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 29, 1994
Morning Sitting
Volume 14, Number 20
[ Page 10407 ]
The House met at 10:04 a.m.
Prayers.
J. Beattie: In the gallery today are some 27 students from Penticton, many of whom I've had the opportunity of speaking to in their class. They're accompanied by two teachers, Mr. Brunelle and Ms. Sutherland. They're down here from McNicoll Park Junior Secondary. I ask the House to make them welcome today.
THE GIFT OF HUMAN TISSUE
M. Farnworth: I rise today to talk on a subject that is of great importance to people in this province. The reaction I got was quite interesting when a number of people saw the title of the subject on the order paper and asked me why I was going to talk about organ transplants and organ donors.
L. Fox: What about hair transplants?
M. Farnworth: I guess I could use one of those. Unfortunately, the supply of hair only comes from me, and that's the problem: I don't have any to give.
But thousands of people in this province -- in fact, across this country -- do have something to give. A great number of people today, for want of organs, are confined to beds in hospitals or often sentenced to an early death. People just don't understand the gift of life that they can give when they die. The reaction I got, you know, was squeamish. It's not something that people want to talk about.
Currently in this province, over 1,500 people are on waiting lists for kidney transplants. Every single one of us in this room has two kidneys. We can quite easily get by with one, but many people view the idea of giving one up as: "Well, I've got this spare, and I'm not necessarily sure I want to give that up." It's a different story when they die, because then those organs are available. As I just said, there are thousands of people in this province who need that transplant, that gift of life.
We have the technology under our health care system in this province today. Advances made in science and anti-rejection drugs make it so easy for a variety of organs and essential parts in our bodies to be transplanted that people live another ten, 20 and 30 years -- a full life. Twenty years ago they didn't; they died needlessly.
I said a minute ago that 1,500 people were on dialysis. Yet last year only 139 kidney transplants were done in this province, not because we don't have the facilities or the surgeons to do the transplants but because there is a shortage of organs, a shortage of kidneys.
What we have to do is make people aware. We do it through Organ Donor Awareness Week, which just passed. We do it through opportunities such as this to make people aware of its importance. They can give life to somebody else. In a sense, although they cannot become immortal, a part of them can live on for a long time in somebody else.
It's not just kidneys. Ten years ago lung transplants were unheard of. Today we can do lung transplants. In fact, it is work that was pioneered in Canada, initially in Toronto. It's a Canadian advancement in the field of medicine. Just what this means was brought home to me a couple of months ago, when we had a meeting in my constituency about an outdoor environmental issue -- the need to create a park in the Burke Mountain-Pinecone Lake area. A young woman got up to the microphone and talked about how, for the first time in her life.... She was 22 years old and had just had a lung transplant. Somebody recognized that they could be of value even after their death, and they donated their organs -- in this case their lungs. A match was made, and this young woman is alive and well today. Otherwise, in all likelihood, she would have been dead. She was out campaigning for a park. For the first time in her life, she was able to go hiking, canoeing and swimming, and do all the things that all of us take for granted, because someone recognized that somebody else could benefit after they died.
So many illnesses can be prevented. Blindness and eye diseases can be treated by having cornea transplants, and heart and respiratory diseases can be treated by having lung transplants. We're all familiar with heart transplants. How many of us have seen those stories on BCTV, U.TV or CBC television about a child who has a liver disease, and the parents are desperately trying to find a match and a donor? Searches are done all across North America. Quite often it's too late, or, at considerable expense, people are flown to different parts of the continent.
It doesn't have to be that way if people make a commitment. People already donate blood, and now they have to realize that by donating organs, they can save lives. It's so very simple. Most of us have that opportunity when we renew our driver's licence. You are asked if you wish to be an organ donor. Only 12 percent of the people in this province are registered to donate organs, and that leaves 88 percent who aren't. Too often the 88 percent who don't donate think that they will never be in need. When it's their child or spouse, or themselves, the importance of donating organs comes home to them. By that time, it's often too late.
The message I am trying to get across here today is that we need to raise awareness and encourage people. We need to get people to look at this issue not in terms of squeamishness, but in terms of saving lives.
L. Reid: I would like to thank the hon. member for bringing this issue to the floor for discussion today. I would like to draw on the hon. member's comments and ask the House to carefully consider the issue of corneal transplants. There are approximately 800 British Columbians currently on the waiting list for corneal transplants. It's a significant issue in this province. The dilemma today is that those 800 people are all faced with a wait of approximately three to four years. Corneal transplant patients in this province are typically upwards of 70 to 80 years of age. They have absolutely no reason to suspect that they cannot live for another 15 or 20 years, and have some quality of life. Their vision is sufficiently impaired that it requires them to have surgery.
The situation today is simply that only 40 corneal transplants have been performed in British Columbia within the last three to six months. That is not sufficient to handle the waiting list. At that rate, the 750 to 800 patients who are currently waiting for transplant tissue will wait for upwards of three to four years. This is not a health system that is responsive to their needs.
The issue today, as the hon. member has stated, is whether or not sufficient tissue is available. The comments he made are extremely well taken. We do not have a well-organized system of donor transplants in this province; we do not have a sufficient number of individuals who are aware of how important it is to allow that tissue and those
[ Page 10408 ]
organs to go forward and aid someone else's life. The quality of life is the issue; putting the patient to the forefront is absolutely the issue. I would like to see us commit today to at least reducing the waiting list for patients who are in need of tissue and organs.
[10:15]
I can tell you to look to the States. People there currently wait two months for a corneal transplant, whereas people here wait three to four years. It is not appropriate. Certainly I can suggest that unless we can put in a plan to ensure that the majority of British Columbians consent to the use of their tissue after death to help other British Columbians and Canadians have a fuller quality of life.... I think that must be the goal of all parliamentarians present in the Legislature today.
I very much want to see us look at the issue of presumed consent, and I think it needs a full and open public debate. The system we currently have in place, where you indicate whether you wish to provide tissue for transplants, misses the mark. Some 15 or 20 percent of the population may look at that as a reasonable option, but the other 80 or 85 percent either don't consider it, or do not take the step of filling out the form and attaching the notification to their driver's licence. There are a number of American states -- California and New York, to name two -- that are looking at presumed consent.
There are also a number of jurisdictions in Canada and the United States looking at considered request, where hospitals and coroners' offices must ensure that the family is asked if that tissue is available for donation. A lot of situations go past us, if you will, and we do not make the contact in a tasteful, elegant fashion so that that tissue becomes available for donation. We need a very concerted effort and we need a very committed team of individuals to look at that issue.
To address the short-term problem, I would like to see the import of corneal tissue to Canada. I cannot say with any amount of conviction that it's appropriate for British Columbians to have to wait for three or four years. It may be possible for us to acquire tissue -- and let's take the American eye bank, which has tissue available and would provide it to Canada. For us not to look at that option is not treating British Columbians with all the fairness they expect from their health care system. It's not an issue of quality assurance. The accreditation teams of the American eye bank have the appropriate standard of care and have commitment to timely care.
As you all know, tissue is viable for a certain number of days. Whether it's kidney or eye tissue, an appropriate set of standards must be adhered to and have been adhered to in the past. As British Columbians, we can move forward and put such a program in place for our constituents. I think the program would work, particularly if this Legislature were to demonstrate some leadership on the topic and bring some accountability to the question.
M. Farnworth: The hon. member for Richmond East's comments are well taken. She discusses some of the programs that are going on in the United States, and when it comes down to it, the Americans are years ahead of us on this issue. They have aggressive public campaigns all across the United States. But there are also some very strong concerns, particularly with regard to the importation of tissue. Our focus has to be on people in our own province.
There's a double-edged sword here, and I want to touch on it briefly. The World Health Organization has documented a growing number of cases where people in Third World nations are exploited for their organs. Children are often kidnapped, and adults are paid huge sums of money by individuals in the western world who are desperate to get that life-saving organ. There is a growing underground of illicit trade and almost criminal activity in securing organs. It's one that causes all of us a great deal of concern and discomfort.
The answer to that is in our own province. Science can only do so much: it can make anti-rejection drugs, perform surgical procedures and train physicians. But it can't make a heart, a lung, a cornea or a kidney. Only we can do that; only we can give that. The fundamental approach to get across to people is that they have an ability that is unique to them: they have an ability to save and extend life. As painful as that may be when your own loved one is dying or will soon be dead -- the decision has to made at the hospital at a time when families are most vulnerable -- it's also a time when somebody else's family has an opportunity that you may wish to have one day yourself.
The hon. member says that physicians and we as a society must be more aggressive at that moment and say: "Yes, your child or your spouse is not going to live, but you have an opportunity to help somebody else. Would you do that? Would you give that gift of life? Would you allow the kidney, cornea or liver to be transplanted?" We have to encourage and educate people that that is indeed a good and proper thing to do, and one I hope all of us would consider doing.
CANADIAN CITIZENSHIP
V. Anderson: Last week was recognized as Citizenship Week in Canada. I had the good fortune to attend a Canadian citizenship ceremony at the Chinese Cultural Centre in Vancouver. As I remember it, there were 107 persons from 27 countries, from preschoolers to seniors, who by the oath of allegiance became citizens that evening. It was a very impressive and moving ceremony, for all its simplicity. Each of these new citizens had their own story and history, some no doubt very troubling. After the ceremony, for all our many differences of culture, language, religion and ethnic origin, we had at least one thing in common: we were Canadian citizens and proud of it.
So I reflect upon the meaning of this Canadian citizenship. My home Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines a citizen as: "A person who owes allegiance to a government and is entitled to government protection." In our case it is the Canadian government and by extension our British Columbia and municipal governments, all of which we as citizens collectively elect. Putting it another way, we owe allegiance to the Canadian people -- to each other as persons -- who as citizens are each equal before the law.
Thus the citizenship vow that the new Canadians have undertaken -- to live and work with us to help build a united and caring community -- is a vow they have taken for all of us. They have undertaken to be loyal and responsible for each other, and to expect that the same treatment will be extended to them.
It is no doubt their assumption that we, as born-in-Canada Canadians, have also taken on the same responsibilities of allegiance. But by a quirk of our Canadian way of life, we have not necessarily done so, and this may be a problem. We born-in-Canada Canadians have been awarded Canadian citizenship with our birth and thus have never had to swear allegiance for ourselves, unless perhaps we have served in the Canadian Armed Forces, a provincial legislative assembly, or the Parliament or Senate of Canada. Or perhaps we have had the opportunity to attend a
[ Page 10409 ]
Canadian citizenship ceremony and have joined in the oath of allegiance with the newcomers.
Many born-in-Canada Canadians, then, have never personally committed themselves to government or, by extension, to each other. Indeed the children of these same new Canadians, who themselves will be born in Canada, may never be asked or required to take an oath of allegiance similar to what was undertaken by their parents. Yet all of us, with or without that oath, expect to be protected by our government and to benefit from the fruits of the labours of our fellow citizens. As we more commonly put it, we expect to have our rights.
But why should we expect our rights as citizens if we have never agreed on the responsibilities of citizens? I'm suggesting that this is a fatal flaw in our coming of age as Canada-born Canadians. I am suggesting that when we come to the age of responsibility, we should have the opportunity to choose to be responsible Canadians by taking the oath of allegiance, even as our newest Canadians do. Then, and only then, should we have the privilege, opportunity and responsibility to vote, and have the full adult responsibilities and rights of all other citizens. Only then should we be able to choose those who will govern on our behalf and have the right to make Canada a better -- or worse -- place in which to live.
In Africa this week there is great rejoicing and sadness. They are rejoicing because they have the opportunity to vote in their country for the first time. They are sad because so many thousands, perhaps millions, had to suffer and die to achieve this gift. Here in Canada over the years, many have suffered and died not only to achieve our freedom to vote but also to maintain it. Some say that the opportunity to vote is of no account; it is not worth taking the time or the energy to go to the polls on voting day.
I don't have the statistics, but it is my guess that a higher percentage of new Canadians vote than those who are born in Canada. How soon we fail to appreciate a gift for which we have not had to work. What can we do so that all of us might continue to appreciate our responsibilities and rights as Canadians? I suggest that this awareness must become a fundamental part of our educational system on every level from preschool to graduate courses through to life-long continuing education.
Citizenship awareness in the formal sense is the social awareness of being responsible for caring for each other. But it is more than that: it is the responsibility that we have collectively as Canadians for the total universe in which we live and for all the people who live upon this globe. After all, we are a global humanity.
U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, I'm delighted to respond to the statement from the hon. member for Vancouver-Langara. He and I had the privilege of attending the citizenship ceremony, which he mentioned, at the Chinese Cultural Centre in Vancouver the other day. It was quite a solemn occasion. It reminded me of the time many years ago when I took that oath of citizenship to become a Canadian. It's very important to remember that those of us who are Canadians, either by birth or by choice, have certain liberties and freedoms that we all cherish: equality before the law and the rights in the Charter. Those are some of the things that define us as Canadians. Those are some of the attributes that go into making what is called Canadian citizenship.
[10:30]
Some of the social programs that we have in Canada -- or the social safety net, as we call it bureaucratically -- and all of those protections and privileges.... Our ancestors who lived in Canada prior to us, our forefathers and foremothers, fought for those issues, those equalities and those privileges. All of those are melded together to form what is now perceived to be Canadian citizenship.
I'm delighted to respond to my friend's statement this morning. While I do so, I'm reminded of what happened in South Africa the other day. The other day the member for New Westminster, who sits to my left, reminded us as she led us in prayer in this House of how they in South Africa are now struggling and have overcome some of those obstacles that stand in the way of a great citizenship; how we in Canada had to struggle our way through that; how the Asians, the Indians and the Chinese had to struggle to get their right to vote; how the Japanese were mistreated during the war and stripped of their rights of citizenship; and how the natives in Canada obtained some rights but only in the fifties or early sixties. That's our history. That's part of our citizenship, in addition to equality before the law, equality of opportunity and all of the social programs that we have. That's part of our heritage. That struggle to be equal before the law and among ourselves, to treat people with respect and dignity and to treat each other's cultures and heritages with respect and dignity, is part of what makes us Canadian.
Obviously, as Canadians we are also citizens of the world. I'm delighted to deal with that aspect with it, as I am an immigrant myself. However, I want to sound a note of caution: at the moment you legally become a citizen, whether you took the oath of citizenship or were born as a citizen in Canada, you are no longer a new Canadian or an old Canadian. That's the beauty of what Canada is all about. That's what makes me proud to be Canadian. You may come tomorrow, you may have come 200 years ago -- in terms of your genes -- or you may come 100 years from now. All of us are equal before the law, and nobody is a new Canadian or an old Canadian.
There are no distinctions of colour, creed, race, origin or region of Canada itself. It's a wonderful place to be. We must be reminded on this day, during Citizenship Week, of our obligations to each other and our rights and responsibilities -- not just legal but also social, political and economic -- to make this a more egalitarian, justice-loving place where everyone is equal.
V. Anderson: I thank the member for Vancouver-Kensington, who is my neighbouring MLA and a constituent in my own Vancouver-Langara riding, for his words in response.
I agree with him wholeheartedly: new Canadians and old Canadians are only descriptive terms that are used to get a point across. Once we are Canadian, we are Canadian, each equal with every other person. We bring together our heritages, customs and traditions. It is that melding together of the variety of our experiences which makes Canada a unique and continually changing and growing country in which to live. This opportunity began, of course, with the aboriginal first nations people of this land, who are struggling for the opportunity to share their heritage and history. We have much to learn from them as we add other spiritual, religious and cultural expressions to that very rich and strong spiritual base.
As we work together, we have a contribution to make. We as citizens of this country are unique, because we have connections to many countries of the world through friends, relations and fellow workers. We can combine our efforts not only to make Canada a significant place in which to live but also a place that has a unique contribution to make to the world at large. We have a place to be peacemakers and peacekeepers. We also have a place to make sure that by
[ Page 10410 ]
reaching out with our wealth and prosperity, others in the world might have similar opportunities.
It seems to me that the challenge ahead of us, however we became Canadian citizens, is to live together so that the hungry may eat, the naked may have clothes, the homeless may have homes, the unemployed may have jobs and all of us may live with dignity and peace, one with the other. A true citizen, in my book, is one who works to this end, not only for those of us who are here in Canada but for all of the people of the world -- and especially for the children, who need our care wherever they may be.
MAY DAY
C. Evans: You know, I think if I were a schoolteacher in B.C. and wanted to bring my class to the Legislature, I'd try to do it on a Friday, when the debate is elevated to the level of the moral and the ethical and the historic and the parliamentary, and some of the nonsense that goes on during the other four days is a bit absent.
This weekend will be May Day, workers' day, all around the world. Here in British Columbia some people will go on picnics, and lots of people won't even remember why. Today I want to try, in my seven minutes, to recount a bit of the history of how workers' day came to be. Because it's a long story, I'm going to work from a text and try to talk fast; I hope members will forgive me.
Between about 1750 and 1850 the world experienced a really big change called the Industrial Revolution. People built machines to do the work that human beings had done before. People who lived on farms moved into cities and became labourers when machines produced food far cheaper than they could. People who made goods -- craftspeople -- became wage workers when machines made goods cheaper than they could. All over the world thousands of people were displaced and became homeless. Thousands of communities and dozens of nations were destabilized. Tremendous wealth was assembled when the market economy changed forever and monopolies came into being.
People migrated around the planet by the millions, and often they came to Canada and the United States. People who used to describe themselves as Catholics or Jews or Bohemians or Germans or Irish became known, even to themselves, as labourers. Without the ability to sell goods or food, all they could sell was their sweat, their labour. Sweatshops were invented during this time, child labour was exploited and families were destabilized. One hundred years ago in this town the 12- and 14-hour day and the six-day week were the norm.
During this era labour unions were invented -- and despised. Some people got the notion that if they were going to work for someone else, it should only be for eight hours a day. So 110 years ago, in 1884, the federation of labour in Canada and in the United States decided to talk and work and organize and agitate for the eight-hour day -- the radical idea that eight hours was enough labour to sell in a day.
In 1886 they asked that on May Day the companies and the governments of the world accept the eight-hour day as the norm. For two years they organized, aiming toward that date. Some people did achieve the 12- or the ten-hour day in those two years. On May 1, 1886, thousands of people in cities all over the world marched for the eight-hour day.
The heart of that movement was where most of the immigrants had come: to the city of Chicago in the United States. Seven people, immigrants who spoke foreign languages, worked to organize that march. Two days later there was a small demonstration in that town. A bomb was thrown, a policeman died, and those very same seven people who had organized the march were charged with murder, even though five of them were never even at the demonstration.
People all over the world responded with horror that, for the first time and in such a public way, people were essentially charged with the crime of ideas, of believing in something. There were speeches in defence of those people and there were interpreters at every speech, because across the world the migrants had become labourers and people spoke in many languages. When they hung those five men, workers all over the world decided that the first day of May would be the one day of the year forevermore when they decided, personally, whether or not to sell their labour.
Canada was the first country in the world to attempt to sidetrack that movement by declaring a legal Labour Day in the fall, so that workers would not choose May Day in solidarity with workers around the world to not go to work. Even the Soviet Union made it against the law to not go to work and not show up at the march of their army on May Day. That led to the invention of the Labour Day picnic, where Soviet workers had to go hide in the woods in order to actually take the day off.
In the decades that intervened we created something on this continent that we called the social contract. The social contract said that you have the right to organize to sell your labour. It said that excess wealth will be used to educate your children, keep you well and take care of you when you're old. It worked real well for about 50 years. Today the Industrial Revolution is long over, and, of course, now we're into something called the information age. Once again the rules are changing rapidly; once again people are becoming migrants around the world and are becoming displaced; once again millions are becoming unemployed; once again, when we sell our goods, the people in our country are in competition with sweatshops, child labour, the 14-hour day and the six- and seven-day week around the world. In fact, probably every single one of us in this building is wearing clothes produced by workers working under such conditions, who are in competition with our own labour in this country.
[10:45]
The social contract, too, is breaking down. Every day in this place, in Ottawa and in the newspaper we debate whether we can afford the goods and services that we thought we bought with our labour. All of the rules that our generation came to expect, that our great-great-great-grandparents fought for, are thrown up for grabs in the information age. As May Day approaches, it's good to reflect on how we got here, in order that we might decide how to deal with the changes that we see.
A. Warnke: Just yesterday we recognized in this chamber the injuries and labour of workers. Indeed, that is important to reflect upon. But I must say, too, that there is another aspect of May Day that I want to bring to all members' attention.
What was May Day originally? For centuries, the first day of May was celebrated among the Latin and Germanic peoples through May Day festivals, when rites were practised in honour of Flora, the Roman goddess of spring. May Day is currently celebrated as a festival for children marking the reappearance of flowers during spring. That is the reason why, traditionally, for centuries there has been the greeting of joyous dancing around a garlanded pole called the Maypole, streamers hanging and held by dancers. It is to depict a certain time of the year.
[ Page 10411 ]
Yet it is interesting to see how May Day has, in the last century, essentially been introduced in a new form. It started in the 1880s in the United States, and crystallized as well around some of the debates in the 1880s, especially in Europe around the Second International. May Day, which we have come to know as workers' day, really crystallized around the Second International -- a German-French creation between 1864 and 1889, which was the evolution of Marxism into a coherent doctrine that saw an eastern shift in the socialist movement's centre. It combined anarcho-syndicalism, the anarchists under Bakunin's influence and the Socialist Party -- the party of the working class that aimed at the conquest of political power for enhancing socialism, not parliamentary democracy.
Indeed, by the member's own statement, May Day evolved as a time for agitation and is the very thing that initiated a new era of violence, which also invited violence. It should be said that that kind of polarized thinking got us into a lot of trouble in the twentieth century. May Day has become celebrated in Europe -- especially in eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union -- as a labour holiday.
It is also especially significant in Communist states. Unfortunately, it has a dark and seamy side as well -- and not only in the former Soviet Union. May Day was a time to display the latest and most advanced technology and weapons in the struggle against capitalism, and it was a display of the pecking order of the politburo. But more than that, in 1978, after the Red Brigades abducted former Prime Minister Aldo Moro because he was a liberal of moderate voice in Italian politics, in celebration of May Day the Red Brigades murdered him.
I'm also reminded of the murder of Hanns Martin Schleyer by the Baader-Meinhof gang. That too was in celebration of May Day. More poignantly, I remember May Day celebrations in 1986 in Kiev in the Ukraine. The May Day celebrations were celebrated while the polluted air from Chernobyl poisoned young people and children.
There is another side that I think we all must come to recognize. We recognize the role of labour. But surely the lesson is to bring people together, not divide them. What defines a whole new future can be said better, perhaps, by Mikhail Gorbachev, who said:
"Attempts to push tomorrow back to yesterday are too dangerous, especially in our day and age.... Each century, while giving birth to new ideas, gains new perceptions. The time has come to ask ourselves and one another many questions, including unpleasant ones, for not all of them fit in with our customary notions of things that are so readily presented as axioms or age-old truths."
There is new thinking that is absolutely essential. Perhaps we should also reflect on what has gone wrong with organized labour and its attempt to become political.
C. Evans: It's a real temptation, hon. Speaker, to get into some kind of wrangle at a moment like this, where it's pretty clear that the issue of the day illustrates the differences in backgrounds, philosophical beliefs and politics that brought us here. But I'm not going to do that, because everybody here and everybody out there will ultimately make decisions for themselves about who we are, who we represent and where we come from.
I'd like to say that where I come from, there are three things about May Day that are important to me, which brought me here to say the things I am saying. The first has to do with the brave people who mined at Sandon, British Columbia, and created the first manifesto asking for an eight-hour day in Canada, on paper. They went out and organized. It spread to Trail and Rossland, around the Kootenays and finally to this very room, where it became law. The second thing happened ten years ago on Sunday, when people in this room issued an edict to close a university. They decided then that ideas had become as scary as they once thought trade unions were. Ten years ago they said that the first, last and only time in the history of this province that they would revoke the charter of a place of ideas would be in Nelson. I submit they did that because the ideas were scary. Ten years and one week ago I stood here and made my first speech. It wasn't actually in this room; it was outside the gates. I said that I really didn't like people who were afraid of ideas and afraid of community and that we would turn the applecart upside down and put Humpty Dumpty back together again. I used the elected, non-violent, democratic power of the Legislature to right the wrongs. We're working on it; the time is now. I urge all of us to fix what went wrong here ten years ago.
THE DISAPPEARANCE OF THE FAMILY FARM
M. de Jong: Since this session began, in this chamber we have debated questions regarding forest renewal and forest practices; we have discussed, in a peripheral way, things like the CORE report; we have dealt with environmental matters and, indeed, we anticipate dealing with acts and bills relating specifically to environmental protection. I think it's fair to say that in spite of the differing positions we take in terms of what is contained in some of the bills and statutes tabled here, all members in this chamber have uppermost in their mind, insofar as issues pertaining to the forest are concerned, the plight of individuals and communities that have traditionally and historically been involved with the forests. That is as it should be. Again, we may have differences about how we approach those questions, but I think it's fair to say that we are all motivated by a desire to address those issues.
Another sector of the economy is under assault, and it doesn't receive the attention that I think it's due. It relates specifically to the changes that are taking place now, and have been taking place for some time, in the agricultural area. In my view, those changes are equally dramatic and worthy of the attention of all members and the government of this province.
I don't have to tell members how important agriculture is to British Columbia. The statistics I derived from the ministry indicate that of a 4.7-million-hectare agricultural land reserve, we have 2.4 million hectares under use, and we export foodstuffs around the world to the tune of $1.2 billion. That is demonstrative of a huge industry and, historically, an extremely important industry for the entire province.
The vast majority of those agricultural products derive from farms managed by families. The family farm is the essence of our agricultural production. Family farms are more than just businesses; they are a way of life. It's a case of people living a certain way, of children being raised a certain way -- to some extent like people involved in the forest industry. You have to have grown up knowing what it's like to get up at 5 o'clock, do chores before school and come home to milk the cows after school to understand that it really is a way of life. It sounds corny, but for people involved in agriculture it represents a love of the land, and they demonstrate it day in and day out. The previous member spoke about the eight-hour day. His comments are worth acknowledging, but let us not forget that when it comes to things like raising chickens and producing milk,
[ Page 10412 ]
there ain't no eight-hour day. It's a 24-hour day, and the cows get milked seven days a week at 5 o'clock in the morning and 5 o'clock at night. No one's complaining; the complaints arise because that lifestyle that people hold pretty dear is under attack. Sadly, those people are being driven from their land.
I asked officials within the Agriculture ministry to provide me with some statistics. I see what's happening in my constituency of Matsqui, and it's verified by the information in Statistics Canada's review. In 1971 there were 16,400 family farms in British Columbia. By 1991 that figure had dropped to 9,500, and the trend continues at a very alarming rate. By some estimates, we are now down to 8,000 or 8,500 family farms. The purpose today is not to assess blame, but if I can encourage hon. members to address their minds to the difficulty facing people involved in this sector of our economy, perhaps something positive will have derived from this.
Why is it happening? Well, you're only going to farm if it's economically viable to do so. You have to have the ability to earn a living; that's clear. Some international factors come into play. International trade agreements -- the NAFTA and the recent GATT ruling -- impact on the ability of farmers to produce and sell their products. It has certainly affected the milk industry, and that is very relevant to the area I'm from. It has meant -- and this is borne out by what officials within the Ministry of Agriculture are saying -- that you either get big or you get out, and it has created a tendency toward consolidation. Aside from the fact that many of these people don't have the option of getting big, there are some other obstacles: many of these families certainly can't capitalize expansion to the tune they're being told is required, the cost of land continues to go up, in many of these agricultural industries the cost of quota is prohibitive, and borrowing money is costly. It's impossible for those in the industry to continue, and it's impossible for young farmers to get started in the industry.
[11:00]
We've dealt with environmental issues. Aside from the implications for the family that has traditionally been milking 50 cows, one wonders about the environmental advisability of farming 300, 400 or 500 cows in a very concentrated area. Farmers are being asked to leave their family plots and become managers of industry. In my view, there are things that we have to do within this chamber to address that matter. There are issues that come before this House.... My message to members -- and I'm sure they also are concerned -- is: let us not forget the role the family farm has played in building our province. Let us encourage its sustainability, as we are seeking to encourage sustainability elsewhere.
J. Beattie: It's my pleasure to rise and respond to the member for Matsqui. I'll do so in the tone that he is discussing this matter, in a way which reflects my support of family farms in this province. Indeed they are part of the Canadian fabric, as much in British Columbia as anywhere else.
I'm a farm boy myself. I still get up at 5:45 a.m. Harvesting the apples for years, picking the peaches and cherries.... It is a way of life. It's something you appreciate. It's something you do because you love it. You must love it, because the remuneration is not there. It's not good enough to say that you're buying yourself a way of life when you buy a family farm. You must have the ability to earn a good living. In British Columbia we're fortunate in some ways. British Columbia farmers have the highest total family farm income of all the provinces in Canada. That's the upside. The downside is that -- apart from the dairy industry, where on average $54,000 out of the $78,000 earned comes from farm income; or hogs, where $59,000 out of the $93,000 comes from the farm; in fruit and vegetables, only $7,815 of $56,000 comes from the farm -- the average in the province is that $11,500 comes from farm income out of $55,000 average income on the farm.
In my area, it's important to note that the forest sector generates 8 percent of the dollars in the economy. Agriculture generates 9 percent. Agriculture is a mainstay of the Okanagan. Agriculture produces jobs on a regular basis. Every year, those fruit trees have to be pruned, thinned and sprayed, and the fruit has to be picked. It's an honourable profession.
This government is moving in a significant way, on many different fronts, to protect the family farm. I know that the member for Matsqui and I will agree that more has to be done. Just the other day the Premier spoke in support of those farmers in the Okanagan who are going down to Osoyoos and the border on their tractors to say to the federal government that we must prevent dumping of products. We provided a means to control the flooding of their farms, and now they're flooding us with their products -- completely unacceptable. This government supports them.
We must -- and I urge the member for Matsqui to involve his constituents and himself in the regional planning process -- stop the encroachment of development and developers onto farm land. The pressure is inexorable; we must stop it. We must speak to the agricultural land reserve in a very strong way and say it's not a holding bank for future development. It's land that's there in perpetuity for our children and grandchildren. I'm sure the hon. member for Matsqui will support me on that, because the protection of the agricultural land reserve is the protection of family farms.
The government has attempted, over the last number of years, to bring in measures like assistance towards a sustainable tree fruit industry. We've exempted the cooperatives from more than $25 million of the corporation capital tax. We've funded a significant organic program, to move into a century when people are going to be purchasing food based on their health consciousness. We've restored the integrity to the ALR.
But let's not kid ourselves. It's important that our young children in this province, along with the average citizen, recognize that being a farmer or farmworker and supporting the agricultural industry is an honourable profession. As we build the image of the workers in the forest sector with skills and training and with our forest renewal plan, we must put the same emphasis upon the work that the hon. member for Matsqui's family has done, that my family did in the tobacco industry back in Ontario, that I did as a tree fruit farmer, and that he wants to do on his small farm in Matsqui. We are all working together toward guaranteeing a food supply for future generations in this province.
M. de Jong: I was pleased to hear the comments of the hon. member in response, particularly in drawing the distinction between those few farmers who are able to derive a living entirely from their farms and the vast majority -- he mentioned the fruit growers -- who require income from other sources. It's an important point, because aside from the economic pressure facing many of these producers, there are things we do as government that incidentally affect the ability of these people to earn a living.
The member mentioned the ALR. My support for that concept is unqualified, but the ALR steadfastly refuses to allow the construction of rural-based schools. I think that bears
[ Page 10413 ]
re-examination. Farm folk are like any folk. They like their children to go to school in their neighbourhood, albeit a larger geographical area. They don't necessarily want to bus them to school. So those are things that we can do to re-emphasize their attachment to the land.
The only way a lot of these young producers the hon. member referred to can become involved in agriculture is to gradually assume the operation that their parents started. That requires them to have a place to live. Local governments, and the ALR to some extent, place obstacles in the path of those young farmers to reside on the farm with their parents. Although I am affected personally, I don't pretend to be involved in a farming operation any longer. But there are people in my constituency who are. Because of obstacles placed in their path by local zoning regulations, and such things as the ALR ruling against second dwellings and health requirements for the installation of septic tanks in rural settings, these people -- aside from the difficulties they have in attaining the funds to participate in farming operations -- just can't live on the farm itself. It becomes a disincentive to remaining on the land, which in many of these cases is the natural tendency. If they can't live there, they're not going to work there.
I want to conclude in as non-partisan a way as I possibly can by emphasizing to all members in this House, and by extension to local politicians and bureaucrats elsewhere, that when it comes to encouraging economic development in the field of agriculture and economic development generally, our job is to ask how we can facilitate this...
The Speaker: I must ask the member to conclude.
M. de Jong: ...not how we can prevent this activity from taking place. If we do that, like other economic activities, agriculture will prosper.
Hon. M. Sihota: I ask leave of the House to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
Hon. M. Sihota: In the gallery today are a number of grades 2 and 3 students from Hans Helgesen Elementary School. They are here on a tour from their recently refurbished school in Metchosin. It's normally my practice to join the children and talk to them, but I have my estimates in the House, so I won't be able to do that. Would all members please join me in giving them a warm welcome to the Legislature.
Hon. G. Clark: I call Committee of Supply -- the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks and Ministry Responsible for Human Rights and Multiculturalism.
The House in Committee of Supply B; D. Lovick 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: As we progress through these estimates, I have a few more questions on environmental protection.
I wonder if the minister could provide us with an update of the guidelines for municipal sewage. I'm aware that the ministry has published a discussion document. Given that some municipalities and regional districts have in the past found themselves facing pollution charges under the Waste Management Act, I wonder if the minister could advise the committee whether this discussion document on the means of dealing with some of these critical infrastructure problems at the municipal level will in any way affect the decision by the ministry to proceed with charges in the future. Certainly I am aware of the district of Kitimat being charged under the Waste Management Act.
Are these two ministry initiatives separate, or is the ministry attempting through this discussion process on municipal sewage to try to work through the problems on a cooperative basis?
Hon. M. Sihota: I thank the hon. member for his question. I may not have totally understood the question, but I'm sure he'll take a second shot at it if I didn't.
The way it works is that they have to meet some regulations with regard to the permitting process. Before they are permitted, they have to agree to meet the standards that we've set. If they do not meet those standards, then they face prosecution, as municipalities -- you've referred to Kitimat as an example -- have in the past.
[11:15]
The discussion paper for stakeholders is part of our ongoing effort to update and improve both our regulatory system and otherwise. It consists simply of guidelines as opposed to regulations. What people are prosecuted under, and what they are permitted to be approved under, are the regulations.
W. Hurd: I wonder if the minister could provide the committee with an idea of how many municipalities in the province would not be in compliance with the existing standards within the ministry. I have examined the municipal sewage discharge criteria summary document in some detail. Has the ministry catalogued a list of the 175 municipalities and regional districts in the province that are in non-compliance with the guidelines of the ministry? Does such a list exist?
Hon. M. Sihota: The municipalities in non-compliance are those that are listed on the non-compliance list that you had in your possession the other day. I think you had the one, when we were last engaged in debate on the environment, that was issued as of March 1, 1994. We go on and monitor municipalities from time to time to see whether or not they are in compliance. So things can change. I don't think it's appropriate for me to tell you exactly who, if anybody, is under investigation at this stage of the game. But I can tell you this: the ones that are not in compliance with their permits are enumerated on the list that you had, which we issued on March 1.
W. Hurd: As the minister knows, the city of Victoria and the Greater Vancouver Regional District would show up on that list for obvious reasons: they're not meeting the guidelines either. In view of the hundreds of millions of dollars that are required to deal with those pollution problems, it stretches credibility somewhat to believe that those two large municipal agencies would somehow be subject to a separate investigation process by the ministry, with the possibility of charges being laid, when in the case of Victoria, the matter was dealt with by referendum, and in the case of the GVRD, there is a cost-sharing arrangement with
[ Page 10414 ]
other levels of government that has yet to be concluded. Would it be reasonable to conclude that those two cases would be separated from the ministry in terms of the investigations under the Waste Management Act or any other type of legislation? Would they simply be dealt with by the ministry in a different way?
Hon. M. Sihota: Arguably every pollution concern or non-compliance can be dealt with in a different way. If you go back to the announcement that I made on March 1, you will see for yourself that different strategies for compliance are being applied to different polluters. For example, we are proceeding with investigations on the ones that have been on the list on several occasions. I noted the polluters that had been on there four or five or six times -- I think someone was on there seven times -- in my comments on March 1.
Secondly, all of them were required to lay out plans for the ministry that would get them into compliance, together with appropriate time frames. With some we were prepared to work with other levels of government, be it native bands or municipalities, in terms of federal-provincial solutions. With others we were working on solutions that were industrywide or specific to them. So there is a range of approaches. What I'm saying, in other words, is: if you're not in compliance, it doesn't mean that we will be prosecuting you automatically; it may mean that there are other, more efficient devices that will result in eliminating you from the list.
With regard to the GVRD, one of the more efficient ways is to conclude agreements with the federal government, and I commented on that the last time the hon. member and I engaged in debate in this House. So that's one other method that we can apply.
With regard to Victoria, you are wrong: it is not on the non-compliance list. In fact, I don't believe it's even on the pollution concern list at this stage.
W. Hurd: I certainly find the response from the minister interesting. He's taking what I believe to be a prudent and responsible approach with respect to the Greater Vancouver Regional District and other large municipalities that are experiencing difficulties with compliance. The concern that we on this side of the House hear is from smaller municipalities that experience considerable infrastructure problems -- like Kitimat, for example, which found itself in court as a result of a spill created by infrastructure problems.
I wonder whether the ministry intends to treat large municipalities differently than small ones in terms of non-compliance. The minister indicated that his ministry will continue to investigate and recommend charges in the event of municipal spills or sewage problems, yet he's now indicating that with respect to some of the larger problems, where cost-sharing arrangements are required, they will be monitored and audited and will appear on a list, but no action will be taken. My question to the minister is: would it not be more prudent for the ministry to take a consistent approach with local governments, given the fact that while there may be disparities in size between the local governments, the difficulties of finding the dollars to meet those pollution challenges remain the same, whether they are in Kitimat or in the Greater Vancouver Regional District?
Hon. M. Sihota: First of all, I appreciate your comments with regard to the GVRD. It's always a pleasure to hear the opposition say that we're doing something right. It's always a disappointment to hear the opposition simplify things into black and white and engage in some silliness that suggests a dichotomy between large municipalities and small ones, and that there's one rule for the Castlegars and Kitimats of the world and a different rule for the Vancouvers and Victorias. That's not....
Interjection.
Hon. M. Sihota: Sorry, did I hear a voice?
Interjection.
Hon. M. Sihota: I'm sure there are some members of the Liberal Party who regret hearing that voice from time to time. In any event, all I can say is that there isn't that kind of dichotomy.
W. Hurd: I recall having a similar enlightened discussion with the minister last Friday, and I don't know whether it's the fact that it has been a long week or that the minister is suffering from jet lag from his very productive dealings with the federal Liberal government in Ottawa. We understand that he came back from Ottawa with a new understanding of the problems at the national level.
I think there's an issue here that really needs to be pursued at some length. I'm hearing the minister advise the committee that his ministry will continue to zealously pursue pollution offenses when they occur in Kitimat and other small municipalities in the province, but where a cost-sharing agreement is required and the dollars are so large that the taxpayers would need to go to referendum or pony up a considerable amount of money, his ministry intends to take a hands-off approach. I find that response troubling. I ask the minister again: is he prepared to guarantee to the committee that he will treat all municipal governments and regional districts on an equal footing in the province when it comes to situations where pollution offenses that are the result of aging infrastructure and other difficulties that local taxpayers might have in meeting his ministry's guidelines? We'd even settle for that assurance from the minister.
Hon. M. Sihota: It's always nice and good to come in here with a political agenda that says: "Today we want to establish the fact that there are two different sets of standards -- one for urban British Columbia and one for rural British Columbia. Let's try to get a press release saying what a great job we're doing in terms of defending the interests of rural British Columbia." When one comes in with those theories, one hates to have them fall apart, but they do. First of all, as I indicated to the hon. member, and as the hon. member knows full well, we look at each case and try to tailor our response to it; second, there is no policy directive that asks for different treatment for urban British Columbia and for rural British Columbia; and third, the hon. member knows as well as I do, because he's been here for two years now, that we have a system of grants under the Ministry of Municipal Affairs that deals with these infrastructure problems across the province. The hon. member knows full well, if he were to take even a casual glance at the grants that are provided on an equal footing and on an equal eligibility basis to all municipalities, that the infrastructure funds have flowed to all parts of the province on a rational basis, based on need and the extent of the problem. We've always been prepared to enter into dialogue with municipalities in that regard. I would suggest that the hon. member knows that, and I would hope that he will put the comments I've just made in his press release.
[ Page 10415 ]
With regard to my trip to Ottawa, I must say that it was most instructive to meet with federal officials. They were surprised when I told them that the Liberal opposition had never stood up in this House in support of the government with regard to our initiatives to deal with oil spills. Hon. members on all sides of the House know that our coastline is very vulnerable to oil spills. It remains a salientenvironmental consideration; I noted that in my opening comments. Yet I'm sure the Liberal opposition does not wish to join us -- for reasons that I think are evident to all, given their relationship with the federal Liberal Party -- in asking the federal Liberals tofast-track the double-hulling of oil-carrying vessels that go down our coast.
It's important to note that David Anderson, before he became a Member of Parliament, issued a report in 1989 asking for a four-year phase-in for double hulls on tankers that ply our waters. That four-year period expired in 1993. The federal government of the day did not take up that recommendation. I had hoped that the current federal government would, especially given Mr. Anderson's expertise and background in this area. Regrettably, the federal Liberal Party has not done that, and, regrettably, the opposition here hasn't supported our efforts to get double-hulling.
During my discussions in Ottawa, I'm also pleased to say that I had occasion to discuss the issue of clean air and the initiatives we want to take to deal with smog problems, particularly in Vancouver and the Fraser Valley. Noting that quite a few members opposite are from the Fraser Valley area, I must confess I'm a little surprised that I haven't received any encouragement from them to have us implement the toughest air pollution standards on automobiles in Canada. But I want hon. members to know that we're doing the job of looking after their constituents in that regard as well. As I said earlier, we anticipate bringing forward some policy changes in that regard.
Finally, let me say that I had occasion this morning to talk at a conference in Victoria that's dealing with ozone issues. Of course, the public understands and has a sense of anxiety with regard to depletion of the ozone and the impact it has on the health of human beings and also on vegetation and wildlife. We are proud of the fact -- and certainly it was recognized at the conference -- that British Columbia leads the country in regulations and reform dealing with ozone-depleting substances going into our atmosphere. We're number one in Canada in terms of the regulations. We are recognized as a leader in that regard and are admired in many provinces by the scientists who were in Victoria this week looking at these kinds of issues. I'm pleased to say that they acknowledged our leadership as a province. I think it's easy to recognize why: the environment ethic is so strong in British Columbia. I said that we will be using our precedent-setting initiatives in British Columbia to encourage other provinces to follow suit, as we should. At the upcoming Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment meeting, I will be doing just that.
Regrettably, the federal Liberal Party has not moved on this issue in a way that would give the scientific community I spoke to this morning some confidence, given the fact that the opposition has missed out on the opportunity to lend support to the government in terms of our leading initiatives on oil spills and clean air. I would hope, however, that in the area of CFCs and ozone-depleting substances, they will join us in putting forward support to this government in terms of encouraging the federal Liberal Party to change its views and allocate appropriate resources to deal with the ozone issue.
W. Hurd: It just goes to show that when you ask a simple question, you get a long answer, and I appreciate that.
I note that the last time the minister went to Ottawa was with respect to the Charlottetown accord and the constitutional debate. Having learned some valuable lessons from that experience, I trust that on this trip he would have dealt with the federal government from a position of promoting British Columbia's interests first -- unlike that previous occasion. I look forward to some of the announcements coming out of these meetings.
[11:30]
I return to the original question. I almost forgot what it was, but I have now remembered that it was with respect to municipal sewage in the province. I invite the minister's comment on a provincial government policy that recommends the laying of charges under the waste and management permit and involves the hiring, one assumes, of lawyers by the province, and another level of government with its own set of taxpayers hiring their own set of lawyers, who then argue the case in court before a justice and have a fine assessed, which the taxpayers would also pay for, whether or not the case is dismissed.
I understand that the Environment minister is a lawyer and that the legal community needs to get work too, but I question the issue from a public policy standpoint. What benefit does the minister believe there is in one group of taxpayers in the province suing another group of taxpayers, with both sets paying for the legal costs and fines that may accrue? I'd really be interested to hear from the minister about the benefits for the taxpaying public of British Columbia.
Hon. M. Sihota: Two points: first, last September, shortly after the cabinet shuffle, I actually spoke to that issue at the UBCM meeting. I expressed my view that if we can avoid those litigation costs and fines, they are much better served if we put resources into resolving the problem. That is a value I brought to this portfolio; I said that back in September. Regrettably, the hon. member and his party did not have a presence at the UBCM at that time. I guess that's why he's not aware of it. Second, there is a benefit to enforcement; there is a need to enforce. If people pollute or if they are not in compliance with environmental regulations, there will be some consequences. Those two points sometimes overlap one another, and judgments are made in terms of how we proceed, when we proceed and in what direction we proceed. With regard to the GVRD and other areas, I have actually made reference to the fact that it may make sense from time to time for us to pursue a process of solutions. That's why we're doing it with the GVRD regarding sewage problems in the Fraser River, and that's why we as a province have said that we're prepared to come to the table and put up our share of the moneys to solve the problems there. The regional governments have said the same. Regrettably, again, your colleagues in Ottawa have not been forthcoming with money. But I would hope that one of the benefits of this last trip to Ottawa would be to finally realize some commitment from them.
W. Hurd: I see little benefit in pursuing this issue much further, given the fact that we've received the acknowledgement that there is a potential for small municipalities, apparently, to continue to face the wrath of the ministry; whereas the large municipalities and regional districts appear to be occupying a different role. I think that's unfortunate. It reminds me of a statement that is often used in the chartered banking industry: if you owe the bank $1 billion, the bank is in trouble; if you owe them $500,000,
[ Page 10416 ]
you're in trouble. It occurs to me that the same rule is being applied by the ministry. Where the problem is so large that it requires a considerable financial commitment from various levels of government, the minister is advising that there will be some consultation and direct involvement by the ministry with Ottawa and elsewhere. But when it comes to places like Kitimat, which may be experiencing infrastructure problems without any means of solving them, they're told to go out and hire a lawyer. I think that's regrettable.
I want to ask the minister a series of questions about the progress of the Environmental Assessment Act and exactly what responsibility his ministry has, or has had, for developing the guidelines which, I assume, will culminate in legislation before this assembly. Does the ministry have total responsibility for developing these guidelines, or do other ministries of government have some responsibility as well for working on the legislation, receiving input and drafting it?
Hon. M. Sihota: This is an initiative under the Ministry of Environment, but because it intersects with the activities of a number of other ministries, there is ongoing discussion and consultation at the ministerial and staff levels with regard to other ministries. John Allan has been assigned as the deputy, and in conjunction with the Premier's office and my office, he has been engaged in a process of discussion with the stakeholders.
L. Fox: Prior to asking a few specific questions with respect to environmental issues in my riding, I want to first thank the minister for the cooperation he has shown me over the last two and a half years in resolving some of the issues in my constituency in the best interests of the constituents. I appreciate that cooperation.
The first issue I want to address is specifically related to the Regional District of Bulkley-Nechako and the phase-out of beehive burners. As the minister will be aware, the regional district and industry have worked hard over the last two and a half years to comply with the time frames for that, but they have had some difficulty because they believe the best way of doing it is through cogeneration, rather than incineration. Recently there has been a request by the ministry that they develop a fallback plan because of the difficulties in getting the cogeneration initiative to move forward, specifically around the issue of hydro power, and that plan has been requested by the ministry by the end of April. Is there consideration by the ministry for extending that time frame to allow further development of that fallback plan so that the plan could have some legitimacy and some realistic time frames in it?
Hon. M. Sihota: The time line is firm, so there won't be an extension. But we will be discussing the plans with the individuals who have filed them, and that will, of course, occur over a period of time.
L. Fox: The regional district really looked at some additional time frames in this fallback plan because of the difficulties in negotiations with B.C. Hydro. The request for proposals, at this point, has not been let by B.C. Hydro. Given that the time frames are not within the autonomy of the regional district and the industry, they're really at the discretion of B.C. Hydro. Would the minister give some consideration to an extension of the date so that they would have an opportunity to comply in a realistic way and to meet the objectives that were set some two or three years ago?
Hon. M. Sihota: First of all, the regional districts and people throughout British Columbia knew of our initiative some time ago -- if memory serves me right, probably about two years ago. So this is not new.
Second, we did extend it provincewide, I believe, from the end of December 1993 to March 31, 1994. There was another one-month extension given to April 30, and that's it. We have to deal with this problem. It's a significant environmental problem; I don't think you disagree with that. I know that everyone who looks at this issue wants to convert the material into gold by the IPP process. We have said, as a government, that independent power production is something we will support, but I think it is realistic to conclude that not everyone in the province will be able to go that route. We want to know what their plans are. We want to know what their fallback plans are, and then we intend to work with them with regard to the plans they file with us. I think we've shown the kind of patience the hon. member is asking for, therefore the date is firm.
L. Fox: I thank the minister for his response.
One further question I had is with respect to Fort George regional district's initiative in terms of looking at a long-term solid waste plan and how they are going to handle it. They have developed that plan but, unfortunately, because of the Municipal Act, are unable to enact the plan. Is the minister aware of that? Is he discussing with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs how they might amend the Municipal Act so that they could go ahead with their solid waste plan?
Hon. M. Sihota: Actually, I must confess that I'm not aware of that issue specifically. I will have staff inquire into it. If there are problems with Municipal Affairs and if the plan meets our objectives, we've never been hesitant to talk with Municipal Affairs about working it out. We have a pretty good relationship with them.
[11:45]
If the hon. member wishes, I can ask for some background material to be brought forward for the continuation of estimates. I believe they reconvene next Thursday, at which point I can elaborate on the issue. Fair enough?
W. Hurd: I have a few additional questions on the development of an environmental assessment act for the province. The minister will be aware, I assume, of a draft discussion document of February 24, 1994, which invites proposals to be developed by the staff of provincial ministries for discussion purposes. I'm sure the minister will be aware, as he pointed out in the original question, that a variety of ministries will appear to have some responsibility for a number of different projects in the province. I refer specifically to industrial projects, which would include many different industrial projects in the province, being the responsibility of the Minister of Employment and Investment. I also note a responsibility for mines projects and energy projects under the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. Water containment and diversion projects....
The Chair: May I interrupt the member for a moment, just to give you a caution? Standing orders are pretty clear in terms of what is a fit subject for estimates debate. As I recall the phrase, it says that legislation or matters requiring legislation are not subject to estimates debate. Given that the environmental assessment legislation is coming before us, can I ask you to proceed with that caution? Carry on, please.
[ Page 10417 ]
W. Hurd: Thank you for that advice, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the fact that this legislation will be tabled in the assembly -- before this session is out, one would hope.
What concerns me, however, is that there appears to be a dissemination of ministerial responsibility for environmental assessment. I wonder if the minister could comment from a philosophical standpoint on whether he believes that responsibility for environmental assessment should be under one ministry in the province -- namely, his own. Or does he agree with the concept of having at least a number of different ministries administer environmental assessment, as if it were freedom of information and protection of privacy or some other function? Does he believe that his ministry should have all the responsibility for an environmental assessment process in British Columbia?
Hon. M. Sihota: The hon. member knows full well that that philosophical issue will show itself in legislation and that the legislation is not before the House. The hon. member also knows that there are issues under debate in the stakeholder consultations with regard to which minister should be responsible for what kind of project. Some of those philosophical values were expressed in the legislation we tabled in the House last year. In recognition of some of the concerns that were expressed, we withdrew that legislation and agreed to consult further. The product and the fruits of that consultation will be before the House in legislation, and that's when I would be happy to show my philosophical colour on the issue.
W. Hurd: I must say that I think it's possible to engage in a philosophical discussion with the minister without mentioning any future legislation by name. Clearly it would be my view that an assessment of the environmental impacts of major projects -- whether they be energy or whatever -- would be the responsibility of the minister involved....
The Chair: Member, I am sorry. Would you take your seat for a moment, please.
I am going to invoke standing orders and make a ruling that we are now moving directly into the area where legislation is coming before this House. I suggest that the line of questioning you are pursuing is not in order. You are certainly going to have ample opportunity to deal with that when the bill comes before us, so I would ask the member to please take that ruling into account and construct his remarks accordingly, either on a new subject or not at all.
W. Hurd: Thank you for that advice, Mr. Chairman.
I note that the Minister of Environment is responsible for the contaminated-sites legislation in the province. In the event that an industrial concern elects to develop a new industrial project facility for hazardous waste, given the fact that his ministry has responsibility for the contaminated-sites legislation, would the minister feel it important that his ministry be required to develop a set of guidelines for environmental assessment of contaminated-sites legislation, or would he be comfortable with that being taken over by another ministry?
Hon. M. Sihota: This ministry has responsibility for environmental matters. A repertoire of legislation falls within this ministry, and allocations have been made in the budget for us to exercise our responsibilities under those legislative instruments that fall within the mandate of this ministry.
W. Hurd: Can the minister tell us exactly what role his ministry has in environmental assessment in the province? What portion of his ministry resources is devoted to this aspect of his ministry?
The Chair: I am going to allow the minister to answer because I see him responding, but the question was phrased in terms of "will have," which suggests to me that we're back on legislation coming before this House. If you're asking what the current responsibilities of the ministry are regarding environmental assessment, that is in order, but not future responsibilities.
Hon. M. Sihota: An allocation in the neighbourhood of $1 million has been made for an environmental assessment branch within the ministry.
W. Hurd: Could the minister describe for the committee the nature of that work within his ministry, given the fact that legislation is pending? There is an interim period where projects are proceeding, one would assume, and where applications are being made. Could the minister give us a brief overview of this part of his ministry and what he expects it will be doing during the coming fiscal year?
Hon. M. Sihota: A proponent for a project will have to deal with a series of permit matters, and those permit applications can deal with issues like water, waste management or whatever. From a policy point of view, they will then be looked at by the environmental assessment component I referred to. We make judgments from the policy perspective accordingly; then it goes back into the permitting process and is dealt with at that level.
W. Hurd: In asking my next question, I beg the direction of the Chair. My question relates to the fate of this particular department of the ministry, given the fact that legislation is pending before the House. Without commenting specifically on the impending legislation, could the minister provide the committee with some idea as to whether he expects this portion of his ministry to continue for the duration of the fiscal year? Or is the need for it to be wound down likely to exist?
The Chair: I think the question is in order.
Hon. M. Sihota: The question is answered in part by the fact that we as a ministry have played, and always will play, a coordination role. I already referred to the quantum of funding that has been allocated. The hon. member knows full well that some of the issues he raises with regard to the environmental assessment legislation that's proposed -- he's got the Environmental Assessment newsletter, which I'm glad he receives and informs himself with -- are under determination.
W. Hurd: Just to further define the minister's answer, I hear him saying that this portion of the ministry will continue in its present form for the duration of the fiscal year, despite the passage of any other legislation in this Legislative Assembly.
I wonder whether he could comment a little more fully on the nature of the coordination aspect of this particular section of his ministry. Is its role to invite additional studies in terms of major project assessment? I'd certainly welcome from the minister a little more amplification on exactly what he envisages this section of his ministry doing in the interim
[ Page 10418 ]
period. Are we likely to see its role change, perhaps in the latter half of the fiscal year? Is it likely to stay the same? Will it continue to function as some sort of assessment agency? The question is relevant, because the minister will be aware that overlapping initiatives can create uncertainty, difficulty and additional regulation paperwork. I welcome an assessment from the minister on where he sees this particular branch of the ministry going throughout the coming fiscal year.
Hon. M. Sihota: On the first point the hon. member raised, I'm not sure if he did hear me right. He put it in his words, not mine.
The second issue the hon. member raised -- assuming there is to be a transition period and that in the interim it will continue to do what it always had done -- is an assumption that is found in his question.
The third is with regard to any potential or contemplated changes, which would become evident once the legislation is tabled. At that time there would be some certainty in terms of direction. The time to comment on that is when the legislation is before the House.
W. Hurd: I have just a few additional questions with respect to contaminated sites in the province. As the minister well knows, no disposal facility currently exists in British Columbia. Can the minister tell us exactly what his ministry does on an annual basis when it comes to inspecting and monitoring these sites in the province, particularly those that may contain compounds of an environmentally sensitive and dangerous nature? The minister will be aware that not only private industry but also Crown corporations maintain contaminated sites in the province. Can he describe to the committee the nature of the monitoring, auditing and inspection of these sites done by the ministry on an annual basis?
Hon. M. Sihota: A number of points. Firstly, we obviously do monitor, and we do it in the context of the legislation, which the hon. member referred to.
Secondly, different contaminated sites, of course, require different solutions. For example, at Britannia Beach, we put forward a solution that resulted in about $250,000 to deal with some of the mine leachate problems in that area. That was one I alluded to the other day. Another example is that we recently dealt with a problem in Victoria at the Pembroke site -- the old B.C. Hydro site where they had stored PCBs -- and there were some remediation initiatives instructed in that situation. So it varies.
[12:00]
Thirdly, with regard to the broader question, last October at the Canadian Council of Ministers of Environment, I talked to my colleague from Alberta -- as you know, they have a facility at Swan Hills -- and I indicated our desire to participate in providing some materials in Swan Hills. He was receptive to that, and I was looking at some type of arrangement. I have to give Mr. Evans, the minister responsible, some credit in terms of that receptiveness. Within days of that discussion, he announced that Alberta would proceed with a public consultation process around the issue of transportation. The hon. member could participate in concerns in communities about the transportation of these materials along roadways leading to Swan Hills and the start of that public consultation process. I think that will open further opportunities to let us see if it makes sense for us to access Swan Hills.
Finally, I will be meeting with the Canadian Council of Ministers of Environment on May 28. Of course, the minister from Alberta will be there, and by that time I hope we will be in a position to say something more in terms of Swan Hills.
[G. Brewin in the chair.]
W. Hurd: As the minister knows, under legislation introduced in this House previously, there's a polluter-pay principle for managing the contaminated sites in the province. There's also a grandfather clause -- I suppose you could use the term -- meaning that there's now total responsibility for such sites in British Columbia. I would again ask the minister to provide a more direct answer to the committee, given the fact that we have this difficulty in the transportation of hazardous wastes in the province, on whether he believes that his ministry's auditing and monitoring is sufficient. Or is the ministry relying on regular reports from the organizations, whether they be Crown corporations or other industrial concerns, that are responsible for maintaining these hazardous sites? Can the minister tell the committee exactly what the reporting schedule is for the contaminated waste sites in the province?
I guess I could ask my second question later, but I would be interested in knowing whether the transportation of such materials to Swan Hills through British Columbia is possible under the current legislation. It was my impression that it would be exceedingly difficult and costly for such goods to be transferred to Alberta.
Hon. M. Sihota: There is sufficient monitoring of known sites, so I'm satisfied with that.
Secondly, with regard to transportation, the federal hazardous goods transportation legislation covers that matter. There are requirements for both labelling and notification with regard to routing. There are ways we can deal with those concerns.
Thirdly, you should know that we have not yet passed the appropriate regulations to establish the registry. That will happen later this year under the legislation you referred to.
W. Hurd: Can the minister tell the committee whether his ministry has devoted any resources during the current fiscal year to examine the possibility of such a waste management facility in British Columbia? Is it a priority of the ministry in terms of planning and execution in the coming fiscal year? Is the ministry devoting its resources at this point to negotiating with Alberta? I understand that there is capacity available at the Swan Hills facility in terms of disposal. Is that an initiative of the ministry, or is the Alberta option being pursued with more intensity or interest at this time?
Hon. M. Sihota: My interest lies in arriving at the solution that is most cost-effective and, of course, environmentally responsible. That has been my objective. I communicated that very clearly to Alberta. That's why we have a task force with all the western Canadian provinces. I said at the time that I would not rule out considering our own site, but there is a site in Alberta. And if we can arrive at some understandings with Alberta that are cost-effective, then it seems to me that we should consider those.
W. Hurd: I assume from the minister's answer that from British Columbia's perspective, the solution to the difficulty lies in a cooperative effort with the other western Canadian provinces, particularly Alberta. Is the idea of a disposal site for British Columbia -- which, as the minister will know, has been talked about for a number of years, to the point of examining sites in British Columbia -- basically on the back
[ Page 10419 ]
burner or dead in the province? Is it something the ministry will continue to pursue in the coming fiscal year and perhaps beyond?
Hon. M. Sihota: There are a lot of things to consider when arriving at these determinations. One is the fact that there is a facility in Alberta. Second is the obligation on the part of government to arrive at something that is cost-effective. Third is the fact that most of the special waste generated in British Columbia is actually managed on site by generating companies. There is a range of considerations involved. The fourth concern is the reaction of the community with regard to transportation of these materials through other communities in British Columbia. There is a competing set of tensions with regard to dealing with this problem. I have laid out my objectives: something that makes environmental sense, that is cost-effective and that recognizes the backdrop that I just painted.
No, I would not say that anything is off the list of potential options; nothing is dead. I'm not sure if asking whether something is on the front or back burner is the way to put it. I know that within my range of vision I can see some options, and I'm going to keep most of them alive. Quite frankly, there's some advantage in keeping them all alive in order to be able to drive some of the cost issues with regard to competing options.
W. Hurd: I don't have too many more questions with respect to environmental protection. I was interested in moving on to the ministry's role with respect to forest policy in the province, in particular the idea of developing guidelines for a forest practices code, which I understand the ministry is extensively involved in. I ask the advice of the minister as to whether the appropriate officials are here to pursue that line of questioning. Or would it be more appropriate to yield to my colleague for Matsqui, who I understand has a series of questions on the winding up of the Round Table on the Environment and the Economy? Could I get some direction from the minister?
Hon. M. Sihota: It's up to you. I'm happy to talk about the Forest Practices Code and the regulations. I don't have all the officials here, but we don't have a lot of time in any event. If your caucus wants to talk about the Round Table, that's up to you as well. I'm quite happy to talk about forest issues.
M. de Jong: I have a series of questions for the minister dealing with the Round Table.
Just before we get to that, though, the minister referred to some options dealing with the hazardous waste disposal sites that he's exploring vis-a-vis the province of Alberta. I'm wondering if the minister can indicate to what extent, if any, the federal government is involved in those negotiations. In particular, I understand that the Department of National Defence has some concerns and interest insofar as hazardous waste disposal is concerned.
Hon. M. Sihota: Yes, the federal government is involved, and we've had discussions with them.
M. de Jong: Am I therefore to assume that the range of options that the minister referred to earlier includes some cooperative ventures with the federal government?
Hon. M. Sihota: It may, but I can tell you that the feds haven't put forward a proposal.
M. de Jong: Has the minister?
Hon. M. Sihota: Yes, we have. But if the hon. member has a particular issue with regard to DND.... The reason why I was somewhat hesitant in answering the question is that it's not for me to put forward proposals with regard to DND; it's up to the feds to do that. The feds have some problems with DND, and I know there are problems here. I have a riding that has a high military presence, and I'm well aware of some options which exist within the military. But the feds haven't been forthcoming with regard to that, so I'm not really in a position to comment on DND matters. But generally, I have raised some issues and offered some suggestions to the federal government that they may want to consider when we meet again.
M. de Jong: The minister's response might correctly indicate that my question was phrased in a way that was unfair to the minister. Perhaps I could ask: has the federal government through any one of its agencies, including the Department of National Defence, proposed the creation of installations or facilities that this minister and this ministry have difficulty with?
Hon. M. Sihota: There's nothing I'm aware of that would give me either comfort or difficulty.
M. de Jong: My next questions to the minister deal with the Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. I will preface my remarks with several assumptions. I wasn't here, and I'm sure the minister will indicate whether those assumptions are correct. The Round Table, as I understand it, was created prior to the minister's government taking office, remained in place for a period of time during this government's term in office and was subsequently dismantled. Could the minister indicate, firstly, on what basis the decision to dismantle was made?
Hon. M. Sihota: Actually, I commented on that already in Hansard, so let me be very quick. First, you're correct in your assumptions. Second, I said at the time that I didn't think it was worthwhile to have them continue to produce more and more studies and that it was important that we go from studies to results. So I wanted to slow down and start producing tangible results from the work that had been done to date.
M. de Jong: The dismantling of that organization, I presume, has resulted in some net savings to the ministry. Could he indicate to me, in as general a way as he thinks is necessary, where within his budgetary framework that agency would have been placed and where the resulting savings would show up?
Hon. M. Sihota: Yes. Again, I think I've answered that question already in Hansard. It was a separate line item, which is now gone. The amount of money saved is about a million dollars.
M. de Jong: At the time it was dismantled, there were several projects in the works, and I have reviewed the comments the minister made with respect to that matter. Can he elaborate further on what the Round Table was dealing with at the time it was dismantled and what has become of that work, or whether it simply died?
[ Page 10420 ]
Hon. M. Sihota: No, it has not simply died. They have been asked to develop a work plan leading to this phase-out, and funds in the neighbourhood of $200,000 have been allocated for that purpose.
M. de Jong: One of the reports that the Round Table produced, entitled An Economic Framework for Sustainability, contained a series of recommendations, some 30 or 40 in all. Not all, in my view, pertain directly to this ministry, but several of them do. As I refer to them, I'd like to ask the minister to indicate whether those are recommendations that he takes issue with or is in agreement with, and what action, if any, has been taken in furtherance of thoserecommendations.
[12:15]
Recommendation No. 3 encourages the provincial government, the public, industry and other stakeholders to assign a priority to the development of what are called sustainability indicators, defining those as replacing the "narrow set of economic indicators that are currently used to measure an economy's state of health," and asking that those sustainability indicators "be incorporated into assessment processes for all projects, programs and policies." The minister indicated that it is a process that he finds favour with. What action, if any, has his ministry taken to further that recommendation?
Hon. M. Sihota: Yes, I find favour with that. We have a state-of-the-environment report that provides us with those indicators, which the hon. member, as critic, should be aware of. It lays out the state of the environment. I'm sure, because he has been doing his research, that he's well aware that it formed the basis of many questions in this House last year during estimates. Some further work is being done by the Round Table on that, which should be completed in about two months as part of its phase-out.
M. de Jong: The next recommendation contained in the report that I'd like to question the minister about is recommendation No. 4, where the provincial government is encouraged, along with business and other stakeholders, to design and implement a system of resource accounting. If the minister will refer to the timber supply study, that certainly falls within that category. Will the minister indicate what other initiatives have been undertaken in that area dealing with other resource groups?
Hon. M. Sihota: Yes, we are developing a full cost-accounting policy. We have made more progress in some areas than in others. We are in the process of implementing it in some areas and in agencies such as B.C. Hydro, where they now have a full cost-accounting policy.
M. de Jong: I don't know if I asked the question in a misleading way. I wasn't speaking specifically to the question of financial accountability, which I think the minister's answer implies. The recommendation refers to a system of resource accounting, and that's why I drew the comparison with the timber supply management study. Could the minister indicate what other initiatives exist in that area?
Hon. M. Sihota: No, I purposely did not refer to financial. That's why I used the word "full" as opposed to "financial." We do it in a number of areas. Another example, which was referred to earlier in estimates, is the independent power production industry and our assessment in terms of its interrelationship with the grid.
M. de Jong: Recommendation No. 8 in the report encourages the government to develop, with industry, standard approaches to accounting that will allow the government -- and presumably the ministry -- to report on corporate environmental performances in a meaningful way. Is that a process that his ministry is involved with? It suggests a method of incorporating indicators that his ministry could examine to determine whether industry, on a sector-by-sector basis, is meeting environmental objectives that presumably either the private sector or his ministry would set.
Hon. M. Sihota: After he became Environment critic, I'm sure the hon. member took an interest in the decisions the government was making and informed himself of public announcements the government made. I made an announcement at Globe '94 in March, where I indicated that we would be working with five companies to further take that corporate environmental performance notion and make it operational. We announced at that time that we'd be looking at a demonstration project with five major British Columbia companies in that regard. I think your research staff should have advised you of that before they wrote up those questions.
C. Evans: I'd like to ask a couple of questions about the Creston Valley wildlife area. As the minister knows, 30 years ago, when the federal and provincial governments and the United States decided to flood a whole whack of the East and West Kootenays and destroy the wildlife habitat there, they also decided to create a federal-provincial cost-sharing agreement to create habitat -- to make up for what would be lost in the Libby area and, in British Columbia, the lost habitat in the Duncan, Arrow and Mica areas.
In the last two years the federal government has begun to withdraw from their share of the contributions -- $10,000 the first year and, I think, an additional $8,000 this year. I was under the impression that the cost-sharing agreement between the provincial and federal governments had the power of law. If so, my question is: how does the federal government get away with it? Is the provincial government going to make up the difference or try to stop the federal government from continuing to back out of the deal?
Hon. M. Sihota: The federal government, of course, is being neglectful of its duties and responsibilities. I know it's always easy to talk about environmental protection, but sometimes governments have to follow through with action. They've made some commitments at the federal level that they haven't followed through on. I've followed through, on behalf of your constituents, to impress upon the federal minister the need for them to comply with those agreements. The hon. member and I haven't had a chance to talk since my return from Ottawa.
With regard to Creston Valley, I guess he should know two things. One is that I impressed that point upon those representatives in the federal government that I met with in Ottawa on Wednesday, I believe it was. Secondly, I'm pleased to advise the hon. member that the federal Ministry of Environment provided me with the certificate of Ramsar designation for Creston. That makes the Creston Valley wildlife management area only the second area in British Columbia to have received a Ramsar designation. I took the opportunity to invite the federal minister to British Columbia in May so that we may go to Creston and present that certificate to the community, because I know the depth with which the people in Creston cherish the attributes of the
[ Page 10421 ]
Creston Valley wildlife management area. It is truly a unique area in Canada. I am hopeful that on May 17, which is a Tuesday, the federal Minister of Environment and I will be in a position to go to Creston and present the certificate to the community -- and I'll be happy to wear my Creston Thunder hockey shirt I received the last time I was there. We have not finalized that date. That date was suggested to me by the federal government. Since I've come back, I have not had the opportunity to determine the suitability of that date for my schedule, but I can assure the hon. member that I will endeavour to be a part of it on May 17.
Needless to say, I will take this occasion to thank the hon. member for his involvement in the issue and his initiatives in encouraging both the federal and provincial governments to proceed with the Ramsar designation. I know that his efforts are well recognized in the community, and without his initiatives I don't think it would have come to what it has. From my desk, I have to say that had it not been for his strong representations it probably would not have received the kind of attention that he made clear to me it deserved. I hope that on May 17 we will be in a position to be able to celebrate that, and I hope that in the next week or so I'll be in a position to confirm that date and proceed with the granting of the certificate to the citizens of Creston.
C. Evans: Thank you, minister. I'm very pleased to hear about the Ramsar designation, and all the people of the Kootenays will be pleased. When the federal representative comes, I wonder if you could encourage him to set aside half an hour or an hour of his time to discuss the federal portion of future funding with the local management people. If the federal government feels that they're going to withdraw their funding, I think the people of the Kootenays might ask the federal member to withdraw from the International Joint Commission on the management of the river system. If the people of British Columbia and your ministry are going to have to pay for the lake levels that result, the federal government might be seen as being remiss when attempting to refuse to pay the piper while still calling the tune.
Hon. M. Sihota: I want to thank the hon. member for that point. Far be it from me to make commitments for the federal government. I don't know whether or not that time will be accorded. While others are making their speeches, the hon. member -- who I'm sure will be on the podium, because he deserves to be -- could take the opportunity to talk to the federal minister himself. I don't underestimate his creativity in terms of getting our attention, because he does a pretty good job of getting mine. I'm sure he will avail himself of that opportunity.
I don't know what the final determination by the federal Minister of Environment will be, but I am prepared to give her the benefit of the doubt. I would hope that she will see fit to continue those arrangements.
M. de Jong: I think it was last week that the minister was asked several questions by the member for Abbotsford relating to septic tank disposal fields. The minister correctly responded by indicating that generally the Health ministry is involved in much of that activity. Since that time I have received information -- and I must confess that this relates to a particular constituent.... This relates to matters along the Fraser Valley floodplain that are affecting great numbers of people, and I'm sure the minister is aware of them. Families are precluded from taking up residence because of an inability to obtain the requisite approval from the Ministry of Health. This particular case is a truly tragic circumstance. The father, the owner of the farm, isn't able to work on the farm because he has contracted an illness. In order to keep the farm going, they have had to bring in a hired hand. They want to place a mobile home on the farm, but they can't get the requisite health approval. Interestingly enough, though, the health units and departments are now taking the view that as a result of directives they are receiving from Environment ministry officials, their hands are tied and they are precluded from providing the required approval.
[12:30]
Since the initial line of questioning, has the minister learned anything further about the involvement of his ministry in these matters? Does the Environment ministry set guidelines which are passed along to the Health ministry with respect to septic field percolation test rates and that sort of thing?
Hon. M. Sihota: We give advice to the Ministry of Health, and they do what they please with it, but they regulate. I would assume that in this case we would be talking about something that is certainly less than 25,000 gallons a day, and they would be the ones who would have the lead responsibility. I would encourage the hon. member to discuss the issue with the Health ministry, first of all. Secondly, obviously, if he were to provide us with the details, I'm sure that we would be happy to inquire into the matter and assist.
M. de Jong: I wouldn't expect the minister to be in a position to answer my next question immediately, but perhaps he could undertake to obtain the information. I am advised that the Ministry of Health has been provided with some manner of report from the Environment ministry dealing with the issue of septic waste disposal, and it is on the basis of that report that they are purporting to hang their hat when reaching some of these decisions. Perhaps the minister could have his officials determine whether or not such a report indeed went to the Ministry of Health, and if it did, undertake to provide copies of it.
Hon. M. Sihota: I may need some particulars from you with regard to a specific case. Knowing you could give me that, we would be happy to inquire into the situation.
Given the time, I would move the committee rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Committee of Supply B, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. G. Clark: I want to wish everyone a restful weekend. With that, I move the House do now adjourn.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 12:33 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]