1994 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 35th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
FRIDAY, APRIL 22, 1994
Morning Sitting
Volume 14, Number 13
[ Page 10203 ]
The House met at 10:04 a.m.
Clerk of the House: Pursuant to standing orders, the House is advised of the unavoidable absence of the Speaker.
[D. Lovick in the chair.]
Prayers.
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
L. Reid: I rise today to talk about knowledge-based industries in British Columbia. I believe that we are in a glorious position to take new technology forward into the Pacific Rim. This province will succeed and survive if we have a flexible and diversified provincial economy.
We have industries in this province that have positioned themselves to be solution providers. We have programs in this province which are focusing on something called technology pull. It's an opportunity to pull technology out of universities in this province and take those products, ideas and concepts to market.
I want to talk about intellectual and industrial partnerships which have the ability to facilitate exchanges between businesses and universities. I believe in centres of excellence -- university and medical school centres of excellence. Why not a Mayo clinic in British Columbia? There are some opportunities for us to excel and share our expertise with other parts of the world. In terms of the government role, we need policies which will stimulate these new companies. It makes sense to me that we focus our purchasing power in the area of science and technology.
Let me give you an example. The B.C. Ferry Corporation needed a draft sensor, a device which determines how deep a ship sits in the water. That technology has tremendous application for other jurisdictions and ferry systems, and it was created here. The time will come when that product can be marketed here and marketed to other parts of the world.
I speak specifically of the B.C. Advanced Systems Institute, which helps to forge links between technology suppliers, users and researchers. ASI was established in 1986 by the federal and provincial governments. ASI's goal is to foster sustainable economic growth through the development and application of advanced systems technology in computer science, artificial intelligence, robotics, telecommunications and microelectronics.
One of the premier growth industries in Canada is the telecommunications manufacturing industry, which has been growing at a sustained rate of 10 percent. We now have over 300 companies in this country manufacturing products for the global telecommunications market, employing some 50,000 people and generating revenues of $5.8 billion -- an exemplary undertaking of a system and an industry which is the future of this province. Indeed, British Columbia is the third-largest exporter of telecommunications expertise. Why not have British Columbia as a home to a growing telecommunications manufacturing sector? The National Wireless Communications Research Foundation began operations in March, 1991, to begin this mammoth task.
British Columbia is in need of receptor sites for technology. We need to have people ready to receive new technology. Today the recipient of new technology must be just as knowledgable as the provider. As a society we must possess the capability to absorb and contribute ideas. Let's take biotechnology as an example. Biotechnology is enabling technology that can be applied to a large number of areas.
We must have a dynamic approach to science and technology. I believe that co-op programs are critical to technology transfer. We must ensure that young people coming from universities find a home in B.C.-based business and industry so that their new ideas can come to fruition and be marketed successfully in this province.
I honestly believe that research and development is the key to a diversified economy. I certainly speak very much in admiration of the B.C. Biotechnology Alliance Society, which is a private, non-profit, action-oriented organization whose members are producers, users and supporters of biotechnology activities in British Columbia. They have a huge mission: they want to stimulate the development, use and commercialization of biotechnology in British Columbia in order to maximize its economic benefit. That is something this province truly needs, and as educators and parliamentarians we know that we graduate some of the finest minds in the country right here in British Columbia. To provide opportunities for those young people to work and apply their skills in this province in terms of ensuring that the province has economic opportunities is the order of the day. The B.C. Biotechnology Alliance performs their actions in two ways. They coordinate and facilitate biotechnology activities and they try and have some link between industry, universities and the government. They also try to promote the industry locally, nationally and internationally. They have a distinguished-speaker series -- individuals who come to British Columbia to share their expertise.
The science community is much larger than the province and much larger than Canada. In order to be effective, the science community needs to be a global network. We talk about having single markets and about small companies with niche markets being able to expand and have a small market, but having that market in 15 or 20 different countries through the ability to link up through industry, government or university connections to market their products successfully. That is a new way to do business, but it is a successful way for British Columbians to do business.
The history of the B.C. Biotech Alliance dates back to 1988. At that time the Science Council of British Columbia identified biotechnology as having the potential to become B.C.'s second-largest high technology industry. A three-year SPARK planning process followed, which involved representatives from universities, industry and the federal and provincial governments. This resulted in a recommendation for the creation of a central organization to ensure that the industry realize its full potential.
The Liberal opposition stands firmly committed to that exercise. We very much believe in the partnership and linkages among industry, government and the private and public sectors -- people coming together to form viable partnerships to take new ideas to market and successfully market products that were created in this province. It is something that this province can do extremely well, and it can be the flagship for the rest of Canada. Focusing our attention on this province will allow our ideas to successfully go forward to all parts of the world.
T. Perry: It was really exciting, actually, to hear a member of the Liberal opposition talking about something positive, and evidently having given some thought to something. I didn't realize that I'd be hearing a talk about R and D within the Liberal Party itself, but it was refreshing.
[ Page 10204 ]
You know, the member for Richmond East suggested early in her statement that we need policies that will stimulate new technologies and research and development -- of course we do. She spoke of the Biotechnology Alliance. She didn't mention that the government has contributed for a number of years roughly $300,000 -- if memory serves me right -- to get the Biotechnology Alliance on its feet, in a plan that would eventually lead to a self-funding organization. I'm very proud that in a former life, while I was minister responsible, I was able to visit with the Biotechnology Alliance and some of the companies that are active and see that the initial contribution of money from the taxpayers of B.C. was well spent to help get them off the ground.
It's refreshing to hear the Liberal opposition talking about this. Again, in my former life as a minister, I defended the science and technology fund in the estimates debate, and the only opposition member I can recall expressing any interest in that topic was the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast. If I'm neglecting debate by the member for Richmond East, I apologize to her, but I'm glad to see her interested in it now.
One of the exciting things for me last year was the Richardson review of science and technology policy in B.C., which gave British Columbia very good marks for our programs. I was pleased to see this year that the budget for the science and technology fund is modestly increased, after a couple of years in which the funding was reduced. That's a good sign. I find it difficult to reconcile what the member just said with the Liberal Party's insistence that government spending should be slashed in all areas. This is one area where, as a member of the Legislature, I certainly feel it is reasonable to borrow and invest public funds, and even to run a deficit, where the return on investment may be extremely high in the future. I find it difficult to reconcile the need to put more resources into this field with the Liberal Party's position that there should be a legislated balanced budget, which would inevitably lead to a slashing and gutting of all such programs. Believe me, I know only too well the fiscal pressures on programs like that.
[10:15]
I was pleased to hear the member describe the Advanced Systems Institute, because I agree with her that it's had very constructive input. I was also very glad to see that the Working Opportunity Fund has invested roughly half a million dollars this year into one of the companies in Victoria which makes underwater recreational communications systems for scuba divers. That company got started with great help from the Advanced Systems Institute -- money from the government of British Columbia and B.C. taxpayers got it started.
Finally, in view of the wonderful dinner that was held two nights ago in honour of B.C.'s -- and Canada's -- Nobel laureate, Dr. Michael Smith, and of the contribution Mike Smith made in recognizing science awareness programs in the B.C. school system for kids, particularly for young women and girls, I think that all members should be really proud of those programs. They are not only the best in our country but probably also the best in North America and, perhaps, the world. We should do what we can to push them in every riding in the province to make sure that kids in our schools, particularly in the rural parts of B.C. -- and particularly young women and girls, who have historically been excluded or discouraged from these areas -- get good exposure to the excitement of science, the possibilities of science and technology benefiting people in our society and the importance of science and technology for our provincial economy. So I'm really looking forward to hearing the rest of the statement of the member for Richmond East; this is one of the rare times when we can agree on something in here.
L. Reid: I thank the member for some of his comments. In terms of issues which still need to be addressed, I think we need to understand that this will only succeed if we have very buoyant financing vehicles. We need investor education. We need some awareness about science and technology, and what its implications are. I believe we need to foster very fine links with the states of Washington and Oregon. This is a Pacific Rim concept; this is an idea that must go forward.
The second most important area for science and technology in this province, I believe, is management of the industry. We do not have many long-term, seasoned, second-generation entrepreneurs in this province. These biotechnology industries are relatively new, and it is absolutely essential to raise the level of management skills. In fact, 80 percent of biotech companies are less than 13 years old.
The next area which must be addressed is regulation. The regulatory system must be fast and effective. Work must be done on harmonizing definition, as one example. We need to ensure that the transfer of information from province to province is done in a much more expedient fashion.
We also need to concentrate on infrastructure and on taking products from the lab bench to the marketplace. British Columbia needs test sites, production sites, fermentation plants and certainly computer systems. Knowledge-based industries have different infrastructure needs. As a result, we need some joint proposals from federal or provincial governments and the private sector, to move on infrastructure decisions and decide how best to use scarce resources.
Equally important is the creation of a general business climate. We need to look to B.C. and a B.C. solution for creating a climate for new technology. As British Columbians, we need to think differently about how we make our living. More and more of us will be self-employed and entrepreneurs. Certainly, we must recognize that the future is here.
On that note, I invite all members of this Legislature and all British Columbians to the 1995 Pacific Northwest Biotechnology Exposition. This exposition will be hosted by the B.C. Biotechnology Alliance with participation from the Oregon and Washington State biotechnology associations, Ag-West Inc. and the Alberta government. They're asking us to come and see the Pacific Northwest as a biotech powerhouse. I think we can all support that. I believe it's absolutely essential to the future of this province that we come forward with a very strong and clear message about how important it is to support science and technology.
EARTH WEEK
J. Sawicki: I rise this morning to invite all hon. members to celebrate with me and the people in their community a very important occasion. Today, April 22, marks the twenty-fourth anniversary of Earth Day -- the largest, volunteer-based, grass-roots environmental event on Earth. Now expanded to a full week, it has become an international event of tremendous magnitude involving 200 million people in 141 countries throughout the world.
As such, Earth Week therefore demands a much broader perspective than we usually take in this chamber. It compels us to think beyond ourselves, beyond our communities, beyond British Columbia and even beyond our nation. It
[ Page 10205 ]
urges us to think globally and to consider our responsibilities as environmental stewards of this fragile planet. It also challenges us to examine our actions in the context of the whole range of physical, social, economic, cultural and spiritual parameters within which life itself exists on planet Earth. That's a tall order -- particularly on a Friday morning -- but we need to make that commitment to ourselves and to the whole of the global community.
The Brundtland commission report, Our Common Future, gave us the term "sustainable development" and introduced the 12 percent guideline for protected areas. But it also provided us with a fresh perspective on our place in the natural system when it described our Earth as seen from space as a "small and fragile ball dominated not by human activity and edifice but by a pattern of clouds, oceans, greenery and soils." We are steadily destroying that pattern, and that should give us cause for serious reflection today.
Perhaps our cavalier attitude toward the planet stems from our presumption that we as humans have a special status among living things. Too often we regard all non-human things as merely resources that exist to satisfy our needs and wants. It's particularly ironic that we often think of our machines and inventions as proof of our superiority; yet the very same science and technology that advanced our standard of living and improved our quality of life -- at least for the fortunate minority of the world's population, including us in this chamber -- is also at the root of our ecological crisis. Hon. members, we have created the tools of our own destruction, and we have used them with wanton disregard for the environmental consequences. It should not surprise us, then, that the ecological crisis that we now face has come upon us so quickly.
Humans have inhabited this Earth for a mere 300,000 years. There are about five billion of us, and that number increases by one million every four or five days. That means, hon. Speaker, about 2,500 more people will be born in the time it takes me to make this statement to the House.
In the past 50 years, however, our species has caused more destruction to the clouds, oceans, greenery and soils than in the previous 299,950 years. Global warming, ozone depletion, desertification, acid rain, species extinction, soil erosion, deforestation, groundwater pollution, radiation contamination -- these modern phenomena should make us realize that we're not really making as much progress as we may think. As our numbers grow, we are becoming increasingly destructive. There are still too many people who believe that we can continue to ravage the Earth -- never have to worry about it -- and somehow, with our superior intelligence, we can rely on science to mend the damage we do and repair the mistakes we make. How many more environmental disasters will it take to convince us that we need a significant change of attitude?
Last week, the hon. member for Parksville-Qualicum made a private member's statement on biodiversity in B.C. and to mark Wildlife Week. The minister made a very welcome announcement on enhanced government initiatives to protect biodiversity in B.C. I was very glad they did, because endangered species are the logical result of the habitat destruction that happens when we contaminate the water, degrade the soil and pollute the air.
The member for Parksville-Qualicum included in his comments some alarming figures in terms of species lost or endangered in B.C. On a global scale, here are a couple more to think of, hon. members. Three-quarters of the world's bird species are declining, or are already considered threatened. More than half the varieties of the world's 20 most important food crops have been lost since the beginning of this century alone, and that includes varieties of rice and grain. Granted, to a certain extent such extinctions are part of the natural evolutionary process. But they are now occurring with a speed and magnitude that Darwin could not have envisaged. Where we once lost fewer than ten species a year, we now lose one every hour.
I see my time has already expired, and I will continue my comments after the reply.
D. Symons: It is my pleasure to respond, because I think Earth Week and today, Earth Day, is something every member in this House heartily endorses and supports. I cannot imagine a topic that we could agree more on in every respect. I'm sure even the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain will agree that we can all agree 100 percent on this one -- although there was some difference of opinion on the previous one as to the degree of agreement.
Many events are taking place in the province, particularly tomorrow, dealing with Earth Day and Earth Week. Primarily, the purpose of these events is to raise awareness and form a celebration as well. It's simply to raise awareness of many of the issues the previous speaker noted regarding what we've been doing to our Mother Earth over these years. Once we have an awareness of the situation, maybe we'll have the wherewithal to attack the problem and work to solve it.
We have issues in Canada, in British Columbia and throughout the world that must be dealt with quickly, before we get to the point of no return. In British Columbia we have problems with waste water management. We have problems with forest practices, and I'm very pleased the government is addressing those problems. We have problems with air quality. The previous administration introduced AirCare in the province. At least these are all hopes for us that people are moving, albeit slowly, in the direction of addressing some issues that have developed, which we now realize must be addressed. As far as power goes, we have a Power Smart program introduced by B.C. Hydro a few years back, also under the previous government. That is addressing problems that have to do with the environment and the use of our natural resources. We are, throughout Canada, the most consuming country in the whole world. We use more of the world's resources on a per person basis in Canada than any other country. We might think it's great that we can enjoy so much, but we do it at a cost. North Americans and Europeans together consume a disproportionate amount of the world's resources -- the natural resources, the food supply and the energy. This must be addressed. We cannot continue in this world to use more than our fair share of what the Earth has to offer.
[10:30]
As mentioned by the member for Burnaby-Willingdon, we also have the responsibility to deal with these problems. Indeed, it was approximately 50 years ago that DDT was in common use throughout the world. Although it's been banned in the Western nations for approximately 30 years, even now we're finding signs of that in areas where it was never used. In the arctic and antarctic they can find traces of DDT in the environment and the wildlife. We are faced today with a serious problem of ozone depletion: the possibility that the sun's radiation could do great damage to the world and to the flora and fauna on this Earth, including humans. The human race has contributed to air and water pollution.
Then there is the matter of celebration. I mentioned awareness before, and I've mentioned many of the issues that are out there. We can say there's a celebration, a sense that Creation was given to us and that today's problems were not brought about by the other animals and other parts of
[ Page 10206 ]
Creation, but by the human race. I think the recognition that humans are responsible for the problems also has within it the seeds of celebration, for if we have caused the problem, we have the possibility of correcting the problem. We're aware that we have within our power the opportunity to turn this around. Humans can, given the will, address and correct the problems that we have brought about. Hon. Speaker, the hope for this world is that we now recognize that, and indeed, we're beginning to see signs that we're moving in that direction.
J. Sawicki: I want to thank the hon. member for his comments, because we cannot consider that we are being too alarmist, or that we are out of touch with today's problems in the real world, when we talk about these things. It's rather interesting that the concerns being expressed on Earth Day are not new or radical. Almost 1,900 years ago the Roman poet Juvenal told his contemporaries: "Never does nature say one thing and wisdom another." Like many men and women throughout history, he recognized that we as humans are part of the natural system, and what we do to the Earth we do to ourselves.
Every day in this chamber and throughout British Columbia and beyond, we struggle with the practical challenges of sustaining a healthy economy and a healthy environment. Only sometimes do we demonstrate an understanding that the environment and the economy are not separate things, but the same thing seen from different perspectives. When we talk about species extinction, some members may say: "What do we care? It doesn't really matter to me if the pigmy short-horned lizard disappears from the face of the earth. I've never seen one; I don't even know what it is." But if on this Earth Day we are not motivated by a personal respect for all life on Earth, and if we're not moved by the fact that with every species we drive into extinction we perhaps risk losing a cure for cancer or AIDS, then I ask you to consider -- as the hon. member alluded to, but didn't quite say -- the canary in the coalmine. Miners used to take canaries underground with them as a precaution against coal gas. If the canary died the miners understood that they were next, and they abandoned the mine.
Hon. members, we don't have the option of abandoning the mine. If the canaries, the butterflies and the frogs are dying all over the world, can we be far behind? If we attempt to perpetuate the myth that we are separate from other living things that inhabit the Earth -- if we fail to recognize that interconnectedness -- then we ourselves are surely doomed to go the way of the dinosaur and the pigmy short-horned lizard.
I will end with one quote. It's from John Muir, and it gives perhaps the most powerful message for Earth Day: "When you try to separate out one thing, you find it hitched to everything else in the universe."
HELPING OUR YOUTH
D. Jarvis: I rise today to share my concerns and those of my constituents in North Vancouver-Seymour about the ever-increasing delinquency problem and crime rate among our youth, in addition to the increased loitering and greater sense of loneliness, boredom and inactivity.
The youth population in North Vancouver, as in all communities, increases as the population increases. Although North Vancouver is not one of the fastest-growing communities in British Columbia, the youth are hurting every bit as much on the North Shore as they are in other parts of the province. Misbehaviour and contemporary crime do not stem from any mysterious forces within the individual committing the act: criminality is learned and spreads like a disease, and, as well as misbehaviour or delinquency, is highly influenced by the individualistic, competitive and dehumanized social relationships in our changing society. Various aspects of their upbringing -- their family and school lives -- are leading many astray. Family breakdowns, social unrest, social deprivation and neglect are just some of the major factors.
There is a sad lack of resources in social programs, such as support for youth-oriented and youth-designed recreation and social activities. Progressive and continuous drug and alcohol abuse awareness programs are sadly lacking. British Columbia's youth are dropping out of high school at a rate of 30 percent per year, and their functional illiteracy is a growing problem. School dropout rates continue to increase as unemployment rates rise. More children are running away from home to live on the streets. They are experiencing drugs, alcohol and prostitution. This is not a crisis on the North Shore, but it could be, as it is evident that it's increasing in other areas of British Columbia.
In this changing world we live in, and with the ever-increasing competitiveness of the global market, the education and training of British Columbia youth must be a priority. In today's society, money-making and personal advancement in business are a focus.... Unbearable pressures are being put on our youth -- scaring them and scarring them, repressing them and driving them away from school, their families and their responsibilities. They join or form subcultures, or they become loners and rebel against the establishment. They are sending us a message through their actions. Are we listening? Do we hear them?
For our youth, society has a responsibility to offer opportunities and values different from the dog-eat-dog, everyone-for-him-or-herself mentality that is present in the rat race with which we are all familiar. Criminality reflects an emptiness within the individual -- a lack of purpose, impoverishment, boredom and an absence of constructive outlets to channel youthful energies. In addition to love, our youth need respect, support, opportunities, activities, challenges and, most of all, constant positive reinforcement. If we do not take on the challenge of dealing with these issues, the problem of youth crime will become malignant. We need to step in with concrete solutions now. Today's young people must be full partners in building the economy of tomorrow. This can be achieved with the government, in partnership with business, labour and educational sectors and individual British Columbians working together to ensure that a well-trained and educated workforce is developed.
Youth can be an integral component of an effective economic strategy for British Columbia. In 1985 the B.C. Youth Forum noted that high unemployment rates created apathy, frustration and hopelessness, and in 1994 the youth unemployment rate remains higher -- up around 25 percent. What have we done over the past eight years to deal with this issue? At the Youth Talks forums held by B.C. Youth in 1992, they said in their final report that the ongoing glamorization and heightened level of reporting of criminal activity in the media was partly to blame for youth crime. Youth expressed concern that the general population seemed more interested in receiving information on the negative aspects of society. That sort of coverage guarantees attention and acts as a reinforcement to the youth committing the offences, and it encourages others to do so.
[ Page 10207 ]
A correlation was once made between the suicide rate and the reporting of suicides by the media. Since the reporting of such acts has subsided, so has its popularity. It is encouraging to note that a young university graduate named Peter Gill -- originally from Surrey and a product of the Surrey school system -- has returned to his community and started a program called Doorways. It's an after-school program for troubled 12- to 15-year-old youths. This program is funded by the Canada employment centre, and society would benefit a great deal from more programs such as this.
I also want to say that a large California gang of over 300,000 members is heading to North Vancouver, and I applaud the arrival of this gang. They are most welcome in North Vancouver. They have a workable and well-received vision for young people that has become a reality. This reality is called Friday Night Live. North Vancouver is the first community in British Columbia to open its doors to this very effective and well-received effort to help our youth stay out of trouble and have fun at the same time. Two such nights have hit North Vancouver so far, and a third is planned for May 28. I invite all hon. members to take part if they so wish. There is no alcohol or drugs, and it's all good, festive fun for one and all. The reviews are quite good. The concept is new to British Columbia, and it's new to our youth. The idea is working in California, and there is no reason for it not to work in our province.
There are other ways we can help our youth, and I support a stronger partnership program between students and business, labour and research, and public and community services. I support a revamping of our apprenticeship programs to update and improve upon them. Student loan programs need to be re-evaluated and the criteria adjusted to accommodate the thousands of applications for assistance each semester. We want to make post-secondary education reachable by our youth, not the impossible dream it has become.
L. Krog: I listened with great interest to the words of the member for North Vancouver-Seymour, and I agree with much of what he had to say this morning. However, I think there is a bit of an interconnectedness between the remarks this morning of the member for Burnaby-Willingdon, what the member for North Vancouver-Seymour had to say, and what I said last week when I talked about biodiversity. In the next couple of decades the challenge for all of us will be to deal and live with a great deal less. We're going to have to do that, because the planet can't sustain what we want and what we've had. The mad race, particularly in North America, for the acquisition of more and greater material wealth, the desire for success, the kind of stroking, gadgets and material goods that display our success are among those things that help to destroy our youth.
Last week one of my colleagues mentioned to me that his professional brother has decided to work a little less. He realized that the best thing that he can do for his children is to give them a happy childhood. If there's a lesson to be learned, it is that most of us learn by example. When our children see us giving little time to them while giving plenty of time to our careers and the acquisition of wealth and the pursuit of success, and they don't quite have the intellectual ability, drive, ambition, desire or need to do what we do, it creates a sense of frustration that we're not there to guide and assist them with the challenges that they face. Frankly, those challenges are not much different from the challenges that we faced when we were young. But that's where we develop youth crime and a sense of alienation. It is also developed by the horrible poverty that still continues to plague our society.
As we enter what I think is a positive era, we have to talk about respect for the planet, respect for one another and respect for real values. I believe that we are truly coming into a more positive time around the globe. We have come to respect biodiversity and understand the dangers of overpopulation and the needs of our planet. The values that come with that indicate that our youth, who are going to inherit whatever it is we're leaving behind, need a great deal more from each and every one of us.
The government is making its efforts. We've increased funding for education, and we've made dramatic improvements in social services. With respect to justice system changes, British Columbia has the most extensive range of alternative programs for dealing with young offenders of any jurisdiction in the country. But it's not enough. We are dealing with a problem at the other end.
[10:45]
When I was practising on a full-time basis and used to appear in youth court -- I started under the old Juvenile Delinquents Act -- the youth I dealt with invariably told the same story. They came from homes where they were physically or emotionally abused. Poverty was the strongest and most significant factor in their lives. Their parents were struggling to make ends meet and didn't have time for them -- or they had come from wealthy homes where their parents didn't have time for them.
If we're really going to address these problems, we have to look at the way we as individuals treat our own children. We have to be prepared to look after our neighbour's children when they need help. The message that I'm giving here this morning is a very idealistic -- some would say superficial -- one, but it's a message that I think we have to apply to the ways we treat our own families and neighbours and friends in our daily lives. It's also the way we have to direct our governments to respond to these problems.
Violence is encouraged by our tolerance of violence and by the way we treat our children. I still hear people talk about a return to the good old days of a strap in every classroom. An act of violence directed toward anyone is simply an admission that we can't deal intelligently with the problem. I see youth violence increasing, and it is a concern, particularly in my constituency, with so many seniors who are frail and more afraid and not as secure as someone who's younger and stronger. I say to them: let's not talk about longer jail sentences or revising the Young Offenders Act to make the penalties stiffer; let's talk about dealing with the root problems. Let's talk about dealing with our young people one-on-one. Let's talk about the kind of partnership that the member for North Vancouver-Seymour talked about.
D. Jarvis: I concur with the member for Parksville-Qualicum and thank him for his remarks. I continue on. Unfortunately, we always have too much to say and too little time to do it in.
I want to say: how can we get more of our youth to participate in the multitude of recreation programs offered in each of our communities? We need accessibility through an improved public transportation system; that would be a start. Perhaps another incentive would be a point system, whereby accumulated points will translate into post-secondary bursary money to subsidize academic, commercial and trade-related training programs. Furthermore, we need to develop more serious employment policies geared towards our youth, to take away the fear,
[ Page 10208 ]
uncertainty, doubt and hopelessness, and to enable them to grow to their full potential.
British Columbia youth have faced many critical issues in recent years. A shift in labour markets and the accelerating pace of technological change have had major sociological and economic repercussions, and that goes right to the heart of the well-being of British Columbians. Education, employment training and community involvement are where our focus as decision-makers must be.
And the process must involve the full participation of our youth. Too many of our youth are losing confidence in the ability of government to address their problems and concerns. The obstacles have increased in scope and scale, without a commitment towards a society based on learning. Knowledge, innovation, participation and justice: the future of young British Columbians and of British Columbia will be in jeopardy if we don't do those things.
My concern at this moment is: what commitment are we, as representatives of the people of British Columbia, prepared to make to the young people of British Columbia? We are failing our youth and ourselves. Our focus should be on reaching youth at an early age to show and tell them that violence, crime, hanging out or simply doing nothing are contributing nothing to the growth or maturing of our society and are not the solutions to any problems. We must be able to offer them other avenues to express their views and frustrations, and see them openly and freely without negative consequences and with the assurance that their views are welcome and respected.
I'll close by saying that consultation and communication with our youth will put us in touch with them and their concerns. It would be a type of reality therapy for adults and would make youth a part of the decision-making process. Invite them to conferences, seminars, workshops, town hall meetings or the Friday Night Live programs I was talking about. Encourage them to organize this thing. Through involvement in decision-making and focusing, communication and understanding will be fostered, and youth will feel they are instrumental in addressing the very issues that impact their lives both directly and indirectly. Keep the lines of communication open. Work together rather than separately. Listen to the youth. We must act on it.
SOUTH AFRICA: A NEW DEMOCRACY
G. Brewin: This has indeed been a very interesting morning with the kinds of topics that we have dealt with and that I too am going to be discussing. We see themes of respect for the environment, for our planet, for people and for our young people particularly. But we also hear the theme of violence and destruction and the theme of human beings coming together to rebuild.
In February 1990, just four years ago, the doors of a South African prison opened to release -- after nearly 30 years -- one of the world's most famous political prisoners, Nelson Mandela. On February 2 of that same year, South African President F.W. de Klerk astounded the world with a famous speech that would signal the beginning of the end of the world's last racial oligarchy. At a single stroke, the son of apartheid's architect would undo 30 years of outlawed organizations, like the African National Congress, and at the same time announce the release of Nelson Mandela. Like Gorbachev and perestroika, this President could not imagine the forces that his reforms would unleash. However, unlike his fellow reformer, this same President has struggled alongside his black counterparts to keep the process of change within the pace of events -- hence the miraculous feat of next week's first multiracial democratic elections, taking place April 26 to April 28.
Among international efforts, B.C. has played a part in bringing about this long-awaited event. For instance, B.C. was the first jurisdiction in North America to boycott South African goods. For decades B.C.'s churches, solidarity groups, non-governmental organizations and individuals have worked very hard to promote this democratic development in South Africa. As I speak and as we sit here today, several British Columbians -- including former Premier Dave Barrett and B.C. MP Svend Robinson -- are in Natal, South Africa, as election observers sponsored by OXFAM-Canada.
There have been many stumbling blocks to the realization of these monumental reforms. These obstacles have graced the front pages of the world's newspapers, telling tales of bloodshed between tribal factions, of political rivalry between the ANC and Buthelezi's Inkatha Freedom Party, of dangerous liaisons between threatened right-wing Afrikaner groups attempting to destabilize that tottering country, and of the military-security establishment's subversive hold on the country's substructure. Indeed, there is ample concern that this hopeful political transition could be reduced to ashes; Johannesburg could become a Sarajevo -- yet another flashpoint for ethnic intolerance.
Amid the turmoil depicted in the media's sight bites on TV, the world may miss the significance of the transitional process that has been going on in South Africa -- a process which is perhaps the most extraordinary in modern times. The elections in South Africa are, in essence, the manifestation of a silent revolution propelled and initiated by South Africans themselves -- a revolution not by force or militancy but by prolonged and exhaustive negotiations between opposing factions and by complicated talks that were often facilitated by international observers, many of whom were Canadian.
Holding free and fair elections in the predetermined time frame represents an immense challenge for South Africa. The inequalities inherent in the legacy of apartheid and the inexperience of the historically disfranchised population are exacerbated by this culture of violence, by the size of the country, and by the boggling complexities of ethnicity and tribal warfare and rampant health problems, including AIDS epidemics.
I want to honour some organizations that have spent a lot of time there and that are there now. OXFAM-Canada, in particular, and other delegations have been working tirelessly to help foster cooperation between people who, more often than not, have been bitter political and historical enemies. These international groups, in conjunction with local organizations, have been hastily developing the apparatus needed to put together this tool of democracy that those of us in the Western World take so much for granted. These dedicated people have worked very hard to set up the technical, bureaucratic and security infrastructures required for the election of national and provincial legislatures. They've been educating the population about voting procedures, and they've been working to develop and give consideration to the democratic values that go with those voting procedures.
Without question, the inherent dangers surrounding South African elections are daunting. Like other parts of the world, this country has an explosive ethnic mixture that has precipitated some very terrible political violence, with some 13,000 deaths since the initial negotiations started. Moreover, the material expectations of the historically disfranchised
[ Page 10209 ]
population are very high, and it will not be easy to meet them.
In order for democratic development to take place on a sustainable basis, the fundamental question of redistribution of power and wealth must be urgently addressed by the newly-elected government of national unity. It is incumbent upon the international community and us here to play our part and support this process.
Placed in a larger historical context, there is cause for hope. In the past four years South Africa -- an authoritarian country with no history or experience of interracial dialogue -- has been engaged in what Prof. David Welsh calls "a gigantic and ongoing seminar on the nation's future." In Victoria, we may see a sign of the historic change which is taking place. With the election, South Africa comes back into the Commonwealth, and we will very likely see here in Victoria the return -- and perhaps it will be the first time -- of a mixed-race sports team. Our hope is that their new President -- should it be Nelson Mandela, or whoever is elected -- would join us as well.
I see my time is up for this portion.
V. Anderson: I thank the member for Victoria-Beacon Hill for her very timely, thoughtful and sympathetic expression of our need to be considerate of and join with -- in our prayers and in our thinking -- the people of the Republic of South Africa next Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. They have come a long way in a very short time, but they also have a very long way to go. One by one, men, women and children have stood up, spoken out and risked their very lives that they might have the dignity of being able to rule themselves and to each have a say in the government of the country of which they are proud.
[11:00]
They have come from a great deal of oppression, misunderstanding and neglect, from many other parts of the world.... I want to give appreciation to the countless volunteers -- religious, union, other non-government agencies -- from all parts of the world who have spent time and risked their lives, one by one, to share in that development and in that process.
The Republic of South Africa has some 40 million people, of which 22 million will have the opportunity to be voters for the first time next Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. It is not going to be an easy election, because it is something completely new to them. Many are illiterate. Even last week, one party which was not going to participate decided to participate. Within a week, thousands of ballots have to be changed, repaired, reordered and replaced. In that period of time, those new voters have to be given the opportunity to understand the process in which they are involved.
In South Africa they will be electing a national assembly by all of the people for the first time. At the same time, they will be electing nine provincial legislatures using a very interesting ballot system -- a proportional ballot system. Each voter will have two votes: one for the national assembly and one for the provincial legislature. Two hundred of the 400 delegates in the national assembly will be selected on the basis of the number of votes cast for their respective parties. The other 200 will be selected from the proportionate number of votes cast for the provincial legislature. So there is a real attempt in the voting to have a broad representation -- not as we have it here, just for one party necessarily -- with all of the parties represented both regionally and nationally in a balance between one and the other. It's a unique undertaking that we need to commend them for, in this venture they have undertaken.
We need to thank groups like the British Columbia Council for International Cooperation and its 34 member groups, who have been undertaking education and support in South Africa and particularly here in Canada. I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge that that same group will be asking the members of this Legislature to join them at a reception here in the Legislature building on May 18. They have been with us before to help us understand the world conditions in which we live and to ask us not just to deal with our own local circumstances, but to recognize that we are part of the world. We need them even as they need us.
May we in our prayers Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday of this week particularly remember those who risk their lives to vote for freedom and dignity.
G. Brewin: May I say to the member for Vancouver-Langara: amen to that. He has said well the additional points around this issue, and I thank him for that.
I'd like to relate an anecdote that comes from Allister Sparks, who has written in the New Yorker about the silent revolution I spoke about earlier. He speaks of two young political men playing the same political position, but on opposite sides of the fence. The one on the white team was named Roelf Meyer, Deputy Minister of Constitutional Development. On the black team was Cyril Ramaphosa, secretary general of the ANC and chief negotiator. Both men were invited by a mutual friend to do some fishing. Ramaphosa was an expert at fly fishing and offered to teach Meyer and his sons how to do it. Regrettably, as they were fly fishing, Meyer got a hook deeply imbedded in one of his fingers. The group returned home, where Ramaphosa's wife, who was a nurse, tried to remove the hook, without success. Finally Cyril intervened, seeing that Meyer was in some significant pain. "Roelf," he said, "there is only one way to do this." He poured him a glass of whisky and fetched a pair of pliers. He then took a firm grip on the hook and said: "I've always wanted to hurt you Nats, but never as much as this." And at that, Ramaphosa yanked the hook out. Meyer, relieved, looked up and muttered: "Cyril, don't say I didn't trust you."
Although the post-election period will be difficult, and many changes to come pose even greater challenges for South Africa, the centripetal forces that have brought South Africa this far appear stronger than those that would cause it to fly apart. The inescapable mutual dependency of black and white South Africans is what holds them together. It is the lesson of the fish hook. May we all learn such a lesson.
Nkosi sikelele Afrika. God bless Africa.
Deputy Speaker: I thank the member for her comments and all members for their contributions this morning. That concludes private members' statements.
EARTH DAY
Hon. M. Sihota: I'm pleased to announce that today, April 22, 1994, has been proclaimed Earth Day in British Columbia. This event provides British Columbians with an opportunity to join with many hundreds of thousands of people around the world, both today and during the coming week, in celebrating environmental stewardship through individual and community action. Earth Day has a special meaning for the people of British Columbia because of the international significance of our province's superb natural heritage.
This government recognizes that we have a unique challenge to preserve that heritage, both for its own sake and
[ Page 10210 ]
for the enjoyment of present and future British Columbians. That's why, through the CORE process, we are leading the way in Canada in terms of land use planning. That's why, through the protected areas strategy, our province is leading the way in fulfilling the Brundtland commission's goal of protecting 12 percent of our representative ecosystems. We have already taken great strides, through the protection of the Khutzeymateen, the Tatshenshini, the Ts'yl-os Park at Chilko Lake, the Gowlland Range, the south Okanagan wildlife management area announced earlier this week, and many other newly-protected areas, such as the Crescent Valley wildlife management area. Through the forest practices act and the forest renewal plan we are changing the way that British Columbia uses its resources in order to renew our forests and forest industry, restore jobs and protect the forest environment, and ensure that British Columbians have a sustainable future.
There is another area where we've been making significant progress, and Earth Day is an appropriate time to give it the recognition it deserves. For some time the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks has been working on an environmental education program to equip young people with knowledge and understanding of environmental issues and assist them in becoming better environmental citizens. I am pleased to announce the release of four environmental education packages that have been prepared in cooperation with other provincial and federal ministries and dedicated teachers throughout the province. A Teacher's Guide to the State of the Environment Report will enable the report released in May 1993 to be used as a classroom resource at the senior secondary level. A resource book entitled Backyard Biodiversity and Beyond will help young people in the intermediate grades explore biodiversity on the local, provincial and global levels. A new package called Wildlife Trees in British Columbia is designed to complement the very successful WILD environmental education program. Finally, there is a household hazardous waste program that introduces elementary students to the problems associated with a variety of substances in daily use around the house and school.
I can't emphasize enough the importance of introducing these materials into our education system. Information studies that I've seen indicate that 70 percent of the behavioural change around environmental issues by parents occurs because of the influence that children have on them. I know that well from personal experience, in terms of things my daughter is constantly reminding us to do. These materials are all available through the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, and we'll be making further packages available throughout the next year.
In keeping with the spirit of the occasion, I am also pleased to say that tomorrow our government will be making a further announcement regarding the Commonwealth Nature Legacy. This new initiative will complement the Gowlland Range acquisition announced on March 30.
Finally, in the appropriate spirit, I would urge all members of the House to lend their support to the special Earth Day activities taking place in their constituencies across the province, and I'm sure that they will do that. I would like to extend a special invitation to all those who will be in Victoria tomorrow to participate in the Earth Walk and visit the fifth annual Earthfest in Victoria on the steps of the Legislature. This is a grass-roots family event, and a large number of community and environmental groups will be providing displays, entertainment and other programs around the Inner Harbour and the Legislature grounds throughout the afternoon.
W. Hurd: I am pleased to rise today and address the minister's statement on the importance of Earth Day. While I recognize the activities that will be taking place around the province, Earth Day is a day when we all recognize that we must act locally but continue to think globally. We know that a disaster at Chernobyl, for example, affects a region far greater than the Ukraine, and we understand that the activities in the Amazon rain forests can and do affect the ozone layer and the oxygen levels of the planet. It's a time when we have to look at the burgeoning billions of populations addressed earlier in remarks to this chamber and ask ourselves on Earth Day how we are going to address some of those seemingly insurmountable problems that exist out there and, according to media reports, seem to be getting worse.
I'd like to use this opportunity on Earth Day to talk about the environmental technology industry -- of which I think we've seen the tip of the iceberg -- which has tremendous potential for solving some of the immense problems that we see today. While serving as Environment critic for the official opposition, I was struck by the number of people who contacted my office with ideas about dealing with hazardous soils and environmental cleanup -- the kind of burgeoning technology which has the potential not only to solve our problems in British Columbia but also to be exported to Third World and developing countries, where economic growth and industrial activity are outpacing their abilities to deal with the very real environmental problems that we know will affect the planet as a whole. It is exceedingly important for us to recognize that we do have that capacity in the province. We have many entrepreneurs who have wonderful ideas, but just lack the financing, in some cases, or the technical and scientific support from government.
I would like to raise that with the Legislative Assembly, and recognize that while it is important for us to make a finer imprint on our own land base in British Columbia, we do have that worldwide potential to export our knowledge, technology and willingness to change our own practices -- with the recognition that on Earth Day we have a responsibility and an ability to help those developing and Third World countries where environmental issues that may have staggering implications for the planet in the long term are now coming to the forefront.
C. Serwa: I ask leave of the House to respond.
Leave granted.
C. Serwa: I thank the House for leave to address this particularly special day, Earth Day. Every day, really, has to be Earth Day -- not only in British Columbia, but in all jurisdictions throughout the world. It's a time to reflect, a time to think, a time to plan and a time to act, and we focus on that on Earth Day. In listening to the private member's statement this morning, in listening to the private member's statement last week on biodiversity and in listening to the minister this morning and his delivery of his statement, I note that everyone seems to evade the greatest environmental threat of all, and until we face the reality, we will only play with the symptoms. The greatest environmental threat of all is the increase in human population on this globe, and we have to understand that. It is compounded by the needs, wants and expectations of that ever-growing population that is putting on the pressure. It is not international corporations or specific governments, but something fundamental that is occurring, and we have to address it in a realistic fashion. We have utilized technology in the production of food and we
[ Page 10211 ]
are able to sustain larger and larger populations; but we are demanding more and more, and the environment is becoming the shock absorber of that growing population. So we have to be realistic and look at the problem objectively, not simply play with the symptoms.
[11:15]
The Brundtland report made it very clear that the environment and the economy are integral to one another. In virtually any jurisdiction throughout the world, if you have a strong economy, you generally have a strong and healthy environment. In spite of the demands -- and we do demand a great deal in energy and resources -- North America generally has a very favourable environment, compared to most other jurisdictions in the world.
So it is with pride that I rise this morning on behalf of the Social Credit caucus to commemorate Earth Day in British Columbia. I feel a bit badly that the minister felt so compelled to bring partisan politics into his Earth Day announcement. It surprised me that that minister would be that political. He made outrageous claims about the environmental record of his government, a government that has been in power in British Columbia for two and a half years. I would have felt better if he had spoken about the broad principles represented by Earth Day -- principles which we all support.
The minister has said that through CORE, we're leading the way in Canada in land use planning. I think that the 20,000 demonstrators who came to the Legislature last month to protest the CORE process might find that remark a little hard to take. He also claimed credit for the protected areas strategy by which our province is leading the way to the Brundtland commission's goal of 12 percent. He neglected to give any credit to the work of Parks Plan 90, the Forest Resources Commission or the Round Table on the Environment and the Economy -- the precursors to the protected areas strategy who began the process of cataloguing all the various climatic and biological areas in British Columbia that might be worthy of protection.
He neglected to explain how the 21 percent protection the CORE report recommends for Vancouver Island bears any relation to the supposed 12 percent goal of the Brundtland commission. He failed to explain why 12 percent -- or any fixed percentage -- should be a goal of British Columbians. We have our own unique environment in this province, and we should be able to determine on our own what amount of land is appropriate for us to protect. Nowhere in the Brundtland commission report does it state any fixed figure with respect to 12 percent. It states what I have said here: we are responsible to allocate for our environment. The constant and repetitious use of 12 percent may not be attributed to the Brundtland report; it is erroneous.
The minister went on to say that his government is changing the way British Columbia uses its resources, through the Forest Practices Code....
Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, member, I'm going to call you to order. Will you take your seat for a moment, please?
The standing orders are quite clear regarding ministerial statements, which are not an occasion for debate. It seems to me that we're now engaged in debate. That is all the more difficult to accept from my perspective in the chair, given that within probably the next ten minutes we're going to be involved in estimates of the Minister of Environment. I would, therefore, ask the member to please conclude his remarks forthwith and save all those good political comments for the estimates debate.
C. Serwa: I guess one of the things that we expect in the House, hon. Speaker -- and certainly we normally get it from the Speaker's chair -- is fairness and balance in the statements. The minister's statement, I might state, was very political, biased and partisan in nature, and there was no consideration of asking the minister at that time.... So I'm going to request some latitude, hon. Speaker. If you wish, I will certainly continue in this vein, because it's very important to point out to the people the important aspects.... But I'll conclude my remarks, perhaps not in as quite a partisan or political nature.
Earth Day is a responsibility of each of us as an individual, not only as a legislator but also as a citizen in British Columbia. Governments will not stop the production of bleached paper in the world; people can, as consumers. Governments cannot stop littering and vandalism in our parks; people can, through vigilance and citizenship. People -- individual British Columbians -- can make the biggest difference in our environment as consumers, parents, commuters and members of our community. Government's role should be to assist people in making wise environmental choices by enabling them to make the choice to lead non-polluting lives, by building transit projects like SkyTrain, by ensuring that there is adequate and standardized consumer information for environmental choices, and by allowing communities and regions to determine their own appropriate balance to maintain a healthy environment and a healthy economy.
Days like Earth Day are times when we can reflect on all of those values. The best use of this day is to celebrate our environment and to realize that the tens of thousands of people who came here last month to express their views on our forests, and hundreds of thousands of other British Columbians, are our own true environmentalists -- the working stewards of our forests and other natural resources. British Columbians can stand proud with our record of achievement in environmental protection. Can we do better? Yes, we can. Must we do better? Yes, we must.
Hon. M. Sihota: I call Committee of Supply.
The House in Committee of Supply B; M. Farnworth in the chair.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT, LANDS AND PARKS, AND
MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS AND MULTICULTURALISM
(continued)
On vote 30: minister's office, $386,800 (continued).
W. Hurd: This morning I want to address a series of questions to the minister with respect to the non-compliance and pollution concern list, which the ministry releases, one would assume, on an annual basis. In this case it was released March 1, 1994. Can the minister advise the committee of the criteria that go into establishing that list? Are these firms in substantial non-compliance with the existing waste management permits for the plants? Perhaps the minister could clarify how this list is compiled by his ministry.
Hon. M. Sihota: Yesterday a question was put to me about the number of auxiliary positions within the communications department of the Ministry of Environment. For the record, I want to make the answer
[ Page 10212 ]
available to the hon. members. In the public affairs branch there are seven auxiliary appointments. The total number of auxiliaries within the Ministry of Environment is 246. The other question put to me was: "How many of the other auxiliary employees has the minister hired personally within the ministry to work in the communications department?" The answer to that question is none.
As to the criteria that are used, let me say first that we put out two lists, and we put them out twice a year. So the hon. member should know that. There's a time lag between the time we actually do the work, the analysis and assessment, and the date that we actually release the report. There are two lists that we put out. One is the non-compliance list. Those are situations where, in our judgement, there has been a technical violation of the appropriate permit. We also put out a pollution concern list, where we raise issues with regard to pollution, although those companies may not be legally in a non-compliance situation.
D. Symons: I see we've had Earth Day comments today, and yet on the Environment estimates we do not seem to have a quorum in this room.
The Chair: Committee, come to order.
W. Hurd: The non-compliance list invites a number of questions. Can the minister tell us whether it is the responsibility of these firms to report this non-compliance? Or is this non-compliance monitored by a battery of tests by the ministry, once a firm, a regional district or something else goes on this non-compliance list? Is this really just a public relations exercise, to name firms in the province? Or is a battery of tests and monitoring done by the ministry with respect to these particular groups, organizations and companies on the list that obviously are not meeting the waste management permits under which they operate?
Hon. M. Sihota: Some of the information was based on work in the ministry; some of the information was based on information which comes from the industry. The industry or company in question is then advised of the fact that they are being considered to be put on the list. They have the opportunity to respond, and then we proceed with the issuance of the list.
W. Hurd: I have a few further questions about some of those firms and groups named. I notice a couple of classifications for first nations bands in British Columbia. Is it the responsibility of the ministry to monitor compliance on first nations reserves in order to enforce the same sets of standards that exist across the province?
Hon. M. Sihota: As the hon. member knows, native bands are constitutionally a federal matter. However, we do have cooperative arrangements in some cases with the federal government, which allows us to secure the appropriate information.
[11:30]
W. Hurd: I'm really struggling with some of the minister's answers on this particular list. It appears that certain organizations are on the list, including regional districts and city governments, that obviously do not have the financial ability at this point to get off the list. I pose the question to the minister in all honesty: what value is served by publishing a list of firms, regional districts and local governments in significant non-compliance when the mechanism -- the cooperative strategies with the ministry -- is not available to get off the list? One assumes that, by publishing a list, the people who are on it will identify their deficiencies and take proactive steps to get off the list next year. But in reviewing the people and companies on this list, it appears that many are not going to be able to get off. What does the minister hope to accomplish by publishing such a list?
Hon. M. Sihota: Let me make a number of comments with regard to what the hon. member says. The publication list is very effective in that most companies do not wish to be identified as companies violating the environment. Most companies do not want the public record to speak to the fact that they are in non-compliance. Publishing the list, in itself, gets companies to take the appropriate remedial steps to clean up their act.
Since the hon. member referred to the March 1, 1994, date, he knows that I issued a list in 1994 that covered the period until about September 30, 1993. Since the previous list, which was issued in August 1992, 45 operations or sites were dropped from the list. I think the list had somewhere in the neighbourhood of 70 companies on it -- I'm functioning from memory there. What I'm saying is that a good number of those companies on the list the year before were off the following year. That's a pretty good indication that no company wants to be demonstrated to have been in violation of their permits, and when they are, they take remedial action.
Some of them are chronic non-compliers, and I indicated that, rather than simply allowing their names to be on the list in the future, they'll also be facing investigations of violations. In fact, there have been consequences from that as well. The hon. member seemed to suggest that people may not have the financial wherewithal. The fact of the matter is that some operations have had to make significant improvements at significant expense. For example, one of the most significant operations that was dropped from the last list was Western Pulp's Woodfibre operation in Howe Sound. That company had been on all seven lists since they were first issued in July 1990, but it decided it had to improve its performance because of public knowledge that it was one of the worst polluters.
Hon. Chair, before I take my seat, I want to make one other concluding comment. The other day in this House, I said that politics is all about whose side you're on. With great interest, I've listened to what the hon. member has had to say for the last two days with regard to environmental matters. Time and time again, he has stood up to defend the interests of the rich and the powerful, the interests of big business, and to speak against the need to protect the environment and to show leadership in environmental matters in British Columbia. It's becoming more and more apparent, as I participate in this debate, whose side it is that the Liberal opposition is on. We've witnessed the Leader of the Opposition say that his first environmental priority will be to get rid of the kinds of regulations that drive people to be on this list. I want the hon. member to know that this government is going to be vigilant in the enforcement of environmental regulations. We'll make sure we have appropriate environmental regulations and that our children inherit an environment that is as safe, as clean and as bountiful as the one that we found.
It seems to me that one thing this debate is demonstrating is the difference of opinion -- philosophically, practically and politically -- between an opposition that stands for the rich and powerful and the people on this side of the House who stand for the environment.
[ Page 10213 ]
W. Hurd: Let me read into the record some of the rich and powerful names on the list of non-compliance. The Greater Vancouver Regional District is rich and powerful indeed. It's totally funded by the taxpayers of the Greater Vancouver Regional District, ordinary British Columbians whom the government repeatedly, at every opportunity, claims in this chamber to represent. The Regional District of Bulkley-Nechako....
Interjection.
W. Hurd: Another rich and powerful name.
The Takla Lake Indian band. I asked the question of the minister about non-compliance -- with refuse compaction, wildlife and septic lagoons -- based on a ministry inspection, according to this particular document.... I wonder if the minister could talk specifically about the problems of the Takla Lake band and advise them that the reason they are in non-compliance is that they're rich and powerful. What steps does the minister intend to take with respect to the Takla Lake band to ensure that they don't get on this non-compliance list for rich and powerful people in the next budget year?
Interjection.
The Chair: Before I recognize the hon. minister, I would advise the member for North Vancouver-Seymour that if he wishes to heckle he should do so from his own seat, pursuant to the existing standing orders, which I know he is aware of.
Hon. M. Sihota: No one believes the.... In my time in this Legislature, not once have I ever seen the Liberal Party, on any kind of consistent basis, stand up and defend the interests of aboriginal people in British Columbia. Not once have I seen them ask questions of the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs in question period. Not once have I seen them congratulate the government for establishing the Treaty Commission process to bring about a just and fair resolution of native land claims in this province of ours. Not once have I seen them stand up and deal with some of the real problems faced by natives in this province. Not once during the course of discussions that we had during the constitution did they stand up and say that there was a place for native people in this province. Not once did the people on that side of the House ever....
The Chair: The member for Okanagan West on a point of order.
C. Serwa: We're dealing with the estimates of the Ministry of Environment, and it seems to me that it would be appropriate if questions were asked of the minister and of the ministry, rather than having the minister place the onus of responsibility on the official opposition, as he is trying to do. It would enhance the proceedings in this Legislature if we returned to ministry estimates.
The Chair: Thank you, hon. member. I think the point is well taken that we are on....
Interjections.
The Chair: Order, please.
Hon. member for Richmond-Steveston, I'm currently dealing with a point of order; we can't deal with two of them at once. In reply to the member for Okanagan West, we are on Environment estimates, and I think all members of the House should keep that in mind.
The member for Richmond-Steveston on a point of order.
A. Warnke: I also think that it is quite within the purview of the Chair to remind the hon. minister not only to stick to the particular estimates but also to not fabricate a lot of nonsense, which the minister just did.
The Chair: Hon. member, that is not a point of order.
The member for Chilliwack on a point of order.
R. Chisholm: I refer to articles 40(3) and 43 in Standing Orders on "Irrelevance in debate" and "Irrelevance and repetition in debate." All we're seeing is politics. We're not seeing the debate on the environment, and these are the Environment estimates. The minister is talking about every ministry but his own. I think irrelevance is a point of order, hon. Chair.
The Chair: Thank you, hon. member. I would just advise the House again that we are on the Ministry of Environment estimates, and with that in mind the Chair recognizes the Minister of Environment.
Hon. M. Sihota: It always amazes me that when we start to point out in this House that the Liberals stand for the rich and the powerful, and that we have an obligation to defend the interests of ordinary people, the Liberals huff and they puff and they heckle, and then they hide behind rules because they can't defend themselves in any other way. We have some....
Interjections.
The Chair: Order!
The minister continues.
Hon. M. Sihota: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I appreciate that assistance, and I do hope they will now calm down on the other side of the House.
We have an arrangement with the federal government which allows us to look at ways in which we can resolve the septic lagoon refuse problem faced by the Takla Lake band. I must say that I'm familiar with cases in the past where the Ministry of Environment, working with the federal government, has solved environmental problems on native lands. So we have....
A. Warnke: You haven't solved one environmental....
Hon. M. Sihota: I believe the member for Richmond-Steveston is suffering from something, hon. Chair.
I'll just continue for a moment. We have arrangements with native bands where we work out resolutions to environmental problems. We're not reluctant to identify concerns with regard to native lands, but we also recognize that that then puts the pressure on us, the federal government and the band in question to solve it. There have been many success stories in British Columbia where we have been able to do that.
For example, the Esquimalt band had significant problems on their lands because of PCBs that were either stored on or found their way into the soil at that site. I don't know whether or not they were identified as being one of British Columbia's pollution concerns, but I know that it was a concern locally. I'm pleased to say that work is now
[ Page 10214 ]
occurring on those lands, and funding has been secured to deal with that environmental problem. There's a value in making the public aware of these concerns, and a value is returned back to the public as notice of those issues causes government to react as they should.
W. Hurd: The minister has acknowledged that there is a political purpose for publishing the list of non-compliance. I accept the minister's reasoning that by virtue of being named in such a document, the companies, individuals, regional districts and local governments would be moved to try to get off it.
But, again, speaking on behalf of the rich and powerful Takla Lake band, which I notice is on the list for the second time.... It's important to read into the record the difficulties being experienced: "Non-compliance with refuse compaction and covering leading to wildlife and scatter problems, septage lagoon full -- based on ministry inspection. Some improvements have been implemented; permittee required to complete work. Second time on list." What steps is the minister prepared to take, in view of the fact that the Takla Lake band is undoubtedly going to experience some difficulties in the next year with costs and meeting the requirements to get off this list? What steps is the ministry going to take specifically to help the Takla Lake band and the Tl'azt'en nation in Prince George, which has similar problems? I assume they have been put on the list because of their rich and powerful status. I'm sure the minister will agree that they are going to experience some difficulties in getting off this minister's hit list. I ask him what steps he intends to take in the next year to help the first nations peoples on those two reserves get off this political list of non-compliance.
Hon. M. Sihota: This is not a political list of non-compliance; this is a technical list -- as I pointed out to the member earlier on -- of people who are in violation of their pollution permits. One of the most effective ways in which we as a society can ensure that people come off the list and begin to comply with regulations is by disclosing these lists.
The member should know that there was a time in British Columbia when we did not disclose who the polluters were. I'm beginning to wonder if the member would prefer to see us as a society go back to those days and not disclose to the public who is causing damage to the environment. We make no apologies on this side of the House for putting forward a technical list that shows who in British Columbia is out of compliance and putting the pressure on them to comply through publication of the list.
[11:45]
The hon. member may have had some room for criticism if the only thing we did was put out the list. That's not the case. With native bands, for example, we do a number of other things. We work with the federal government, as we have in the past, to make sure that these problems are remedied. We bring them to the notice of the federal government through the publication of this list and other venues. Steps are taken with the allocation of funds, as will be done in this case and as has been done in the case of problems that have arisen in the past. The Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment has a task force that deals with the broad issue of problems with environmental standards that are experienced on native lands. By working closely with native bands and the federal government, the provincial government solves a lot of problems.
I was talking a few minutes ago about the Esquimalt native band. This is only a slight digression in a sense that will become apparent in a minute. I remember the times that I went down to that band reserve, which is on the boundary between Victoria and Esquimalt. When you flushed a toilet in a native residence, you would see the soil literally percolate in the back yard as the effluent was discharged, causing significant health and -- yes -- environmental problems for the members of that band. Yes, it was appropriate to note, both publicly and otherwise, that those problems were there. And yes, I'm pleased to say that the local, regional, provincial and federal governments were able to solve those problems as a consequence.
So I don't see that making this kind of technical information available to the public is an issue. I can assure the member that in the future, as we have done in the past, we will deal with the federal government, which has the prime responsibility to solve these problems.
W. Hurd: The minister seems to be rapidly developing a split personality on this list during the course of these estimates. I look down the list of rich and powerful people, and I see that Weldwood of Canada and West Fraser Mills are involved. These are the rich and powerful corporate polluters that his ministry is going to root out by putting out a list of non-compliance. But when it comes to the Takla Lake band and the Tl'azt'en nation of Prince George, there's a different rationale for the list, which involves concern about those problems and the fact that if we put them on this hit list, somehow the funds to address the problems will miraculously appear.
I ask the question again. The Takla Lake band is on the list for the second time for problems that the minister has correctly identified, such as sewage and other issues. The Tl'azt'en nation from Prince George is on the list for the third time for municipal refuse, and for the second time for effluents. Given that this list is seen as a negative list of polluters by some people -- in the ministry, undoubtedly, and also outside the ministry -- will the minister commit today that his ministry will do all it can in the coming fiscal year to ensure that these rich and powerful bands in the interior of the province are not named on such a list, and that they will not assume that they have the same status as some of the rich and powerful corporate polluters that the minister has identified on this list?
Hon. M. Sihota: Only a member of the Liberal Party would stand here and ask us to use political discretion and meddle in deciding who is on a list and who is not on a list. This is a technical list. It shows who the worst polluters are in British Columbia. We are going to produce it so British Columbians know. Nothing can hide the veneer-thin argument of the opposition, whose real purpose is to make sure the government doesn't publish these things, so it can take this to the boardrooms of the rich and powerful, who they stand up for, and say that they are making these points under the convenient shield of dealing with natives.
If the hon. member wants to be constructive, he should stand up here and support our efforts to deal with the federal government by asking his kissing cousins in Ottawa to give us some assistance dealing with these federal problems.
W. Hurd: I'm happy to note that the minister doesn't have any kissing cousins left in Ottawa with the federal NDP. Soon there will be no kissing cousins left in the province of British Columbia, either.
But I go back to the list of non-compliance. I asked the question about the Greater Vancouver Regional District,
[ Page 10215 ]
which, as the minister knows, has appeared on this list a record number of times, for six or seven years. Since the minister well knows that the investment capital to deal with that problem simply isn't there, what purpose can possibly be served by producing a list where organizations like the Greater Vancouver Regional District and the Takla Lake band have been on for years and cannot get off? I'd be happy to settle for an answer to that question.
Hon. M. Sihota: I can't believe that the hon. member is saying that I should know the capital is not there. I'll tell you what's not there: the requisite political will at the federal level. The Greater Vancouver Regional District has indicated that it is prepared to enter into a cost-sharing formula to solve that problem along the Fraser River. The provincial government has indicated that it is prepared to put in its share of the requisite dollars to solve that problem along the Fraser River. The problem has been that the federal government has not been forthcoming in the application of funds to assist in the resolution of that problem. All three levels of government working together can solve this problem by putting in the requisite resources.
This government has been hammering at the door of Ottawa, saying that the federal government has to come through with assistance to clean up the problems in the Greater Vancouver Regional District, particularly as they relate to Annacis Island and Lulu Island. Why are we saying that? Because the Fraser River is the world's largest salmon-producing fishery: $300 million a year of our economy is generated by fishery activity along the Fraser River. The fish have to find their way past the effluent plant at Lulu Island, and then up past Annacis Island toward New Westminster. They have to make their way through there, and it's remarkable that they actually survive some of the problems they confront on the Fraser River.
For several years now, this government has been saying that the federal government must come to the table and enter into negotiations to solve those problems. It seems to me that the hon. member would be well advised to join this government and encourage his relatives over in Ottawa to get to the table and put up some money. You know, it's not good enough for the federal Minister of Environment to come to Vancouver and try to tell us we've got to solve the problem on the Fraser River and then not put in the requisite dollars.
I'll tell you something: without the help of the official opposition, which does not want to be seen in any way to be criticizing its friends in Ottawa, we are at this point very close to arriving at an arrangement with the federal government to clean up the Fraser River, to solve these problems of the GVRD and to overcome the damage to the Fraser River as a consequence of what exists at Lulu and Annacis. We are very close. We have been working, negotiating and endeavouring to arrive at an arrangement -- without the help of the opposition. I have not yet heard one member from the opposition stand up and say that this is a priority. I haven't heard the Leader of the Opposition stand up and say that funding should be provided on a one-third basis, and I wish he would. But I want the hon. member to know that the Minister of Municipal Affairs, the Minister of Employment and Investment, the Premier and I have been very aggressive in going after the federal government. While the hon. member says we should just give up because everyone knows the capital is not there, we're not going to give up. We think the capital is there, and we've put up our share of the capital.
I want the hon. member to know something. If I look into my crystal ball, I can see the time when his friends in Ottawa will realize that we were right, and they will come forward with their money. Mark my words, hon. member, that day is not that far away.
W. Hurd: I'm certainly glad the minister talked about the Fraser River fishery, because that gives me an opportunity to talk about some of the documentation the federal government has provided to British Columbia. I refer specifically to the Kemano completion hearings in Prince George. There are 80,000 documents from the federal government with respect to that project. With all due respect to the Greater Vancouver Regional District sewage problems, I'm sure the minister will agree that it represents a significant risk to the Fraser River fishery. I have had an opportunity to review some of those federal documents, particularly some of the DFO material. I might add that it is alarming documentation. Given the minister's stated concern about the future of the Fraser River with respect to municipal sewage, will he stand during these estimates today and commit that in the event the B.C. Utilities Commission identifies a serious risk to the Fraser River fishery, his government will bite the bullet on compensation to Alcan and scrap the project?
Hon. M. Sihota: I'd like to know why the hon. member hasn't put that question to Mr. Tobin, whether he has put it to Sheila Copps, or whether he has put it to Mr. Chretien. He's afraid to put it to his federal Liberal counterparts. The answer to the question is no. I'm not prepared to stand up in this House today, right at this moment, in advance of any determinations by the B.C. Utilities Commission, and make any type of commitment along those lines.
Interjection.
Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. member, we'll wait to see what happens with the Utilities Commission's hearing. We'll evaluate the positions of all parties after those hearings are complete. Where was the provincial Liberal opposition when this issue first came to the fore? Not one member of the Liberal opposition stood up in this House and asked us....
Interjections.
Hon. M. Sihota: You didn't let me finish.
The Chair: The member for North Vancouver-Seymour on a point of order.
D. Jarvis: If the minister was aware of such things, he would read my press releases of June 1992, when I made the same statement.
The Chair: That is not a point of order. Those are comments you could make when you take your place in the debate. In the meantime, we are on Environment estimates.
W. Hurd: I wonder how many of the 80,000 pieces of documentation from the federal government this minister intends to review. Perhaps the reason that he isn't going to review them until the BCUC has done its work is that he used to be the minister in charge of B.C. Hydro. Perhaps that has more to do with the minister's determination not to be involved in this process or make any commitments on behalf of the fishery or the Fraser River until it has done its work. I
[ Page 10216 ]
find the silence of the provincial government on the Alcan issue intriguing. I ask the minister again: in his ministry, if he were to review Department of Fisheries documentation with respect to the water flows in the Nechako and the effect on the Fraser River, would he as Environment minister -- not as the past minister in charge of B.C. Hydro, but as the Environment minister of British Columbia -- make a commitment to ensure that damage does not occur to the Fraser River fishery from the Kemano completion project?
Hon. M. Sihota: I find it amazing to listen to the hon. member who said that this government has been silent on the issue of the Kemano. We were calling for an inquiry long before the Liberal opposition even knew where the Kemano project was situate in this province, and long before the hon. member for North Vancouver-Seymour had occasion to write his press release of June 1992. We were standing up in this House, we were telling the federal government that there had to be an inquiry and that within the mandate we had jurisdiction over -- the B.C. Utilities Commission -- we would have an inquiry. The Premier went up to Prince George long before those press releases were written and said that there would be an inquiry. He made that commitment before the provincial election campaign, delivered on it, and established an inquiry at the B.C. Utilities Commission. The only reason those documents are now starting to come forward into the public eye is that this government showed leadership in establishing a commission in Prince George -- now coming down to Vancouver -- in terms of the B.C. Utilities Commission.
Where was the Liberal Party in those days, hon. member? Nowhere to be seen, nowhere to be seen in terms of demonstrating the requisite leadership. Hon. member, if it had not been for the kind of leadership demonstrated by the current Minister of Health and the former Minister of Government Services in this House and in our caucus, these kinds of things would not be available to the public right now. These documents are there or are starting to come out because this government is having those hearings under our mandate.
[12:00]
I ask the hon. member: where is Mr. Tobin with regard to some of these matters? We were the ones who said right up front that the federal government had to produce the scientific reports which Mr. Mulroney wanted to hide. And to this day, Mr. Tobin -- his kissing cousin in Ottawa -- still hasn't provided the appropriate evidence that is required for us to have a full and thorough hearing. If the hon. member wants to do anything, he ought to be joining us by putting the appropriate pressure on the federal government. It was....
The Chair: The member for Richmond Centre on a point of order.
D. Symons: Despite all of the minister's frothing at the mouth, I have not yet heard an answer to the question that was placed to him. He's not relevant at all.
The Chair: Hon. member, that is not a point of order, but your comments on relevancy...
Interjections.
The Chair: Order, hon. members.
...are well taken, and I would remind all members at this opportunity that relevancy is key whether in debate or in estimates.
Hon. M. Sihota: On the issue of compensation, I have already answered the question.
W. Hurd: In that long-winded rhetoric I did not hear a single commitment from the provincial government, if the B.C. Utilities Commission hearings can demonstrate a significant risk to the Fraser River fishery.... That's fine. I accept that. I accept the fact that this minister used to be in charge of B.C. Hydro and understands, I suppose, how important that project will be to the revenue of B.C. Hydro. We have no idea in the House whether he's speaking on behalf of the rich and powerful B.C. Hydro, or whether he's speaking on behalf of the commercial fishery and the sports fishery in British Columbia. We don't know that, but we'll give him the benefit of the doubt.
Can I ask the minister this about the B.C. Utilities Commission hearings: is he absolutely satisfied as the Minister of Environment -- absolutely convinced -- that these hearings will arrive at a verifiable risk to the Fraser River fishery?
Hon. M. Sihota: I am totally satisfied the B.C. Utilities Commission will do a first-class job within the terms of reference and the mandate that it has. There's absolutely nothing in the history of the current composition of the B.C. Utilities Commission which would lead one to suggest that they would not do a thorough, first-class job and arrive at appropriate answers within the terms of reference and mandate that they have.
W. Hurd: Can the minister tell us what his relationship is with this particular B.C. Utilities Commission? Does his ministry spend any time assessing and monitoring and looking at the information that is being presented, or is it his ministry's intention to simply sit back and wait for this report to be released? Is his ministry concerned about some of the documentation that exists within the federal Fisheries department? Has he commissioned any portion of his ministry to review this documentation?
Hon. M. Sihota: The hon. member obviously has not been following the Kemano hearings. I know he went up there to Prince George for a one-week visit. Maybe he should have stayed a bit longer so he'd be a little more informed.
This ministry has already had a panel giving evidence with regard to hydrology matters. We've already indicated that we will be allowing our fisheries experts to give evidence at the hearings. Unlike the federal government, the provincial government will place no muzzle on our fisheries officials. They'll be there and give evidence. They'll be happy to testify in front of the commission and to take questions in terms of cross-examination. They won't hide behind lawyers in the way that has been the case with federal officials. We will give the evidence that's required under the commission as and when they request it.
W. Hurd: I'm delighted to hear that the federal government, which has been accused by the minister of hiding behind lawyers.... And I'm delighted to hear that the lawyer who runs this ministry won't have his ministry hiding behind him either, with respect to the B.C. Utilities Commission hearings.
Perhaps, then, I can ask the minister once again if he is completely satisfied with the terms of reference for the B.C. Utilities Commission hearings. In my brief sojourn in Prince George last week, one of the questions asked quite often was regarding the terms of reference for the B.C. Utilities
[ Page 10217 ]
Commission hearings. The question was asked: what is the Ministry of Environment doing with respect to these terms of reference? Is the ministry completely satisfied that the B.C. Utilities Commission, with its somewhat narrow terms of reference, in the end will be able to get to the bottom of the Kemano completion project? Is he completely convinced that the B.C. Utilities Commission will produce a report that will enable his ministry and government to make a reasoned decision about whether this project should go ahead? Many environmentalists in the province would like to know the answer to that question. Is he happy with the terms of reference?
Hon. M. Sihota: I think the hon. member needs to visit history and understand exactly what happened here. When he does that, I'm sure he will have a better appreciation of what has transpired in the Kemano. I'll answer his question in the course of my comments.
First, the hon. member should know that a settlement agreement was signed by the previous Conservative government and the Social Credit government with regard to the Alcan project. There were certain provisions in that settlement agreement. I believe the agreement was signed in 1987. Those provisions impact upon the responsibilities of both Alcan and the governments that were parties to the agreement.
Second, this party, prior to the election, indicated that it would allow for a hearing. The Premier, shortly after the election, indicated that there would be a hearing; he made that announcement in Prince George. Prior to that this government -- without any demands from the Liberal Party -- commissioned a study to be done by Mr. Rankin with regard to the settlement agreement, its import and some of the threshold issues regarding the project.
The hon. member would be well advised to read Mr. Rankin's report. It was on the basis of Mr. Rankin's report, on the basis of his consultation with the stakeholders and on the basis of his discussions with groups like the Rivers Defence Coalition, the Carrier-Sekani and others that Mr. Rankin reported back to cabinet and indicated what would be the appropriate terms of reference. We accepted that advice and on that basis proceeded with the hearings. The terms of reference were founded in that type of an approach on the part of this government -- not written here in Victoria, but predicated on the kind of involvement that Mr. Rankin had in the community.
Yes, I have no reason to doubt the integrity and good sense of the people on the B.C. Utilities Commission. I'm sure that their work will be thorough within the terms of reference they have.
W. Hurd: I find the conversation about the Kemano completion project fascinating. All I will say at this point is that the opposition has reviewed a number of interesting documents with respect to that project -- including, I might add, the time that the current minister was in charge of B.C. Hydro. We'll be raising them in this House in the future.
I want to ask a question about the auditor general's report, however, in the limited time that we have left in this debate. My question is specifically about the general findings with respect to waste management in the province. I note that among the findings, the auditor general said: "Although the ministry is sensitive to stakeholder reactions on specific issues, we found that it does not have a comprehensive approach to assessing overall acceptance of the special waste regulatory process or to evaluating the relationship between that acceptance and the program's success." May I ask the minister whether he has reviewed the auditor general's recommendations with respect to these new special waste regulations that the ministry is adopting? Is he, in this budget year, going to adopt an approach that is both more aggressive and conciliatory when dealing with some of the stakeholder groups which are going to be affected by these standards?
Hon. M. Sihota: Through greater public and stakeholder consultation, the ministry has already improved its overall approach to the development of criteria, regulations, legislation and guidelines. This year and in the future we will continue to enhance these efforts, as we have in the past, to the extent that resource allocations and expenditure priorities allow. But there are allocations that will allow us to upgrade the degree of our stakeholder consultations.
W. Hurd: The minister will know that the auditor general's recommendation No. 4 says: "...that a proactive approach to promoting public acceptance of special waste regulatory process be used to improve the efficiency of regulatory operations." I ask the minister again what he specifically intends to do during the coming year, given the fact that the auditor general has clearly linked up the need to adopt this kind of program with the efficiency of the regulations themselves.
Hon. M. Sihota: That's a good question on the part of the hon. member. We're very interested in making sure that there is broad, thoughtful consultation with the public, and that the public has greater notice of some of the things that we are considering. As the hon. member knows, we have issued a whole series of discussion papers on a wide range of topics to better enable us to make sure that the public is aware of what we are considering and doing. I know that in my experience we have had a lot of advance discussion -- for example, on the issue of water. To further assist with that, in this year's budget we will begin issuing quarterly bulletins that will give the public an even greater understanding of where the ministry is headed and what can be anticipated.
W. Hurd: I wonder if the minister could advise us, then, with respect to further recommendations in the auditor general's report. Reference was made to the procedure manual that is currently being used in the field by regional Environment staff. The auditor general recommends that all sections of the procedures manual which predate the existing regulations be updated to ensure consistency with the regulations. Does the ministry plan in the coming year to aggressively address the gaps that appear to exist in its procedures manual, for the benefit of regional staff?
Hon. M. Sihota: I'm pleased to advise the member that the ministry has already commenced a review to update its procedures manual, and it has a compendium of all criteria, regulations, guidelines, legislation, etc., in each regional office and in its head office to assist in providing staff with current information requirements for decision-making.
W. Hurd: My last question on the auditor general's recommendation would be regarding the need that was identified to share information within the regions of the ministry. The auditor general expressed some concern about existing communication policies and procedures, and information that needed to be better shared between regions of the province. It's important to read into the record the recommendation of the auditor general, who pointed out:
[ Page 10218 ]
"We recommend that the ministry encourage the regions to share information among themselves about the practical application of the regulation." I deduce from the recommendation that the auditor general was somewhat concerned that there was a lack of sharing of information, that various regions within the ministry were further along than others and that there needed to be better coordination. What specific steps in terms of computer technology or communication devices would the ministry be adopting to address the concern of the auditor general?
Hon. M. Sihota: Thank you, hon. member, for the question. Let me say a number of things that we've done as a ministry. First of all, there has been -- if I can put it this way -- a slight restructuring of the ministry to better improve communication and dialogue. The hon. member may be aware of some of the restructuring and consequent personnel adjustments made as a result of that restructuring.
Secondly, we have improved our system of communication. For example, we're having more conference calls than was the case in the past, and we have moved to a far more orderly way of dealing with quarterly meetings. The ministry concurs with the recommendations of the auditor general. We'll obviously take more steps in the future to encourage dialogue and feedback between the regions, in addition to those steps that I've just amplified on.
[12:15]
D. Symons: I'm pleased to get up and ask some questions today of the minister. I hope the minister remembers that these estimates debates are really where the minister is to account for the spending and programs put in place in his ministry by the government. We seem to have had a lot of flights of fancy on thoughts, ideas and misrepresentation of what the opposition stands for, rather than answers and assuming responsibility for what the ministry has been doing.
I was hoping today that.... I did have a bill on the order paper yesterday, introducing the Uranium Moratorium Act.... It would have been appropriate on Earth Day and with the Environment ministry estimates for that to have come forward. It's unfortunate that that hasn't happened on private members' day.
To get on to the ministry's estimates, I note -- if I follow through since this government came into power -- that each year the spending in the Ministry of Environment has gone down. Indeed, if we take out the multicultural, immigration and human rights figures from this year's total, we're at the lowest spending in the ministry in four years. I'm wondering what it represents in terms of a commitment to environmental issues if spending continually goes down, and at the same time we seem to see a corresponding increase in the bureaucracy that's built up within the ministry.
Hon. M. Sihota: I'm not too sure where you're doing your research, or if you're understanding the material that you're reading. Our budget is up this year. Last year our actual expenditures were up as well. In the first year of this administration, funding was also up for the Ministry of Environment. I don't think you've carefully read some of the notes attached to the budget information, because if you had taken the care to read that, you would understand that the budget has gone up, I believe, by about 5.7 percent.
D. Symons: I've just been reading from estimates books over the past years. In the 1991-92 fiscal year it was $219 million; in the 1992-93 fiscal year -- after the year was out so spending was finalized -- it was $213 million; in 1993-94, the final figure after figures were in was $212 million -- they overspent their budget of $203 million; and in 1994-95, they've budgeted for $213 million. You might say that's an increase, but if you take the fact that we've added two responsibilities that weren't there before -- multiculturalism and immigration, $6.1 million, and human rights, $2.6 million; that's $8.7 million -- and subtract that from the $213 million, you have $204 million budgeted for the Environment, Lands and Parks part of the ministry this year. That to me seems to be a reduction.
Hon. M. Sihota: You've got to be kidding with that comment, hon. member; you know I'd never do that.
Interjection.
Hon. M. Sihota: You are wrong. I can tell you that the estimates for 1993-94 for the ministry were $250 million and the estimates for '94-95 are $264 million.
I can see you would come to the conclusion that there's been a reduction on the basis of the material you have, because you haven't looked at the asterisk attached to the number that appears in the blue book. We're up, blue book to blue book, by about 5.7 percent. You have the blue book here before you. If you look at it, there's an explanatory note with regard to the expenditures of the ministry. If you read that, you'll see we're actually up by about 5.7 percent this year.
W. Hurd: I have a series of brief questions on the household hazardous waste issue in British Columbia. I'm referring specifically to the report from the Waste Reduction Commission. In his opening remarks in the estimates debate, I believe the minister talked about the recommendation to eventually close the eight hazardous waste depots currently operating in the province -- that was one of the recommendations -- and replace them with an industry-sponsored system for product handling. Can the minister tell us whether that is still on track? Are those depots scheduled for closure? Are they to be closed in June of this year?
Hon. M. Sihota: I announced about a month and a half ago that we would be closing the depots as of April 8, and we have. I announced that day that in concert with the recommendation, we'd be moving more to an industry-sponsored initiative.
I indicated at the time that we would be first moving with paint, in terms of an industry-sponsored program, because 70 percent of the material was paint. I've already indicated that as of July 1 we will have a paint recycling program. People can just take the paint that's been sitting in their garages and storage sheds for years back to their local paint retailer, and it will be recycled.
W. Hurd: The minister is saying that these depots are in the process of closing, or will be closed, by June. Or is that timetable on track? Is the minister satisfied that his announcements are coming along and that the industry is coming along at a rate which would allow the depots to be closed, according to this recommendation, in a little under a month and a half's time? Is there any plan to keep them open longer? Or are they all shutting down at the present time?
Hon. M. Sihota: I thought I had just answered the question, but the answer is that they are. So we are on track. The system was relatively costly, if I can put it that way. It served about 0.5 percent of British Columbia households and
[ Page 10219 ]
operated periodically, about every one to three months, at a cost of about $3 million since 1991. We're saving money.
We're moving to a new regime, and I think it's philosophically the appropriate regime. We're saying that the industry that causes the problem has to find the solution, in terms of products. It's not good enough to be able to ask government to pick up the consequences of paint that sits around people's yards. That's an industry-created problem, and industry has to find the solution. Industry has agreed in the area of paints, for example, that they will be returned to retail outlets in British Columbia. It's been long overdue, and it's welcome if the industry is accepting its responsibility to deal with this product from cradle to grave -- from the time that the product is produced at a paint yard or factory to the time that it's used and then returned to the store. In terms of consumer convenience, it's great because you just return it to your local Color Your World or Home Hardware, as the case may be. It's clearly a step in the right direction. It takes the burden off the backs of taxpayers and places it on the industry.
I want to make another point with regard to that. The hon. member, during the course of my comments on Earth Day, made a good comment with regard to environmental industries. It's certainly a comment that I concurred with. What we're seeing in British Columbia is the development of some new industries as a consequence of these responsibilities being placed on the industry. For example, I believe we are just about to establish a manufacturing arm in B.C. that takes recycled paint and then resells it. A whole market is there in terms of recycled paint. There's a huge market in Ontario, and the firm -- from my recollection of it when I made this statement -- is now preparing to foray into B.C.
W. Hurd: One of the additional recommendations in this report, as the minister well knows, is that the ministry become more active in testing of products for environmental hazards. I was interested to note that it particularly recommended that that testing be done in government-operated labs. With respect to the question I asked earlier, is the ministry intending to proceed with a more aggressive program of testing household hazardous wastes? If it is, would that not offer the opportunity for private labs to become far more involved in providing service to the ministry? Surely the kinds of tests that would have to be done on household wastes could be done far more efficiently and effectively by private labs in the province. I guess it's a two-tiered question: what is the ministry going to do, and is it going to try to involve the private testing labs in this type of initiative?
Hon. M. Sihota: I'm sure industry will go to private testing labs to verify any results that we do, in any event. There might be a role with regard to the private sector, but the recommendation is in terms of the public sector. You just read it, and I don't know why you are not familiar with our government's response to that report. The response was very publicly stated -- that's the second tier of your question -- but just to make it clear: first of all, we accept the recommendations; secondly, some of these products are labelled federally. The Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment has said that we will proceed with testing of some products -- I would like to see it occur sooner -- and I have also discussed this issue with federal Environment representatives. I made all of that clear when we received the household hazardous waste report, and I think that Ms. Caddell has done an outstanding job.
Noting the hour and the understanding of the House, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; D. Lovick in the chair.
Committee of Supply B, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. M. Sihota: That concludes the work for this week. I wish all hon. members an enjoyable weekend -- preferably here in Victoria. I'm sure all hon. members will participate in the Earth Walk here tomorrow and enjoy the displays at the Legislature.
Hon. M. Sihota moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 12:28 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]