1993 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 35th Parliament HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only. The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
THURSDAY, MAY 27, 1993
Morning Sitting
Volume 10, Number 10
[ Page 6543 ]
The House met at 10:04 a.m.
Prayers.
Hon. M. Sihota: I'm pleased to call committee stage for Bill 19 in this chamber.
I should also advise all hon. members that Committee of Supply A will convene in the Douglas Fir Room to deal with the estimates of the Ministry of Environment.
The House in committee on Bill 19; E. Barnes in the chair.
SCHOOL AMENDMENT ACT, 1993
On section 1.
J. Dalton: The first section of the amending bill reflects some of the philosophy and the direction that the Sullivan royal commission and the subsequent Year 2000 and other curriculum developments have proposed. I don't have any particular concern with the statements in the preamble other than the point about "personally fulfilled and publicly useful" members of society. I would not quarrel that our school system is a very important part of society and therefore that people, through interaction at the school level and anywhere else in a societal function, become personally fulfilled and hopefully become publicly useful. But I'm wondering whether these, what I might consider side issues, might not detract from the mandate of our K-to-12 school system -- which, of course, is to ensure that people receive a proper, full and valuable education.
Hon. A. Hagen: The member quite rightly notes that this is a statement of the goals which we express in the preamble to the School Act.
To his specific question regarding the clause that talks about society's goals for our students, I would suggest to the member that those terms are to be interpreted in the very broadest way. This is an interpretative clause. For instance, I don't think any of us would consider that a person who is not intellectually strong but possesses skills that are a reflection of that person's interests, talents and training and is self-confident about their ability to use those skills would not be a person who was well educated. We are fundamentally looking at that in the very broadest sense.
The same is true with respect to "publicly useful." We recognize that every person in our society contributes to society as an individual -- perhaps as a parent, a worker, a community person or a person who is part of a democratic society. So the terms are intended in the very broadest sense of the personal development of an individual, with respect to that person's role in society. I would say that is the broad goal of education, and every aspect of a person's learning is important to that.
In the second part of the preamble we speak about the individual and the attributes we would want our schools to help that individual develop, in order to contribute to both that person individually and the society in which that person is going to live.
J. Dalton: I have just one further comment. As the minister, and I guess everyone else in this province, is well aware, there is a lot of controversy these days about the direction education is taking through the Year 2000 program, and that's why I voice this general concern. I'm just fearful that the general public -- which is not in any way satisfied with the happenings in education at the moment, and that's well documented -- is concerned that the school system is perhaps getting off the particular track or focus of its mandate and getting into things that are marginally useful in a school function but are quite clearly not the be-all and end-all of the education system. But that's not a critical point. I'm just voicing that particular comment because I think when people start looking at the detail of the mandate of the school system, naturally they have to express some concern about the preamble, which does set the tone and the particular direction that the education system will take. Given the criticism and the voices of concern throughout this province, that is the reason why I flag that particular issue. But I don't think we need to dwell further on that.
Hon. A. Hagen: I just want to make one brief comment. I believe that it is very important to read the whole mission statement and not to single out particular phrases. It is a whole, and I think it is important to deal with it as a whole.
L. Fox: I guess my concern about the preamble is that it is a mission statement. When we look at the preamble of the School Act, it makes reference to individual initiative, not benefits to society as opposed to the individual, as this statement does -- and that concerns me somewhat. We see here that we're going to allow individuals to develop their own potential -- precisely the thrust of the Year 2000 program, and precisely the concern of many parents and teachers in the province of British Columbia. I'm concerned, hon. Chair, that we don't have anything within this preamble that serves as a statement that we have some academic levels that we want to see our students achieve through the K-to-12 process. By removing the stress on the individual and putting it back to what is in the best interests of society, it seems to me that it takes away from what an individual should be achieving through the K to 12 process and what the school system should be helping that individual achieve. Perhaps the minister would like to comment on that.
[10:15]
Hon. A. Hagen: Au contraire, hon. Chair. The mission statement continues to express a very strong commitment to the individual. If we look at the second "whereas," which is the mission statement that has
[ Page 6544 ]
been a part of the School Act since it was developed in 1989, with some modifications, the emphasis is on the individual. But the emphasis has always been, too, on a recognition that the individual doesn't live as an individual; the individual lives as a member of society. So in both clauses we speak about the strength and development of the individual student; indeed, the focus of our education system is on the learning and the potential of every child in the system.
We speak in the preamble about all learners, but we also talk about the benefit to society in that kind of commitment. The preamble speaks, then, to society's commitment to the individual, to the individual's learning as the main focus of our work and to the outcome for society through the very best efforts of the individual child, the parents, the teachers and the society or community that supports the child -- the results of that for the broad community.
As we have healthy, intelligent, highly trained and well-educated citizens, we as a society benefit, as well as the individual. So I think there is a very good balance in the preamble that reflects a broad commitment to the individual and a recognition that society is the benefactor, with highly educated, well-educated individuals, and the fact that all of us have a responsibility to contribute to that goal.
Section 1 approved.
On section 2.
J. Dalton: With regard to the definition of "community plan," has the Union of B.C. Municipalities been consulted on this process? There are, of course, other impacting sections in the subsequent amendments. I'm just wondering whether the representative body of municipalities in this province has been consulted with regard to this and the other amendments contained in the bill.
Hon. A. Hagen: Yes.
J. Dalton: It's always pleasing to have a forthright answer, and the one that I expected to receive.
Another definition that I would like to ask about is "day of instruction." It is found further on in section 2 and refers to "a school day in which students of the school are in attendance." Can the minister comment as to whether there's any specified length of time in mind as to what constitutes a day of instruction? I have some concern when I hear of examples, and they are not infrequent, of where a school is only open for say two hours in a day, and then they have the afternoon or the morning off for the purpose of reporting to parents, study days or other things -- days in which teachers are doing things other than being in the classroom. So I think a day of instruction has to have a more precise definition or meaning to it. Certainly people are expressing concerns about what in fact constitutes a day of instruction.
Hon. A. Hagen: There will be further definitions set out in the regulations, and as we deal with 96(b) we will also deal with this matter. The definition phase starts that process, and it will be referred to in both the bill that we are debating and the regulations that will flow out of this bill once it has passed the Legislature.
Section 2 approved.
On section 3.
J. Dalton: I am pleased to see the particular amendment dealing with copies of student records being made available to parents and -- if the amendment that I'm going to refer to in a moment is successful -- to guardians as well. The minister is certainly aware that many people who have sought access to student records have been allowed to see those records in the school or the school board office but not necessarily allowed to take a copy. So it's certainly worthwhile for this amendment to be put in to take away some predictable controversy in that regard.
The amendment that I have on the order paper -- and I would like to move it at this time -- would add the words "or guardian" after "parents" in the first part of 9(1). That motion is on the order paper, and I believe the minister has a copy of that.
On the amendment.
Hon. A. Hagen: To assist the member -- because I believe that his two or three amendments adding the word "guardian" are put forward in a good spirit -- I'd like to refer him to the current School Act, which says that "parent" means, in respect of a child registered, "the guardian of the person of the student or child." Whenever the word "parent" is used within the body of the bill, it is to be interpreted as parent and guardian, and that goes back to the interpretation section in the current act. I appreciate his good offices and his concern that guardians be recognized. They are in the act, and therefore the amendment is unnecessary to meet his goals.
L. Reid: Section 3 of the bill states: "A student...." Is there any time line in terms of the age students must be before they're able to access their records? If I might pose two questions, I'm also interested to know: is there any clause or understanding in place that will allow students who are no longer of school age to go back and request their records?
The Chair: Sorry to interrupt. Is the member speaking on the amendment? The amendment is before the committee.
L. Reid: Yes, I am, actually.
The Chair: Thank you, hon. member. Please proceed.
Hon. A. Hagen: I'm not clear about how this relates to the amendment around "guardian," so perhaps if we could deal with the amendment and then
[ Page 6545 ]
come back to.... Would the member clarify the relationship to the amendment?
L. Reid: My issue surrounding the amendment is access. If indeed there are other definitions of access, perhaps we won't stand as firmly behind inserting the word "guardian" in the amendment. It seems to me that if it were communicated effectively to guardians that this definition applied to them, the amendment wouldn't be necessary. My concern is that it's not always clear that guardians can access information regarding the children in their care. If the student will always have that right -- i.e., they will be allowed to access that information at any age -- perhaps the guardianship question is not as important today.
Hon. A. Hagen: I think it's important for school districts to make that access very clear. School districts are aware that parent includes guardian in terms of their policies. Anyone who is responsible for a child registered in school under the School Act has the rights of a parent in that regard. I believe school districts have that broader recognition of who is responsible for the child as parent or guardian.
Amendment negatived.
L. Reid: Is there a proposed guideline in place on the age when students may access their records? In terms of retroactive status, will a student who has left the school system be able to access their record?
Hon. A. Hagen: Yes.
L. Reid: My first question was seeking information regarding the age at which a student may request their record. Has that been established? If not, what is the proposed age range?
Hon. A. Hagen: The student may request at any time, but parental consent is required until the child is 19. After that, the student can request the record as an adult. Until 19, it's with parental consent.
J. Dalton: On an issue not necessarily directly related to this but that I think is going to come up, we're going to be implementing freedom-of-information laws in the fall of this year. Does the minister think that the reference to access to student records will in any way be impacted by the freedom-of-information circumstances? Or will that simply supplement the provision contained in this amendment?
Hon. A. Hagen: The amendments have been drafted to be consistent with the Freedom of Information Act, and they will, therefore, supplement it. They are entirely consistent with the act.
L. Fox: As I read section 9 of the old act and read the new section 9 in the amended act, it appears that there are two significant differences. The old act was broad, and it allowed a student, at any age essentially, to access the files; now we're restricting it under this act to a student of school age. I wonder why there has been that change. The only other significant difference I can find in this is that the board may now charge a fee for this service, whereas before it was mandatory to provide it. Also, it provides an opportunity to charge for any copies of the records. Those seem to be the significant changes. Perhaps the minister would like to explain why this is more limiting in terms of at what stage a student can access the files. Could she also comment on the other two issues I have addressed?
Hon. A. Hagen: On the issue of access, the student stands alone. The parents modify it, because they are involved with students of school age. But the student stands alone in terms of his right to access.
On the issue of a fee, this is consistent with the Freedom of Information Act -- tying this back to my previous response. I would note that this says "may," not "shall."
L. Fox: I'm sorry, I had problems hearing the first part of the minister's response. As I understood it, she said students stood alone.
Hon. A. Hagen: As I understood the question, the member was asking whether a student was precluded by this clause from having access to his or her records. My response is that the student, in this clause, stands alone as a person who has a right to access his or her records.
L. Fox: Perhaps I had better rephrase the question, because obviously the minister missed my point. Section 9 of the existing act states: "A student and the parents of a student are entitled to examine all student records kept by a board pertaining to the student while accompanied by the principal or a person designated by the principal to interpret their records." The new act states: "A student and the parents of a student of school age are entitled...." In other words, the only time a parent can access the record is when that particular student is of student age. Why the change?
Hon. A. Hagen: When we're amending a bill, it's always a little complex. If the member looks at the old clause 9, the statement is exactly the same in both: "A student and the parents of a student of school age are entitled...." That's in the old act, and that hasn't changed. There has always been a right of access to student records, when the student is of school age.
[10:30]
Last year we brought in an amendment to ensure that a student, as an adult, would also have access to his or her records. When a student is 19 years of age, at that stage of the game the student function begins to be that of an adult in terms of all rights and responsibilities. At that stage, access to school records is for transcript purposes and all of those things related to the student's use of those records for their ongoing post-secondary education.
L. Fox: I have the old act in front of me, but under the new act, as I read this -- unless I am reading it
[ Page 6546 ]
incorrectly -- once my child has graduated from that school, I no longer have the right, as a parent, to access that child's record. I want to know why that change was necessary.
Hon. A. Hagen: The member is correct. A person who becomes an adult is a person who has the right to his or her records, and that has not changed in these amendments.
L. Fox: Hon. Chair, it has changed. In the old one, it says: "A student and a parent of a student...." I will always be a parent of a student of that particular school, whether that student is in the school or not, under the old act. And I will always have access to those records, because that particular child was a student of that school, under the old act. Under this act, I no longer have that right.
Hon. A. Hagen: I'm having a great deal of difficulty helping the member. So I'll try to do it by reading from the current School Act. It says: "A student and the parents of a student of school age...." The member has been dropping the words "of school age." So, "A student and the parents of a student of school age" is what it says in the School Act presently.
L. Fox: No, it does not.
Hon. A. Hagen: I'm sorry, hon. member. You may not have an updated copy, and perhaps the Clerks can assist you. That may be the cause of our difficulty. Sometimes, regrettably, the statutes that are here for us to refer to may not be up to date. So now I understand the concern that you're expressing, because you may be looking at the act as it was. The current act says: "A student and the parents of a student of school age...." And that's what this amendment says. Once a student is an adult, that student has a right to access. And I believe, if I'm correct, that the amendment last year ensured that right of access for a student once he was an adult, because the act was silent on that. It wasn't clear that the student had that right, and we wanted to ensure that an adult student continued to have access to his or her records, as surely we would want that student to be able to do it as a matter of right under our School Act.
L. Fox: The Clerk was good enough to tell me that this hasn't got the 1991 revisions in it. I find it rather difficult to understand why we have these in the House and they're not brought up to date.
In other words, what the minister is suggesting is that she did this to us last year, and we didn't catch it or speak on it. In essence, it took away the right of a parent to examine those records at any point after the child has left the school. I will accept that, hon. Chair.
Section 3 approved.
On section 4.
J. Dalton: Section 4, "Powers to suspend." I understand this amendment is based on a court decision which created some confusion in the area of suspensions. I don't think I have any particular difficulty, but maybe the minister can just clarify that this provision will now allow anyone who is designated as "an administrative officer of a school or the superintendent of schools" of the particular district to suspend, provided they are acting within the guidelines to do so.
And also, does "suspend" include other disciplinary action? "Suspend" by itself, of course, has a rather narrow meaning. But can it include things such as expulsion and other disciplinary action that may be taken against a student?
Hon. A. Hagen: Good questions. This does have a narrow meaning. And other powers are addressed in other parts of the act. Indeed, the board is required to have policies on this matter. Again, under section 103 of the act, the superintendent or his or her delegate, in exercising this power, must do so under the policies of the board. So it's very clear that the board has a responsibility under our legislation to set the policies that permit the superintendent to act in this regard, and only with respect to a suspension.
J. Dalton: To clarify the policy the minister has referred to, would that policy address things other than what we might consider to be the normal meaning of suspension? Could it include other disciplinary action against a student?
Hon. A. Hagen: No. If the member wishes to canvass other disciplinary action, he might want to look at section 103 of the act. Specifically, I refer him to section 103(2)(c). There are a number of powers listed there under that section. The enabling responsibility of the board from section 103(2)(d) reads: "...suspend students, in accordance with the rules under paragraph (c)(ii), so long as the board continues to make available to those students an educational program." Both the policy around suspension and the policy that those students must be provided with an educational program are still required under the duties of the board with respect to a superintendent's powers.
L. Fox: This is one area that I can truly support. In many respects this legislative change reflects the practice that has been happening and that I know happened during the time I was on the school board. Prior to that point, school boards themselves had to deal with disciplinary measures. I always felt rather inadequate as a school board member deciding whether or not Tommy, Joey or Susan should be suspended. I didn't feel the school boards had the expertise to deal with that. I certainly didn't as a school board member. So I believe that this does reflect the current policy in most school boards. Is that correct?
Hon. A. Hagen: I think the member is correct, hon. Chair.
[ Page 6547 ]
Section 4 approved.
On section 5.
J. Dalton: With regard to the amendment I have on the order paper, given the disposition of the previous amendment, and no doubt the subsequent one, I will not pursue that particular amendment.
I do have some questions with regard to the school calendar set out in the new section 96. In particular, looking down at section 96(b), on specifying the length of school days, etc., are non-instructional days included in the information that a school district will provide to parents with regard to the upcoming school year?
Hon. A. Hagen: Yes, that will be in the regulation. As we begin to debate the clauses that relate to the school calendar, I might just note that there are a number of them within the bill itself, and that there are regulations that will be proclaimed as soon as the act comes into force.
J. Dalton: The reason I asked that particular question is that, as a parent, I have always found it very helpful when my children's school sent calendars home, and not just weekly or monthly.... I know the minister is aware that it's very helpful for parents to have a calendar for the entire year hanging on the fridge, in the kitchen cupboard or wherever, so that they can look ahead with some assurance that the school will be functioning on given days, or that other, non-instructional activities are taking place. That's the reason I ask that. I do appreciate that the regulations, of course, will address the detail and some of the substance that will flow from this amending section.
I would like to move on to the standard school calendar, which will be regulated under section 96.1. By the way, these dreadful numbering systems.... For many years, as a law instructor and also in the practice of law, I always hated these things. I know that once the Queen's Printer gets around to revising all the statutes, we will happily see these things disappear. It's very awkward, as I'm sure the minister can appreciate, if you're in court or trying to instruct someone on the law, to say: "We're not dealing with 96; we're dealing with 96.1." Of course, people get lost in the numbering system.
With regard to the regulations that the minister has already stated will be forthcoming once these amendments are proclaimed into law, I have in front of me the proposed province-wide school calendar for the years '93-94 through '97-98. The minister released this in anticipation of these amendments coming forward. I have some particular questions about items that may appear on the school calendar that parents and other people, including students, would like to have some assurance concerning their meaning and what the substance of these regulations will be. For example, there is a provision listed, which is also contained in section 96.1(2)(h) -- if we can follow each other -- to set the date for the administrative day. What does the minister have in mind by an "administrative day"? I note that it is the last school day of the calendar for the '93-94 school year -- June 30.
Hon. A. Hagen: The administrative day will be defined in the regulation. It is indeed the last day in the school year in the calendar, which is set for five years; there will be an administrative day on the last day of each of those five years.
J. Dalton: Is that counted as an instructional day?
Hon. A. Hagen: No, it is not among the instructional days, but it will be within the school calendar, which includes non-instructional days, the administrative day and the days of instruction.
J. Dalton: I thank the minister for that response, because it flags another concern that many people are voicing: the number of instructional school days seems to be shrinking. In fact, if I can again refer to the proposed school calendar that I have in front of me, I see the minimum number of instructional days for the year following '93-94 will be 185, which, of course, is a shrinking from the 190 days set out in regulation 8. Before we get into some further dialogue on that, can the minister comment as to whether regulation 8 will remain intact? Can we expect to see changes with regard to that regulation?
[10:45]
Hon. A. Hagen: What we are dealing with in these amendments is in fact something that will remain intact and give us a five-year, very clear calendar, as the member has noted. Parents will be advised before the end of the previous school year about what that calendar will be in detail, and through regulations prescribing the various ways in which we will be meeting standards around the number of days and hours of instruction and the organization of the instructional week. We all know that we have had a regulation which has been a difficult one to have work. It's been a deregulated system. We are re-regulating the system and we will be dealing with new regulations. The old regulation 8 will be repealed, and we will have a new set of regulations that are consistent with this act. The number of days in the school year will, over a ten-year period, remain very consistent with what we've had over the past decade, and consistent with the number of school days that we find in every jurisdiction in Canada.
J. Dalton: In the proposed calendar for the next five years I note as well that the number of professional development days remains constant at five. That has been the case for quite a number of years now. On this proposal for school-community interaction days for the next three calendar years, I'm somewhat fearful, first, as to what these may constitute, and secondly, that they may take away from the number of in-class instructional days, which the public clearly does not want to see shrink in any way. In fact, many people would advocate that the school year be expanded, but perhaps that's an issue for another day. It would be helpful for
[ Page 6548 ]
the committee if the minister would clarify what the ministry has in mind by a school-community interaction day.
Hon. A. Hagen: The member is correct that two days are set aside for the next three years of the school calendar specifically for school and community to work on issues relating to community needs and changes within the education system. A number of districts have developed models and protocols for such work, and we have found that developmentally those communities have come a long way in respect to the working relationship between school and community. I will be setting guidelines for those days, and we have provided some resources for school districts for their use.
J. Dalton: Does the minister have in mind that these will be nine-to-five interaction days? What possibility will there be for working parents and other people to...? Let's even cast aside parents. Parents certainly have to have a large voice in our school system and the development of school policy, but I think we tend to forget that there are other people in the community, including the ever-forgotten taxpayer of whatever capacity, parent or otherwise. Will those people have an opportunity to participate in these days? We may have a good concept in mind, and many people who feel isolated or in some way denied a voice may slip through the cracks. If we're going to undertake activities of this nature, perhaps it would be more profitable that they be on a Saturday or a weekend, for example, or an evening activity.
Hon. A. Hagen: I would just like to note that the parents who assisted me in the review of our policy on school calendars were very supportive of this initiative. The way in which those days will be developed will be a local decision. I might note for the member the example of one district on Vancouver Island -- Qualicum -- where there was a combination of activities that involved an evening major presentation and a Friday that involved professionals. Students were very much involved with these days -- and they are very important to them, I think, particularly over the next two or three years as we look at the changing role of the secondary school and the business community. And there was a Saturday as well.
I agree with the member that there needs to be a variety of entry points, if you like, and opportunities to participate, not only for parents but also for students and, indeed, the broader community. These are not called parent days; they are called community days. I believe very strongly that the guidelines we set out and the initiatives of the school districts will reflect that community. It goes back to the preamble about the role of society in contributing to both the policies and programs that exist in our schools and in supporting our school initiatives. Those kinds of partnerships are key to work that we do in the ministry and that we do with our parent, business, labour and educational partners.
J. Dalton: I certainly agree with the minister's comments that partnerships and total community involvement are needed. I don't have any problem with that. In fact, I think any community in this province should welcome and look forward to the real possibility of sitting down with the other partners in education and hammering out some of the controversies and issues that we face on a day-to-day, annual or whatever other basis.
I want to come back to the point on these interaction days for a moment. With regard to the number of days, there are two provided in this proposed calendar for each of the upcoming three school years. Are these two days subtracted from the days of instruction that normally would be provided to a student?
Hon. A. Hagen: We have a school calendar, and for the next three years there will be seven days -- five professional days and two community interaction days.
J. Dalton: That confirms what I thought was the case. Not that we can do anything about it particularly right now, but I think it may cause concern with some people. Well, I guess anything that we do in the education system is going to cause somebody some concern, so that's why I don't think it's something we can pursue right now. But I would just like to go on record that we have to make sure that these days, which could be very useful for any community, are properly structured to ensure that all people in a community have the opportunity.... But the minister has rightly commented on the possibility and current examples of evenings, Saturdays and things of that nature, which I would certainly support. In fact, in looking beyond the three years in this proposed calendar, I think it might be useful in the future to think of not subtracting further from the instructional days, but allowing other opportunities for the community, such as weekend conferences and things, so that we're not robbing from the students a number of days when they should in fact be in the classroom.
I have one other point with regard to this section 5. It's subsection (3), dealing with the possibility that a local school district board may adopt, in accordance with the regulations, a school calendar that differs from the standard school calendar that is set out in this amendment, and the regulations that will follow. Is there any danger, even though guidelines will be in place, that a board may be developing things that are going to cause some concern within that community? If parents in a community hear that their board is doing something that's different from neighbouring and all other surrounding school districts, it may give rise to some criticism and complaint. I'm hopeful that we're not going to be putting in amendments to the School Act that are going to generate further controversy. Of course, we want to do things that are going to ease some of the concern. That's the particular question I would ask of the minister.
Hon. A. Hagen: I think we all recognize that what we are doing is re-regulating the calendar in a way that ensures that standards are maintained and that parents
[ Page 6549 ]
have the stability and predictability they need to have in terms of knowing what the school year is going to be.
Within that, however, we wanted to allow for some local variation, and some does exist now. The regulations will be very clear about two things: firstly, the board must follow policies in respect to consultation with the parent and employee community of an individual school or district that would be affected by any variation; and secondly, if there is a variation, it is to be entirely consistent with the standards that have been set in the regulation for the school year prescribed for all districts. So this allows for some of that flexibility. The member may know that the Cariboo-Chilcotin School District, I believe, has a school operating on a calendar that the community has chosen as being more appropriate for the work lives of many of the parents. We did not want to foreclose that possibility. But we will set out in regulations the policies and bylaws by which the board would come to that decision and then prescribe that the calendar of that school or school district be consistent with the standards that are set. In fact, the community must agree before the changes are made. So the community is to be involved in that decision through processes that the board establishes.
J. Dalton: The school that the minister is referring to is a Williams Lake school. I know the principal of that school through my rugby days. That doesn't mean he's not doing the right thing, of course; that particular example is certainly correct. I applaud what's happening in that school, and I think many districts should consider these other avenues. The school is open at other times than the normal ten months of the year that we consider. That is a very worthwhile thing for a community like Williams Lake, a ranching and forestry community that has different working and other needs. That's a very useful and excellent model, one that could be patterned....
So I appreciate that that's the provision contained in this amendment. I think that will be worthwhile, as long as we ensure the guidelines are stringent enough that there won't be any unsettling effect on neighbouring school districts or even on people within a school district.
L. Fox: I support the intent of this section, but I do have one point of clarification. As I understand the dialogue that's been going on, there may be orders-in-council that designate the specific sections under 96.1(2), and these particular designations or calendars are going to be set in concurrence with local school boards and within certain parameters.
My specific concern is specifying the dates of vacation periods and holidays within the days in session. I know the Nechako School District has recently passed a resolution in cooperation with the municipality to make its spring break fall more in line with spring breakup in the community's logging industry. I am quite sure that's going to be allowed, but I would like the minister's assurance that that kind of situation is always going to be reflected in the orders-in-council.
Hon. A. Hagen: Let me again refer the member to subsection (3) of this amendment, which clearly states that the board, in consultation with its employees and community, may set a different calendar. That is very clearly the intent, and it is to deal with exactly what the opposition Education critic and I were just talking about -- the need for discretion. The policies of the board are to be set within a community context but must be consistent with the standards set by the school calendar that will operate for most schools and districts of the province. So that is assured, and how boards must go about that is made very explicit in the regulation. But it is intended to be enabling and empowering of boards within policies that clearly reflect the agreement of the community for those changes as well, because we are setting provincial standards and a provincial calendar. If the community wants to change that, it needs to agree that that change take place. That's what is set out in this clause and the regulation.
[11:00]
H. De Jong: I would like to have a little more clarification on the five non-instructional days per year. I understand that it has been in place for some time, but is it really necessary to have five non-instructional days for professional development? First of all, is it necessary to have that many, and secondly, are the teaching staffs obligated to attend those so-called professional days?
Hon. A. Hagen: First of all, let me answer the second question. Teachers are obligated to attend the professional days, and the requirements in respect to them will be set by regulation. I would just note that we are in a time of very significant change in our society, and our schools are working to effectively train and educate our children for a changed society. I think we all recognize that there are requirements for the people who work within the school system to have time to develop and do in-service preparation for those changes. I believe that the professional days and the community interaction days are a very important part of the school doing its job well for our children.
H. De Jong: I assume that most teachers are very concerned about and dedicated to their task. A businessman in our community who hires a lot of students out of high school tells me that most of them cannot figure out, without a calculator, the 7 percent sales tax on a relatively minor purchase. When the teachers have five professional days, surely they must have some concern about those matters expressed by such a businessman. It must also be a concern to parents.
That leads me into my other question about the community interaction days. I know that our independent school in the Abbotsford area has two community interaction days. They are normal school days. The teacher is doing a normal job within the classroom as usual, and the parents can sit in the back of the room and witness what is going on. Beyond that, there are two evenings. Being the large school that it is, they split up the families alphabetically so that one half
[ Page 6550 ]
comes one night and the other half comes the other night, if they wish to talk to the teachers about a child or about the general school program. Those days are extremely well organized, and certainly much appreciated by the parents as well as by the teaching staff.
I'm just wondering if that same type of procedure is followed within the public school system. I hear from a lot of parents in our community who are sending their children to the public schools, and there seems to be very little interest by the parents. Can something be done so that this interest can be stimulated in a more effective way?
Hon. A. Hagen: Just as the member has defined how the independent schools set up their working relationships with their communities, local school districts do that as well -- earlier on I talked about a couple of models. I believe there is a wide variety of ways in which parents and the broader community can and should be involved. The intent of our school calendar is to provide for those opportunities, to provide some broad guidelines for those to occur, and to recognize, just as the member has, how important it is for the community of parents and the broader community to be involved in understanding what's going on in the school system, to contribute to changes that will improve it and to assist our students in learning.
H. De Jong: I appreciate the minister's answer. However, the minister did not get back to the first part of my comments. I suppose it comes back to the three R's in education. Even though I can appreciate that with the Year 2000 program professional development days are perhaps essential, at the same time I don't feel that real education -- so children's minds can be used, instead of calculators -- should be neglected.
Hon. A. Hagen: Hon. Chair, perhaps the member's question is beyond the scope of this particular amendment and more related to the estimates debates. I think we had considerable discussion, during the five days we spent on the Education estimates, on some of the issues he's now raising.
Section 5 approved.
On section 6.
L. Fox: This refers to many of the concerns I have with this bill around the development of school sites, the property tax and the assessment portion of that, and the formula by which the property tax is collected for school purposes. I recognize that in the context of this debate, it's very difficult to get into the issue of assessment versus other means of collecting taxes. I would ask the minister if her ministry and government are presently re-examining the whole assessment process and how it applies to fairness in school taxation, just as a general concept, given that we are talking about the Assessment Act.
Hon. A. Hagen: No, I can't respond to the member's question in that regard, but I can advise him that this is a straight housekeeping amendment. It brings under one statute all of the clauses that relate to taxation so that they are in one place, and it ties in with other acts. So it's strictly a housekeeping amendment to make it easier for you when you are looking at the act: you will not have to go to several different places in order to review the policies relating to taxation of school property.
L. Fox: I recognize what the amendment does. But I guess what I was trying to get at was: if we were looking at a fair way of assessing taxation for school purposes -- something that better represents the ability of the taxpayer to pay -- then we wouldn't need this proposed housekeeping amendment with respect to the Assessment Act. It was on that basis that I asked that question.
Sections 6 and 7 approved.
On section 8.
J. Dalton: I don't have any problem with the provision in here that community plans should keep in mind the needs of school districts. I'm wondering whether some of the language in this amending section couldn't be tightened up a bit. For example, when I read that "the school district shall...with a view to rendering that capital plan consistent with those community plans...." "With a view" is a very wide term. It doesn't really have any precision to it to tie down that the school district's planning and the community planning will in fact be in concert.
Another provision in the new section 156(2)(b) is: "...consult in respect of those community plans...." Consultation is fine, but consultation doesn't necessarily result in any changes. I'm just wondering whether some of the language.... Maybe it's deliberately expressed in this way to leave it somewhat open-ended.
Hon. A. Hagen: Fundamentally, what we're doing here is legislating good practice and ensuring that school districts are involved with the requirement of municipalities to develop a community plan. The document that we're talking about is the municipal community plan, and there is a responsibility that the district be aware of those developments and that those consultations do take place. There are comparable amendments to the Municipal Act and other related acts that tie into this -- municipal legislation, the Vancouver Charter, the Islands Trust and so on are all being amended to reflect this. What we're really saying is that we need to be sure that school districts are involved in the community planning. It can only assist us, I believe, if the sites and the amenities that might be associated with those sites are a part of a good planning process. A community plan does develop out of a consultation process in the designated communities, whether they are old and being revitalized or new and just developing.
[ Page 6551 ]
L. Fox: With respect to this section, it's clear to me that because this practice is happening throughout the province now, this is only in place as a first step. There will be a later one that allows the school boards to partake in a share of land upon subdivision, similar to what the Municipal Act presently allows municipalities to take for recreation and parks. It's clear to me that this is part and parcel of the development of that process. This concerns me, because as long as the assessment is a basis for collecting taxes for school purposes, this particular type of initiative -- and it's where this particular legislation is going -- is going to drive up land costs.
One of the largest factors in development, for individuals to achieve their home and the quality of life built around owning your own home, is land costs. Any time one looks upon a process that is going to drive up those land costs, one has to be concerned. I see this as a first step in that process. I've been on both sides of the spectrum, and I know very well the role that school boards play in local community planning -- a very important role. I've seen it not only in my community and on my school board, but throughout the province. I'm concerned that this is a first step towards that kind of subdivision requirement. If not, I would like the minister to assure me now that it isn't.
[11:15]
Hon. A. Hagen: I think the member is making presumptions that are not demonstrable. What we fundamentally need to be concerned about is that school districts are involved in land acquisition that is an important part of any kind of community development. We need to be assured, therefore, that there is good practice so that school districts are involved in that planning phase for the siting of a school, which is as important a part to a community -- as I know, hearing from communities that are developing -- as anything you could imagine. The siting of a school in that community at a reasonable cost and in an appropriate place is something that is an integral part of planning.
The member is quite correct: in many communities, that planning has in fact been in place for a long time. What we are doing here is legislating that good practice. Just as municipalities are required to develop community plans, school districts are required to be a part of that development. And I believe that is good planning practice and can only assist in the development of communities, in the availability of the necessary amenities in a community -- of which a school is a very important part -- and in where that school should be sited and available at a reasonable cost.
The presumption that you are making is not related to this amendment. We are not dealing with that issue; we're dealing with the practice of planning for an essential amenity in a community as the community is being planned. One of those essential amenities -- depending on the community -- may be a school. It's very likely to be.
L. Fox: The minister mentioned one key term in her response, and that was property acquisition. It gives me cause for concern in that I was correct -- because planning is not acquisition. Planning is making provisions for location of facilities and so on, but it doesn't include acquisition. But the minister said acquisition. So if she could assure me that this is not part and parcel of a plan in which this minister or this ministry is looking at twinning what's allowed under municipal law -- dedication of 5 percent of any subdivision over three lots -- that her ministry is not looking at that particular opportunity with the idea of twinning it for the purposes of generating school sites, then I would be satisfied.
Hon. A. Hagen: Let me be clear -- and I appreciate the member's sensitivity to language -- that we are talking here about a planning process that recognizes that a school site is a part of planning for a community. The recognition of the need for there to be a place for a school as part of an official community plan is what this amendment is intended to address, and that alone. So we're into a planning process for the community. The member is asking whether this amendment says there is something happening around the dedication of school sites. This amendment does not deal with the dedication of school sites. It deals with a planning process where the school district is required to be a part of that discussion and a part of the evolution of a community plan. If he is talking about how we then get that site, that is not a part of this particular amendment.
L. Fox: I recognize that that is not a part of this particular amendment. But would the minister agree that if some kind of initiative like that were to come forward, this type of process would have to be in legislation in order to accommodate that type of initiative -- that subdivision?
Hon. A. Hagen: As the member has noted, most districts have a process in place. What this is doing is legislating that good practice.
L. Fox: I don't want to be difficult, but obviously there's a reason for legislating something which in fact could be dealt with in policy and certainly in regulation. The minister seems unwilling to answer the question, so obviously that unwillingness points out that my suspicions are correct. When I look at the initiative and what was sent to the minister as a background document on the issue from the BCSTA, I can respect where we're going and why this particular amendment is here. I cannot understand the unwillingness of the minister to at least agree that this is a first step in a long line of processes which will allow acquisition of property for school purposes at subdivision, at the expense of the landowner, because obviously this legislation has to be in place as a first step to develop the procedure that eventually will end up with that particular initiative in place.
[ Page 6552 ]
Hon. A. Hagen: Hon. Chair, although we're moving beyond the scope of the amendment, school sites are a part of a community plan. Policies with respect to the development of those school sites should be discussed by governments and municipalities. I anticipate that those discussions will go on in respect of community planning. There may indeed be future policies in that regard, but the member assumes a policy direction that is not intended in this amendment. We are talking about good planning for school sites that will provide us with a means for those sites to be acquired -- at what I hope the member would expect to be a reasonable cost.
If he's asking if there is an assumption that there is some means to acquire these according to a policy that applies to parklands as an end result, the answer is that there is not encompassed in this amendment, nor is there an intent for there to be, a specific policy that he foresees as an outcome of this. We are talking about the fact that we have a growing province. We have over $1 billion in capital funding for school districts. We have sites that need to be well placed and planned in the context of the broader community facilities so that we are able to combine community facilities. All of those are a part of good planning.
The member is fixated on one particular issue that I presume may at some time be debated, but the assumption that there is a foregone outcome of this is incorrect. We are looking at school sites being part of community planning. I'm looking at school sites that may have a community centre or park next to them so that we're sharing facilities all of the time. All of those things now are legislated as good practice in this amendment.
Section 8 approved.
On section 9.
G. Farrell-Collins: I just have a couple of questions. They relate specifically to section 9, but also, in light of the changes under section 7 of this bill, to the amendments to section 155 of the act. I'm wondering why the minister needs to make these changes. According to the piece of legislation she has brought in, section 7 was brought in to require a board to "comply with ministerial orders when engaging in a tendering process relative to capital expenditures." Section 9 permits the minister to "make orders establishing methods for handling a tendering process relating to a capital expenditure by a board and designating the purposes for which one or more non-instructional periods may be scheduled." I'm essentially concerned with the words "policy" and "tendering process." Perhaps I can just ask the minister an open question as to why there is a need for this amendment. Was the minister not able to set these policies before and have them followed through on?
Hon. A. Hagen: We passed the previous one, but let me just respond to it as well. These are fundamentally technical amendments. The first one gives a power that used to be in a regulation under the old act. There was some lack of clarity about that power still being there, so it's now explicitly stated in the new act. With respect to section 9, it gives power to existing practices, and on advice, that there should be the legislative authority for those practices to be carried out. They are technical amendments to existing practices, and something that we do each year in tidying up our legislative authority to carry out those policies and practices.
G. Farrell-Collins: I'm assuming that if there is a need to move these policies and practices from a policy point of view or regulation into actual legislation, that the advice you said you received would say that.... I don't know to what extent the advice was profound. Is it just a matter of cleaning up, or was there some question of whether these policies or practices could be subject to challenge at some time in the future -- or at present?
Hon. A. Hagen: We're dealing with current policies and practices. This gives those rules a legislative authority.
G. Farrell-Collins: The government is engaged in a fair wage policy, which applies to capital projects over half a million dollars. Is the intent in tightening this up to put it into legislation...? I know there is a strong feeling in the construction industry that those policies are both unwise and unfair. I know there have been efforts to follow the policy and to protest it at every possible opportunity, both legally and politically. I'm wondering if this being brought into legislation is to try and head off some of that opposition out in the public.
Hon. A. Hagen: We have already dealt with the fair wage order. This deals with current policies and practices of our ministry and gives the legislative authority for them to exist. Legislative counsel looks to those kinds of technical amendments to assist us in providing that authority.
G. Farrell-Collins: Perhaps I misunderstood the minister. The minister said that we had already dealt with the fair wage policy. In what sense did you mean that: internally within the ministry or within the legislation that is here before us?
Hon. A. Hagen: There is a fair wage order that governs our ministry in respect of our capital projects, and that is extant. This now gives a legislative authority for that order.
G. Farrell-Collins: That's essentially the gist of the question I was asking. The order is in place and has been in place for a little over a year now, I guess, and the minister has dealt with it, in putting out that order; and the intent of this is to give legislative force to the order. My question is: if the order was working, if the order was fine and if the order was sustainable from both a political and a legal sense, then why the need to put it into legislation?
[ Page 6553 ]
Hon. A. Hagen: Perhaps I could just clarify that the fair wage order that we're talking about is one that is designed to provide fair and open bidding for school capital projects. So it's a broad order, which I have the right to make. We are looking at clarifying that there is always a legislative flow-through for those orders. As I say, it's a technical tidying up and clarification of this area. We tend to find this almost every year, as we look at ways in which that legislative authority for the ministerial orders which I have a right to make is clearly defined.
[11:30]
L. Fox: Section 9 seems to permit the minister to make orders establishing a method for handling the tendering process for capital expenditures of the board. As I understand it, the ministry has always had the opportunity to approve capital projects in the planning stages and throughout the process. This seems to be a little more broad than that, and I'm concerned. The present process for most if not all school building is that the contracts and tender forms are let out by the respective construction associations, and generally handled through those associations, including the opening of the tender forms with the associations present. I hope it is not the intent here that the minister will do anything that would take away from that particular process.
Hon. A. Hagen: It is certainly not the intent to have that effect, and there are orders that deal in a very clear way with those fair and open bidding processes. I repeat: this provides a clearer legislative authority for that very outcome that the member has just defined.
H. De Jong: This amendment talks about establishing policies and procedures that are to be followed by the boards. Can the minister suggest some current procedures that are not acceptable to the government? What's the point of having this clause in here if there is no concern about the present policies and procedures in the tendering process? Could the minister be clear about her real concerns?
Hon. A. Hagen: Perhaps the member will recall that the new School Act came into effect in 1989, and we have orders that go back to old language and the old school act. What we're doing now is clarifying the legislative authority under the new act for those existing orders and practices. This is a strictly technical tidying up, if you like, in the transition that is still going on between the old and the new.
H. De Jong: I'm not so sure I can accept what the minister has said. From the response to the query from the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove, I feel strongly that this is nothing more than an amendment to make the rules and regulations union-friendly. If in fact that is the intent, it is not a fair process.
Hon. A. Hagen: To assist the member, the order regarding tendering procedures for construction contracts goes back to 1984 and is related to the old school act. This is an amendment that gives legislative authority under the new School Act for that extant order.
J. Dalton: Just one question about the other part of section 9 that we haven't commented on. The minister will now have the power to specify the purpose of non-instructional periods. Can the minister give us any indication of the sort of specific purpose that might be in mind?
Hon. A. Hagen: This section of the act lists the powers of the minister. We're talking here about the two interaction days that we talked about earlier. So although it's difficult to follow -- we would have liked to have had everything relating to the school calendar in one clause -- it ties back into my having the authority to set guidelines for those days. In this particular case, it's my intention to provide very specific guidelines for the community interaction days, and this gives me the authority to do that.
Sections 9 to 11 inclusive approved.
On section 12.
Hon. A. Hagen: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.
[SECTION 12, in the proposed definition of "school calendar provisions" in the proposed subsection (1) by adding ", 182(2)(j.3)" after "96.1" and by adding "and orders" after "regulations".]
[SECTION 12.1, by adding the following section:
Transitional
12.1 (1) Section 96 of the School Act as enacted by this Act does not apply to the 1992-1993 school year.
(2) On or before June 25, 1993, a board shall, for each school in its school district, make available to every parent of a student in the school the standard school calendar set by the Lieutenant Governor in Council under section 96.1 of the School Act as enacted by this Act.
(3) On or before September 30, 1993, a board shall, for each school in its school district,
(a) make available, in accordance with the regulations, a school calendar for the 1993-1994 school year to every parent of a student in the school, and
(b) specify for the 1993-1994 school year the information referred to in section 96(b)(i) to (iv) of the School Act as enacted by this Act.]
On the amendment.
J. Dalton: This transitional section will have an override on current agreements, which will have the effect of levelling the playing field so that all districts will be caught by the same provisions. Given the rather unsettled atmosphere and environment in many school districts now, I'm wondering whether this might not exacerbate the situation, not clarify it. I would submit to the minister that many of the local teacher associations are flexing their muscles, shall we say, and they may not be very happy to see that collective agreements are
[ Page 6554 ]
going to be given an override by this amendment to section 12.
Hon. A. Hagen: We have a responsibility to set the standards for the school year and the instruction that is available to students. That has always been the intent of the act and it is the intent of this legislation. The intent of the amendments we have been dealing with is to ensure that we have a consistent, stable school calendar with the necessary flexibility that we spoke about for individual school districts to make changes within the act and the regulations. I have no intention of having a patchwork quilt or ongoing issues relating to this matter. It's clearly the responsibility of government to set a standard and to bring stability into the system. That is the intent of these amendments, and I intend to ensure that that is the outcome. Every part of the legislation has been carefully reviewed to ensure that that outcome will take place.
J. Dalton: While I certainly agree that we have to have consistency and ensure that the entire system is functioning harmoniously, maybe it would not be an unfair comment to say that -- given the unhealthy atmosphere in the school system right now -- perhaps this objective, even though it is laudable, may not be entirely achievable. That's just a follow-up comment.
Hon. A. Hagen: Let me just comment that the policies relating to these particular amendments have been well canvassed, and I believe the public expects stability and clarity to reign. I believe that goal has wide public support.
Amendment approved.
Section 12 as amended approved.
Sections 13 to 16 inclusive approved.
Hon. A. Hagen: Procedurally, hon. Chair, I just want to be certain that we did deal with the amendment to section 12. Have we actually dealt with 12.1 as an amendment?
The Chair: Yes, the amendment to section 12 was passed and section 12 as amended was passed.
Sections 17 to 20 inclusive approved.
Hon. A. Hagen: To be absolutely certain, because we are dealing with an amending bill.... My officials are concerned that we have not necessarily dealt with the addition. If we could just go back, are we absolutely certain in terms of our record that we have passed section 12 as amended, and that we have dealt with section 12.1, which is an addition? My officials are not certain that we have covered all of that. I don't want to get lost on a technicality, but I also want to be sure that we have dealt with all of those areas.
The Chair: Thank you, hon. minister. If the committee will just permit me a moment to review....
Hon. members, the concern is with respect to section 12 and the amendment. The Chair did call for the amendment separately. The vote was affirmative, and it was passed. Then the Chair called for the question on section 12 as amended. I guess the issue is that section 12.1 should have been put by itself, not as an amendment, because that was a separate matter. However, both were passed. I believe the procedure is satisfactory. There should be no technical difficulties with that.
J. Dalton: I can understand the minister's concern. I believe the record will reflect that we have also put through the amendment 12.1. That's the concern the minister had. I guess it comes back to the point I made earlier about these wretched decimal points in the sections. That's the very confusion right there. Otherwise, I don't think this point would have occurred. I'm satisfied if the record reflects that the amendment 12.1 has also been passed.
Title approved.
Hon. A. Hagen: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Bill 19, School Amendment Act, 1993, reported complete with amendment.
The Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third time?
Hon. G. Clark: With leave of the House now, hon. Speaker.
Leave granted.
Bill 19, School Amendment Act, 1993, read a third time and passed on division.
Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. G. Clark: I call second reading of Bill 8.
SOCIAL SERVICE TAX AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1993
Hon. G. Clark: This bill reimposes the tax on legal services that was originally introduced in the 1992 budget. There was a court decision. We had originally designed the bill to try to protect lawyers from any competitive disadvantage that might arise as a result of this. Unfortunately -- I think it's unfortunate -- the Law Society chose to challenge that section on the basis that it was too vague. That particular section was designed, as I say, to protect lawyers. The courts agreed that on tax policy questions, vagueness is a concern and struck down the legislation. This deals with that
[ Page 6555 ]
concern. It makes the law extremely clear and reimposes it. It's projected to generate $40 million. With that, I move second reading.
F. Gingell: I'm well prepared to speak on Bill 4, but I'll have to double up, multiply it by two and speak on Bill 8.
Hon. Speaker, I believe that the debate on Bill 8 is going to take some time. This is a bill that the official opposition and the Social Credit Party had no problem seeing eye to eye in opposing very strongly. It is a bill that clearly takes out a single group of professionals and puts a tax on it. It's clearly discriminatory -- one of the factors, I understand, that caused the Court of Appeal of British Columbia to rule the bill ultra vires.
Seeing that the time is drawing close to noon, I'd like to just make that very brief introduction and speak further to the bill this afternoon. With that I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.
Motion approved.
Hon. G. Clark moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 11:50 a.m.
The House in Committee of Supply A; D. Streifel in the chair.
The Committee met at 10:13 a.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT, LANDS AND PARKS
(continued)
On vote 32: minister's office, $375,354 (continued).
W. Hurd: Sometime last week I was briefly into a line of questioning regarding the new pulp mill effluent guidelines in the province, specifically the requirement that the 25 mills in the province were to have furnished the ministry with their plans for meeting the new AOX guidelines for chlorinated organics that are discharged in effluent. The minister confirmed at that time that those plans have been received by the ministry. I wonder if the minister could clarify the cost involved to the pulp industry. This issue was raised in estimates a year ago, and figures of anywhere from $700 million to $1 billion in additional capital expenditures were identified by the industry at that time. Having had the benefit of reviewing those plans, can the minister advise the committee of the approximate capital expenditures that will be required by that industry to meet those new guidelines?
[10:15]
Hon. J. Cashore: With the effort that has gone into meeting the previous standard of 2.5, it is my understanding that the industry, in doing some fine-tuning and tightening up around those measures, is going to be able to achieve the 1.5. In terms of quantifying that cost, it would be very close to the cost that had been estimated to achieve the 2.5 -- probably with some additional cost. We can get a figure on that, although I would expect some discrepancy between the industry figure and what our officials estimate on that. With regard to the total cost of achieving zero by the year 2002, that, of course, is subject to the ongoing dialogue in the multi-stakeholder consultative process, which is getting into process. So that's not possible to quantify with any specificity at this time.
W. Hurd: Can the minister advise us whether his ministry has received reports from MacMillan Bloedel's Powell River division and the Port Alberni pulp mill as to how they are going to achieve the 1.5 kilogram level, much less the zero discharge? In reviewing the plans put forward by the pulp mills, is he satisfied that those two mills specifically are in the same category as the others in terms of their ability and preparedness to meet the stringent guidelines?
Hon. J. Cashore: The information I have is that Powell River has submitted plans and is on track to meet the 1.5 by the specified date. Port Alberni has announced, I believe primarily for economic reasons, that it intends to shut down its pulp operation sometime during the next year. So in that case it would not be submitting such a plan.
[D. Schreck in the chair.]
W. Hurd: I have a further line of questioning with respect to the AOX levels and the target by the ministry of achieving zero discharge by the year 2002. The minister will be aware, from his own state-of-the-environment report, of a significant reduction in the measured volume of dioxin and furan in the waters of British Columbia. How does the ministry acknowledge or explain the fact that without the new guidelines there appears to have been a significant reduction to a level that Health and Welfare Canada has determined to be not in any way a threat or a concern to public health? Does he take this data to mean that the new guidelines of zero discharge, or spending the money to get from 1.5 to zero, may in fact carry very little additional benefit to the public in terms of protecting health, fish stocks, seabirds and other types of marine life and mammals in the province? Can he see any additional benefits, in other words, of spending that kind of additional capital for rather dubious -- or a lack of identifiable -- benefits to the environment?
[ Page 6556 ]
Hon. J. Cashore: Had the precautionary principle been followed at an earlier stage, we may have avoided the tragic consequences of the dioxins and furans, which then resulted in the requirement for health advisories. That's why the former government was in the position of having to scramble to try to catch up with a situation that had been allowed to get out of hand -- because of not having the precautionary principle in place.
I think it should be made very clear that when government follows a precautionary principle, it is not grabbed out of the air; it's actually a time-honoured principle affirmed by a great body of scientists. All you have to do is think of the scientists involved in the work of the Club of Rome. I think, therefore, that this principle has decided a preventive, appropriate approach for the province to take to avoid problems on the balance of probabilities before they're created. It's also an approach that, admittedly and appropriately, has an economic aspect to it. It is going to enable British Columbian products to have a major niche in the markets of those parts of the world that are becoming more sophisticated in the environmental consciousness of their purchasing policies.
W. Hurd: I'm glad the minister brought up the issue of a body of science, because he'll be aware of the considerable work that's been done by Health and Welfare Canada on the relative threat of dioxin levels to human health. Based on that ample body of scientific evidence and, indeed, the exhaustive work that has been done by the federal government, they are prepared to accept levels of 2.5 kilograms of AOX per metric tonne of finished pulp -- levels considerably different than the guidelines in B.C. I guess my question is a logical one: has the ministry reviewed the Health and Welfare data from the federal government? Can he offer the committee an explanation as to why that body of evidence has been rejected by his ministry in establishing guidelines for B.C., which appear to be different from virtually any other jurisdiction, certainly in North America but even around the world?
Hon. J. Cashore: The flaw in the hon. member's argument is to say that there's an ample body of scientific evidence. Yes, we have examined the data from Health and Welfare Canada, but to suggest that the scientific data is ample is really incorrect, and it tends to create a sense of false confidence. The fact is that there's a tremendous gap in terms of the kinds of scientific studies that need to be done in order to be able to give a definitive answer to a wide range of issues; therefore, the precautionary principle is in that place for exactly that reason.
The hon. member refers to his extrapolation from that data that 2.5 is adequate. I think he should clarify that for the record. We've stated, for the record, what our standard is. We've received criticism for it, we've received heat for it, and we've also received credit for it , but it's out there. We've been willing to stand up and be counted. I think this hon. member, on behalf of the Liberal Party, should stand up and be counted, and say what their standard is.
C. Serwa: Just to follow along that line of questioning, can the minister advise me of the status of the reports that the former administration commissioned from Simon Fraser University and the University of British Columbia to study dioxins and the impact of organochlorines on fisheries or wildlife habitat. What is the status of those two studies that were commissioned to get factual scientific evidence to give us a determination of an acceptable level of dioxins for the environment?
Hon. J. Cashore: The studies that the hon. member refers to were receiving quite a bit of publicity at the time that his government was under a lot of heat over a former premier backing down on a cabinet decision with regard to organochlorine levels. That government at that time gave a lot of publicity to how helpful those studies were going to be. The fact is that the studies were not concomitant with the amount of hype that that government gave them. There has been some work done; Simon Fraser University has done some research ensuing from that process with regard to levels of dioxins in the Fraser River. That study is up for peer review right now -- I haven't seen it. There has been some other work done, but it is certainly not the comprehensive piece of work that the hon. member refers to that is producing a definitive result with regard to the issue of organochlorines.
C. Serwa: I'm not certain whether the Minister of Environment is indicating that the research scientists and professors at our institutions such as Simon Fraser and the University of British Columbia are inept or incompetent. It was my understanding that the study would be full, complete and comprehensive, giving some sort of objective, factual basis for the government coming in as to what is a reasonable and acceptable level of organochlorine discharge into the water in British Columbia.
At the time that the original legislation was passed, the level was set at 2.5 kilos. The thought at that time was that if there was scientific evidence that warranted more stringent regulations -- going down to perhaps the 1.5 level -- then the regulations would be changed. It didn't seem reasonable to go to a hyperreaction for a shallow public environmental support without a firm scientific basis, because the cost to the industry was very substantial -- well over $1 billion to achieve the 2.5 level. We all recognize that probably the greatest export of the province is fibre and wood products from our pulp and paper industry, as well as from our solid wood manufacturing.
We had to be really prudent. Surely the Minister of Environment is responsible for not only ensuring a quality of life but ensuring that British Columbians continue to have an abundant quantity of life as well. Simply to go over on some sort of a reactionary position and to be proud of it, without any firm foundation, is completely unrealistic, unreasonable and uncaring with respect to the economy. It's just as bad to err on that particular side as it is to err on any other side of the question when there should be factual scientific evidence.
[ Page 6557 ]
In the state-of-the-environment report, it is abundantly clear that the decided-upon level of 2.5 has dramatically reduced the dioxins found in the flesh of fish in the lower Fraser River and apparently in the bottom fish in the estuary of the Fraser River system, so it appears it has achieved fairly substantive results. Certainly the question is still out, but for the Minister of Environment to go out on a limb and pick some random level that to him is acceptable simply because the environmentalists call for it, without the basis of scientific evidence, is completely unrealistic and unreasonable. I ask the minister once more: what exactly happened to those studies? They were expensive studies, and they were commissioned at the two universities. What has happened? Did this government terminate those studies?
[10:30]
Hon. J. Cashore: I am advised that the studies were completed as they had been designed to be completed, and it is inappropriate to suggest that anything I said implied that there was any ineptness or incompetence on the part of the scientists doing those studies. The opposite is the case. What was inept and incompetent was the former government trying to create the public perception that something was happening and had been commissioned that in fact was not happening and hadn't been commissioned. This was damage control right exactly at the time of the transition between John Reynolds and the Socred Environment critic, who succeeded John Reynolds. While this particular minister says that it was completely unnecessary to follow the precautionary principle, that certainly wasn't John Reynolds's position. He was willing to have the courage to lose his position in cabinet over it because he was willing to stand up for a principle, which unfortunately was not the case for the remainder of that cabinet.
C. Serwa: That's certainly very interesting. It is a nice little bit of political rhetoric. The minister is ill-informed about the reason for the decision.
Interjection.
The Chair: Order!
C. Serwa: The decision that the cabinet made was the realistic and reasonable decision. The commitment was made by Premier Vander Zalm to go to 1.5 kilos if evidence supported it. But perhaps the Minister of the Environment can tell me why the studies that were commissioned did not fulfil the scientific evidence required. What fell short? It seemed to me that there was a substantial amount of funding -- whether it was $2 million or $2.5 million, it was a very significant sum of money -- directed toward those scientific studies of what were realistic and reasonable levels achievable with the current market demand and technology.
[D. Streifel in the chair.]
What went wrong with those studies? It wasn't a scratching in desperation but a requirement for firm figures and evidence. We couldn't use the figures used in Sweden, for example. The minister must recognize that in many cases in Sweden they use a different type of fibre -- a hardwood fibre from birch trees and other hardwoods -- and the levels can be substantially lower than the softwood fibre that we in British Columbia use at present for the production of pulp and paper. What was the difficulty with the studies?
Hon. J. Cashore: The hon. member is not correct to say that $2 million was addressed to that specific topic; it was $500,000. The point that he is making confirms my point that there are tremendous gaps with regard to the science. To give you an idea of the scale of this, the industry itself in Canada has invested $10 million in this research, and the results of that research are still being reviewed. There's no definitive response to that. We're arguing over whether or not we should be following the precautionary principle. It's my understanding, from research that has been done, that the discharge is still toxic to ecosystems. There's still reason to be concerned about it. The argument between the opposition and me is over whether or not there is a comprehensive body of evidence. I'm saying there isn't; you're saying there is. We disagree on that point. I'm saying that because there isn't, we need to take a precautionary approach. Had we taken a precautionary approach in the past, we would have avoided some of the tragic consequences that resulted.
I think the hon. member also needs to realize that most of the market won't accept pulp with more than 1.5 kilograms of AOX, and that markets in this case have overridden other factors. One thing that's really unfortunate is that as the technology is developing, we're still purchasing technology from other countries, when B.C. could be a world-class producer of value-added, environmentally clean technologies that would be marketed around the world. Therefore it would behoove members of the opposition to get on board with following a precautionary approach, highlighting B.C. in its rightful niche as an environmental leader in the world and enabling that to enhance our reputation and help us economically in a great many ways.
C. Serwa: Perhaps the minister can advise me whether he is being proactive in his precautionary approach, or is he simply moving a figure that he's satisfied with way out? What is the ministry actually doing? What assessments of information are they doing? What studies has the minister commissioned to confirm his precautionary approach stance? What is actually happening at the present time? Anything? Or is the minister just idling along and hoping that somebody will come up with some sort of figure that he finds acceptable and ultimately -- perhaps by default -- goes in accordance with? Is the ministry actually doing anything on their own, in the studies and the searches, with that, or are they just sitting quietly?
[ Page 6558 ]
Hon. J. Cashore: I think the member was in the position long enough to realize that his staff at that time and my staff at this time don't sit idly doing nothing. This consists of some very well-trained scientists and people with expertise in the field, as this member well knows. I'm sure he would not want to besmirch the reputation of any of these people. They don't do this work on their own; they do it in concert with a body of information that is taking place throughout North America and also on a worldwide scale. They attend conferences dealing with the cutting-edge development of the science in this area. They are in constant contact with their colleagues who are also studying this area. They are working with the information that COFI and the federal government have in this area. So there's a tremendous amount of work going on.
Again, it comes back to the basic disagreement we have where one side of the House says there is ample scientific evidence, and I'm saying there is not ample scientific evidence. It's admittedly very costly to get the evidence we need, but there are tremendous gaps out there. A lot of work still needs to be done, and it behooves us in the interests of future generations to take the appropriate precautions that we should be taking so that we avoid the mistakes of the past, which resulted in health warnings, loss of jobs in the fishing industry, and so forth.
I wish that the hon. members could read the mail I get from groups such as the sssfood association, which makes its living from oyster culture, a growing industry. I'm sure that the people on the Sunshine Coast are very concerned about water-quality issues and are recognizing that there are tremendous opportunities for economic growth based on having taken precautions to protect the water quality and on the benefits of the good reputation we should be developing because of our willingness to take courageous stands on environmental issues.
An Hon. Member: Let me tell you about a few of....
C. Serwa: I know now why these desks are a little more than two sword lengths apart. There seems to be a fair bit of sparring here at the moment. Nevertheless, I'll continue in my line of questioning.
The minister expresses his concern with the damage of organochlorines in the ecosystem. We are looking at the level of the new regulations, down to 1.5, and ultimately the wish -- and rightfully so -- is a zero discharge into the environment. What is the minister's thought with respect to a concentration of mills, not necessarily in a coastal area but in the Fraser River area or the Prince George area? You have a finite volume of water running through, and you have four or five pulp mills all with that level discharging into that body of water, conforming to the minister's requirements.
What is the rationale for not taking into consideration the number of mills -- if the minister is so concerned -- tightening up the restrictions on those particular mills that are tightly concentrated and giving more latitude to those that are not? Where is the commonsense approach in that?
Hon. J. Cashore: I find it incomprehensible that this member would be criticizing this government for the policies and allocations obtained during the period of history his government was in power. Of course those are important issues, and we have to be addressing that very carefully. One of the ways in which we are addressing it is -- and, again, it's future policy, hon. Chair, but if you will bear with me -- we are moving toward environmental assessment legislation. Obviously we have to be assessing any major construction within the province in terms of the very point that this hon. member is making. We have to consider the concentration and the ability of the ecosystem to be able to manage that.
Meantime, if the question is focused on what we are doing because of the problems that have been created by a concentration as a result of policies of the former government, it's a good point. We have to be monitoring that very carefully, and we are.
W. Hurd: I found the minister's discussion about AOX, organochlorines and effluent to be rather intriguing. The minister will be aware, of course, that there is a whole range of environmental issues that are relative to pulp mills in the province. By forcing the industry to spend upwards of $1 billion for dubious environmental benefit -- at the expense of air emission standards and other types of issues that pulp mills have to address -- is folly in the extreme, Mr. Chairman -- absolute and utter folly. For the minister to suggest that Health and Welfare Canada, which is mandated by the federal government to protect the health of Canadians, is a body of scientific knowledge which his ministry isn't prepared to apparently accept either is almost equally baffling.
Can the minister advise the committee of the number of instances when pulp mills have been allowed to exceed their waste management permits for air emissions as opposed to effluent guidelines? I think that's a significant question that will highlight the importance of addressing air quality issues, and the fact that this minister's approach on the whole range of pulp mill issues is actually going to have the effect of decreasing the ability of pulp mills to address the air quality issue. Perhaps he could advise us of the instances when pulp mills have been allowed to exceed their air emission standards as opposed to their effluent standards?
[10:45]
Hon. J. Cashore: If the hon. member was really interested in that, he would do the research to access readily available information that is publicly released every six months. It outlines the exceedences with regard to air permits and other discharges in the province. It was under my pressure, when I was the Environment critic, that the Social Credit government finally agreed to start releasing this information. To their credit, they did so in a manner that provided a greater disclosure than I think exists anywhere else in Canada. We have enhanced that process and carried it on: it's out there for all to see. It is interesting that I'm being asked questions about detail that's public
[ Page 6559 ]
information. I also think that that member has access to that information which we routinely send to him when we produce those reports.
With regard to some of the data on pulp mill effluent, Renate Kroesa, who used to work for Greenpeace and who is quite well known as an environmental biologist, has filed a report on the pulp mill technology workshop in North Carolina. We would be quite happy to make that report available. That conference was attended by stakeholders from all over the industry. One of the things that was really encouraging was that the debate spent very little time on whether or not we should be moving towards a zero discharge issue; it spent its time talking about the newly developed technologies that are available to produce zero discharge, and debating how to identify the best of those technologies in order to access the emerging markets in this area.
When you combine the scientifically blessed precautionary principle -- a principle that's affirmed by the Club of Rome, which is made up of scientists -- with the economic opportunities of enhancing our world reputation as the Geneva of the environment here in British Columbia, we have a win-win situation of a pristine environment -- or the highest possibly quality environment -- on the one hand, and on the other hand we are accessing economic opportunities that would obtain because of our diligence in protecting that reputation.
W. Hurd: I must say that scientifically blessed precautionary principles is a phrase that almost sounds to me like plausible deniability, which was a political phrase used in other jurisdictions.
I think the minister has completely missed the rationale for my line of questioning. Briefly, I asked him, in terms of the standards that his ministry sets for pulp mill pollution issues: is it not a fact that pulp mills exceed their air quality emission standards far more often than they do effluent standards? Can the minister at least confirm that, based on the reports his ministry regularly presents on these matters?
Hon. J. Cashore: Taking the lowest common denominator approach -- using one situation where headway is being made to somehow take away the reason for moving in one area by pointing out another area where there's need -- really, I don't think that's environmentally supportable. I sometimes wonder if there are any environmentalists on the opposition benches. We would be getting some questions, some perspectives, that would be pushing this government in terms of the green side of environmental policy. What we find here, I think, is quite reactionary.
With regard to the very valid point about concerns regarding air quality, we have an air strategy in place in this government. It's not to downgrade the importance of the point this member is making in any way. Yes, there are exceedances. Those are published and out there for the public to see. But it's not an either/or. It's not a case of a couple of children arguing about whether you're going to give more attention to this or that child. All these issues are important. We need to be addressing them on a number of fronts, which we are.
I would like to hear this hon. member say what the Liberal Party's position is with regard to AOX. What do you feel the standards should be? Since you have already stated that there's more than abundant, ample evidence -- and I don't agree with that -- why don't you put on the record, hon. member, what you think the standard should be?
W. Hurd: I find it rather amazing, really. The minister has acknowledged that his ministry allows pulp mills in the province to exceed their air emission standards on a routine basis, with some justification, while at the same time he's pursuing a policy of zero levels of discharge for AOX, with dubious scientific background. The question the opposition is asking is a pretty logical one: would it not be at least beneficial to divert some of that money spent on AOX levels into addressing some of the air emission and air quality issues which his ministry routinely allows the mills to exceed? It's a logical question, and as yet we've not received one answer that sounds credible, other than scientifically blessed precautionary principles. What about scientifically blessed precautionary principles when it comes to air emission standards in the province?
Hon. J. Cashore: The hon. member chooses to ignore the fact that there is an air quality strategy in this province; that there are monitoring and enforcement; that the levels of fines under the Waste Management Act have dramatically increased in the last four years. Four and a half years ago, the total amount of fines under the Waste Management Act was $37,000 in one year for the entire province. Now it's averaging between $1.5 million and $2 million -- still not good enough, but it's moving in the right direction. We have increased the number of conservation officers in this province to enable us to do a better job. Nobody is stating that we are doing a perfect job, but the monitoring and the enforcement have improved. To suggest that we are blithely allowing exceedances to take place, without working with the industry to do everything we can to correct that, is not correct. We are following a policy that is seeking to work with the industry to enable the industry to improve its air quality measures; we're seeing headway in that regard. It is not appropriate to say the industry is not investing in that area. The industry is investing in that area.
W. Hurd: There's an economic reality we have to deal with when we're engaged in this discussion with the minister. Given the financial performance of the pulp and paper sector over the past two or three years in this province, there's a finite pool of capital with which to address environmental issues.
If the minister is suggesting that he's working with the industry to identify the most strategic and important ways of addressing environmental issues in pulp mills -- given that limited pool of capital.... He has just confirmed in this set of estimates that he's prepared to pursue a shallow environmental agenda
[ Page 6560 ]
based on very little information from Health and Welfare Canada, which recommends a 2.5 kilogram level of AOX per discharge, while at the same time he is apparently not interested in addressing the air quality issue, given the limited pool of capital that the ministry has available.
Let me ask the minister this question: how many pulp mills in the province could continue to operate if his ministry enforced the air quality guidelines to the letter of the existing law?
Hon. J. Cashore: I'm advised that under the existing law none of them would be shut down. An advisory committee consisting of stakeholders from industry, environmental groups, unions, first nations, and the Union of B.C. Municipalities is looking at the environmental regulations of the industry and advising government in that regard. This is a consolidative, multi-stakeholder approach appropriate in seeking to respond to this issue.
The hon. member is absolutely incorrect when he makes a bald statement that we are not addressing air quality issues. That is absolutely false. Certainly we are making headway in contrast to the record of the previous government, as I have outlined, and we are moving forward in that regard.
I would also point out that this hon. member refers to economic reality, but he only refers to one half of the coin. He conveniently forgets the economic reality that has to do with B.C.'s reputation in world markets. That is also an economic reality thath he should take very seriously. He should know, for instance, that Germany has a public policy not to accept chlorine-based pulp by 1994; the AOX has to be 0.5 or less. So the economic reality about world markets should not be conveniently ignored.
W. Hurd: It's comforting to know that B.C. will enjoy a competitive advantage, which the rest of the country and the continent have not apparently identified as a major priority in the marketing of pulp.
But I think the issue has not been adequately addressed by the minister. Is he at all concerned -- or has the industry told him -- that the money being spent on reaching zero discharges of AOX per metric tonne is in any way going to compromise the capital available to address the air quality and air standard issues in the province? In addressing the spectrum of pollution and environmental issues relative to pulp mills, would it not be a more prudent strategy to enable the industry to spend more money on air quality, recognizing the Health and Welfare guidelines for AOX?
I'm sure the minister must be aware that given the amount of money available to spend on environmental issues a balanced approach is required. This will ensure that during the course of a month's operation in a pulp mill, for example, his ministry staff are not forced to average out the level of emissions to account for the days where the air emissions might exceed the permitted standards. Clearly that is happening in B.C. So would it not be more prudent to accept the recommendations of Health and Welfare Canada about AOX levels and ask the industry to devote real resources to addressing the issue of air emissions, which is a much broader concern in many pulp mill communities in this province?
Hon. J. Cashore: Air emission concerns are being addressed. There is good work being done in that area by the industry in concert with government. The monitoring and enforcement have increased; the number of conservation officers available to carry that out has been enhanced. I have outlined a committee, consisting of stakeholders, which is advising government and has the eager cooperation of industry. That picks up on a number of concerns that this hon. member is raising. The industry has been given an opportunity to participate with other stakeholders in advising government on the kinds of regulations that will enable us to address these issues in a timely and appropriate way and that also recognizes the urgency. This work is being done over a ten-year time frame. The issues of greatest urgency are being identified. I think it's outstanding that we have industry, environmental groups, the first nations, the workers and the UBCM coming to a table.
So by all means, hon. member, make your statements and your criticisms, but recognize that there are responses to these criticisms that are valid and that indicate we are making tremendous progress in this area. To try to create the impression that somehow the industry is out there as one solitude and government as another solitude, and that there are warring factions, is simply not correct. Of course there are areas of disagreement -- that's understandable. But the approach that we are taking in dealing with this is a far more appropriate approach than we've seen in the past. It is the kind of approach that is going enable us to move towards that kind of a reputation that will help us economically on both fronts: both in terms of the capital costs here at home and also in terms of the kind of economic benefit that we will achieve as a result of our improving global reputation.
[11:00]
W. Hurd: Perhaps I can then ask a specific question about the ministry's policy with respect to the Celgar pulp mill, specifically the decision by the ministry to change the air emission permit of that particular mill. I am referring to the press release issued by the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks on March 31, 1993. Given the fact that the proposed amendment was to change the monitoring of air emissions from moment by moment to one-hour averaging, can the minister advise us whether this is an example of the kind of cooperation he is talking about? Will those amendments in fact enhance the protection of air quality in the region around this particular mill?
Hon. J. Cashore: The result of that amendment will be the strongest air quality monitoring of any pulp mill in North America. The Celgar panel was a joint federal-provincial panel, and the previous government did a good job of setting that panel up -- in fact, it's a precursor to one of the elements that will be in our environmental assessment legislation. A situation
[ Page 6561 ]
emerged from an interpretation of the decisions of the Celgar panel that resulted in a disagreement between the management and the union with regard to the monitoring. Without getting into all of the technical detail, when that issue was brought to my attention I made the very clear choice that this is not an issue that I as the minister should be adjudicating, but I had to set up a process that would have implicit within it a fair approach so that we could move beyond this impasse.
With the agreement of all parties, I then made the decision.... Maybe I'm overstating that a bit. I notified the parties of the decision that I had made, and there was reasonable acceptance of that decision by them. A very highly regarded environmental consultant, Mr. Tony Boydell, was appointed to conduct a review of the technical aspect of the question that this hon. member has identified. I asked him to do that as quickly as he could, because we did not want either industry or workers delayed unnecessarily in getting the mill up and running.
On top of that, there was another question raised by the union about the process that had been followed. I separated the process question out of the technical question and asked the union to take their concern to the office of the ombudsman. I communicated with the ombudsman to say that we would cooperate as fully as possible. That resulted in two separate independent processes that were used to address the question that the hon. member is raising. I accepted the Boydell report, which found that the amendment to the permit was necessary. That was done in an objective, appropriate and thorough way, without political interference.
The other question about whether or not the activities of ministry personnel were appropriate has been given to the ombudsman. That office has an excellent reputation for its impartiality in adjudging such concerns.
W. Hurd: Perhaps I can ask how the ministry assesses air quality issues. It is my understanding that an averaging occurs to account for days when the emissions may be higher than the standard set by the ministry. Can the minister confirm that we are dealing with an averaging assessment of compliance? That is my first question.
Hon. J. Cashore: In the case of Celgar, it went from instantaneous to one-hour averaging, which is still a very strong method of assessing air quality when compared to other permits anywhere in North America.
With regard to the question about how the permitting is done, it is my understanding that it depends upon the actual details in a given permit. It is my further understanding that that is not consistent throughout. Personally, I think we should move toward consistency in that process. At present there are a number of permits in place, and we are working with them. It would be appropriate to move toward consistency over time.
W. Hurd: So the minister acknowledges that there are isolated days during the month when a pulp mill in this province could be over the permitted level for particulates and other measurements and still be in compliance, given this averaging process. Can the minister tell us whether it is a 30-day averaging or averaging on an annual basis? How do you rationalize the days when the levels are not being achieved and balance those with the days when the mill is under its permitted levels?
Hon. J. Cashore: It is my understanding that our permits range from being on an hourly to a longer-term basis. The information that I have is that it is not for a period of as much as a month -- and if I need to correct this, I will come back to you -- but that the majority of them are based on daily averages.
W. Hurd: So is the minister telling us that his officials monitor air quality on a daily basis around every pulp mill in British Columbia? Or is it indeed a self-reporting mechanism, where the...?
Hon. J. Cashore: Self.
W. Hurd: It's a self-reporting mechanism.
Hon. J. Cashore: For the record, hon. Chair, it's self-reporting. As the Minister of Environment, would that I could have the resources to have people out there dealing with these situations on that kind of basis. But it would mean an enormous infusion of personnel and financial resources to be able to do that. I know that the opposition doesn't want to get into the position of saying: "Spend, spend, spend."
However, I think we need to point out very clearly that when it comes to monitoring and enforcement -- as important as that is -- that is not the most economical way of getting effective improvement. There's an array of approaches that needs to be dealt with, and we are reviewing that. We're reviewing standards for air discharges and the ways in which we can have a more effective regime to improve the quality of air and water, and so forth. That involves the polluter-pay principle, for instance. It involves having incentives for industry to realize that making improvements will result in lower costs for their operation. So there are benefits in an array of approaches. There's also the ticketing approach that can take place, and we are reviewing that.
W. Hurd: Well, I don't want to belabour the point, but perhaps the minister could first advise the committee of the auditing that might be done on this type of self-reporting that's going on in connection not only with pulp mills but with any type of industrial process in the province.
The second question relates specifically to the kind of data that's analyzed of both effluent and air emissions. My understanding is that when it comes to effluent concerns, a routine testing procedure to assess levels of chlorinated organics is done by independent laboratories that are mandated to conduct independent analyses of effluent samples and to determine what the content might be. This gets back to my original point. When we're dealing with air quality issues relative to pulp mills, the minister has acknowledged that it's a self-reporting mechanism. I doubt that he would accept a similar policy for effluent, particularly when it comes
[ Page 6562 ]
to chlorinated organics. I think it underscores the need to take a more balanced approach to the issue of pulp mill pollution in the province and to perhaps beef up the level of auditing, enforcement and testing that goes on in air issues, even if it means requiring less attention to AOX levels, which clearly have not been identified as a health hazard. My first question is: how does the testing for effluent compare with the testing for air quality standards? Are we dealing with independent labs in the case of effluent and self-reporting in the case of air emissions?
Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Chair, as usual, if I'm incorrect in anything I say now, I know staff will correct me and then I'll correct it. But it's my understanding that we have a contract with B.C. Research. That contract relates to the process that I think we need to understand in order to have appropriate monitoring of both air and effluent. The way the process works is that you have self-monitoring. There is nothing wrong with having self-monitoring; if we didn't have it, then we really wouldn't have any data at all. However, there needs to be a way of making sure that cheating is not going on or that equipment is not telling an incorrect story. Therefore you need auditing -- in the same sense that you need spot audits on income tax returns. You need to have a system of auditing that is part of the array of arsenal of the monitoring-and-enforcement process. So B.C. Research, for instance, does split samples to enable us to check on the accuracy of the data that's being measured in a particular site, whether it's air or effluent. There is also on-the-site monitoring that checks the data of the instrumentation that exists on site.
As far as the question about the extent to which we monitor effluent as compared to air, I can't quantify that. I would have to say I would expect that we are monitoring those activities appropriately and in a balanced way, and that there is nothing I have seen to indicate otherwise.
W. Hurd: I find this discussion on levels of compliance rather fascinating. Maybe I could shift the focus of attention to the requests from Cominco in Trail to exceed certain pollution standards, in connection with the bailout package that is currently before government to keep the Trail smelter economically viable. Within the specific parameters of the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, can the minister tell us exactly which compliance levels the mill is seeking relief on?
[11:15]
Hon. J. Cashore: Cominco has a permit that specifies certain things that need to be accomplished over a period of time, and the best knowledge that I have is that they are in compliance with that. I think, for instance, that one of the issues has to do with a point in time that there would be an elimination of the slag that was being discharged into the river. In fact, they have announced -- if my memory serves me correctly -- that they are a year ahead of schedule on that particular case.
With regard to the package -- to use the term the member referred to -- there are some aspects of that reference I am not able to comment on at this time.
W. Hurd: I must say that that answer concerns me to some extent. The company in its public pronouncements has indicated that relief from existing environmental standards in the province is going to be a key component in returning the mill to viability and in protecting the direct jobs of 2,800 people in Trail and a further 2,000 or 3,000 indirect jobs in the communities of Trail and Castlegar. Surely the minister would be willing to expand with a committee -- if there is a public environmental concern -- in the relaxation of the guidelines that are being proposed? Then he would be in a position to respond to questions the public might have about whether he feels there is any environmental concern from the requests or the applications for relief being sought by the company.
Hon. J. Cashore: To go back to my earlier answer, it is my understanding that Cominco has recently announced being ahead of schedule on the mercury standards within that permit. And no, hon. member, I am not going to be commenting further on that.
W. Hurd: Perhaps I can ask a more general question, because I think there's a principle here that I'd certainly appreciate comment on from the minister. As part of an economic restructuring package, environmental standards -- or the relaxation of standards -- would be on the table for discussion. Is that a principle that his ministry feels comfortable with? Is it a principle that other companies might pursue in the province? Or is the minister prepared to say to other industrial companies in the province who use the water and the air or have limits to discharge that they can come forward, in the event of financial difficulty, and the government will at least listen to their concerns about the impact of compliance and whether or not standards will or should be relaxed by his government?
Hon. J. Cashore: I have delegations coming to see me every day, every week -- delegations that represent various aspects of industry and delegations that represent environmental concerns. Almost always, the issues that they present are couched at some point in terms of economic impact. My policy is to keep my door open and to be as available as I possibly can be, as time permits, in order to hear these delegations. Therefore if you're asking if we listen to what people have to say, the answer is yes, we do listen.
W. Hurd: As usual the minister has totally danced away from the point of the question. In the case of Cominco, his ministry set standards of compliance and environmental performance, which we assume are inviolate, because they are based on.... Was the term "plausible scientific?" I forget what the term was. But assuming that these standards are inviolate, it's rather interesting that the company would seek, in this case, to be exempted from some of those inviolate standards.
I was attempting to engage the minister in a discussion of whether the standards that he sets for other industrial concerns in the province might also be
[ Page 6563 ]
negotiable based on issues such as employment, community stability and other considerations. I assume that the minister would welcome the opportunity to assure the people of the province that the situation with Cominco may be unique, and that no matter how many people might come through his door arguing for a relaxation of these standards, he will be vigilant in dealing with these concerns. Or are we dealing with a situation where he will accept that there might be other Comincos in British Columbia that may come forward, after this decision is rendered by government, seeking the same kind of deal?
Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Chair, this government is vigilant in putting in place the most appropriate standards dealing with a wide variety of issues -- be it air or water quality. Those standards, once they are in place, are the standards that apply. Government should always be listening to new information that is out there. We need to be evaluating policy; we need to be using a multi-stakeholder approach -- which we do use. The process as it is working is improving, and I think it's serving the public well.
As far as hypothetical questions related to an issue that I've said I won't be commenting on, we're not in the business of changing standards because somebody walks in and asks us to change a standard. We do, however, look at information that comes in to us on a wide variety of topics, and that's about the same as saying that the sun's going to rise tomorrow.
W. Hurd: Certainly the opposition is aware of the considerable concern expressed by the United Steelworkers union in Trail about the impact that the standards or enforcement might have on the viability of the mill. I find it rather interesting that when it comes to pulp mill owners in the province there's no truck or trade, no deals, no possibility of even accepting Health and Welfare Canada guidelines for AOX levels: spend the money or go out of business. Of course, when the union comes knocking on the door, there seems to be a willingness on the part of this minister, who's purported to protect the environment, to cut a deal to keep that particular facility alive. One would assume that the union is very persuasive in dealing with this particular government.
Does the minister not see somewhat of an inconsistency in his approach to AOX guidelines in the province based on flimsy scientific knowledge while at the same time courting a situation in Trail -- which he won't comment on -- involving the United Steelworkers who appear to have this government's ear when it comes a different set of environmental standards for that particular operation?
Hon. J. Cashore: The hon. member has a convenient ability to forget what I just outlined as the way I resolved an issue brought to me by the union at Celgar. It completely belies the point this member, in a rather inappropriate way, is trying to make. There was an example heard in this room a mere five minutes ago, where a union came to me suggesting that I take a certain course on an issue, and where I removed myself from making that decision and put that into two independent processes. That completely gives the lie to the inappropriate point this member is seeking to make.
With regard to the point the member is seeking to make about the monitoring and enforcement of this government, let the record speak for itself. Under the Social Credit government variances were in place; there are no variances in place now. That is over. I think the hon. member should stand up and give the government credit for that achievement. A number of variances were permitted by the previous government. For example, the Celgar pulp mill had a variance, as did Williams Lake sawmills, with regard to beehive burners up there. There are no variances in place in this province anymore.
W. Hurd: I find it rather interesting that the minister will not comment specifically on the environmental issues that are on the table with respect to Cominco. One would have thought, given that it's a broader issue related to water and air quality in an area of the province, that he would welcome the opportunity to clarify his ministry's position on exactly what the company is seeking relief from and exactly what his ministry is prepared to do in this case. Clearly we are not going to see any willingness on the part of the Minister of Environment to talk about these standards. It's very unfortunate, because I think the Environment minister has a responsibility in his cabinet to put concerns about the environment before any other consideration. In this particular case, that doesn't appear to be happening.
I think the desire of the opposition to engage this minister in a broader philosophical discussion about whether we are going to see other examples around this province is an issue that needs to be canvassed in these estimates. The minister has indicated that his door is always open and that he's always willing to listen to people, which is a laudable way of running his ministry. But when it comes to standards of environmental compliance, those kinds of standards based on scientific evidence of environmental protection are not on the table for discussion. Surely the minister will tell us that.
Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Chair, the point the hon. member is making is simply not supported. In fact, we are canvassing a wide range of issues here. The member himself stated the reason that I'm not commenting on one specific area. The fact is that I am putting my concerns before cabinet. On the contrary, what this member says is incorrect. Because I am in the process of putting my concerns before cabinet, along with concerns that are brought forward by other colleagues, that's where this sits at this time. If this member is not aware that it would be inappropriate for me to comment on that at this time, he should be.
W. Hurd: Earlier in this discussion the minister indicated that it was the intention of Port Alberni to cease its pulp operations, and therefore they wouldn't be required to report on how they are going to reach the zero discharge level by 2002. Would the minister be prepared to share with the committee whether that particular company presented any other option to the minister that would have kept the mill running for
[ Page 6564 ]
the benefit of the people of Port Alberni? Or is he prepared -- given that it would seem he's dealing with a different set of rules for Cominco and Trail -- to ask MacMillan Bloedel to present him with another scenario that might enable the mill to continue running and people in Port Alberni to be employed?
[11:30]
Hon. J. Cashore: I don't know if I heard the question correctly, but if the hon. member is asking whether the Mac-Blo decision regarding the pulp mill at Port Alberni was related to AOX issue, I would point out to him that I read all the data that came out at the time of the announcement, and it did not refer to the AOX issue. If he has other information, perhaps he would like to make that available, and I'll seek to comment on it. But it is my understanding that MacMillan Bloedel very appropriately outlined its reasons for the decision, and that those reasons were couched in an economic context relating to the condition of the mill.
W. Hurd: Perhaps I can clarify the minister's remarks earlier in our discussion. He indicated at that time that the company had not presented a plan on achieving lower levels of AOX per metric tonne because it was its intention to shut down or cease operations in any event. Did the minister seek any clarification from the company as to whether the guidelines or the standards for AOX in any way impacted on the company's decision?
Hon. J. Cashore: The answer is no.
W. Hurd: Then maybe I can shift my attention to Powell River, which presented an ambitious plan for achieving the lower levels of effluent, or at least lower levels of AOX in their effluent. Can the minister tell us whether or not any other scenarios were presented by MacMillan Bloedel in that particular case with respect to the future of the mill, given the cost of meeting those new effluent standards?
Hon. J. Cashore: At the present time the mill at Powell River is at about 2.3. Mac-Blo is a little late getting their working plan in, but it has come in, and it is consistent with the 1.5 standard by 1995.
W. Hurd: I have a further line of questioning on this, but the hour being 11:30, I understand there is a rule under standing orders that we should seek adjournment of this committee and report progress. I would so move.
Motion approved.
The Committee rose at 11:33 a.m..
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]