overdue.

Another component of that agreement had to do with setting up a board that would consist of three representatives from each of the federal and provincial governments and the municipalities. That board of nine will be chaired by Tony Dorcey, who is very highly qualified. He's on the faculty of UBC and Westwater Research Centre and also a member of the Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. He has agreed to head up that process. That board will be selecting a further nine members from throughout the region. There will be aboriginal representation on that board. The board will have the responsibility of deciding how those funds are to be apportioned in the Fraser River cleanup. Obviously, when you consider that the Fraser River affects between one-quarter and one-third of the 

[ Page 2134 ]

land base of the province, that is a major project. They're going to be looking at various ways of mitigating impacts on water quality and at also a preventive approach to assist in finding ways of ensuring that we don't foul our nest -- as has been said by eminent environmentalists. It's a difficult problem because of increasing population demands.

L. Reid: I thank you most sincerely for your response to that question. My next question revolves around the area of organic farming. Are there initiatives or agreements in place on behalf of your ministry to allow further research to go on in that area?

Hon. J. Cashore: Off the top of my head, I believe the short answer is no. I may stand corrected on that. If I am, I will correct that in the record. But I don't believe that the Ministry of Environment is involved in any studies or agreements on that. It could be that the Ministry of Agriculture is. I do know that on the issue of organic farming -- and this an issue that doesn't come under my ministry -- there is a question of certification with regard to a product being grown on land that would qualify for being identified as organically grown food. Somebody could say, "Okay, I'm going to start organic farming," and then have it taking place on land where there had been pesticide application very recently. That obviously needs to be looked at. It's interesting that in my own riding, where Colony Farm exists, there has been some organic farming going on by Mr. Walter Siempelkamp, who works with the Forensic Psychiatric Institute. They took an incredible crop of organically grown potatoes off that land last year.

I sometimes think that in areas like Colony Farm, which are an island of emerald green in a sea of urban sprawl, we could see some innovative projects such as market gardens or gardens that seniors who are maybe living in an apartment could tend. Perhaps there could be an opportunity for farm animals and that sort of thing that children could go and see. I think there are ways we can find uses for our green spaces. Specifically, to get back to the question on organic farming, it's an issue that really does come under the Ministry of Agriculture.

L. Reid: I appreciate your comments on farming, because I believe quite honestly that we need to have a commitment to farming in this country, as opposed to downgrading that to simply a commitment to farmland.

However, my next question revolves around the impact of research on the future development of the Ministry of Environment. I believe there are a number of issues we could be looking at from a research base, and I'm wondering if you have any thoughts on that or if your ministry has currently undertaken any research in the area of technology which could impact on the environment.

Hon. J. Cashore: Yes, we are interested in research that impacts on technology for the environment in a number of different ways. People in our ministry are in contact with the three universities. We see an opportunity there for mutual interests. I met recently with the head of B.C. Research, another area of research that is subsidized by the province, in working in some very significant environmental technology ways. There's the whole role of the provincial government, the Ministry of Environment and the facilitation of Globe '92 and, I hope, Globe '94, which is a major way in which British Columbia will become the Geneva of the environment on a world scale. We have the opportunity to be that kind of a setting here in British Columbia, where we still have such a marvellous environment. We have outstanding educational facilities and access to the Pacific Rim, where a lot of our expertise in prevention and crisis intervention could be made available.

When it comes to research and development, obviously there's never enough. We need to be moving on this front in a variety of ways. I understand that Maurice Strong, the UN secretary general to the UNCED, is going to be settling in Vancouver. I look upon that as a major benefit for our area, in terms of having access to his knowledge about the global situation and ways to fulfil our responsibility not only to ourselves here by acting locally, but by thinking globally. I think we really need to be drawing in a number of different connections that help us to enhance the opportunity for research.

L. Reid: If I may speak to the minister for a moment as a teacher, previous administrations have spent untold dollars on campaigns to encourage young people to enter the sciences. My hope is that the Ministry of Environment would take that into consideration and encourage ongoing research projects. I believe quite honestly that we could make British Columbia into a world-class facility for environmental research.

Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Chair, I very much appreciate that from the perspective of a teacher. As I said before -- there were some youngsters in the gallery at the time -- I think that some of the major work being done in environmental awareness is through the wisdom of children. They often have a wisdom that has passed us by. I think, in a very engaging way, their input is very significant. I appreciate your making that point as a teacher.

With regard to some of the research projects that we have been and are involved in, there's the applied science that's going into the research on the AOX issue -- the organochlorines that go out into the environment. We are actively involved in that jointly with the federal government and the industry.

[4:45]

There's research into technology, such as the R2D2 project, where we have provided some grants to innovative research in the area of recycling tires. That research has been focused on avoiding the incidence of burning tires in cement kilns, which does happen, and on finding ways to convert our tires into roof tiles, stair treads, floor tiles, traffic markers, etc. There has been a major, very dramatic impact on the tire-recycling 

[ Page 2135 ]

equation as a result of programs like that. That has promoted a lot of research.

There's basic data, such as $10 million going into the budget to hire 40 full-time employees to catch up on much-needed inventory requirements in the province in fish, wildlife and our wood supply. That's baseline work pursuant to effective research. Then there's the data management such as the TRIM program in the Crown lands part of our ministry.

G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Chair, I'm sort of jumping back in here after talking to the minister earlier today. It regards another issue that has taken place in my constituency, but perhaps it's a little different. It does deal with water. It has to do with the train wreck that took place in Fort Langley in, I believe, 1986. There was a spill and an ongoing plan to clean that up. There was some controversy earlier on in the year with regard to what had been going on there. Perhaps the minister could fill us in on the status of that at this time.

Hon. J. Cashore: I know that we have had some activity in the area recently, but I do need to get a note. Perhaps we could go on to another question, and I'll come back to that.

A. Cowie: I'd like to talk about air quality. Let's take Vancouver as an example. In the morning the inversion moves up the valley towards Port Moody, and during the night it moves back out. You can see this black cloud. I wonder why we're planning to have higher density in and around Port Moody, for example, where you've got the highest amount of ozone and the highest amount of inversion going on.

I wondered if the minister has any comment on that, or whether his ministry would even want to be involved with that.

Hon. J. Cashore: If I understand the question, it's why we have the density in areas where it promotes the intensity of the pollutants going into the air. Is this relating to demographics? Is that the point the hon. member is making?

A. Cowie: At the present time there is very high density being planned in Port Moody, in the valley itself. The inversion moves up and moves back from that point. The inversion is partly natural, but it's partly caused by vehicles and all sorts of things. I'm just wondering if the minister has anything to say about that, because obviously that's part of livability. The greatest amount of ozone is in that area. I wanted to know if he had any plans or any comments.

Hon. J. Cashore: I have answered that question. This is the fourth time we've come back to the air quality issue. Very briefly, there's no question: we need to be recovering the planning concepts that were part of the livable region approach that was taken away from us when we lost the planning function for regional districts. In a sense, we're reaping the whirlwind. The member's absolutely right: we have intensity of population in areas where people do not have their vocations, so they are in the situation of having to get to work in downtown Vancouver or wherever it may be.

I think this is an area where we need to be putting some very innovative research and planning, but also there are a number of activities that we can be involved in, such as the air care program and finding ways to enable people to get out of their automobiles and into public transit. As I say, I'm being very brief on this, because we previously canvassed it quite thoroughly.

There is one project that I will mention now. I think I might have mentioned it yesterday. One of the people receiving the environment award is John Innes on behalf of B.C. Tel. He took me out to visit a satellite office in Langley. Yes, we did talk about it, because the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove also had some input on that. It's a concept of using fibre optics so people can actually work in the community where they live, and when they get back home at night they're not exhausted, and they can participate in community activities, get to know their kids better or whatever it may be.

It's unfortunate that we are taking such a long time to address some of these problems in a practical way. We have to address them on a number of fronts. The member for Okanagan East has often mentioned the concept of livable communities based on sustainable development concepts. We have a real problem in the area that you mentioned, hon. member, because we see housing going in before the infrastructure is planned. Then we find all of a sudden that nobody has thought about methods of transportation and access.

There's some thinking going on, since we have so much housing on hillsides -- some buses actually can't get up those streets -- that we could have smaller feeder-collector routes. Smaller buses would go up and bring people down to a central location, where they could get onto the bus. There are a number of initiatives in that area that really need to be reviewed. The Ministry of Environment wants, of course, to promote that. It is a cross-ministerial issue, and we know that other ministries are interested as well.

A. Cowie: I really appreciate those comments, because I personally believe that the Ministry of Environment has to be right across the board in providing advice to other ministries. I thank you for those comments.

Again on the subject of urban growth, the city of Vancouver has hired an environmental officer. That's a large city. Delta has had an environmental officer for about 15 years. Not all municipalities have environmental officers, and they serve different roles. I wonder what the minister feels about municipalities having environmental officers, and what their relationships should be with the provincial government, since they sit on different provincial agencies and boards representing the municipalities.

Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Chair, I think that's a very useful position to have at that level. In some ways I would compare an environmental planner to a social planner. I think the role should be, in this day and age, a facilitating role to enable public input. I really think 

[ Page 2136 ]

that, if we're going to achieve our goals in so many of these areas, we need the public on board. I recognize that there's political will on one hand, and there's public will on the other hand. In order to move forward we have to have both of those in balance. I think the concept of an environmental officer hired by a municipality is a good step, and we would want to work closely with them where available.

A. Cowie: I'm very glad to hear the minister's opinions on that, because I agree with him. I don't necessarily agree that they should be doing the public participation, but definitely they should be fulfilling the technical role on that.

I want to go to another subject. In rural areas -- I'm dealing mainly with cottage sites on Crown lands or even on private land -- the Ministry of Health pretty well requires you to use septic fields. In many cases we know that septic fields are fine; that's technology. There are other methods like electric toilets and all kinds of other measures that one can use, yet the only approval you can get is for the use of septic fields. I'm talking about low-density rural recreation; I'm not talking about a subdivision where you would have a treatment plant.

Hon. J. Cashore: I think this is similar to a question we had a while back, and I can only give a fairly generic answer on it. We do have a rule for permitting for septic fields. But if I understand the point that's being made, it seems that the law is not cognizant of alternative methods that could be used, and that we should be looking at ways and means of enabling that to be done, especially when it is often a more environmentally benign way.

This partly involves the Ministry of Health. I understand that the standard that comes from that ministry is that there is some recognition when the throughflow is less than 5,000 gallons per day. Again, it might be an issue that we need to look at. The fact is that new and innovative technologies are available, and we shouldn't be standing in the way if they're actually going to be an improvement for the environment.

A. Cowie: I'm also glad to hear that. If you're doing a very low-density subdivision or a cottage, you deal with the Ministry of Health; there's no question about that. But, as I said, they have this notion that septic fields are the only answer. So I'm glad to hear that maybe they should be looking at other alternatives.

For over 500,000 gallons, you deal with the Ministry of Environment. There again, many methods of treatment have been tried out in the States -- for example, ozone treatment and various other treatments. I wonder whether the Ministry of Environment has looked at new and innovative ways and whether it would accept them. The tendency is that unless you can provide an absolutely foolproof method of maintenance and prove that you can maintain it, you get refusals. I believe that the Ministry of Health even wants to have municipalities or regional districts do inspections to make sure things are proper and up to scratch.

Hon. J. Cashore: We'd be willing to look at that under the discussion paper on water, which is going to be out for public discussion very soon. I would certainly encourage the member to give that input into that process.

I'll put on the record that I agree with what this hon. member is saying. We have to look at upgrading our legislative regime to facilitate environmental improvements. If there's technology out there that can help us do that in a more benign way, then let's go for it.

A. Cowie: I don't want to get into dealing with my personal experience. In the past, when the Ministry of Environment has approved a larger development that required a treatment plant, they have been rather conservative and have not looked to the States, where there are proven examples. In fact, through the management structure, they have not been able to go and look at them, for some reason or other, even if they're given the money by the developer. Is there some way, through the ministry, that officers can make sure that they're up to date, by visiting proven projects in the States or other places?

Hon. J. Cashore: I want to assure the member that our staff are constantly reviewing various kinds of technology, in a wide variety of areas. Please let us know of examples that we should be looking into, and we'll see that they get to the appropriate people. As we were saying earlier, there are some examples of a program in southern California that could be very helpful in terms of waste water and the reclamation of wetlands. We do want to be looking at some of those things. I did say yesterday that we're planning to visit Dr. Larry Berg in Los Angeles to take a look at the way in which the south California air quality authority operates. It might be that at a time like that we could combine a visit to such a facility. Please let us know.

Also, our staff regularly attends conferences, seminars and demonstrations on new technology.

A. Cowie: There are even local examples. I understand that the Greater Vancouver Regional District is presently experimenting with a treatment plant on the North Shore. It's an advance on using a very large system. The experience of people who've put in that plant in small towns on the Prairies, or on reserves, where you can't get big plants.... If you could get a small treatment plant to deal with a small community, rather than tie it in with the whole of the GVRD, for example, it would give municipalities a great deal more flexibility.

[5:00]

Hon. J. Cashore: I'll just take that point. The member makes a good point.

A. Cowie: This is getting into an area that's a little different, but I would like to ask a question regarding visual analysis. To a lot of people, the visual environment is equally as important as the physical, the water and the air. It's important from a tourism point of view. Does the Ministry of Environment have any comment o

[ Page 2137 ]

n visual analysis? Do they deal with it? I sometimes wonder if you really can trust the Ministry of Forests to do a visual analysis of a forest plan.

Hon. J. Cashore: It's really interesting when you open up the area of our visual environment. It's not an area that we've legislated, yet it's one we take for granted. If we fail to deal with what's on the ground, if we fail to ensure the protection of the environment, then it becomes all too apparent in terms of the visual perception, such as the viewscapes when clearcutting is taking place where it's absolutely inappropriate. I understand that the Ministry of Tourism is focusing a lot of attention on this issue. Obviously our reputation is impacted when we do foolish things with the visual quality of our land.

Again, there's not only the visual quality of a viewscape, but the impact on the ability to see the viewscape when there is fog and that sort of thing, especially for people in the urban area. We have to recognize that that's part and parcel of an integrated approach to a number of issues. The Parks and Wilderness for the 90s project, for instance, in seeking to address representative ecosystems, also comes into that scenario, as does the Lands part of the ministry with regard to its inventory and mapping techniques.

A. Cowie: It's good to know that the ministry is at least concerned with this aspect, because I think it's part of this integrated approach. I appreciate that.

Does the minister have any comment on urban zoos, on whether they're appropriate or not?

Hon. J. Cashore: I'm advised that we give out permits for them. I understand that there's some discussion going on in the Vancouver Parks Board with regard to the future of the Stanley Park zoo, and I heard it mentioned in relation to Tynehead, so obviously some of those kinds of studies are going on.

I have some real personal angst over the concept of urban zoos. On the one hand I can see some values in it, but on the other hand the very idea of taking a wild creature out of its habitat seems to me to be cruel and unusual. I do hear the arguments about how this can be valuable in our educational programs -- that children, say from poor areas, who would perhaps never have an opportunity to see an animal in the wild can go and see one in the zoo. It's not the type of thing where I can come up with a really hard and fast ethical perspective, because when I see birds in aviaries I get the sense, without being an ornithologist, that they do have a habitat that seems to have been integrated quite well and it seems to me they socialize effectively within those settings. But it is a reality, and I think it behooves us as a society and insofar as our ministry is involved to ensure that that is done in the most humane way possible where it takes place.

Another thing that maybe relates to that is that when we look at the resources of the province and the opportunities for tourism, such as the announcement we made the other day about Robson Bight, there should be places where there can be viewscapes for photography but where it will not be impacting on or interfering with the wildlife in the area.

A. Cowie: I was quite serious about zoos, because it's a really hot, debatable issue at the present time in Vancouver, as you know. The Stanley Park task force has recommended that the zoo in Stanley Park be eliminated and replaced with some kind of educational facility dealing with the natural environment. I personally agree with that. But there are appropriate places for zoos, and perhaps there will be one up the valley for larger animals, B.C. animals in particular, and undoubtedly the Minister of Environment will be called on for an opinion when the time comes.

I think the minister really struck heart anyway when he mentioned children, because it's very important to educate children about animals. Sometimes you have to have animals there that the children can see and touch, because many urban children never get an opportunity to go out into the rural areas. And if they do, and if you got all those people out there, it could perhaps be detrimental to the environmental generally.

Hon. J. Cashore: I take the member's point. It fits into a whole myriad of issues that converge here. I think that this is something that clearly needs a lot of thought and hopefully direction coming out of that, and I value the comments.

I was just handed a note and reminded that we also have places for rehabilitation of injured animals and injured wildlife. So it is a dilemma. But at the present time I'm not saying that we should do away with them. Personally, with regard to killer whales, I would rather they not be in captivity.

I would like to come back to a question that was asked by the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove. I think there's more to the answer than I have here available to you at the present time, because I know I had been discussing this -- I think three months ago -- with a reporter who has been trying to get some information on it.

The Ministries of Environment and Health have released a report on groundwater quality in the lower Fraser Valley. It's my understanding that this report contained an update on the quality of the land and water near the site of the spill. When I was talking to the reporter, we were talking about releasing a report. I honestly can't remember if this is the report that was released, but I know I did indicate to the reporter that I would do everything I could to make that report available to her.

That's all the information I can get you on it right now, but I would be willing to follow up on that with you, because I think that information should be made available.

G. Farrell-Collins: A question to the minister. I understand that he has a huge ministry, and I give him a lot of sympathy for having to deal with such a wide variety of issues. I'll ask the question. I don't necessarily expect an answer right now, but perhaps I can ask it.

At the time that this issue came up again, as you say, about three months ago, there was an alderman in 

[ Page 2138 ]

Langley township who, at that point in time, called for an environmental review of the issue to see what had happened and where some of these documents had gone. I'm wondering if you recall any discussions that took place at that time. What were you considering? Are you still considering doing anything of that sort in the future? Or are we just dealing with the report?

Hon. J. Cashore: I believe it was the feeling of the reporter and the alderman that there was not an adequate program in terms of the cleaning up and the monitoring. I believe that the perspective of officials was that it had been monitored very closely. It was a potentially dangerous situation. It was an ethylene dichloride spill from a CNR train derailment in Fort Langley on February 15, 1986.

It was my understanding from the discussions I was having at that time that the next step was to get the information to those people. I think they were saying that there was some information that had not been released. It was my position that I thought they should have the information. Beyond that, with regard to further discussion about the clean-up itself, I think it hinged on that information.

I would be glad to discuss this further with the member and arrange for our staff to be involved in that. My position on it as the minister is that information should be made available to local authorities, and I'll do everything in my power to make it available.

G. Farrell-Collins: I will try and contact your staff as soon as possible to ensure that it will take place, and we can get that information back to the people who are concerned. In that light, though, once that information has been reviewed, if it hasn't already been reviewed by the township people and the citizens of Fort Langley -- those who want to review it -- if there are other additional concerns, I would like to be able to bring them back to the minister at that time and have them addressed in the same sort of fashion.

Hon. J. Cashore: One thing I would like to suggest, if this is within the realm of possibility, is that the hon. member invite representatives of the community, perhaps along with others who are raising questions, and arrange for a delegation to come and meet with staff. I think that might be a good way to get all of the still-to-be-resolved points onto the table.

G. Farrell-Collins: That was my next question. I think that's a good plan, and I'm glad to see that's the way that things are being done. I'll ensure that it gets set up very quickly.

A. Cowie: I've got a couple questions on oil spills. In Vancouver, for instance, there are quite a few oil spills along Stanley Park and the harbourfront. The different agencies work extremely well in dealing with the situation. I know that the parks board moves in very quickly, and then the Ministry of Environment comes in and looks after it, and they are reimbursed. So does the ministry consider itself the lead agency on that -- or how does that work -- and how does the minister feel about it?

Hon. J. Cashore: My understanding is.... This goes back to the very dramatic events at the time of the Grays Harbor Nestucca oil spill, which gave rise to the B.C.-Western States Task Force on Oil Spills. Shortly after that we had the Exxon Valdez spill, which resulted in the Brander-Smith study. It's my understanding that where it is a land-based problem it's the Ministry of Environment's responsibility to take the lead, but where it is a saltwater-based occurrence it's the responsibility of the federal government, coordinated by the Coast Guard.

I stated my position at the time of the Grays Harbor oil spill, and I state it again now as the Minister of Environment. When an incident occurs, if the system that we are in the process of setting up is not working -- and a lot has been done since Grays Harbor -- I don't believe that we can wait on protocol. I think the Ministry of Environment would have to start taking the lead. What we've been doing is working with authorities in the United States and also in the federal government to ensure that the next time there's an incident those lines of communication will be very clear. But my position is that if somebody is not taking the responsibility they should, we should fail on the side of action rather than on the side of waiting for somebody to get started.

A. Cowie: If we could deal with that intertidal zone, where the Ministry of Environment comes into effect, I'll first ask the question about double-hulled ships. It's the single-hulled ships that cause a spill problem when they're damaged. I'm wondering if the minister has a comment about maybe requiring nothing but double-hulled ships.

[5:15]

Hon. J. Cashore: I think that that, along with several of the recommendations contained in the David Anderson report, should be fulfilled. David Anderson made that recommendation, and I believe Brander-Smith did as well. It is the federal government that has the authority to require that this be done.

I met recently with representatives of the oil industry who outlined for me some innovative work that they were doing in improving their capacity to deal with incidents. The fact is that according to the most recent studies, tanker traffic incidents in Vancouver harbour have actually declined in recent years. That's been a reflection of the market and economics more than anything else. It's been a reflection of where pipelines go and that sort of thing.

There are a number of recommendations that really need to be followed, and one is that there be an escort vessel. What we have now is that a vessel coming from above Second Narrows has four escort tugs. Once it comes through Second Narrows, I believe it then becomes two tugs and they escort the vessel out into the inlet. I believe Brander-Smith recommends that an escort vessel stay with them right out into the open seas. I think we'll find that some of those recommenda-

[ Page 2139 ]

tions have been followed and some haven't. But where it deals with coastal shipping the authority to require that is with the federal government.

There's another issue that I think needs to be reviewed from time to time, and that is who has the liability. My own opinion is that if the shippers have the liability, then they will ensure that they are shipping on a vessel that is properly cared for. But I know the industry doesn't agree with that.

A. Cowie: I've got a couple of really short questions that relate to each other. It always bugs me to go to Boundary Bay beach and see people picking up small crabs and overpicking the area for oysters and whatever. That area is already decimated to a large extent. If you go out into the Gulf Islands now, you will see people picking bags and bags of oysters and clams. Soon our shoreline around the islands is going to be just the way the San Juan Islands are. You go down there, and you can't find an oyster. I'm just wondering how strongly the minister feels about this, and what he might want to do about it.

Hon. J. Cashore: Those limits are set by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. It's my understanding that they do so in such a way that those limits are able to achieve sustainability.

When it comes to oysters, I believe there are two forms of oyster-harvesting. One is through an aquaculture source, and the other is through the wild source. There have had to be some very significant controls placed on people who would go from place to place every time there is an opening and just decimate the wild stocks. In the context of sustainable development, we have to be very sure that we don't cause irreversible harm.

It's interesting, though, when we think of the littleneck clams, which include the Manila clam and the native littleneck, and also the oyster that's being harvested, that those are part of our biodiversity that have been introduced. So we have the Manila clam that has been introduced there alongside the littleneck clam, which is native, and we have the oysters that have come from Asia. Sometimes we raise concerns about introducing a substance from offshore and what it might do to the ecology, but here it would appear that it has been a very worthwhile introduction for the ecology that creates a multimillion-dollar industry.

A. Cowie: The reason I ask these questions is that I think the Ministry of Environment goes across all the other ministries. I'm glad to see that the minister is fully aware of these things. I would hate to lose my favourite thing to do, which is to sit on a beach and have a raw oyster and a glass of whisky.

My final question goes back to Vancouver and composting. It has to do with leaves more than anything, and the city of Vancouver do compost their leaves. They package them up; in fact, they sell them at the Van Dusen Botanical Gardens. It's a volunteer thing. It's very popular. Other municipalities are doing that, too. And I would imagine the ministry is in favour of it, but I wonder what the ministry's doing to promote that sort of thing in the other municipalities that aren't doing it.

Hon. J. Cashore: That's something that this ministry actively promotes, because I believe that 30 percent of the waste stream is compostable. Obviously practices have to be done appropriately so that it doesn't become a breeding ground for rats. There's a lot of information available on how that might be done. Good innovative work has been done by the CRD and various municipalities where they've had a role in helping to educate people as to how to build a good composting system, or how to make one available for an apartment or whatever it may be. A few years ago when I was in West Germany, I visited a compost works in Heidelberg, and it was interesting to see how that system worked. It is true that it produces a very valuable resource. The composters that are sold at subsidized prices in the CRD are cost-shared with the Ministry of Environment. We need to be developing systems that enable us to get massive amounts of leaves and other substances into places where we can compost, segregate as to the various qualities of that substance, and then find good ways to use it. I often think: why not put it on the forests and get a better crop of trees? But there are economies of scale that just don't work out at this point in time.

C. Serwa: I suspect the minister is wondering why he's being subjected to this cruel and unusual punishment that goes on and on, but I have to tell the minister that there's a secret agenda among all the other members of the Legislature. The decision, I think, is such that the estimates will continue to go on until you relent and agree to take all of us with you to Rio de Janeiro.

I do have a couple of questions for the minister, hon. Chair. I note that there is approximately $17 million directed towards new programs this year in your ministry: the habitat biologist program tied in with Ministry of Forests, the increase in conservation officers, the corporate inventory, the environmental assessment legislation and the state-of-the-environment report, all with a substantial number of FTEs -- and with a substantial cost to it. I note that there has been a relatively modest increase -- approximately $3.5 million -- in the Ministry of Environment budget over the past year, which really means that approximately $13.5 million worth of existing projects have been knocked in the head. We've certainly identified one, which is the Environment Youth Corps. Would the minister indicate to me what has been put on hold or abandoned in view of the requirements for this additional $13.5 million to be diverted from existing programs to the new program?

Hon. J. Cashore: The ministry's operating budget increased by 8.5 percent compared to last year's estimates. The fact is, though, that it's somewhat altered by the change in the SEF fund. If you factor in the SEF fund, it would be more like 5 percent.

Reductions include some efficiency savings, some expenditure reductions in a process of reallocating 

[ Page 2140 ]

resources to areas of higher priority. For instance, the Pacific Place remediation and contaminated sites program was reduced by $2.9 million to $11.9 million; $1 million was taken away from the Fraser River flood control program, so the budget became $2 million instead of $3 million; capital construction and mineral evaluation in parks, $0.7 million; purchase of air monitoring equipment, $0.22 million; and northern mine review, $0.2 million. The demise of the Environment Youth Corps, which the member acknowledged, saved $2.9 million.

I wish to thank the hon. member for his good wishes about the UNCED conference. I want him to know that I go there with a sense of challenge but in the context of some very serious issues that we as a global community must face in a straightforward way. Some of the scenes coming out of Brazil on the Knowledge Network showing, for instance, that in order for a road to be built from the airport into the city, it meant mowing down shantytowns, set the backdrop to the reality of poverty as one of the major components of the sustainable development equation. I don't go there with any sense of being a miracle worker, but I do have a sense that we in British Columbia are in a very unique place. On the one hand, we have the opportunity to demonstrate good environmental techniques and expertise, and on the other hand, we have an opportunity to use our political will to move our neighbours to the south and get the kinds of agreements that are going to help move the agenda forward.

F. Garden: I would like permission to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

F. Garden: Joining us in the gallery is a very enthusiastic group of students from Lac la Hache, B.C. As a geography lesson, Lac la Hache is on the road to Williams Lake, just after you get out of 108 Mile Ranch. It's a beautiful part of the country. We have the grade 6 and 7 class from Lac la Hache Elementary. They're accompanied by four parents and their teacher, Miss Goyette. Could we please give them a Victoria welcome.

C. Serwa: I appreciate the minister's remarks. I'm confident that he will come back far more appreciative of the manner in which environmental issues have been handled in British Columbia as compared to other jurisdictions. I think that Brazil will be very interesting. I only want to again affirm that we're all environmentalists in this Legislature. We would be pleased if there is some spare room, to carry bags or whatever.

I have a couple of questions on pulp mill regulations, hon. minister. You've probably been canvassed quite effectively on this. With respect to the studies that have been commissioned at the University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser University, what is the status of those studies and have reports been tabled as a result of them?

[5:30]

J. Cashore: I'll try this one off the top of my head, and then I might get some more information. It is my understanding that at the time that John Reynolds resigned over the issue of the pulp effluent standard and you, hon. member, became the minister, you announced that the three universities -- UBC, SFU and UVic -- would work on a study that would deal with the issue of the science of that. That's one of the first questions I asked when I came into this position. It's my understanding that the work of deciding on the nature of the study and the parameters never really got off the drawing board. There were consultations among the three universities, and I think there may have been other input, but I don't think that there was ever a complete agreement on how those studies should be defined. Therefore that is still something that hasn't borne fruit.

C. Serwa: I'm particularly disappointed to hear that. I was looking forward to those studies actually being made. At that time, I believe, the effluent regulations we had put forward were restricted to a maximum of 2.5 kilograms of organochlorines per tonne of pulp. Certainly there was a commitment to work to the 1.5 kilogram level, or below that if deemed appropriate or necessary.

It appeared to me that there was no general information available from any other jurisdiction that we could grab hold of, and it was exceedingly important that the universities and the research centre be offered this opportunity and this particular challenge so that the Ministry of Environment could base legislation on objective and factual information. If that has not transpired -- and I note that the minister has additional information at the moment -- then on what basis can we make appropriate regulations on quantities?

Hon. J. Cashore: Precisely. Obviously there is a need for a great deal of research in this area. The tragic problem that we find ourselves in.... Given the paucity of the needed information, it behooves decision-makers to make decisions on the basis of a precautionary option. If you see something happening and all your instincts tell you that it's pretty dangerous and the federal health scientists are telling you that there should be advisories that would actually impact on the ability of a fishing person to make a livelihood, then you know something is wrong. Those people who are telling you that you can't fish there are scientists.

The point is well taken. There's an inadequate database of science to enable us to make the decisions we need to make and to make them well. It has pointed out on many occasions that the term AOX is probably not sufficient as a method of gauging and calculating. So we have to work with the best science we have available, and it has to get better. I share the regret that, as far as we know, that study never got off the ground. There are studies now underway led by Simon Fraser University, and we get regular progress reports from them. We also know that Industry, Science and Technology Canada is involved in a $60 million study in eastern Canada that's also dealing with pulp mill effluent. I will be announcing shortly some studies that I am commis-

[ Page 2141 ]

sioning with regard to the very issue you are raising. So we are taking steps. We are going to be announcing steps -- actually three studies in all -- but there will be more information forthcoming later.

C. Serwa: I don't want to flog this one to death, but it is a very important issue, especially in the province of British Columbia.

It is my understanding that in Sweden the averaging takes place over the course of a year. Here we're looking at a much shorter time interval for that averaging; I believe it's a month. That makes a significant difference, because there are transitional peaks and valleys in the levels as they go out. Perhaps it's not quite appropriate to compare Sweden to ourselves. The other aspect of Sweden is that they apparently use more hardwood in their fibre mix and require less in the way of chlorines.

I'd like to ask the minister if there is any accommodation in his new regulations for the number of mills in a particular area. One case, for example, is the Prince George situation, where there are a number of mills in close proximity to the Fraser River. Another case in point is the Alberni Inlet situation, where you have very little tidal movement of water. Is there accommodation in the new regulations, so that we're not looking at mills required to put on the same level of restriction, or are we allowing some flexibility in the regulations to take into account, if they're in a tidal situation with a great flushing action, that perhaps it would be reasonable and not harmful to the environment with higher levels...? In areas like the Alberni situation, or perhaps the Fraser River situation, it might be more appropriate to use even lower levels. Is that consideration taken into account by your ministry?

Hon. J. Cashore: Sir, the only mill that has a special permit is the Port Alberni permit because of the problem with the tidal action in the inlet, and in that case it's a tougher control. The control in the permit is not saying, okay, there's not much flushing action here and we'll therefore make it easier on the mill; it's saying the opposite: because of the environmental problem, we have to put a tougher control on here than in other areas.

With regard to the yearly averaging in Sweden, most of our readings are on the basis of monthly averaging.

Just mentioning that technology at Globe '92.... This is a bit tangential, but it's interesting. The week after I announced the pulp effluent regulations, Finland had set up a booth, and they were flogging their technology for zero AOX. It should be the other way around: British Columbia should be out selling B.C. technology to the rest of the world because of the fact that we're planning to have the best standards here in British Columbia.

C. Serwa: The minister makes a good point in that we recognize that the environmental protection and technology industry in the province is really a positive growth industry and that technology and information and knowledge is in fact exportable, and the economy of the province stands to benefit from that. I'll leave pulp mill effluent for the moment.

I would just like to talk briefly about Boundary Bay, hon. Chair. The minister has mentioned Boundary Bay; it's certainly a critical wildfowl and raptor habitat area. It's a wintering place for some species. It's certainly a resting place for other species. It's very important. It's my understanding that the Ministry of Lands holds the foreshore rights and the title to those lands. Now that the Minister of Environment is also the Minister of Lands and Parks, would it not be appropriate for the minister to consider transferring those titles to the Ministry of Environment, where they would be in a more secure position and perhaps less accessible for development?

Hon. J. Cashore: I think that the problem the member has identified is in a way already covered in the fact that those three branches are now under the one tent. Obviously we have very harmonious relationships among the branches of the ministry, as the member well knows. Therefore that should no longer be necessary. With regard to Boundary Bay, I'm sure the member is aware of the Boundary Bay area study and the ongoing work that is being done on that. The question of the backup lands is of interest, of course, because of.... There's the one stream of concern that has to do with agriculture and another that has to do with wildlife and habitat protection, and there's a third that has to do with some plans that have taken place regarding port development. We have to find a sustainable way of covering all of those concerns and coming up with the best possible decisions that we can, while recognizing the fundamental importance of protecting wildlife habitat and also recognizing the importance of the farming industry in that area.

C. Serwa: I guess the reason for my particular concern.... While at the moment we can have some comfort in that reality, I recall that, after the agricultural land reserve was created, over 6,000 acres were immediately taken out by your government in that particular area. It was farmland. So I'm not really comforted. A day makes quite a difference in this particular business. I would certainly be much happier if the title was in fact held by the Ministry of Environment.

Again, speaking about Boundary Bay, it appears very important for the Ministry of Environment to look at property acquisition all along that basic seawall -- perhaps 100 metres, a strip which would provide a buffer zone and certainly provide habitat for voles for the raptors.

Is there not a possibility of the Ministry of Environment undertaking some sort of a program where they would either buy parcels and subdivide off the critical areas and sell the others for development, or even in the case of golf course development.... It is a very controversial issue. The reality of the British system, with links, you could protect.... You could have golf taking place, and you could protect areas for raptor habitat in perpetuity. There are options.

I would encourage the minister and the ministry to look at acquiring a lot of that critical habitat, because we're here only for a very short time. That estuary is exceedingly important. We have international obliga-

[ Page 2142 ]

tions. It's here, as far as we know, for perpetuity. It's our responsibility to undertake a greater responsibility than I think we have up until now. I would encourage the minister to do so. Would the minister respond?

Hon. J. Cashore: There are ongoing studies with local municipalities in regard to land use in the area. The hon. member knows that there have been some contentious aspects of that in the Boundary Bay area.

With regard to acquisition, the hon. member knows that there is a somewhat limited budget, and that when it comes to habitat acquisition, we must have a system of identifying the relative merits of the different pieces of land we would like to acquire. We have quite an extensive list. It's difficult to make those decisions in the context of budget constraints. Yes, hon. member, that could certainly be considered.

The acquisition budget in Parks is $2 million, and in Environment for habitat it is an additional $1 million. That's not enough to acquire all the land we would like to acquire in the province.

With regard to the philosophical issue of who handles the backup lands being in control, I would submit that, within the Cabinet Committee on Sustainable Development and in cabinet, there is a way in which that is subject to the overall policy of government. I think that at the end of the day, it's on the basis of how that policy and those values are applied that people make their judgments about a government. The question of those lands and what ministry they're lodged in has more to do with the kind of policy we affirm and how we carry through that policy.

[5:45]

C. Serwa: On a different topic, is there some form of protocol agreement with the federal government with respect to illegal dumps for hazardous wastes or special wastes on federal private land -- band land, for example? I don't know if there is or not, but if there isn't, it doesn't appear that we have any real control. Is there some sort of protocol agreement so that there is some opportunity for the provincial Ministry of Environment to influence what transpires on band land?

Hon. J. Cashore: The answer is no, not on federal land. I am aware of the incident in a native community where there was some illicit burning going on. I talked to our staff person who was investigating that. He told me that they had a very cooperative relationship with the native community, who had said that they were willing to comply with the ministry's standards and guidelines. But I have heard of other instances where there have been problems on federal land and our jurisdiction did not apply. At the present time there are no such accords.

C. Serwa: I have a question with respect to the Capital Regional District sewage treatment, a very controversial and divisive subject with an extreme range of public and technical opinion on the merits of the outfall pipes. Certainly that was current when I was in. I know that it is a provincial commitment to try to get all of the pollution control -- liquid control -- to undergo secondary treatment. Has the ministry undertaken any sort of study that would indicate whether we would be better off with secondary treatment or whether it makes no substantial difference?

The reason I ask that is that funds are short, and we're looking at perhaps $300 million or $400 million of capital expenditure for the CRD. It seems, again, if we do it without some informed base, we could spend a great deal of money. There have been a number of initiatives carried on with a great deal of zeal. Alar, the chemical spray for apples, is one that was undertaken; it was eliminated for no real reason. There are many other things that we can look at. The McDonald's-type containers: they went from a medium that was recyclable to one that is contaminated and not recyclable.

Would the minister indicate if a study has been initiated and what the ministry proposes for the Capital Regional District.

Hon. J. Cashore: We are involved with ongoing studies with the CRD and the federal government involving scientists on this issue. There's ongoing monitoring and studying with regard to that. We feel that what we have to achieve vis-�-vis the CRD is primary. We need to achieve our overall target of secondary over the long term, but it has to be time-managed based on affordability. It has to be done in such a way that the government is setting reasonable standards and then working together with the CRD, in this case, to achieve those standards. I've met on two occasions with representatives from the CRD, and I'm sure I will again. There's constant interaction and meeting among their officials and our officials.

C. Serwa: Just one final question. I could take a lot more time; it's a very interesting and diverse subject.

A question on wolves, which I know will warm some hearts and put terror into others. Wolf control is certainly very important in the province, because with increased population and hunting pressures there are only so many ungulates. We're getting into areas where increasing wolf population is impacting negatively on caribou population. I was wondering whether the minister, every time he receives a letter crying out for the protection of wolves, would consider sending a pair of wolves to that particular jurisdiction, or at least making the offer. Has the minister considered that?

Hon. J. Cashore: There's no wolf control program at present in the province. We have offered wolves to replenish habitat in the United States, but so far it hasn't happened. The hon. member knows that this question causes fear and trepidation in Environment ministers. It's a very volatile issue. Some interesting things have come up as a result of the public dialogue around the issue. For instance, the Northwest Wildlife Preservation Society has done some research on the use of a certain kind of dog. I just forget its name.

An Hon. Member: A pit bull.

Hon. J. Cashore: No, not a pit bull. It's actually trained to protect cattle from wolves. My understand-

[ Page 2143 ]

ing is that the reason there's no wolf control program in the province at the present time is that there's no need for one. This would be a much more difficult question to answer if it were at a time when the balance appeared so far out of whack that there was really such a need. We also have a committee dealing with this, at least on Vancouver Island, and that's very helpful too. We've learned from some of the experiences of the past.

The name of the breed of dog is Great Pyrenees.

F. Gingell: I was sitting here quietly, thoroughly enjoying the interplay that was going on, when the hon. member for Okanagan West suddenly brought up a proposal that you should buy up property around Boundary Bay, keep a little more of it on the inside of the dike and sell the remainder off for development. I'd like to assure you, hon. Chairman, and the member for Okanagan West that I don't plan on coming up to the Okanagan and making similar proposals. Mr. Minister, I ask you to completely ignore the suggestion of the member for Okanagan West that you acquire land in Boundary Bay and sell it for development and golf courses. All of the lands around Boundary Bay are in the agricultural land reserve. As you so correctly stated earlier, there are a great number of studies going on, all of which we are concerned with. Please don't buy and resell land for development there yet.

The one thing that I would ask you to consider -- as a matter of interest, it was dealt with in a private member's bill brought forward by your Premier in the thirty-fourth parliament -- is the question of a Ramsar designation for Boundary Bay. I was wondering whether your ministry has considered that.

Hon. J. Cashore: Yes, that's still under active consideration. It's a decision that will not be made until the completion of the study process that's presently underway. It continues to be a policy that we would like to implement.

With regard to the golf courses, one of the points that the member for Okanagan West was making was that there are some instances where a golf course can fit in ecologically. The value expressed by our government is that we don't think declaring golf a form of agriculture is the right way to go. It can therefore be evaluated on its merits, rather than considering it a form of agriculture.

F. Gingell: The member for Okanagan West also brought up the question of the Roberts Bank backup lands -- 4,212 acres that were expropriated in 1969 by the previous Social Credit government from the farmers and long-time settlers of the area. It has never been used for the purpose for which it was expropriated. During a series of Social Credit administrations and one NDP administration, the farmers never had the opportunity to reacquire their family homesteads.

I was going to leave those particular questions until we dealt with the question of Crown lands, which is under your jurisdiction. If that's more appropriate, I will leave them until then. I didn't know whether any of these gentlemen were part of your Crown lands secretariat.

J. Cashore: There have been a few questions related to Crown lands; indeed, we've verged onto some parks issues. I understand that the Environment critic is still dealing with environmental issues.

On that particular issue I can say, as I said a while ago, that that continues to be a responsibility within the Crown lands branch of my ministry.

F. Gingell: I will leave it, if I may, until the Crown lands questions come up, because we are fairly close to closing time.

I have one question which is clearly within the environment section, about the commercial landfills along River Road East in Delta -- which is the northern border of Burns Bog -- sometimes called land farms. I understand that these developments are subject to provincial regulation and monitoring. I have received numerous complaints that some of these landfills neither conform to your provincial specifications nor do they pass the test with regard to the quality of material accepted. I have been told that complaints have been made to your department, and they have gone unheeded. I would appreciate any comment that you might have on that whole question.

Hon. J. Cashore: Legislation that we have introduced in the House addresses that issue. It certainly was an issue that had a great deal of profile when we remember the fire in Richmond that started about November 7 or 8 or something like that. It became very clear that while that site was not permitted, there were substances there that would indicate that it probably should have been permitted, because it wasn't being used for the purpose for which it was intended while not having a permit. We would appreciate receiving the specifics of the information that you're referring to, hon. member, because we do want to be on top of that issue. The enabling legislation in the House this year should have a major role in ensuring that regional districts and municipalities have expanded powers to address that.

L. Reid: I would like to share a moment with you about a very special gentleman. He is currently awaiting surgery for a cardiopulmonary transplant. He is writing to our office daily. He has, in fact, written a poem on the environment. It is titled "Ozone '92":

Everyone on this planet knows 
What will happen if the ozone goes. 
The whole world is in despair 
Over the two big holes in the ozone layer. 
The ozone is also thinning 
It's just the beginning. 
We must hurry now to stop this trend 
Or disaster could be around the bend. 
What is needed now is a big correction 
So the whole world can get back its protection. 
To meet this challenging endeavor 
The whole planet has to work together. 
Let's not let this chance slip by 
We don't want this planet to die.

It's written by Capt. Stewart C. Hills. I would ask you to join me in wishing him good health.

[ Page 2144 ]

Hon. J. Cashore: I certainly appreciate the fact that the hon. member has read that into the record. It's something that we should all take very seriously. Hopefully, we will be able to move forward in ways where we don't have to look upon that kind of situation. I would be glad to join you in that expression.

I would like to move that the House rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

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 resolution, was granted leave to sit again.

The Speaker: Hon. members, after question period today the Attorney General rose and announced he was answering a question taken on notice yesterday, June 2, from the member for Peace River South. After the Attorney General completed his reply to the question, the leader of the third party rose on a point of order, stating that the Attorney General had not taken the question on notice yesterday, and therefore he assumed the Attorney General was giving a ministerial statement to which responses would be allowed from the other parties. The Chair advised the House that she would examine Hansard and get back to the hon. members on the point of order as soon as possible. The leader of the third party requested and was granted leave to table a letter.

The Chair has now reviewed Hansard and notes that in response to the question posed by the leader of the third party yesterday, the Attorney General replied: "I can't confirm the answer to that question. I don't know." Technically, therefore, the leader of the third party is correct: the Attorney General did not specifically say within his reply that he was taking the question on notice. Pertaining to the reply offered today by the Attorney General, the Chair can only regard it as a ministerial statement, and in keeping with the practice of this House, therefore, the Chair will now allow a brief response from both parties directly related to the contents of the ministerial statement.

J. Weisgerber: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

Yesterday in my question to the Attorney General the suggestion was made that the Deputy Attorney General had decided not to proceed with charges involving the Nanaimo Commonwealth Society. The media reports of the RCMP's comment to this and the minister's statement in this House earlier today clearly indicate that there was no recommendation of charges by the RCMP. Therefore it would have been impossible for the Deputy Attorney General to have made any decision regarding charges that did not exist.

I deeply regret any concern that this may have caused the former Deputy Attorney General. I want to take this opportunity in the Legislature to express a formal apology to him and to indicate that there was no intention on my part to in any way make aspersions about the former Deputy Attorney General or the decision that he had made. I will close by telling you that I have the deepest respect for the former Deputy Attorney General and in no way intended to question the decisions that he had made.

A. Warnke: In reply to the minister's statement, I must confess that when I heard the Attorney General give his remarks, I agreed with the minister's specific comments regarding whether charges were recommended based on the 1988 investigation. I think also I have to suggest that the pursuit of this specific matter by the third party leader is most regrettable, but it is pleasing to hear the remarks just made by the leader. Nonetheless, I am somewhat disturbed that the Attorney General, who is the chief law enforcement officer of this province, was so enthusiastic in making the kind of remarks that he did. Therefore I do find it disturbing that perhaps the remarks from there were also most regrettable.

Hon. G. Clark: I move that the House at its rising do stand adjourned for five minutes.

Motion approved.

Hon. G. Clark moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:07 p.m.

[ Page 2145 ]

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

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

The committee met at 2:46 p.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ADVANCED
EDUCATION, TRAINING AND TECHNOLOGY

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

Hon. T. Perry: Before I sit down I would like the hon. Chair to welcome to the committee room an old friend, Brenda Siegel, who works with the auditor general's office in the federal government in Ottawa.

F. Gingell: I thought at some length about questions I wish to ask in this committee section. I met with the board of governors of the particular college I was concerned about. I discovered by reading the Blues and listening to what has been said that the subject of Kwantlen College has been discussed at some length. But as the ex-chairman of the board of Kwantlen College, I did want to come in and say a few words, however brief.

As the minister may know, Kwantlen College arrived as the result of a split of Douglas College, and I sat on the board of Douglas College at the time and was asked by the then minister of advanced education to represent the south side of the Fraser -- the districts of Richmond, Delta, Langley and Surrey -- to negotiate that split. At that time there was a very clear understanding with the ministry that Kwantlen really was starting off from a disadvantaged position. We were just in the process of the construction of the New Westminster campus of Douglas College, which was our first permanent campus. We had operated out of various temporary buildings. As for the college campuses that we took over at that time, we took over rented warehouse space in Richmond, we took over some old portable schools on an elementary school site in Surrey, we had just started in some more rented warehouse space in the Newton area, and we had an old house and an old barn on some property out in Langley.

The ministry clearly understood that Kwantlen needed help. Kwantlen quickly got into the process of planning more appropriate and permanent campuses. I'm really pleased that they got their new campus in Surrey built, and it's open. Kwantlen is in the final throes of the completion of the Richmond campus. I understand that planning is in progress for the start of construction in Langley.

The ministry understood at that time that the reason we were told that Douglas was being split was the tremendous growth that was expected on the south side of the river. Douglas College as one eight-school-district region would just simply become too large. There were real commitments, as I previously said, that we would have some priority in getting facilities. Well, the college has got the facilities. They are in the process of being opened. But the facilities aren't any good if there aren't any operating funds. It is clearly a matter of importance. You don't have to look very far to see the statistics where the Kwantlen College region is the fastest-growing. It has the fastest-growing population of grade 12 students. It has a per capita funding, not of the people in the college -- students -- but of the whole of the district, that is 50 percent of the provincial average. That's less than a third of some of the other colleges. From memory, I believe it is just under $50 per capita and the rest of the province's average is about $111. It simply isn't right. There needs to be some equity.

I can appreciate that many members from both sides of the House have spoken on behalf of Kwantlen during this debate. I thought that I would, because of my long association with the college, add my voice to theirs.

I was quite involved in the selection of the name Kwantlen. We had a great argument over whether the north side or the south side of the river should retain the Douglas name. We felt it should belong to the south side because, after all, Governor James Douglas had been located at Fort Langley, which was within our area. But we did select the name Kwantlen. Kwantlen is an Indian word that means swift runner. I always thought that we had chosen that name because our students would be the swift runners -- running towards a good education. I'm really disappointed to discover that in this particular case it is the swift runner of the government running away from its responsibilities with respect to this college.

I appreciate that what I've said to this point, hon. minister, doesn't in itself call for any response. But I would ask you to consider all of the various pleas that have been made on behalf of that college by other members, prior to my speaking, and perhaps let me know whether or not we have struck a responsive chord.

The Chair: Just before I recognize the hon. minister, you're quite correct, hon. member, that this area of supply has been examined extensively by many questioners. As you indicated to the minister that you weren't looking for an answer, I think it may be appropriate that the minister respond briefly to your plea as to whether you have been heard.

Hon. T. Perry: Yes.

W. Hurd: I have a question that I also understand has been canvassed at some length by the opposition House Leader, but I raise it on behalf of one of my constituents. It's a question about the older-worker opportunities program. I understand the Ministry of Advanced Education, Training and Technology has a responsibility to fund about 30 percent of this program.

This particular individual in my riding was laid off from the Blackdome mine in Clinton. He had made application under this program and heard nothing for a period of about a year. Upon making inquiries, he was advised that this particular program was not functioning particularly well, and that the committee which was 

[ Page 2146 ]

set up between the federal and provincial governments to approve the funding was, in fact, not meeting on a regular basis. That was the reason why this particular individual, and the other 30 workers from the Blackdome mine that he represented, had not received benefits under the program.

In the minister's current estimates, have funds been available to this particular program? Is he going to be active in spearheading a movement to increase the efficiency of this particular program? Because of the significant number of layoffs among that age group of 55 to 60, in the mining industry particularly, there may be a flood of applications coming forward from individuals who find themselves in this unfortunate situation.

Hon. T. Perry: The POWA program was signed about two years ago, so it's still in its relative infancy as government programs go. To be eligible for benefits, the laid-off older worker must exhaust other alternatives -- notably unemployment insurance. I'm advised that the discussions on the Blackdome mine are still underway. It's expected by staff that some resolution may be reached at some point during the summer. In view of the protection of the privacy of the individual, it might be appropriate for the hon. member to raise this with our assistant deputy minister by telephone or by letter, or through me in the form of a letter.

W. Hurd: Further on that particular issue, this individual in my riding purported to be representing the other laid-off employees at this particular operation, and he had since migrated to live on the lower mainland. I guess my concern is that as a representative of this group, he went through the Canada Employment people, who steered him in the direction of this program with the understanding that it was up and functioning and that benefits would accrue as part of a normal process once unemployment insurance benefits had been exhausted. Have any steps been taken by the minister to clarify the situation with this particular program with the Canada Employment counselling officials, who still appear to be under the impression that this is a routine option available to these workers after their unemployment insurance benefits have run out? His expression of concern to me was that they had been advised by Canada Employment that once they had been unsuccessful in finding employment -- and given their age, that presented a considerable difficulty -- they would receive, as part of a routine application to this program, an extension of their benefits. These particular individuals, and, I understand, hundreds like them, now find themselves in a situation of having no income past the month in which their unemployment insurance benefits run out. Many are facing rather dire economic circumstances, and even the possibility of going on welfare, after many years of productive employment.

[3:00]

Hon. T. Perry: I think we have to understand that POWA is not a panacea for all unemployment, and particularly unemployment affecting all older workers. Older workers are laid off constantly, regrettably, around the country and around B.C. -- usually in small groups. It's a major problem because they typically are the employees who have the most difficulty finding re-employment.

POWA was negotiated a couple of years ago by the provincial and federal governments as an attempt to deal with major layoffs where there was major dislocation for an entire community. One recent example is the closure of the Brenda mine at Peachland. Another example we discussed briefly yesterday is the application of POWA to the shipyard layoffs in North Vancouver, which is still under negotiation. There have been other examples at Western Canada Steel in Richmond, Bond Bros. Sawmill in Vanderhoof and B.C. Packers in Victoria.

The present issue is still under negotiation. In the interests of the privacy of the individual concerned, it would be expedient, if the member wishes, to address that particular issue through the normal channel of either a letter to me, to Ms. Joyce Ganong, the assistant deputy minister for skills development, or to Stuart Clark, who is the official in the ministry who handles most of the details. We would be able to give the member a very precise answer as to where that issue stands, while respecting the privacy of the individual involved.

W. Hurd: I suppose my question also relates to process -- however, somewhat aside from the individual problems of this particular constituent. In the course of the inquiries on this matter, we thought we had determined that the federal commitment of funds to this program had been made. What was still lacking was a 30 percent commitment from the provincial government to fund this program. Is that not the situation in which we currently find ourselves? Is the total 100 percent funding in place for this program?

Hon. T. Perry: If the Legislature passes votes 10 and 11 -- vote 11 in particular in this case -- we will have $3 million in the 1992-93 fiscal year budget to expend as British Columbia's share of POWA agreements for that one fiscal year time-frame. We're limited, as with any other program, by the amount of money that the Legislature votes upon a proposal of the budget by the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations.

W. Hurd: Just pursuing a few more lines of questioning on the POWA program.... Respecting the fact that I understand this issue has been raised, I ask for the minister's indulgence if I am being repetitive. I suppose my question is on the functioning of the joint committee that has been set up by the federal and provincial governments. Does the minister have any intention of reviewing the role of this committee and its success, and recommending the number of times it should meet, in light of the escalating layoff situation in British Columbia, particularly in single-industry towns like Cassiar, and the situation in Fernie, Trail and other areas of the province which face serious economic dislocation as a result of the loss of a major employer in town -- an event, I might add, which falls most heavily 

[ Page 2147 ]

on that age group of workers who have been at a particular mine, smelter or whatever all their lives and who would be in critical need of this program? Does he see a need to study the role of the federal-provincial committee and make any recommendations about how it could be streamlined and made more effective, given the important role that it or the program could play in the smaller communities in British Columbia?

Hon. T. Perry: Yes, I'm happy to do that. In effect, we're constantly doing that. I thought that, for the record and for the interest of members, I would go over the guidelines which must be fulfilled under the program for older-worker adjustment. First, the closure of a mine or similar large industry must qualify under the guidelines of the POWA agreement negotiated with the federal government. Second, all possible means to retrain and re-employ the employees must have been exhausted following or during the period of unemployment insurance. Third, upon satisfaction of those conditions and negotiation of an agreement, a tender is placed for annuities purchased by the POWA program on behalf of the federal and provincial governments. We contribute 30 percent; the federal government contributes 70 percent.

I'm advised by staff that some of the problems the hon. member has alluded to may reflect misunderstandings, perhaps due to the complexity of such programs, by staff of Employment and Immigration Canada, whereas Labour Canada administers the program on behalf of the federal government. So a multiplicity of agencies are involved, but probably perforce. Because it's a new program, it may be understandable that a given clerk in a given city working for the federal government sometimes may not be aware of all the details. Naturally we're constantly trying to improve that coordination and will take the question under advisement in an attempt to look at that issue. If the member or his constituent wishes to contact us directly, we'd be happy to contact that individual as well.

W. Hurd: Just one more brief question about the POWA program. On the surface, this would appear to be an outstanding opportunity for the province to involve a rather significant investment from the federal government in what amounts to a social as well as an economic problem in the province. Is the minister studying ways...? I guess my question was: is he studying ways to recommend to the federal government some of the improvements that he has outlined to the committee by way of advising his staff to make representations to the various federal ministries to outline some of the opportunities available with this program, but also some of the difficulties that are currently being faced? Does he intend to make those kinds of representations in the near future?

Hon. T. Perry: Staff are constantly in touch with their federal counterparts. In general, provincial and federal staff have perhaps a more salubrious as well as a more continuous relationship with each other than do their political counterparts. The agreement will be renegotiated at the end of this fiscal year, and that gives us a logical incentive to take into consideration not only this member's suggestions but any other problems we've identified in renegotiating the agreement in order to improve it.

W. Hurd: A second line of questioning that pertains to the student loans program. Again, apologies to the minister if this issue has been canvassed by the hon. opposition House Leader, who is the critic for Advanced Education, but it also affects a number of people who have made representations to me at my constituency office. I suppose it revolves around the rebate available to students who successfully complete their degree requirements. I've had a number of inquiries at my office about people who qualify for this rebate program but have been advised by the ministry that the applications are lagging badly behind in being processed. Indeed, a couple of my constituents have advised me that their loan payments are now starting to take effect at the full amount, causing them considerable financial hardship. They will, of course, be forced to reapply, I assume to the ministry, to acquire the funds they are eligible for. Is the minister aware of a problem with this particular rebate program in terms of how it's functioning? Is there, in fact, a six-to eight-month waiting-list for individuals who qualify for this rebate and are in the course of making loan payments?

Hon. T. Perry: We think that the maximum delay now is approximately two months. We have recently been hiring and training new staff to attempt to clear the backlog and plan to do so by August 31.

In terms of practical advice to students, I take this opportunity to advise them to apply at least three months in advance of when they expect to need the loan remission. This is to ensure the maximum possible chance that they won't be caught in that dilemma. We're very concerned about it; we're doing our best to clear it up. As usual, we're limited by the amount of staff funded by our budget. Our staff are working extremely hard in very close quarters in that division. A visit to their offices on Cook Street would belie the standard public impression that civil servants have a cushy existence; they are crammed in like mice into a labyrinth, but they are doing their best to deal with the problem.

W. Hurd: I just have one additional question that I was asked to forward to the minister on behalf of the hon. member for Okanagan East. She is tied up in the Environment estimates this afternoon.

It is a question about the growth in the southern interior and, particularly, the status of Okanagan College. The hon. member for Okanagan East was under the impression that some commitment had been made in the past about consigning Okanagan College to university status under the University Act. Given the explosive growth in the southern interior, and the rather burgeoning need for expanded parameters for the college, is there any plan by the ministry to examine the university college in the coming year with the possibility of it acquiring University Act status?

[ Page 2148 ]

Hon. T. Perry: I note that the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock must be a particular fan of the college system, since he referred to consigning Okanagan College to university status as opposed to elevating it to university status. I'm glad to see that he recognizes that the colleges have perhaps a pre-eminent place in serving the community of British Columbia.

There was no commitment by the ministry at any point that Okanagan College would become a full-fledged university. With respect to all of the university colleges, we will be working in collaboration with the university-college boards, their administrations, the faculty and staff unions, and the students as well, to examine what kind of future they ought to evolve towards. For each one -- Fraser Valley University College, Okanagan University College, Cariboo University College, and Malaspina University College -- the circumstances might be slightly different. We do expect that it's very likely that Okanagan University College will deliver full degrees in its own name before the end of the decade.

[3:15]

W. Hurd: I have just one additional question. In the course of our travels around the province, the Liberal opposition has become aware that a considerable number of communities are lining up to lobby for a full firefighters' training facility in the province. Would that particular facility fall under the purview of the Ministry of Advanced Education, Training and Technology, or would the kind of proposals coming forward from communities be reflected in the estimates of some other ministry?

Hon. T. Perry: Firefighter training is delivered under the mandate of the Justice Institute of B.C. As the hon. member is doubtless aware, the institute will be relocating to a new site in New Westminster. Considerable thought has been given to how to serve, through the Justice Institute, other outlying communities. That is still being studied. One of the possibilities currently under very serious review is the opportunity for the Justice Institute and the Pacific Marine Training Institute, which conducts firefighting training for the marine industry, to share resources. The member may be aware that PMTI has been interested in the site in Maple Ridge. It is doing fire training for them now, but they have requested approval for upgrading it. That is still currently under review.

A. Warnke: I will try to be as brief as possible with a few questions to the minister. In so doing, I will focus specifically on one particular college, and that is Malaspina College in Nanaimo. At the same time, I'll phrase my comments in such a way that it would perhaps be instructive to some of the other colleges as well, in terms of the implications. It primarily deals with a problem emanating from a curriculum change here just two to three years ago. As I interpret the events at the time, the former Minister of Advanced Education did make an announcement that third-and fourth-year programs would be introduced in some of the colleges in British Columbia. I must admit, a number of the people -- on both the administrative and the faculty side of the colleges and universities -- felt that, the former minister having made this announcement, the universities and colleges had to essentially pick up the pieces and follow it through. It has been a very difficult transition period -- to suddenly respond to such an announcement and then to do something quickly about it. I suspect it still has some profound implications with regard to the present government's ability to financially plan for the college and university systems.

I would appreciate it very much if the minister could respond to some of the concerns -- certainly expressed by Malaspina College specifically, but I suspect by other colleges as well -- that in instituting the third-and fourth-year programs.... What sort of response is the minister embarking on in terms of expanding library facilities and research facilities and including such things as computers -- maybe for the students -- as well? Obviously the colleges want to respond very positively. In that sense, it may well be a very positive direction. Maybe we should have introduced some of the third-and fourth-year programs quite some time ago.

But the colleges now have to develop the third-and fourth-year programs while at the same time recognizing that Malaspina College, as an example, has access to the University of Victoria facilities. But it's a very awkward and difficult arrangement. Not only that, but to a certain extent it is also seen by the college administrators and staff as having implications for the students at the University of Victoria and the University of British Columbia as well.

So I would really appreciate it if the minister could expand and comment as to preparing a budget affecting the colleges and university programs with regard to the expansion of third-and fourth-year programs and what the ministry is doing in terms of this follow-through.

Hon. T. Perry: That was a relatively complex question. It's a little difficult to know how to answer, because the implications are fairly encyclopedic.

I don't feel that I know as much about Malaspina College as I might at this stage. I was frustrated twice -- once, I can't even remember why, back earlier in the year. On my second attempt to get to Malaspina the fog moved in to Nanaimo. Though as far as Saltspring Island the Strait of Georgia looked perfectly clear, apparently there was a pocket at the Nanaimo Airport, and I was therefore denied my site visit, only about a month ago, to the consternation of all of our staff, including two staff who had driven up from Vancouver to meet me at the airport. So I don't feel I'm personally as familiar yet with Malaspina as I am with some of the other colleges I've had a chance to visit.

In general, one might answer that the college has been receiving third-and fourth-year grants double those, on a per-student basis, allotted to first-and second-year courses. This is a four-year arrangement that will gradually be phased out as the institution makes the transition from a two-year community college to a four-year university-college. What the university-college does with its extra dollars is up to the 

[ Page 2149 ]

board and the administration of the institution themselves.

We feel that, in general, the colleges and universities have done a remarkably good job of developing the university-college agreements in a very short time. They've been able to add very rapidly and quite efficiently to the baccalaureate capacity of the entire post-secondary system.

I think it goes without saying, as we covered yesterday and the day before, that we understand they're under significant pressure and they have a difficult time, but we're very pleased with how they're doing, in general.

A. Warnke: Indeed, I'm very pleased that the minister mentioned just a moment ago that he recognized the problem facing the college. I'm very pleased, especially, with the remark that the colleges have done a good job in responding to a tremendous challenge that was introduced by a previous government. I cannot overemphasize -- perhaps on behalf of some of my former colleagues or ex-colleagues, both on the administration and faculty side -- that I'm very pleased that this minister and this government have recognized the difficulty and the fact that we responded. I also recognize that the minister cannot possibly know all of the internal workings to that detail about a specific college, especially after just a few months in office. Therefore some of the general responses that he has made are appropriate. Nonetheless, I think it is very worthwhile to point out that this has been a extremely difficult period. There are problems with following through on the various programs and ensuring that the quality of the third-and fourth-year programs that are available to the students are of a sound quality, and that when they obtain their bachelor's degree that it is of some quality; that is, the quality equivalent to what one earns in a university. For the record, as it stands right now, when a graduate from Malaspina College obtains their BA, it is with the University of Victoria.

I suppose this invites another question that has concerned some of the colleges, including the Malaspina faculty and administration. What kind of transition period are we looking at as to the independence of these colleges? The minister pointed out a moment ago that Okanagan College may well be on its own by the end of the decade. I wonder if this might apply to some of the other colleges, including Malaspina College.

Hon. T. Perry: I certainly wasn't singling out Okanagan College for distinction. The question asked by the member for Surrey-White Rock -- I think it was him -- happened to refer to Okanagan. There are certainly strong interests by Cariboo College. Anyone who knows anything about the rivalry between the Okanagan Valley and the Thompson country, which centred on Kamloops, will know that all ministers -- in fact, all politicians -- approach those issues with caution these days. In general I can answer that the transition to independent degree-granting status will be chosen at the pace that the university-colleges themselves request. Our interest on behalf of the public will be to ensure that the degrees are valuable. Our key responsibility is to the students. I expect that we will see conflicting pressures by students who would like to receive a degree under the name of a university and others who have a loyalty to their own community, as well as administration boards and faculty who would like to see the quality of their own work recognized in its own right. I think we'll find a comfortable way to evolve the answers to those questions working with the institutions.

A. Warnke: I do not want to take too much more time, because I'm sure my colleague the opposition House Leader has many questions.

There is one other point with regard to some of these colleges, including Malaspina. It is the fact that they have a number of off-campus centres. Malaspina College, for example, has an off-campus centre and a fairly impressive campus at Duncan. They also have a very impressive developing campus at Powell River. I must admit that there has been some concern that given the financial difficulties facing that college, as an example, and despite the fact that there have been new buildings, there has been the appearance of the development and the fledging of a program. In the last two years, specifically, some of these programs have actually been taken away; for example, at the Powell River campus of Malaspina College we had the sudden loss of the most significant proportion of its arts programs. Where the Powell River campus used to provide a variety of arts courses and so forth, they've actually retrenched the number of courses to where there are only two departments in the entire arts faculty represented.

[3:30]

I'm wondering whether the minister has examined some of the colleges that have these off-campus centres and whether there is the commitment by the ministry to ensure that the retrenchment of these off-campus centres has reached its maximum; that the minister will deliberately now move in a direction to expand these off-campus facilities. For example, in areas such as Powell River and Duncan there has been such a commitment and such an expectation in the past. They expect and hope that these campuses can expand, because there was the former commitment there. I wonder if the minister would like to respond to that.

Hon. T. Perry: In fact, these are decisions made by the college administration and confirmed by the college board, or vice versa, depending on who you believe really runs things in a college. I'm aware of the situation in Powell River. I've had some informal discussions with the leader of the official opposition, who represents that constituency, and others. I believe I have a meeting scheduled in the near future with him and some students from Powell River to review the issues. I'm advised that in spring 1991 the enrolment level for programs at the Powell River campus in second year averaged 59 percent of capacity. Obviously that would have presented a dilemma to the administration and the board. The ministry is aware of discussions between the college administration and student council representatives, and the council administration has indicated that 

[ Page 2150 ]

it would reconsider proposed cuts to second-year programs if there is evidence of increased demand.

In Duncan the situation is somewhat different. I'm advised that the campus there is somewhat oversubscribed. It is located on a native reserve. In general we're trying to balance the very legitimate needs of the outlying communities with the limited global budget that each institution has. I indicated in discussion yesterday that to the extent that I have any discretion as minister, my bias -- if I have one -- is to attempt to protect smaller rural programs. The students in those communities have such limited options.

It is worth bearing in mind that the Open Learning Agency and the Open University and the Open College were created specifically to attempt to deal with the problems of smaller outlying communities efficiently and in an innovative way. There may be ways in which an agency like Open Learning can fill in gaps. As raised by the official opposition critic yesterday and the day before, I'm attempting as minister to drive the system to its maximum efficiency any time I get the chance. Your question has prompted me to think on the spot of the Open Learning Agency as a possible solution to the problem in Powell River, if Malaspina University College itself is unable to resolve that issue this year.

A. Warnke: I have one comment on that, since the minister drew that kind of conclusion. I would mention to the minister that certainly a number of students, specifically in the Powell River area, have actually faced this option of the Open Learning Agency. I have to mention to the minister that while that appears to be a tempting alternative, students by and large have not been satisfied with that. As a matter of fact, students have expressed many concerns. Many of them have also commented that this is not a satisfactory option. I respect what the minister was saying. There are these various appearances of options and so forth, and I think it's worthwhile to draw that to the minister's attention. I also want to thank the minister for some of his comments.

Hon. T. Perry: They are certainly interesting questions. I suspect the member for Richmond-Steveston knows more than I do about the details of the issue, having taught in the college system. I would note that I recently announced some significant changes and additions to the board of the Open Learning Agency, along with the retention of the existing chair and some prominent former board members. I think one of the challenges to the new board will be specifically to try to find out why Open Learning Agency programs are not meeting those needs. I can assure you that I intend to be equally rigorous with the Open Learning Agency and its budget as I am with the traditional colleges and universities. If they are unable to meet a need like that and step into the breach in the event that a college can't resolve a problem, so be it, but I would like to know why. I invite the member to discuss that issue, if he or his colleague has particular expertise, with the ministry staff and with the Open Learning Agency and the college. I'm not precluding the possibility that Malaspina may be able to find itself some resolution. I will be looking at that.

J. Dalton: I welcome the opportunity to address some questions and remarks to the minister with regard to my college; I guess a lot of us here have been speaking about our universities and colleges. In my former life I was an instructor for many years at the Langara campus of Vancouver Community College. So my questions to the minister will deal with Langara in particular, but perhaps we can get into some points about Vancouver Community College itself.

Hon. T. Perry: What did you teach?

J. Dalton: Business administration in 1974, and I fondly remember when I started there. In fact, I remember -- not that this particular point is of interest to the committee -- that the year they started up the court reporting program at Langara I was brought on to deal with the legal courses in that program, among other things. Of course, that program is still a successful one at the campus, and I'm very happy to say that in some small way I think I was a part of that. But that's my former life, and now I'm here to make some remarks and ask some questions about Langara.

I think the minister will be aware of some administrative changes that have taken place at Langara. In fact, it goes back a few months, when one of the deans of instruction went down to the King Edward campus to replace the former principal of that campus. That left a vacancy at Langara; where there used to be two deans of instruction, there are now none. From my understanding, having talked to people there recently, that means that the divisional chairs are actually, in effect, the administrators. On top of that, the principal of Langara campus just recently announced his resignation, and I believe, if I am not mistaken, he left at the end of May. So my question in particular is: what is the future of Langara as far as the administrative staff is concerned? Have there been replacements brought on, or will they be contemplated in the near future?

Hon. T. Perry: It's a very important question. The entire Vancouver Community College has been participating for some time in a so-called tripartite process involving the ministry, the VCC administration and the faculty associations, which is still reviewing issues of structure. They have been very ably assisted by the report on the long-term financial viability of Vancouver Community College, dated September 1991 and submitted to the ministry by Dr. Peter Lusztig, the former dean of commerce at UBC, and Mr. Robert Elton of Price Waterhouse Consultants, who has been working with the tripartite group, along with Mr. Jim Soles of our ministry. The process is still ongoing, and because of that I feel it would be premature for me to really comment further at the moment, but I can assure the member that I've been kept well informed by ministry staff. I have had some discussions directly with the administration, although much more through the normal reporting route through our ministry. I've also had discussions occasionally with the faculty unions, at 

[ Page 2151 ]

their request. We're still looking for, and hopeful to achieve, a consensus among the administration, faculty unions and the ministry on the optimal organization of the whole institution.

J. Dalton: I thank the minister for those remarks. I'm certainly aware of the report that he's referred to, and I guess that leads into my second question -- although perhaps the minister will not care to remark on it, because it is part of the ongoing review of Vancouver Community College. I might say, before I raise this particular point, that it seems to me somewhat ironic that the largest college in the province seems to be going through some growing and other pains. Even though it's been with us for many years, Vancouver Community College is certainly one that I think does have to be going through -- and it is happily going through -- the process of being thoroughly re-examined as to the mandate of the college and its whole administrative and other structures.

I was wondering whether what I will describe as the independence movement at Langara, which has been very active for many years and which I know is certainly very active now, will be part of the review process. I believe there has been a recommendation made that Langara, if feasible -- and I presume financially would be the main consideration -- would be declared or indicated to be an independent college. I don't say that in any negative sense. I know full well, having been there many years, that Langara does operate separately from the other two campuses of VCC. It's never seemed to have much to do with the other campuses. That's regrettable, in my personal opinion, but that's the reality. Quite frankly, I think that Langara would be a far more efficient operation if it could be demonstrated that financially it would be a viable thing to do -- that Langara be declared an independent college. It has its own campus and own facilities, and the programs and the offerings there are quite independent of what happens at either the King Edward or the downtown campus. So I guess I'm inviting the minister to react, hopefully in a positive way, that there might be some hope for the many people at Langara over the years who've been pushing for this independence. As I say, quite frankly I think it's long overdue, and I would certainly personally welcome it if it were to happen.

[3:45]

Hon. T. Perry: I'm advised by staff that Mr. Elton's report has estimated the cost of separation at $8 million. I don't know if that's quite as expensive proportionally as the cost of separation for the province of Quebec -- not to achieve reconciliation with us or we with them -- but it's a substantial amount. Although the operating costs, according to Mr. Elton, would be only marginally higher if the institutions were separated, I think that in general we would prefer, if possible, to preserve the model of the integrated community college.

On philosophical grounds, it's a very important model. It was committed to, as a result of the Macdonald commission in 1962, by the former Social Credit government; followed through by the Barrett New Democrat government in the mid-seventies; and followed through again -- albeit less enthusiastically, to put it mildly -- by Social Credit governments during the restraint period. But one of the important underpinnings of the philosophy, as hon. members will know, is that trades, vocational, adult basic education, literacy and ESL training are all equally important to our society's academic or career training. One of the potential prices of a separation would be to appear to undermine that philosophy.

I think the ministry is very well aware -- more fully aware in the details, obviously, than I am -- of the tensions within the institution. We are hopeful that we will be able to achieve consensus through the tripartite process and preserve a single college with very flexible administrative arrangements, which would recognize Langara's uniqueness and yet provide some independence -- without the requirement for total integration, but preserve the institution as one not only for administrative savings and efficiency, but to preserve the concept of the integrated community college.

It's one where we're flexible. We're still going to be happy to examine options. We're aware of the institution's problems but satisfied that the present process is working towards a resolution.

J. Dalton: I appreciate the remarks of the minister. Even though my questions leading up to his remarks seemed perhaps to be somewhat separatist in nature, it's not that I want to be divisive or disintegrate the identity of Vancouver Community College. Quite frankly and personally, I have always wished that there was more integration and correspondence between the three campuses of VCC. But the reality has been that over the years, for many reasons, that has never happened. In fact, I had the opportunity for a year and a half in the late eighties to work down at the then Vancouver Vocational Institute campus, which, of course, is now the downtown campus. When I went back to Langara, I said to my colleagues, "You people should get out of this place now and then, and go and see what else is happening at the college," because there were many exciting things happening in the other two campuses.

So I would agree with the minister's remarks, in a sense, that the integrated model of VCC.... If it can be retained, and in a more positive way, I would certainly endorse it. But I guess I'm afraid, being a somewhat more practical person, that I'm not so sure I'm convinced that that will ever take place. It may be that the separation of Langara from the other two campuses will have to be. But we won't bother pursuing that one right now. That will unfold itself, I'm sure, as time goes by.

Maybe just one other comment. I wouldn't like to think that it would be just a financial consideration that would dictate whether Langara stays or goes. It's obviously far more important than that, as the minister has suggested.

But a more practical matter, also dealing with Langara.... As I'm sure the minister is aware, it's terribly overcrowded. The campus was built for approximately 3,500 students, and now, from 8 o'clock in the morning through ten at night, over 6,000 part-and full-time, students attend the campus. There are also 

[ Page 2152 ]

many weekend activities and community events and things that take place at Langara.

Over the years there have been expansion plans and things of that nature put forward. Nothing other than what I would describe as cosmetic things have happened in the past few years. In fact, the most recent expansion -- if it can be called that -- at Langara wasn't truly an expansion. They shifted around some office space and, happily, made some more room in the library, which was certainly needed. But there hasn't been any extra room provided for instructional purposes -- providing bigger offices for faculty. In fact, if the minister had the opportunity to come into our caucus area and see our offices, they don't look very big, but I can tell you they're about twice the size of what we used to enjoy -- for want of a better term -- at Langara.

However, are there any prospects in the near or far future for some meaningful expansion at Langara? I don't mean just to paint up the walls or rearrange the furniture. I mean to take into account that the original walls of Langara were designed for about 3,500. Those walls haven't changed, and we now have over 6,000 people on that campus. Are there possibilities for new expansions? There is room around the campus. It may require underground parking, which would probably be warranted. It may even require stealing a little more from the golf course next door, although I don't think the golf course would want that. I would be interested in any views that the minister may have with regard to the overcrowded conditions at the campus.

Hon. T. Perry: I'm pleased to say that in the near future I will be naming some new members to the Vancouver Community College board.

D. Mitchell: Friday afternoon.

Hon. T. Perry: I will be giving some very clear instructions to the board at that point, continuing the ongoing work with ministry staff and the old board, administration and faculty unions in the tripartite process. This will enable us to move forward somewhat more briskly to address some of these problems.

I'm aware that -- not only at Langara and the rest of VCC, but throughout the college system -- offices are generally rather cramped. The only exception to that were the relatively nice offices I saw during my visits to the new Kalamalka campus of Okanagan College. It comes as no surprise to know that the offices are more cramped than those of the Liberal caucus. In fact, despite the complaints of the official opposition leader, the Liberal caucus actually has remarkably luxurious quarters. Perhaps, as a matter of principle, the hon. member would be prepared to yield some of his space to itinerant faculty members from Camosun College or Langara.

D. Mitchell: As long as they're Liberals.

Hon. T. Perry: The hon. critic suggests he would as long as they're Liberals. I would suggest one could afford to do so on a more non-partisan basis.

D. Mitchell: Most of them are Liberals anyway.

Hon. T. Perry: I periodically loan the use of my office to visiting scholars and serve them tea. I would hope that the hon. member would be doing the same when he has visitors.

The answer to the question regarding planning funds is: yes, we do expect planning for a master plan to commence in this fiscal year. We also expect to begin some construction at Langara in the '93-94 fiscal year. We will be in a position soon to begin to address some of these very important issues.

J. Dalton: I am certainly pleased to hear that news about some expansion work on the campus. In fact, after this session I may get on the phone and start spreading a bit of good news. I won't mislead anybody; I can assure the minister that whatever will happen, I'm sure it will unfold in its proper course.

The minister must have anticipated the last question that I was going to put to him. I don't need to ask it now; I'll just make a comment. I'm happy to hear that new college board members will, I understand, be appointed as of Friday this week.

D. Mitchell: Not elected.

J. Dalton: That's true.

I was just going to make a remark to the minister. This won't indicate choices or anything else. I look forward to seeing the names that will appear on the new board. I can tell the minister that over the years at Langara we always felt that the college board either chose to ignore us, or perhaps felt that we were too isolated, too big or too something. Certainly some board members showed real interest in the campus, but collectively the college board of VCC seemed to ignore the Langara campus. I would think that that contributed in part to the independence movement of that campus. In fact, I went to meetings of the Vancouver Community College board in the late seventies or early eighties when we were a little more militant perhaps than people are these days. Sometimes those meetings got a bit ugly, in part, I think, because the board members really did not appreciate the character and the background of Langara.

I suppose all I would make in the way of a remark -- I don't need any response from the minister, unless he cares to do so -- is that I'm hoping the new board, while not necessarily instructed to do so, may be encouraged to pay more attention to the Langara campus. As I say, it is the largest college campus in the province. It is certainly worthy of not just more money in the way of expansion and other opportunities, but a little more attention from the administrators and the people who run the college itself.

I do look forward to seeing the new appointees. I'm sure that they will do the same quality job that all other board appointees have done over the years, but keeping in mind that Langara needs a little more attention devoted to it.

[ Page 2153 ]

Hon. T. Perry: The cabinet approves orders-in-council, and then the Lieutenant-Governor signs them. Until such time as those two processes have been fulfilled, I will not be in a position to announce new board appointments. But I can assure the hon. member that, given his particular interest in the organization, I'd be happy to make sure that he is aware at the earliest possible opportunity and will ask my staff to ensure that that happens.

I think the hon. member's comments about the board's relationship to a given campus are very important not only for VCC but for the whole college system. This gives me a chance to reiterate a message I have tried to convey to boards. In due course, when I get a few spare moments to design the letter, I will communicate formally to all board members, be they new appointees or former ones.... Perhaps I'll simply use this opportunity to read it into the record and in effect dictate my letter directly, via Hansard

I would hope that all board members in the past -- I'm sure most have, and will in the future -- have gone to great lengths to acquaint themselves with the institution. In my view, that means in the same way I do as minister, not only meeting the president or chief executive officer of the college, university or institute, but getting to know the students, visiting the classrooms -- with the permission of the students and faculty, preferably -- visiting the laboratories, visiting the shops and the ABE and the ESL classes, visiting the faculty unions and the staff unions, and getting to know some of their concerns on a friendly, respectful basis. In no way does that mean pandering to their concerns, but the best way to be familiar -- and to effectively represent the interests of the people of B.C. -- is to be as knowledgeable about the institution as possible, in as much detail as possible.

[4:00]

I hope that by indicating this in response to the hon. member's question I will succeed in communicating to all board members at all post-secondary institutions that as minister responsible for their appointment -- for those who are appointed under the law -- I expect no less of them, in that sense, than I do of myself or of my ministry staff, as for being familiar with the colleges. Locally, I expect more of them, because they do have responsibilities only to one such institution.

Having said that, I'd like to thank the hon. member for his very thoughtful and interesting questions and comments.

D. Mitchell: I'd like to pick up a line of questioning that we were on yesterday when we were discussing student-related issues. I'd like to talk about student financial assistance in particular. I recognize that the Orum committee has now been appointed and is actively meeting and reviewing financial barriers for students in the system. But I do have a question or two that I would like to ask the minister about the possible outcomes of that committee and how they are going to be responded to by the ministry.

I believe that a student financial assistance program should probably consist of three main goals: providing equitable access, limiting the exposure of the taxpayer and providing maximum administrative efficiency. Perhaps it is possible to achieve all three at once. The amount of criticism we are currently witnessing in the system indicates that there is not a lot of satisfaction on any side on this issue. For instance, no adjustments have been made to levels of support provided by the federal government since the early 1980s, and the tables used to determine the expected parental contribution to post-secondary education haven't been updated since, I believe, 1984.

I've also had many discussions with students, as I know the minister has, who find it very difficult to survive on students loans. We talked about that a bit in this process we're going through here, reviewing the spending estimates for the ministry. In just one case I might note, a single mother I've discussed problems with who is trying to go back to get her high-school diploma right now has told me that with all of the disincentives, sometimes it seems like she should just remain on social assistance. I find it tragic to think that that would be a conclusion of any person in British Columbia seeking to upgrade their skills. It's a tragedy when motivated students in particular are discouraged from going back and upgrading their education.

I wonder if it's time we started thinking about some very fundamental reforms in our system of student financial assistance. Certainly I have indicated to the minister previously that I'm going to be making a submission to the Orum committee on this. I believe it's time to think about some new ideas. I'm hoping that there will be receptivity to new ideas.

[D. Schreck in the chair.]

I might propose just a couple right now, to get some reaction from the minister, perhaps. I've come across an innovative program at City University in New York, where tuition increases are coupled with the promise that if students stay until their senior year -- in other words, if they don't drop out, but remain in the program at the college until their senior year -- the last year's tuition fees will be free. There won't be any fees in the last year, or at least a portion of those fees will be free. It's an incentive to complete a college education. Or perhaps a voucher system, which I've discussed with the minister previously, where students qualifying for college or university would be given educational chits that would be good for classes equivalent to four or five years of full-time post-secondary education, which could either be used in four years or spread out over a longer period of time if the student wanted to attend on a part-time basis. Or perhaps some kind of an income-contingent system. I know that that again must be one of the areas that is hopefully under consideration. Students would perhaps pay through income tax; it would be a trigger system so that when earnings passed the average for all workers, the loan would start to be deducted directly off the income tax system. I believe that is being experimented with in some jurisdictions, including Australia.

I wonder if we have to start looking at these kinds of creative ways of offering financial assistance to students. I for one believe that it is time. I'd like to just ask 

[ Page 2154 ]

if the minister is open to these kinds of new ideas, open in a way that would allow for a receipt of recommendations from the Orum commission that would be enthusiastic and an approach that would be inclined to work aggressively with the federal government as well in bringing about these kinds of new and innovative reforms.

Hon. T. Perry: Yes, we're fully open to them; we welcome such ideas. I can tell you that at the recent meeting of provincial ministers and the federal Secretary of State, many of these ideas were raised. Contingent repayment was raised not only by British Columbia but by Ontario, which is doing its own provincial review of the issue, and, I believe, by some other provinces. Of course, all provincial ministers were extremely concerned and, regardless of their political affiliation, presented a very united front to the federal Secretary of State about the loan limits and the parental contribution income ceilings, which have not been adjusted since 1984. Frankly, I don't expect anything, other than a change of federal government, to achieve much in that area. The message was very clear from Mr. de Cotret that he was willing to plow administrative savings, if he could achieve them, back into reform, but not until he had the money in the bank, so to speak. We weren't particularly impressed by his commitment, and all provincial ministers, except for Quebec, which was not represented, made their views absolutely clear.

I welcome his contributions to the Orum committee. There are a number of very clever people on that committee, not the least of whom is Jennifer Orum. I hope for that kind of recommendation to come out of the committee, although it will ultimately be up to not only our ministry but to some extent the Treasury Board, in devising economic policy for the province, to consider what is feasible.

On contingent repayment, we certainly require a national scheme to do that. We're not likely to be able to achieve that provincially, and we may require a new federal government that is more interested in working with provinces before we can make much progress there.

D. Mitchell: While we're on the topic of student financial assistance, if I could just review one case, I'd like to get the minister's response. I know there are many cases, and many are hardship cases. The minister's office must receive a number of inquiries from students who have either fallen through the cracks or who have not been eligible for financial assistance or Canada student loans or a number of different programs. In the interest of expediency, I'd like to mention just one and get the minister's response.

This is the case of a student who moved to Nanaimo in 1989 from Alberta. She was admitted to Malaspina College in the university transfer program in September of 1989. Because she had not resided in British Columbia for 12 months prior to entering a post-secondary institution, she was not eligible for a B.C. student loan. She is also not considered a resident of Alberta and was granted only $3,750 for the year. Even though she was working 30 hours a week, at this level of funding she has only been able to take three or four courses a year. She is ambitious; she wants to do more; she wants to complete her degree in the next two years, which will require attending school full-time and transferring to the University of Victoria. In order to fund this she needs a full student loan. She has made an appeal to the student services branch of the ministry to waive her residency status so she can qualify for a B.C. student loan. However, the ministry did not change her residency status and suggested that she take a year off from school in order to qualify for a B.C. student loan. That was the suggestion made to her.

This is a student who is a recipient of a number of scholarships. She is actively involved in the community. She plans to live and work in British Columbia after graduating. She is currently re-appealing her student loan status. I have a letter here, which I won't quote, but she makes a very convincing case.

My question to the minister is with respect to the purpose of the B.C. student loan program, which I believe is to assist deserving students in need of financial assistance to fund their post-secondary education. Without getting into any more of the specifics, would this case not meet the criteria? Should this program be so stringent in following the rules and criteria that deserving students such as this one would be prohibited from completing their education? Is there a problem in hearing this kind of case, in the minister's view?

Hon. T. Perry: I'm advised by staff that, from what has been described, after one year's residence in British Columbia she would probably be eligible for our programs. I don't know whether the student in question or the hon. member has written either to me or directly to the ministry or discussed this by telephone with ministry staff, but it would be a fairly simple matter to resolve that. I'm obviously not asking for the name of the individual here, but if we could obtain her name, we could look at the case.

When an administrative decision has been made which a student feels is unfair, the cases are frequently reviewed by the appeals committee, which includes not only senior officials but also outside lay people and retired student-aid officials who have no particular axe to grind and are prepared to take a fresh look at each case. We relook at many such cases. Sometimes we have to apply, in the name of fairness, a policy where we're limited by the available funds. We would like to be more generous. But we try our utmost to be strictly fair to all such students. The logical avenue in this case is: if the student wants us to review the case and if the member would provide us with her name, we'd be glad to do so.

I was going to point out that the issues of transferability between provinces came up at that federal-provincial meeting. I'm just trying to refresh my mind -- from one of my staff. I don't think there was any resolution, but the federal ministry and provincial ministers agreed to re-examine the fairness of our programs. I might add that when the federal minister, de Cotret, raised -- very abruptly and off the cuff with me and the deputy minister last December -- his pro-

[ Page 2155 ]

posal to consider unloading all student assistance programs onto the provinces, I countered with an equally off-the-cuff but sincere proposal that perhaps we should instead design a national student grant and/or loan program. The response of the federal Secretary of State, M. de Cotret, was to make fun of me -- of all places -- in the public press in Fredericton, New Brunswick. We called him to account on that. We found it very offensive, very destructive of Canadian unity and contemptuous of British Columbia, in a way that, I suppose, we're all becoming used to from that federal government. Aside from a discreet response at the time, I turned the other cheek and went back to Ottawa in February, trying to revive the proposal of a fair national system -- and many other provinces were interested. Quebec obviously tends to take a different view of these issues, but some of the other nine provinces were potentially interested. At the moment there is no federal interest -- I think we're stymied there.

D. Mitchell: Thanks to the minister for those comments. I will get the name of that student to you. It would be much appreciated if you would look at that case in particular. I think it highlights a larger issue in the B.C. student loan program, which I hope will be addressed by the Orum commission.

I'd like to address a different issue and ask the minister a question relating to sexual harassment on campuses. This is a social issue that plagues many students on campuses of colleges, universities and institutes. It has become a particularly difficult issue in recent times. The issue has become highlighted by -- as I'm sure the minister is aware -- an incident at Vancouver Community College which occurred last fall. A female student was harassed and threatened by male students following the publication of an article in a student newspaper, an article which she wrote about her experiences as a victim of a sexual assault. The way this whole incident -- without going into all the details -- was handled demonstrated a need for a clear policy on sexual harassment, which the college has subsequently put into place, I believe.

I believe that all three publicly-funded universities operating in British Columbia have or are currently developing policies on sexual harassment and harassment generally. Most of these policies clearly describe the procedures which should be followed in resolving a complaint. They also provide deadlines for the completion of each step in the process, and allow the complainant to decide whether or not to proceed with the complaint at each stage of that process. Policies at some other colleges, like Malaspina, Kwantlen and Okanagan, do not have clearly defined procedures and provide administrators with the power to be the investigator, judge and jury of a harassment charge.

Sexual harassment is a very difficult social problem. There's a strong need for the Ministry of Advanced Education, Training and Technology to take a leadership role in helping to eradicate it. I wonder if the minister is developing or considering developing a guiding document which would outline the essential features of sexual harassment policies and procedures at post-secondary institutions in this province.

[4:15]

Hon. T. Perry: I thank the hon. member for raising this question. We take it equally seriously. We would be prepared to issue such a document if we felt that we had to. I'm optimistic that the post-secondary institutions themselves are prepared to take on this responsibility. I'm going to be a little cautious about what I say, or perhaps more limited than I might otherwise, because in the case of the incident at Langara campus of VCC, the ombudsman's office was asked by students and by the administration to review matters, and has yet to table its report. I look forward, along with others, to the completion of that report. I will say what is a matter of public record: within days or weeks -- I don't recall which -- of being made aware of the seriousness of the issue at Langara, I made the only uninvited visit that I've made to a college or a university, since being sworn in, to register my concern over that issue. I specifically called a meeting of administration, students and faculty representatives to review the response of the institution to the issue and to register my concern. Although that was intended by me as a private meeting, it became a matter of public record due to others in attendance who disclosed the meeting to the press. I have no objection to that. It served the purpose of registering clearly to the entire post-secondary system -- at least I hope so -- that the minister shares the same interest in these issues as the government of British Columbia.

I would say that my own philosophical belief is that these issues are best addressed by the community of the institution, be it the college, institute or university, rather than by the heavy hand of government. Where necessary, government must act, and we have a human rights code and very clear government policy on this issue. Part of my analysis of the problem at that institution, and perhaps others, is that members of the academic community themselves tolerated something fundamentally wrong -- and continued to tolerate it, according to the reports we received after the first incident. I made my views very clear, and I will be making them known again to the Advanced Education Council of B.C. when I speak to its annual meeting next week in Nanaimo. I also made clear my view that the colleges had ample models within the college system -- for example, Capilano College was widely regarded as a model -- and in the university system, where perhaps UBC was the first, but UVic has also hired a sexual harassment officer who has a national reputation. So I think there's enough model here within the system. If necessary, the government is prepared to do whatever it takes to ensure that women and racial minorities, native people, people with disabilities or anyone else are not subject to unfair harassment.

D. Mitchell: Thank you to the minister for those comments. I support the general approach he's outlined, although we must admit that problems do occur, such as the unfortunate one that we've referred to at VCC.

[ Page 2156 ]

I wonder if I could ask the minister one further question on this matter. Much of the work of addressing sexual harassment, on campuses in particular, is being done by harassment officers. These people usually perform counselling and advisory duties, and act as public information officers in the community as well. Managing, teaching and administrative responsibilities are usually shared by these people. Does the minister provide any special funding directly earmarked to support the efforts of harassment advisers at colleges, universities and institutes in this province?

Hon. T. Perry: No, we don't. I suppose we would consider that, although I would prefer to consider it part of their global responsibility. It's simply consistent with the philosophy I just outlined. Of all the institutions in society, surely the academic institutions have the most responsibility to develop modern, appropriate attitudes among their students, faculty and staff. If they're not doing that well, they're probably not doing the rest of their job well.

D. Mitchell: I would like to move onto a different subject: employment training. I'd like to ask a question about funding of employment training. This is something we talked about very briefly when we commenced this review of the Advanced Education budget for 1992-93, and the minister spoke in his opening remarks at great length about the skills development priorities in employment training. I've indicated subsequently that I fail to see where the priority is. I'd like to see some leadership taken by this ministry. I hope that this ministry will continue to maintain responsibility for employment training. I think there is some real merit in the idea of training being combined with advanced education and technology. Yet, when I take a look at the budget presented to this committee for review and approval, I have some difficulties.

I'd like to refer the minister to the fact that in the past decade there has been rising unemployment throughout the industrial sector in Canada. At the same time, in the past decade there have been rising employment opportunities in the service sector and managerial and professional occupations. This is combined with the fact that we see decreasing opportunities in manufacturing and processing occupations. The skill requirement for jobs has increased and will continue to do so. Unemployment levels, though, have risen in the past decade in B.C. from 6.8 percent in 1981 to 10 percent in early 1992. Much of this increase reflects rising instances of structural unemployment. Many of the unemployed do not have the skills and attributes in demand in the labour marketplace. I know the minister is aware of these facts. I'm not going to go into them in detail, but the Strand task force in particular released an interim report in August 1991 and revealed some of their findings. Their final report, which has been issued more recently, confirmed them.

There is a recognition, therefore, among British Columbians generally that there has to be more emphasis on education and training. Just out of interest, I might refer to a Decima survey from fall 1991 on education and training. It said that 63 percent of British Columbians say they need to upgrade their existing job skills; 96 percent of the Canadian population agreed that a good education is the key to success in the future. I won't go on and read any more of that, but there is clearly a consensus that a fundamental change has to take place in training and retraining people already in the workforce. I'm concerned that there might be a lack of will on behalf of this government. Instead of action, what we see is squabbling between the federal and provincial governments in this area.

I might refer the minister to a comment made by a member of the federal cabinet very recently. In fact, there's a quote by Bernard Valcourt, the federal Employment minister, that I would read from yesterday's Vancouver Sun. In this quote the minister was basically criticizing the provinces for talking about the importance of having a skilled labour force but not carrying their share of the cost of training. He says: "I hear these Premiers and ministers all around talking about the importance of skills and training, but what the hell are they doing? If the key to our future competitiveness and success in this country is training, then I think they should put their money where their mouth is and do more." I don't usually agree with Tory ministers, but I think M. Valcourt might be correct here. There is a lot of talk, in British Columbia in particular, about training and retraining, but when it comes down to it, very little commitment. I'd like to ask the minister if he could disabuse me and other members of this committee of this notion.

Hon. T. Perry: Well, hon. Chair, you yourself are a professional consulting economist with a PhD in economics, if I recall. It must be music to your ears as well as to mine to know that the official opposition is concerned about unemployment and training, and supports advanced education. I found myself agreeing with much of what the hon. member said. I found some of it eerily familiar. I think he must have been reading the Strand task force report as well.

I think in this field we have a relatively productive and constructive relationship with the federal government. I alluded earlier to some minor communication problems with the federal Secretary of State. With M. Valcourt, as I recall, I've exchanged the odd congenial letter. I have yet to have the privilege of meeting him. I'm not aware of bickering or difficulties with the federal government. To the best of my knowledge -- I see the assistant deputy minister nodding -- our working relationship has been excellent. We continue to have a very good one. The assistant deputy minister represents British Columbia on the Canadian Labour Force Development Board. As I think I alluded to earlier in the estimates debate, we've been working very hard to devise an integrated government approach to training to meet the goals and recommendations of the Strand task force report, which will integrate the efforts of the provincial government, business, labour and equity groups who represent the concerns of people presently almost totally marginalized from the workforce.

Forgive me, hon. Chair. You appear to be looking sleepy. I know you were following the debate with fascination. Perhaps I was hypnotizing you.

[ Page 2157 ]

We think we're getting close to a solution which will integrate the concerns of some of the equity groups. I point out that our ministry can't simply barge into a field where, for example, the Ministry of Social Services has a very important role in targeted retraining for its clients, people on social assistance. Nor can we simply barge into the territory of the federal government, which has a critical role in training for unemployment insurance recipients or various other unemployed people.

D. Mitchell: Just staying on the issue of employment training, because I think this is an important area. The minister had not finalized his program priority for skills development and labour market policy programs at the time the budget was released. That's my understanding, Mr. Chairman. How is he going to address the new demands for restructuring the labour market in this province then?

Hon. T. Perry: Well, the basic allocations had been made as part of the budget process. We always leave some detail to be worked during the course of the fiscal year.

[4:30]

If the hon. member would like, I'm prepared to run it down briefly and then return in detail, if you like, to some of the initiatives we are undertaking. Of our total budget of $20.85 million this year, apprenticeship receives a modest increase of about -- I'm guessing or eyeballing it -- 12 percent, or $407,000, to $4 million. Vocational rehabilitation receives a substantial increase of $600,000, to $6.5 million. I'm giving '92-93 figures, compared with the year before. Industrial adjustment services were reduced by $950,000, to $3.55 million.

The training investment program was eliminated. We felt that we had to make a tough decision; this was the area where we felt that the return to the taxpayer for the investment was the most marginal in comparison with other programs. Therefore, as I explained yesterday, although we weren't enthusiastic about cutting anything, we felt this was the one area we could most afford.

POWA, on the other hand, went from zero in 1991-92 to $3 million this year. The member for Surrey-White Rock will be pleased to know that that represented a percentage increase which is incalculable.

Sectoral initiatives went from $500,000 to $350,000. There was a slight cut there.

Summer employment was substantially cut from $5.62 million to $1.62 million. As I explained yesterday, and previously in the Legislature, we put the dollars we had into the area we thought we would get the maximum return, not only for students, but for the taxpayer -- namely, tourism programs.

The Youth Council budget was frozen at $745,000. I point out that most of that budget is not for the Youth Council per se, but for grants selected by a process under its control.

In consultation and appeals, there was a substantial cut from $642,000 to $235,000. Those are primarily vocational rehabilitation service appeals. This is a very salutary sign that we've been able to improve our service and reduce the need for appeals.

Let me give you an idea of the kind of initiative we have sponsored. Two come to mind. One is support for a program designed by the construction industry in B.C. -- the Construction Labour Relations Association and the Building and Construction Trades Council -- to provide literacy training for employees in that field who are presently functionally illiterate.

Another example would be a program we sponsored for upgrading in navigational skills of native fishermen, who are being trained at the Celtic shipyards near the Musqueam reserve in Vancouver. It is a very innovative native-controlled shipyard, which designed an efficient, short training program for native skippers. We provided assistance to enable specialized training specifically attuned to the needs of native Indian skippers. Within the limits of a constrained budget, I think we're doing a lot of imaginative things, and we have very big ideas for the future.

[D. Streifel in the chair.]

D. Mitchell: The minister says that some of the increases are incalculable, but the cuts are calculable. They do have an effect. Producing a budget is all about making decisions and describing what your priorities are. I've got to continue to question the commitment to job training and skills development in this budget. I just don't see it.

When I say that the cuts are calculable, the budget for the skills development branch was cut by about 7.5 percent. More importantly, several other valuable programs were cut or cancelled: the training investment program, the industrial adjustment program and the British Columbia summer youth employment program are examples.

On the training investment program, the government worked with employers in the private sector to design and implement training programs on a cost-sharing basis. This program, too, was cancelled. Can the minister please explain why?

Hon. T. Perry: The best answer is really that when we confronted the need to make choices, that program was judged to be the least effective of our programs and, as we had to make cuts, therefore the most rational one to cut. The only alternative -- and it's implicit in the logic of the hon. member -- is that were we to have maintained all these programs, which he's implying were all perfect, there was no room for us to use discretion in trying to advance the interests of the taxpayer. He's also implying that we should have increased the provincial budget deficit by that amount. Since all of that deficit is borrowed money, mostly from outside the country, we were, as the member knows, like all other ministries, under very tight pressure to find areas where we could make some reduction in expenditures. These are areas where we felt the expenditure, relatively speaking, was least justified, and we therefore chose to preserve other areas.

[ Page 2158 ]

D. Mitchell: Mr. Chairman, I'm still having difficulty with this, because I'm asking a simple question. Why was the program cut? I know that priorities and difficult decisions have to be made. But I would think that we would want to encourage more shared government-private sector training initiatives. I would think that would be a cost-effective way of developing training programs. We don't seem to be doing it.

Another example that I mentioned was the industrial adjustment program, a federal-provincial initiative that provides for the establishment of a management-labour committee to facilitate the discussion and resolution of issues and problems in the workplace. Funding for the program has been cut by $1 million in this budget we're reviewing. Will the minister please explain to the committee why funding for the industrial adjustment program has been cut?

Hon. T. Perry: In response to the latter question about the industrial adjustment, the actual request for spending was less than what had been budgeted. So we've carried on approximately the same amount as was actually spent last year. We don't feel we're making any significant cut to expenditure. We don't believe in simply ballooning a budget in an area where we haven't spent.

To go back to the TIP, the ministry's analysis was that the intent of the program -- to encourage or lever private sector investment in training -- was not being realized as effectively as had been intended. Therefore the program was not as much of a success as the ministry had originally hoped when it designed it under former ministers. I think the member is really focusing on areas where, although we found it unpleasant to cut anything, we had less difficulty than we did with the student employment programs, where we found it very painful and had to do a lot of very tough soul-searching, both within the ministry and in my office as minister. We were aware of consequences there and would have preferred not to have had to do that. TIP and IAS were relatively easy decisions.

D. Mitchell: The recommendations of the recent task force on employment and training illustrate that there is a great need for expanding and broadening employment training in this province. What I think we're seeing in this budget is a lack of commitment toward skills development generally. Is that not the impression the minister is leaving us with in this committee? When we look at this budget and we see the programs that are being cut and where the priorities are for this ministry, is it not the case that there is a lack of commitment on the part of this government and this ministry to skills development generally?

Hon. T. Perry: Absolutely not. Definitively not. I don't know how to more clearly express how wrong-headed that idea is than to refer to the Premier's upcoming economic summits. The first summit in mid-June will be addressing the overall economic development of the province. The second summit, scheduled I think for September at this point, will specifically address training issues. The Premier himself, at the first ministers' conference, has been not only a vigorous advocate, but the most vigorous advocate, for enhancing skills training nationwide and getting the economy of Canada going, not only the economy of British Columbia.

The Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs has been pushing these issues in the constitutional talks and exploring the potential that the provincial government may be able to handle training needs more flexibly than does the federal government.

In the Ministry of Social Services, the commitment for targeted employment programs for social assistance recipients -- those programs targeted specifically to the people most marginalized in the workforce -- increased by 44 percent this year, from $39 million to $56 million.

I understand why the member might ask these questions. I think it's important to reflect on the context of the development of the provincial budget. The election was held in October; the government was sworn in on November 5. The previous year's budget had been greatly delayed, and reflected a totally phony, dishonest, unreliable approach to the provincial finances. Regardless of the professional esteem in which the opposition holds the prominent accounting firm of Peat Marwick, the fact is that the provincial finances were in a state of chaos compared to the public perception. The province was in very deep trouble. It had an administration that had spent with reckless abandon, without regard for the long-term future of the province. In many respects, it might accurately be said that the province functioned almost without a government in the last six months prior to the election.

K. Jones: There's no question about that.

Hon. T. Perry: I see the hon. member for Surrey-Cloverdale agreeing with me. It's therefore important to remember that in this budget a relatively rushed attempt was made to get provincial finances in order in time for a budget before the end of the fiscal year. I think it's well understood by many people -- perhaps not by the official opposition -- that this does not represent the model for budget development in British Columbia. It was a forced march, so to speak. Not only the Minister of Finance, but the Premier and others have made it clear that in future years the budget development process will allow us the luxury of a reasonable time-frame. I think, therefore, that by looking into the future, for those who are enamoured of crystal balls, one could imagine that the government's overall approach to job training and skills development will evolve rather differently than it did in the rushed preparation of an initial budget. I am quite happy to stand here and defend it, because I think that we did the best possible job we could under the circumstances. I have no qualms about the decisions we made under the circumstances, but I think we can afford to take a slightly more optimistic view of where we'll be headed in the future.

D. Mitchell: I am delighted to hear the minister tell us today that the budget that we're being asked to 

[ Page 2159 ]

review in this committee is an absolute aberration. I would refer the minister to the opening remarks he made when we started this review of his budget for the 1992-93 fiscal year. Certainly he spoke very proudly during that opening statement of the budget he was presenting for review in this committee. He thought it was just a great budget, doing dynamic things for the province. Over the course of about two and a half days, he's tried to refute it, he's tried to apologize for it, and now he's saying that it's a complete aberration. He's disowning the budget.

Maybe it's the case that he can continue to use the previous administration's difficulties as an excuse for some time. It's getting to be close to the point of tedious and dull repetition. I know that members know that that's unparliamentary, but the minister's getting very close to that, as are some of his colleagues, when they continue to blame all of the problems on the previous administration.

Maybe that's the case; maybe we should look into the future. We can only hope that things will get better. But we're here today to assess this budget, not to look into a crystal ball and hope for better in the future -- which we certainly do hope for from this minister. We're here to assess this budget, which the minister is now trying to disown and to tell us it is simply an aberration and doesn't count. Well, it does count, because it's the minister's first budget. It's the first budget he's been called upon to defend as a member of the executive council. It's important, and it says something about the priorities this minister and this government have for spending the valuable, precious taxpayers' dollars.

When it comes to spending on employment training, the minister says that the Premier is the number one advocate. Well, I might suggest that the minister ask the Premier to accompany him to Treasury Board next time. Maybe he'll do a little better if the Premier gives him a little assistance.

One last question, though, while we're on employment training. This is a serious question, because industry in Canada spends very little on workplace training, and I think we want to see the private sector spend more. The training programs in British Columbia aren't all in the public sector. We know that many companies spend money on training of various kinds: resource industries and all companies operating in British Columbia do. We want to see them spend more, so we have to encourage industry to invest in their workers and in their own future. I wonder if the minister supports the idea of having training leave built into collective agreements, in the same way that we have vacation leave now.

[4:45]

The Chair: Before the hon. minister answers, the Chair is very unclear on how collective bargaining fits within the purview of the Advanced Education ministry. Perhaps I missed something in the question, so I'll rely on the hon. minister to keep us in order on this one.

Hon. T. Perry: I too have too much respect for the collective bargaining process -- perhaps that's a hallmark of our party -- to attempt to subvert it by inserting my own opinions into what's rightly a matter for employees and their employers to negotiate themselves. I certainly have no objections, but I think that's a matter for collective bargaining.

The only thing aberrant about this year's budget is that it was honest. It's a tragedy that it is seen as an aberrancy to have an honest budget, but it is true that previous budgets for the last few years were such distorted representations of the facts that this one is aberrant in the sense that the facts, the figures, are real. The true measure of a government's commitment is exemplified by the increase in social services training funds of 44 percent, a real answer of dollars to the federal minister, not just words.

D. Mitchell: I'm not going to belabour this point any further, and I'm not going to talk about social assistance programs and other ministries either. The issue of training leave is innovative, and I wanted to know if the minister had an opinion. He hasn't considered it, and perhaps next year when we review his budget we might return to that notion. I think it's a progressive idea that can be considered, and I think the ministry can perhaps take some leadership by supporting and becoming an advocate for the notion without interfering in the free collective bargaining process, which certainly wasn't assumed in the question at all.

I'd like to ask a few questions about science and technology, and science projects, generally speaking. I know that the minister does not have responsibility for kaon. We talked about that a little yesterday, I believe. But I would like to talk for a moment about big science projects in British Columbia, because kaon has certainly been much in the news lately. We don't know if that project will proceed or not; there's speculation right now about whether or not it will go ahead. That project will have a dramatic impact on science-and-technology-related projects in British Columbia.

Again, this is one of those areas where there is a lot of squabbling between the federal and the provincial governments. But I believe that scientists in British Columbia must be dismayed that a project that is so important to British Columbia may or may not proceed, and there is a lot of uncertainty in the science and technology community as a result. I'm wondering, in the event that that kind of project doesn't proceed, if the ministry is considering contingency plans for science in British Columbia. Are there any plans for backup to support the science and technology community in British Columbia, based on the possibility -- and certainly none of us would hope for this -- that KAON would not proceed?

Hon. T. Perry: That's a highly hypothetical question that perhaps reflects more the hon. member's own ambiguity about that project than anything else. The government is committed. The Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations is the responsible minister. Issues related to KAON can be examined during the estimates of the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations. Hon. members will know that he has pursued with the utmost of vigour the attempt to persuade the federal 

[ Page 2160 ]

government that it should, for once, honour a commitment to British Columbia.

D. Mitchell: Perhaps the minister may have misunderstood my question. I wasn't asking a question about KAON per se. I'm not asking him to defend something that he has no direct responsibility for. I'm simply asking whether or not the ministry responsible for science and technology in this province has any backup or contingency plans if the leading national project to be located in British Columbia were not to proceed. Certainly none of us would hope for that. No one wants to see the loss of a project the dimensions of which KAON represents to British Columbia in terms of its economic impact, particularly to the science and technology community. I wonder whether or not there is any planning. This is really a question about planning within the portion of the ministry that deals with science and technology and the ability to attract and retain in British Columbia the best and brightest scientists. Certainly if that project didn't proceed we'd see an acceleration of the brain-drain from British Columbia. That's something we want to forestall. I'm asking about planning within the ministry in that unfortunate circumstance where a project like KAON might not proceed. Is there any going on during this year under review?

Hon. T. Perry: We're doing what might be described best as a parallel-track plan. We would like to get not only KAON but a lot of other good projects in British Columbia. For example, there's the Herzberg astrophysical observatory proposal, an atmospheric modeling program and a national research communications network. There's a proposal for expansion of the National Research Council's tribology lab. For those people not familiar with it, that refers to research in friction and an institute for the study of machines and research on machinery, some of which is relatively low appropriate technology oriented, for example, towards development of simple, efficient tillage machines for organic farming. Our ministry is working on all kinds of things. Our staff have a very solid reputation for work, not only with their federal counterparts in ISTC and other federal ministries but with the science and technology and research community. I'm glad that the hon. member has begun this line of questions, because there are so many exciting things going on. We could probably spend the rest of the week on it, at the discretion of the Chair.

D. Mitchell: Hon. Chair, it would require not only your discretion but the minister's as well for us to go on long enough to discuss all the projects we could discuss. The whole area of research and development is very important. I wonder sometimes about the lack of spending in British Columbia, both in the public and private sector, on research. When we look at the area the ministry is responsible for, in terms of academic research, I wonder if there's a recognition of the kind of investment that really constitutes in the economy in British Columbia, and the return on that investment in academic research in particular.

I'd like to bring to the attention of the committee, and of the minister in particular, a study that has been done by Dr. Edwin Mansfield, who is the director of the Center for Economic Studies in Technology at the University of Pennsylvania. His study found that investment in academic research has an average rate of return to society of about 28 percent annually. The way he justifies that is by taking a look at the bottom line. He looks at the fact that companies tend to support research at nearby universities and colleges, and there's an accumulative rate of return. He's done an extensive study, and I believe it's based on conservative calculations. There's a 28 percent rate of return annually, generally speaking, not only in science but generally in academic research. Given that 28 percent rate of return, Mr. Chairman, I think you and I and the minister might want to invest.

I wonder if the minister might explain why we are not, in the public sector, in the Ministry of Advanced Education, Training and Technology, putting a higher priority than we are in this budget on research -- academic research in particular.

Hon. T. Perry: Well, the questions are music to my ears again. I'm very delighted to see opposition interest in science and technology policy. I agree with the hon. member that the public perhaps does not sufficiently appreciate the benefits of science and technology. I note that on some of my visits to campuses I've been confronted by questions from students, who ask how could we be wasting money on science and technology when they have difficulty enrolling in the courses that they would like. I've always given them a tougher response, perhaps, than they expected, and the strongest defence I can muster in favour of science and technology. I have a very strong personal interest, coming from a family with a long commitment to science, and having come to the Legislature from a training position in medical research, so this is an area particularly dear to me. I sometimes have to restrain myself to pay attention to some of the other aspects of the ministry.

But I might say we have a very strong commitment in British Columbia, in relation to other provinces. We do have one of the most successful science and technology programs in the country. It's widely recognized as such. It's a great credit to the ministry staff that they have developed this reputation in recent years, and to the science and technology community in B.C.

Traditionally we don't directly fund academic research, because that has been the domain of the national granting councils: the National Research Council -- or rather, now, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council; the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council; the Medical Research Council; the Canada Council, etc. We do fund, through the science and technology fund, more targeted research aimed generally at industrial innovation. It doesn't preclude academic research, but it doesn't tend to be exactly the same nature as what has traditionally been called "basic research."

[5:00]

[ Page 2161 ]

We do offer enormous infrastructure support of academic research. This year the figure will be approximately $15.4 million. For example, in the networks of centres of excellence we will spend about $20 million on infrastructure over the next four years. I think the hon. member will be aware that at UBC, for example -- perhaps he's visited some of the network centres at UBC -- we've assisted in getting the buildings up and equipment going. Without that assistance, UBC and the other universities would not have been able to compete so successfully in the national competition.

So I think we're doing an excellent job. I hope and expect that as a society we will expand even more in this area. To that end, I've asked the Premier's Advisory Council on Science and Technology and the Science Council cooperatively to begin a review at the four-year mark of the existing science and technology policy. I've asked them to perform a review of how well we're doing. I'm in the final stages of planning an independent external review, to complement the review being undertaken by the Premier's Advisory Council on Science and Technology and by the Science Council. One of my goals for that process is to strengthen greatly the public support for science and technology, and to overcome some of the communication barriers, whereby some people still operate in the two cultures that C.P. Snow defined in the 1950s, seeing science and technology as somehow foreign to their interests.

D. Mitchell: I guess we could say there are a lot of reviews going on -- and maybe that's a good thing, as long as they don't go on indefinitely and as long as something positive comes out of them. When we talk about science and technology, I would note that British Columbia historically has been a resource-based economy. There is a legacy from that, both in our culture and our business culture, in terms of the kinds of business enterprises we have in British Columbia.

I think that SPARK has been trying to increase the visibility of science and technology in British Columbia and, in particular, trying to encourage the commercial application of science and technology. Also, the Science Council is a very good initiative for both science and technology in British Columbia. I think we would want to see that the government is committed to both SPARK and the Science Council, both in terms of this year's budget and in the long run. As a result, I've got to say that I was a bit disturbed by the minister's comments quoted in a newsletter of February 1992 from SPARK: "The development of science funding in British Columbia has been somewhat ad hoc, to put it mildly. It's time to review very carefully whether we are getting the best value for our bucks." Was the minister referring to the Peat Marwick recommendation, perhaps, that the government should narrow future commitment to the science and technology special account? Maybe more specifically, is the minister not satisfied with the administration of the account by the Science Council, or concerned that the taxpayers of British Columbia are not getting the best bang for the buck at present?

Hon. T. Perry: Hon. Chair, emphatically no. I believe the interview in question -- although I haven't, from my recollection, read it -- was conducted by Mr. David Roger in December, prior to the publication of even any of the interim reports of the Peat Marwick study. So that quotation has nothing whatsoever to do with Peat Marwick's conclusions. In general, I was alluding to my belief that the development of science and technology under the former government was relatively ad hoc. It did not reflect, for example, lengthy debate in the Legislature or in the estimates of the ministry of the day. It proceeded in the absence of a very highly developed societal and political commitment. Certainly one of the former Premier's achievements was this policy, and I think he had a lot to do with it personally.

D. Mitchell: Who was that?

Hon. T. Perry: The former Premier, Mr. Vander Zalm. He is not, in my view, to be exclusively remembered for his sins; he had some achievements, and this was one of them. The policy was developed in a relatively ad hoc way. It is appropriate to conduct a review at the four-year mark to ensure maximum value. There are many examples of federal programs, such as the late and unlamented SRTC -- scientific research tax credit -- program which proved largely to be scams utilized by unscrupulous investors, and which had to be discontinued. In no way is the B.C. science and technology program to be compared to that. However, it does not mean that our program, any more than any other government program, ought to be immune from scrutiny. As the auditor general reviews such programs, so do ministries. My intent right from the start in conducting a review, very clearly communicated to those independent advisory bodies we have -- PACST and the Science Council -- has been to strengthen science and technology policy in B.C. for the long run. My hope and expectation is that the outcome of both the internal and external review will be an enhanced commitment to science and technology policy in B.C. -- in general, a positive review of our programs; ideally, identification of some areas where we can improve. If they tell us that we're doing a perfect job, then I'll be able to relax and conclude that the ministry staff need virtually no supervision from me, because they would have performed an almost superhuman feat in achieving perfection. I'll not have to worry about criticism from the opposition, either.

D. Mitchell: One final question on SPARK and the Science Council of British Columbia -- science and technology, generally speaking. I haven't had this discussion with the minister, but maybe there could be a comment from the minister on basic priority as to which is preferred: basic research versus applied research. What kind of a bias should we be encouraging in British Columbia? I think we want to be encouraging research with more commercial application in British Columbia. I would like to think that we would agree on that. I wonder if the minister could tell us what his position is, what the position of the government is and where government money should be directed. I wonder 

[ Page 2162 ]

if the minister has any plans or proposals to change the way that science in funded in British Columbia.

Hon. T. Perry: That's one of the purposes of our ongoing review. I'm one of those who feels that the distinction between basic and applied research is largely artificial. Without good, basic research, technology and applied research are impossible. Without good, applied research, basic science has only purely intellectual value and finds no application. One could find no better example than the recent decision of government to commence widespread universal immunization against hepatitis B. The vaccine is a miraculous product that holds the potential to eliminate completely -- as smallpox was eliminated permanently -- a disease affecting 300 million or 400 million people. Without decades -- perhaps over a century now, going back at least as far as Pasteur -- of basic research, the applied research which led to the development of the vaccine by one, and later another, pharmaceutical company would have been impossible. So you really can't separate the two. I think the recent exchange of letters in the Sun -- today and a day or two ago -- points out and endorses the concept that scientists, like all other people who receive support from the public, do have an obligation to show that what they're doing is worthwhile.

There is a balance to be struck between so-called pure research done for the pure enjoyment of new knowledge, which often leads us in unexpectedly unpleasant directions, like the development of the atomic bomb, and often leads us in wonderful new directions, like the development of the transistor, which brought us convenient televisions, radios, computers, etc.... So we need pure research, but we also need to dignify applied research, and we particularly need to dignify appropriate technology oriented towards solving the problems of individual people: be they people with disabilities, individuals who need a technological solution to their specific problem of daily living; be they small companies assisted by an outfit like the B.C. Research Council regional project in Kelowna, which gets a relatively low profile with the public but is extremely highly valued by industry because it helps individual small businesses meet their technological-mechanical needs; be it the IRA program -- industrial research assistance -- which has a very high reputation with business, particularly small business, and with people in the engineering science field; be it many other examples. We need more of it and we'll get more of it.

D. Symons: I realize there's a problem with these two sets of estimates going on together. Some of these questions have been canvassed before. By looking back in the Blues and the minutes of those meetings, I think the spin I'm going to take is slightly different. So if you find you have answered, just say and I will look them up; otherwise, I would appreciate answers.

These all deal with Kwantlen College and the Richmond campus, which happens to be within my riding. I gather other people have been asking these questions, but it's my college, in a sense, and I'm concerned about the underfunding that others have asked about.

One thing I didn't find in the Blues, however, was that we are getting for Kwantlen College, in general, 8.9 full-time-equivalents for every 1,000 in population and $49.48 funding on a per capita basis for Kwantlen College. The question I didn't see asked in there was why, historically or currently -- because your government is responsible for current figures going in there -- that campus has been underfunded. It's about 50 percent of what other campuses in the province seem to be getting.

The Chair: Before the minister responds to this.... You are correct, hon. member, as you pointed out before you began, that we have examined very extensively the funding of Kwantlen College. The minister has answered the questions of maybe six members. We've been very liberal in our application of the rules. Your own caution was that it was probably out of order.

Hon. T. Perry: Thank you, hon. Chairman, for your admonition.

Having sat on the opposition benches for three sessions, I appreciate the dilemma of hon. members opposite and even the government members, who feel a seasonal obligation -- it's sort of rite of spring, like the mating dance of the prairie chicken or the spawning run of the returning salmon -- to complete something to mail out to their constituents. Perhaps, hon. Chair, in the interests of the member for Richmond-Steveston, who, I believe, already referred to this topic, and the member for Richmond East, who no doubt would like to do so as well, and the member for Delta North, who briefly did so, and the member for Surrey-Cloverdale and the member for Surrey-Newton and the member for Surrey-Green Timbers, who mentioned this topic, and the member for Surrey-Whalley and the member for Surrey-White Rock, who, I believe, raised some of the issues, and the members for Langley and Fort Langley-Aldergrove, and perhaps the member for....

[5:15]

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, order! I think the minister's point has been made.

Hon. T. Perry: If I've left anyone out, I will encompass them, as if they had been here asking the same question, hon. member, and simply reply, one more time, that we recognize the regional needs of the south Fraser, including the Kwantlen College region. We are very keen to address them over the course of the first term of the current government. This year, although we would have liked to do more, we were able to afford to Kwantlen the largest single increase in full-time-equivalent students of any college in B.C. -- fully half of the academic spaces awarded to colleges. Of 800, Kwantlen received 400, and an additional 33 trades-training places, for a grand total of 433, a 9.49 percent change in full-time-student-equivalent enrolment; and a 7.5 percent operating grant, approximately 60 or 70 percent higher than the system average increase of 4.2 percent. We are aware of the concerns. We 

[ Page 2163 ]

appreciate the efforts of hon. members to bring them to our attention. I must admit that although hon. members opposite and on this side have been forceful, none of them has yet exceeded either the delicacy or the energy with which the case was presented by Dr. MacLaughlin, the president of Kwantlen College, or the board. I appreciate the presentations, but I think the government has got the message.

D. Schreck: The minister's recitation of the various hon. members and constituencies concerned about Kwantlen College made me realize that several of my constituents teach at Kwantlen College and that I wouldn't want North Vancouver-Lonsdale to be overlooked in this long list of those who are concerned. I join with the other hon. members present in assuring that we will constantly be after the minister on the importance of Kwantlen College to all of us. It now appears that we have roughly one-third of the Legislature with a direct interest in this one college.

D. Mitchell: We can, I'm sure, canvass more questions on Kwantlen College that perhaps haven't been asked. Indeed, all 75 members of the House would probably like to ask questions about other colleges as well. However, in the interests of time I'd like to move on and ask a few more questions on unrelated topics, although they are related to the Ministry of Advanced Education.

In the budget that we're being asked to approve here in this committee today, I'm wondering if the minister can tell us whether or not there's been any provision made for additional funding to any of the institutions that may arise from two of the initiatives that are now being considered by the government of our province. The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act which has been tabled in the Legislature is, I believe, going to generate more requests for information from colleges, universities and institutes, and that's going to increase the administrative burden. We can't estimate by how much, but certainly the administrative burden is going to increase.

The other issue is the Ombudsman Act. The schedules of the Ombudsman Act that are about to be proclaimed and that were described in the Speech from the Throne in this session are now going to apply to universities, colleges and institutes. I can't find anywhere in this budget whether or not provision has been made for increased costs that are going to be incurred by universities, colleges and institutes as a result of the proclaiming of these sections of the Ombudsman Act and the freedom-of-information legislation that has been tabled in the House.

Hon. T. Perry: The proposed Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, if passed by the Legislature.... I assume the government will be able to count on the opposition's support; it might pass anyway, I suppose.

K. Jones: With some modifications.

Hon. T. Perry: The intent all along has been to proclaim that bill in the fall of 1993, to allow institutions, including the government, time to plan for rational implementation. Therefore the budget issue would arise midway during the 1993-94 fiscal year. Naturally we will be thinking about that, but it's not an issue for these estimates.

In terms of the proclamation of sections of the Ombudsman Act governing the post-secondary system, I believe that the ombudsman's general approach has been, as with similar institutions, to expect and hope that they will largely take on the functions themselves, and that the ombudsman's office will be able to teach "ombudship" to them and reduce both its own costs and theirs. We will certainly be obliged to consider such issues, but I think it's premature to speculate on what the costs might be now or how they will be met. It's a worthwhile thing to think about, and that's about as much as I can say at the moment.

D. Mitchell: The reason I asked the question was simply to determine the state of planning. Many of my questions today, as the minister will recognize, are really focusing on the state of planning within the ministry. What kind of planning? Short-, medium-and long-term planning takes place within the ministry. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be much, and we seem to be running on an ad hoc basis. There needs to be more integration among all ministries of government so we can take account of increased costs which result from legislation, programs, activities, initiatives or other areas of government. When they aren't taken into account, who suffers? The partners in the system that the minister refers to, because they incur the additional costs and administrative burden.

I'd like to ask....

The Chair: The hon. minister on a point of order.

Hon. T. Perry: I think, hon. Chair, that the hon. member's last statement really distorts what I was trying to explain. If the hon. member would give me the courtesy, I would like to deal with that before he goes on to the next.... The ministry certainly is carefully planning the implementation of the Ombudsman Act and the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. For example, we've now had on staff for two months a specific employee, Jim Vanstone, who is dealing with the implementation of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act within the ministry and will have, as one of his responsibilities, the coordination of planning at the ministry level for post-secondary institutions. I think it's characteristic of our ministry that they do a great deal of long-range planning in very close collaboration with the institutions; and the same will apply to the Ombudsman Act.

R. Chisholm: A couple of questions to the minister. You gave me a figure of 17.22 percent yesterday. The first part of the question is about the 2 percent of the operation costs; the second question is about how much has been allotted for capital expenditures. Do we know yet what's been alloted to the Abbotsford and Chilli-

[ Page 2164 ]

wack campuses of the Fraser Valley University College? The third part of the question was: with this practical project for jobs, does the agricultural portion of the college have any moneys allotted to it for enlarging that facility?

Hon. T. Perry: I'm sorry, hon. Chair. I wonder if the hon. member will repeat the first of the three questions about percentages. I wasn't quite clear what he was asking.

R. Chisholm: Yesterday, hon. minister, you told me 17.22 percent was the operational cost of the university. The question is: is the 2 percent instead of the tuition part of that percentage?

Hon. T. Perry: No.

In regard to the question on capital budgeting, the college itself makes its own decisions as to where it would like to allocate resources between the two campuses. But the current proposal calls for something in the neighbourhood of $10 million in this fiscal year for capital for each of Abbotsford and Chilliwack.

The third question related to an agricultural training centre in Chilliwack. We're not aware of any particular plan this year for agricultural training. I don't recall that issue being raised by Mr. Brian Minter or Dr. Jones when they met with me recently. It's possible it slipped my mind.

R. Chisholm: In reference to the question of the capital expenditure, have amounts been authorized towards those two $10 million budgets? The question about the agricultural sector of the college was from me approximately a month and a half ago.

Hon. T. Perry: I'm advised that money is now being spent on the planning of those two campuses of Fraser Valley University College in Abbotsford and Chilliwack. Construction will follow in due course. I'm afraid I missed the second question again.

R. Chisholm: Approximately a month ago, you and I discussed the practical end of enlarging the agricultural sector of the college.

Hon. T. Perry: I apologize. It completely slipped my mind. I'll be glad to discuss it again with the hon. member.

D. Mitchell: I have a question for the minister with respect to faculty leave entitlement funding. This is an issue that we canvassed during the supply bill debate earlier this session in the marathon all-night session that we had. We had a very enlightening discussion about this issue. My question for the minister today is very brief. In the revised fiscal figures for 1991-92, a $36 million provision for unfunded leave was made. Has there been a similar provision in this year's budget?

Hon. T. Perry: As the official opposition critic will recall from the debate on interim supply, the item in question reflected a Treasury Board pan-government accounting policy, which reflected recommendations from the Peat Marwick review of government finance based upon the current accounting standards prescribed by CICA, the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants. The adjustments were made on a pan-government basis at that time. The office of the comptroller general, along with Treasury Board and ministries, is carefully reviewing how to incorporate similar accounting principles into the present budget. My understanding is that it will be shown on the accounts at the end of the year,.

The details are not presently known to the ministry, so we can't give you that answer right at this time. The principle has been established, so there will have to be an amount. But the exact size of the amount is not in our hands at the moment.

[5:30]

D. Mitchell: Just for clarification of this issue, the question that I asked of the minister was whether or not provision had been made in this year's budget for faculty leave entitlement that has been accumulating. I wonder if the minister could just indicate whether or not the ministry has figures on how much leave is accumulating annually within the post-secondary educational system, and whether or not he anticipates at some point paying the leave that was referred to -- the $36 million in leave that did accumulate up to 1991-92. Also, in what situations would the minister foresee this unearned leave being paid out? Would it only be when an instructor retired?

Hon. T. Perry: I'm going to try to answer as best I can. This is one of those instances where the tradition of parliament tends to fail us. It's a very complex accounting issue. I have done my level best to grapple with it several times and understand the technical details. I'm said to be reasonably competent in my own field of internal medicine, but in the intricacies of accounting practice I confess to some difficulties. I wish that our tradition permitted ministry staff who are professional accountants to answer these questions directly, because it's very difficult to convey verbally an answer which is as precise as I might like to be able to give. I'm going to attempt to do so. I think there are avenues, such as the Public Accounts Committee, where it is possible for members to ask these questions directly of the officials who have real expertise. My deputy minister is attempting to give me the answer, which will be not only precise but accurate.

The accounting policy relates entirely to the fact that leave accumulates in one year but is taken in the next. The $36 million placed on the books of the 1991-92 fiscal year relates entirely to the value at March 31, 1992, of leave accrued which will be taken this year.

I'd suggest that if other hon. members are interested in pursuing the details, I am happy to attempt to answer the questions. But there's an alternative route, which is either the Public Accounts Committee or simply a letter exploring anything further -- we'd be happy to comply; or the corridor, and direct conversation with the officials. It's only the rather archaic traditions of the 

[ Page 2165 ]

House which preclude them from answering this more directly.

D. Mitchell: I thank the minister for that answer. I'm not seeking any detailed accounting of leave entitlement that may not be taken. What I'm more interested in is the principle applied by the ministry with respect to the institutions within the system. What I'd like to see is a commitment that we won't have a huge liability accumulating for the taxpayers of British Columbia, based upon untaken leave that might be banked and banked and banked, to the point where the liability becomes more real, and becomes larger and larger.

I wonder, just for clarification of this point -- it's a point of principle more than anything else -- if the minister can assure us that this faculty leave that is accumulated will not grow to the point where it becomes a larger liability, not just a contingent liability but a real liability for the taxpayers of British Columbia. That's my concern, and that's the commitment I'm seeking from the minister.

Hon. T. Perry: I am reminded by staff that this is an accounting entry to make the conversion from a cash basis to an accrual basis, and that the purpose of ongoing discussions between ministry staff, Treasury Board and the office of the comptroller general is to ensure that this, or any future accounting changes, do not confer an additional operating cost on the institutions. So I can confidently assure the member that we do not expect the type of ongoing, future liability that he is worried about to materialize.

D. Mitchell: This is something we're going to have to continue to watch. When the minister assures the committee that it's not something that he would expect to materialize, that's not a very firm commitment; that's a soft commitment. I'm looking for something a little bit firmer here. We don't want to have a large, accumulating liability for the taxpayers of British Columbia in this area, and I think the administration within the institutions, within the post-secondary system, should be able to address this one, and hopefully the ministry can play a role to ensure that that doesn't happen. So it's something that I think we want to continue to watch -- and hopefully seek a firmer commitment from the minister in the future on this particular issue.

I wonder if I could address one more issue with respect to adult basic education. In particular, I'd like to refer to comments made by the minister on Monday in this committee. He made reference to the adult basic education program at Vancouver Community College, and said that it was up to the college to meet the ministry targets and requirement that the budget be balanced. But I have a concern here, because the college has floated the plan to cut adult basic education spaces by up to 80 percent, and the minister, I don't believe, can absolve himself of the responsibility, especially when it has been shown that high-school dropouts' real annual earnings dropped by 18 percent in the last 20 years, and Canadians without a high-school education have, on average, worse health than better-educated Canadians. So adult basic education is important. And I don't believe the minister can absolve himself of any responsibility in this area. I think it's difficult to separate the cause from the effect, but it is very clear that adults trying to get the education they need should not be turned away. So I'm wondering, for the benefit of the committee, if the minister will accept that, as a result of his decisions, the adult basic education program at Vancouver Community College is being cut.

Hon. T. Perry: The minister does not intend to absolve himself of any responsibility. He's very interested in this subject. The board of Vancouver Community College has yet to be presented with a final budget and therefore has yet to approve a final budget. I'm confident that ABE programs will be protected in the final budget.

D. Mitchell: Mr. Chairman, there are so many other issues that we could discuss in this committee, especially relating to this budget that we're being asked to approve today. I know that I'm going to be having an ongoing dialogue with the minister and with his staff as well, so I believe that a number of the other issues that I did intend to discuss can be dealt with directly, without taking up further time of this committee. I know that we are also going to have an opportunity to make some concluding remarks when this committee reports to the House, and perhaps I will save any concluding remarks for then.

I'd like to thank the minister. This has been his first opportunity to defend a set of ministerial estimates as a member of the executive council. How has he done? Well, perhaps we should have a post-mortem in private at some point to discuss that. Maybe we'll discuss it when we report to the House, in fact. But I'd like to thank the minister for his cooperation. He hasn't answered all of the questions, but the questions have been asked, and they'll be asked again. I'd like to thank the minister and all his officials for their cooperation in this exercise. We could easily go on for many more days, but we've gone on for two and half days, and I think it's been enough.

Hon. T. Perry: I would also like to thank all hon. members for their very interesting and penetrating questions. Some of the questions, hon. Chair, you may have noticed were so interesting that they were asked more than once. I can assure you that I, at least, found the answers equally interesting on the umpteenth reiteration. I noticed that even one of the distinguished deputy ministers of the government has got word that there were some great things going on -- a whole lot of study going on in here, as the critic put it -- and has drifted into the room to listen to our final moments.

I would just like to conclude by thanking and acknowledging my office staff. There are five of them sitting over in the office in Room 112, probably breathing a sigh of relief that they're not obliged to listen to us any more -- although they've had the 

[ Page 2166 ]

privilege of sipping tea and coffee while we were in here drinking water. One of them, my executive assistant, is now on a very well-deserved holiday in Hawaii, paying no attention whatsoever to what we're doing. There's another, a constituency assistant who has been doing a lot of related work, who is spared having to focus on all of the fascinating details that we've covered. But they've all been doing great work, and I'd just like to acknowledge them.

Vote 10 approved.

Vote 11: ministry operations, $1,266,062,300 -- approved.

Vote 12: science and technology, $35,807,600 -- approved.

Hon. T. Perry: Hon. Chair, I move that the committee rise, report resolutions and ask leave to sit again. And in the words of the former hon. Minister of Forests, I wish all hon. members a very pleasant evening, good dinner, and entertaining time in the Committee of the Whole, or the Committee of Supply, as the case may be.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:42 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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