1994 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 35th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, JUNE 21, 1994

Morning Sitting

Volume 16, Number 18

[ Page 12185 ]

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Committee of Supply A, having reported resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'd like to advise the House that we will be sitting tomorrow.

I call adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 29.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ACT
(continued)

D. Jarvis: We adjourned the debate last night after midnight, so we commence again today. I am planning to further discuss Bill 29, the Environmental Assessment Act.

I am quite concerned about this act, which is being presented to the House. We are all ostensibly environmentalists, and we all believe there should be an assessment act that will look after the future of this province and areas surrounding us. I believe in the principle of this act, as I said. I will support this act in second reading, but unless there are some dramatic changes made in committee stage, I feel as though I'll be forced to vote against it.

There is a need for assessments of the environment; however, I feel this bill is another agenda by this government that is not in order. I'd like to make a few comments on that aspect. We should be very clear that there is scientific evidence to back up what we decide on before we go about changing all the laws concerning our environment. Everyone today seems to jump on the bandwagon when it comes to environmental issues, without considering whether there's scientific knowledge behind it to back it up. To me, this is exactly the situation with regard to what our present government is doing.

We are supposedly undermining the future of this province and this Earth to the point where it will soon become uninhabitable. That is plain, utter nonsense. Of course, what seems foremost in people's minds is that the environment is being denigrated by the use of our resources; that is, the so-called abuse of our resources is causing environmental harm to this Earth, and therefore it is necessary to restrict the use of our resources to save it. We are supposed to believe environmentalists have the solution to save this Earth. A lot of people claim that by restricting the use of our resources we will save the environment. However, our trip to the sustainable future may be based on a lot of misinformation.

There's a genuine feeling -- and I believe this government has bought into this pattern -- that an unsustainable future has been feared in this land as a result of the patterns of consumption, and they believe they are unsustainable. This is our dilemma, and we must therefore change. Change for the sake of change is sometimes a dangerous thing, when you consider that in most situations environmentalists have no scientific evidence to support the belief that irreparable harm is being caused to this Earth through the supposedly poor use of our resources.

I believe -- and I feel I have a great deal of support -- that production and the use of our resources can be maintained as long as they are done in a responsible manner. There's a large body of evidence out there to support the fact that what has been done in the past is not all that bad and that the thought of an impending ecological doom is not based on scientific evidence. The main theory is that a true environmentalist -- and I say that almost sarcastically -- accepts the theory, for example, that human production of carbon dioxide through the burning of fossil fuels will cause catastrophic global warming, and this will end our civilization as we know it today. This theory, however, comes down to the simple fact that many of the world's leading scientists are not prepared to say there is any basic or solid evidence to support this position. Now, I know many of you in this House around and beside me will scoff at this suggestion and find it hard to accept.

However, I refer you to some of the evidence that came up prior to and during the infamous Rio conference back in '91. It was attended by our previous Minister of Environment, who reported with fanfare that it was such a world success. Prior to this Earth Summit, hundreds of the world's leading scientists -- including more than two dozen Nobel laureates -- released a statement in June 1992 called "The Heidelberg Appeal." This appeal has now been signed by over 2,000 of the world's leading scientists. It was directed to the members of the various countries attending the Rio conference. Ostensibly, this was a recommendation for the use of their common sense and reliable science before making any recommendations for action on environmental problems.

"The Heidelberg Appeal" states: "...that it is neither reasonable nor would it be prudent for political decisions to be based on the presumptions of issues in science, which is the current state of knowledge. These statements are that problems with our environmental world are still only hypotheses." The concern of these scientists was that for the years prior to the conference there was no significant involvement of scientists who specialized in these special problems -- or that they were under consideration -- nor were the scientists specializing in these areas ever informed of what was happening.

Let me give you a brief summary from "The Heidelberg Appeal," which I would like to read into my statement in the hope that others will give it some serious consideration. Please remember that over 2,000 of the world's leading scientists have signed this, and still more are signing it. They are concerned and worried about what the environmental cause is doing to this world as we know it. They say:

"We are worried, at the dawn of the twenty-first century, that there is an emergence of irrational ideology which is opposed to scientific and industrial progress, and impedes economic and social development. We contend that a natural state, sometimes idealized by movements with a tendency to look towards the past, does not exist, and has probably never existed since man's first appearance on this earth. So far, humanity has always progressed by harnessing nature to its needs and not the reverse. The greatest evils which stalk our earth are ignorance and oppression, not science, technology and industry, whose instruments, when adequately managed, are indispensable tools of a future shaped by humanity -- by itself, for itself, and overcoming major problems like overpopulation, starvation and worldwide diseases" -- for example.

That is the essence of that appeal.

As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, this appeal was never acknowledged or considered by those attending the last Earth Summit, and all the actions taken were without the benefit of competent, scientific input. This in itself presented a victory for those of the environmentalist group who were, in many opinions, the foes of scientific progress, knowledge and economic development.

[10:15]

[ Page 12186 ]

Our previous Environment minister came back from the conference and signalled that a great victory was obtained, yet his knowledge of science is no more than that of any other member of this House. We found that the environmental bill he submitted last year was so weak and unacceptable that it did not pass through this House and had to be withdrawn. We now see a further attempt to rationalize an environmental bill that was unacceptable in the past and, to a certain degree, is not an acceptable bill at this time. I do not presume to try to tell you that all the environmental concerns for abuses in the past are not valid. Abuses have taken place in the past and will, no doubt, take place in our future.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members. The members in the corner are a little too loud for the Chair to hear the member.

D. Jarvis: I object to them saying that I'm not an environmentalist. I've been around in this province for quite a few years, and my family has been in this province for five generations, so we have just as much involvement in this province as anyone else, perhaps more than a lot of other members of this House.

My concern is that we can overdo this bill; there's evidence to show that we have overdone it and that we are, in this bill, trying to overdo it again.

In any event, the Rio conference came up with 27 principles following the spirit of a sustainable future; however, some of those principles were so specific that in actual fact they were not even democratic, in a lot of peoples' opinion. One of the principles, for example, was to justify that laws be set to give liability and compensation for the victims of pollution and environmental damage, no matter where they were, and to allow international law to extend liability and compensation to areas beyond their own jurisdictions -- and that the lack of scientific certainty should not be used as a reason.

We see individuals who have brought these causes to the summit pressing their enthusiastic approval. For example, the Vice-President of the United States gave overwhelming support to the questionable decision of this government on the Haines triangle, the Windy Craggy mine and the Tatshenshini River -- which is probably this minister's favourite subject. Those of you who are honest will appreciate the fact that there was no scientific evidence or body to support this government's decision on the Windy Craggy mine and the Tatshenshini area, other than that there was a mine development assessment program in place. There was a process in place, but this government failed to even consider the process. And some people say: "Well, why...?" Or this minister will say that it's not a worry, that we have to trust them. Well, there's a prime example of why we can't trust them. He, the Minister of Environment, has lost the trust of the people out there. He represents people who want to stop wealth creation in this province. In the Tatshenshini situation, a barrage of information was put down. Many of the people in this province and in the country bought into it.

We keep talking about the scientific evidence or the lack thereof. Perhaps it would be in order to relate some scientific evidence that can show there is such a conflict out there. For example, we really do not know who to believe on the global warming aspect. Eminent scientists all over are in disagreement. Some say there's almost universal agreement among the atmospheric scientists that little if any of the observed warming of the past century can be attributed to the man-induced increases of greenhouse gases. Other scientists say the level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has reached a new high and the ozone layer grows thinner by the day.

A doctor by the name of Fred Singer, the atmospheric and environmental scientist and director of the science and environment policy projects for Washington, D.C., says the scientific basis for greenhouse warming includes some facts but lots of uncertainty and just plain ignorance, and that it requires more observation. Better theories and more extensive calculations are required. There's major uncertainty and disagreement in the scientific community out there about predicting changes resulting in further increase in greenhouse gases. The models they're using today to calculate future climate are not yet good enough. As a consequence, we cannot be sure whether the next century will bring warming that is negligible or warming that may be significant.

You can tell from the examples I just mentioned that there is such a complete misunderstanding or divergence of opinion as to what is happening in our environmental world that we cannot base our legislation on opinion polls. We are becoming aware that only evidence actually counts. The facts must be measured, described and independently verified to constitute a basis for drawing any conclusion.

In my opinion, there is very little to this bill; it is mostly thoughts and opinions taken from unscientific evidence. If that is not so, let us see the minister put the scientific evidence on the table at this time. I find it difficult to perceive that the Minister of Environment we now have before us truly looked into the scientific aspect of what he proposes, and that he is not basing his information, or misinformation, on what his elitist friends or his bureaucrats have passed to him.

The debate on global warming, for example, has become so highly politicized that it's being used by this government to make its policy decisions, rather than dealing rationally with the scientific problems that may or may not exist. The buzzwords "earth warming" have captured the imagination of the public and could have a dangerous, perhaps even catastrophic, result.

Let me give you an example of a global warming problem that has existed and resulted in this government's somewhat ambitious reductions of emissions into the atmosphere from the use of fossil fuels. It comes down to the point that research indicates a strong correlation between temperature changes on the surface of the earth and variations on the surface of the sun -- for example, the sunspots that we see. As the sunspot cycles are irregular, it is the variation in the length of the solar cycle that correlates closely with long-term temperature variations on this earth, and not necessarily the emission of gases from fossil fuels. On the question of climatic warming, everywhere you look there are very ardent supporters on both sides of the question. However, there is no specific scientific proof that warming is occurring, mainly just assumptions.

The question arises: shall we worry about global warming? The answer is that we must clear away some of the real uncertainties before we devote any significant resources to this phenomenon, which may only exist in the computer simulations and the imaginations of the people who make these assumptions without scientific evidence.

The minister will probably get up and say that I am a friend of big business, and I must admit that I am a friend of big business, but I'm also a friend to rural resource communities that are disheartened by these NDP policies. Honest, hard-working people in the interior, the north and the southeast corner of this province are all disheartened by this government. 

[ Page 12187 ]

These are the people who create wealth for this province, while this government is trying not to create wealth. I feel that this minister, who is presenting this bill, thinks more of old trees than he does of old people. This bill will no doubt cut down on the wealth creation of this province. Business will be virtually stopped by it.

A positive plan is required rather than the punitive legislation that he puts before the people of this province. Punitive legislation in the past hasn't done the job, and enforcement of such legislation grows more expensive all the time. A positive plan would prove to everyone that we can reach a goal better through natural means and through voluntary cooperation. As I said before, I am in favour of a new environmental assessment act, but the way this minister has presented his bill, I feel, is too punitive. It will stop resources in this province and close this province down. We will all be the worse for it.

I intend to vote for this bill during second reading because I am essentially an environmentalist. I believe in the environment, and I believe we should have a proper act, but not an act that is going to cause irreparable harm to this province's wealth creation.

Interjection.

D. Jarvis: If the minister -- who is criticizing my statements now -- is prepared to make some amendments in committee, then I think this whole House would be prepared to stand behind him. Other than that, as I've said before, the minister represents an elitist minority group. He has set aside the Tatshenshini for this group, because no one else.... The common hard-working man certainly can't get in to see the Tatshenshini.

He will criticize me for saying that I want mining in parks. I have said that mining in parks is all right as long as it is done in a responsible manner. For example, there is a mine in Strathcona Park. Who would have been able to go into that park if it hadn't been for the mine? The common, hard-working people, who create the wealth of this province, would not have had access to Strathcona Park. When the mine is finished -- and it has created a lot of wealth for the people of Vancouver Island -- there will be reclamation. All responsible miners in this province, because of laws that were put down for them in previous years, have to do a reclamation. That park will be put back to essentially the same as it was before. There is nothing wrong with the responsible extraction and utilization of resources in our province. This minister feels that that is bad. There is a problem out there with the people of this province because they feel that this government is not interested in them; it is only interested in creating an environment that is detrimental to the average, hard-working person in the north, south and east of the province.

I see that my time is close to being up. I will close by saying that we support this bill in second reading, but only on the premise we will be seeing great changes during committee.

The minister just shook his head at me, saying that there will be no changes. It will probably mean that....

An Hon. Member: Vote against it.

D. Jarvis: Well, we will have to give the minister a chance. Maybe he will start to realize that he is not the voice of this province; he is just a small individual who is out there....

An Hon. Member: Say it.

D. Jarvis: I won't say it.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. I recognize the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale on a point of order.

D. Schreck: The member should not pick on other members who are vertically challenged. I ask him to withdraw the remark.

The Speaker: Hon. member, the Chair will consider your point of order at a later time.

D. Jarvis: I will just say in closing that the minister has to realize that he is just a small cog in this province, and that he must listen to the average person who is out there, not to the small elitist group he belongs to. He is not the hammer of this province. He should be out there doing good for this province. What he plans in this bill will bring wealth creation in this province to a standstill.

R. Chisholm: I rise to talk about Bill 29, which we knew last year as Bill 32. Now we have the son of Bill 32. Unfortunately, it's not much better than it was last year.

In principle, I support where this government is trying to go. I support an environmental assessment act in principle. We have to have a consciousness about the environment, and we have to put a balanced viewpoint in place. This particular bill, though, is just a rewrite of Bill 32. When you start with something that is flawed, you generally end up with something that is still flawed, but to a lesser degree. That is exactly what has happened here.

Bill 32, as we all know, was very controversial. We debated it for a good four or five weeks, and it didn't pass. The government withdrew it because it was so flawed and because the people of the province -- business, individuals, environmental groups and whoever -- got up in arms about it. They did not like that bill.

[10:30]

This bill has been amended to some degree, and it has gone in the right direction to some degree, but it is still flawed, and that is the problem. We didn't write a new bill; we brought the same bill back with some amendments. If the minister is willing to listen to and support constructive amendments put forward in committee stage, I could very easily vote for the bill in the final analysis and be happy about it -- but only if the minister is willing to debate certain points in this bill in committee stage. For instance, if you take a look at this bill, you'll see that it's going to be costly. It already is costly. It cost $1.2 million to rewrite it, and we ended up with a flawed bill. It's going to be costly because we're going to need a bureaucracy to administer this thing. As we all know, we have far too much bureaucracy as it is. That's why this province and this country are going broke. It's because of the extent of the bureaucracy -- Crown corporations or whatever form it comes in. These things are not cheap. We have to find this balanced view within our means; we have to find this balance and be able to afford it -- and afford our schools, our social welfare and our environment.

We have a lot of problems. As the minister knows, I am very much on the same line with him on the environment, with air quality and all of that. I have studied it and spoken to it. I very much appreciate what the minister and this government are trying to do. But we must take time out to make sure that the right legislation is put in place. If it isn't, it will be disastrous, because that much more time will have 

[ Page 12188 ]

gone by the wayside while we pollute our environment. We should have the right rules in place in the first place.

We're talking about these jobs that will come to this province. I find it hard to believe that jobs will come to this province over this. I think we are going to lose jobs. We are going to be forced to spend millions of dollars on.... Any applicant that comes here with a project will be forced to spend millions of dollars on environmental, economic, social, cultural, heritage and health assessments -- and on it goes -- with absolutely no guarantee that they are going to get approval. That's a disincentive. This is the balance I'm talking about. If we put too many of those hurdles in, we will not find the investment coming to this province; we will not find new industries, and we will not find jobs. We hear from everyone in this province that one of the key issues is employment. After all, if people are working and there are jobs, they will pay the taxes to help pay for this Environmental Assessment Act -- and that's what we need. But if we put this disincentive in, we're going to have a problem. People will not come here and spend multimillions of dollars on a Tatshenshini or a Myra Falls mine. Whatever the issue, they will not spend that if they have no return or if there's a chance that they will see no return. After all, they are coming here expecting to make some money.

We have to be realistic. Whether you are from the NDP persuasion, the Social Credit persuasion or whatever, there has to be a balance. People have to be employed, and we have to have industry in order to afford the social programs and the things we want in life. And we've got to do that with the balance I talk about, taking into account our environment.

Another area of this bill which is going to be very controversial is that the executive director of the Environmental Assessment Board will be the most -- and I emphasize that -- powerful OIC appointment in the province. He virtually controls economic development in the province. This is far too much power in any one person's hands. After all, we are seeing right now that the Environment ministry is creating havoc in agriculture, and with the cattlemen and fisheries. And this is how we are replying to this. If you give all this power to one individual, we will have a problem.

This bill allows the minister to conduct an assessment of any project in this province. Again, all the power is in one person's hands -- there's far too much power in those hands. Maybe those assessments or judgments should be left within the cabinet; at least there would be a number of people looking at the situation, not a single individual. It's the same with this bureaucrat; he controls all the economic development in this province. I don't think there is any one bureaucrat in this province who is capable of that kind of job. I don't think there is any one bureaucrat in this province who can be an expert on agriculture, fisheries, small business, mining or forestry. That is far too much power, and far too much is expected of any one individual to start with.

Another area that we have a problem with is that there are no grounds for appeal under this new act, nor are there any grounds for compensation. If the judgment goes against an organization, who do they go to? They can't go to anybody. They have invested their tens of millions of dollars or whatever it was, and they have lost their case and lost their money. Why would anyone with any common sense decide to invest here, when they could lose it with a flick of a pen? And there is no compensation. We saw what happened with Bill 25, talking about compensation and appropriation of land and this type of thing. These are very controversial issues. If you, hon. Speaker, decided that you were going to invest in an area, and the government of the day turned around and said, "No, you can't do that," and you had to walk away from your $2 million investment, would you be very happy? I don't think so.

This type of legislation has happened here before. We've seen it with the golf course lands; we saw it in their first year, 1991; we've seen it in other areas, and it is wrong. If we expect to appropriate land, we should expect to pay proper compensation. If we expect people to invest in this province, but then we turn them down, we should expect to pay proper compensation. Otherwise, like I said, no one is going to come here to invest. There are other jurisdictions that will treat them better and more kindly. They'll still end up investing their money, but it won't be in British Columbia.

We have to find that balanced viewpoint. We have to bring the environment and our investments and industry and all the rest of it under one umbrella, and come up with proper legislation. Unfortunately, I'm not sure that this is it. This could be, but only if the minister is going to listen to amendments and accept them. It could be amended such that this could end up being a good bill, but if he has a closed mind about it, it won't be. At that point, I would have to vote against it.

This bill establishes a project committee. This does not clarify either its function or its method of making recommendations to the executive director, yet it is one of the most powerful positions created by the Environmental Assessment Act. We seem to be having individuals with absolute power and total control. This committee is the same thing. How do people on this committee get appointed? Is it by this government? We've seen their track record on that; we don't need any more political hacks sitting on these committees. We have to be very careful with how we hand out power and control and who we give it to.

I'm not going to say very much more about this bill at this time, except that I hope the minister has his mind open and is willing to listen to amendments and to the debate in committee stage. I can support this bill in second reading, but if he's not willing to amend, adjust and put the proper checks and balances into the bill to make it worthwhile, so that we don't have to go back two years from now and redo the whole thing, add another cost to the taxpayer and two more years worth of pollution in this province, then I would have to vote against the bill because we'd be putting the wrong bill into place.

Like I said, Bill 32, its predecessor, was a disaster. We can make Bill 29 something worthwhile. In the state it's in right now, with the flaws it has from Bill 32, it will not approach what we need in an Environmental Assessment Act. I see the minister is there and listening to me; I hope he will listen during committee stage. Like I said, if he does and if he's willing to change some things in this bill that I've spoken about, then in all conscience I can possibly support this bill.

W. Hurd: I'm pleased to rise today to speak to Bill 29, the government's Environmental Assessment Act. A number of previous speakers have pointed out that this process actually started prior to the spring session of 1993, the last session, when the government introduced its ill-fated Bill 32, which, as I recall, came in late in the legislative session. The government of the day introduced some 22 amendments to that particular bill and then decided, wisely I thought, to leave it on the order paper at the end of the session and invite a great deal more consultation with business, industry and the public of the province before bringing forth a revised version of the bill, Bill 29.

It was interesting to note how the government elected to invite that kind of consultation and review of the 

[ Page 12189 ]

Environmental Assessment Act. As the minister well knows, the job was concentrated in the Premier's office, and it was the Premier's office that, in fact, set up the consultative mechanism that led to the creation of Bill 29. Certainly I'm aware that the bill, as it's currently constituted, does have the grudging support, I suppose, of business and industry, and individuals in the province. There's a recognition, I think, that we need some sort of clear set of guidelines on what large-scale projects in the province need to be subjected to as an environmental review. We need look no further than the Kemano completion hearings in Prince George and Vancouver to understand what can go wrong when a clear set of guidelines is not in place to deal with projects that can potentially have such a negative impact on a resource as vital as the fishery and wildlife habitat in that region of British Columbia.

Obviously there's a demonstrated need for an Environmental Assessment Act. Obviously the government's first attempt was flawed, and this is the bill that we now have to deal with. Despite the two years that have gone into reaching the point we are at today, issues have been raised during the course of this debate that I think represent legitimate concerns with this bill. There have been concerns about the powers concentrated in the executive director of the Environmental Assessment Board. I know there were concerns expressed at the press conference about the fact that existing projects underway, particularly those that are being undertaken by the provincial government, will not be subject to a full environmental review. Bamberton and the Island Highway were mentioned; Kemano, of course, wouldn't be subject to any provisions of this particular bill. Again, that gets us into the position of wondering how the government itself will be able to perform under the terms and conditions of this act, given the fact that the direction we're going in this province appears to be one of much greater public sector investment in infrastructure and projects which, one would assume, will be captured by the terms and conditions of this bill.

I don't intend to speak long on this bill. I think it's generally recognized that we need an environmental assessment act. I'm disappointed, I suppose, that after all the effort that's gone into it, we still see what amounts to a blank cheque. We see an absence of the kind of regulations that would enable the opposition, the government and the public of the province to make an accurate assessment of how this bill will function.

[10:45]

It's interesting to note that while Bill 29 has been the subject of consultation and, in some respects, has been watered down, the government has now circulated a draft of an environmental protection act -- another piece of legislation -- which it is sending out to groups throughout the province. That proposed bill appears to incorporate many of the items in the original Environmental Assessment Act that caused the public, industry and communities such concern. It's to my constant amazement that we continue to see a bait-and-switch strategy from the government. One bill that causes widespread public outcry is watered down, and another initiative is generated that seems to incorporate the arguments the governments proposed in the original bill.

I know the minister is receiving input on the draft of the environmental protection act. In the briefings I have received from industry with respect to this bill, they warn that while they feel they can live with Bill 29, the environmental assessment bill, they can't see how they can live with some of the terms and conditions being floated in the new bill, the environmental protection bill.

I don't believe we've seen the last of this issue. As my colleague from North Vancouver-Seymour accurately pointed out, this government is controlled by an environmental agenda. It's not a balanced view. While this particular bill may present some advantages, and while it has certainly met some of the concerns of the business people in the province and others who contributed to its crafting, it appears obvious that they will have to continue to be vigilant to ensure that the government doesn't bring forth additional pieces of legislation that simply incorporate some of the rather draconian measures of Bill 32 which were allowed to die on the order paper last spring.

I'm sure that in committee stage we'll be getting into the definitions of reviewable projects. We'll be examining in detail the powers of the executive director, who is an order-in-council appointment and who, as members have pointed out, will certainly be a powerful individual. I'm happy to see that there will be a role for individual cabinet ministers to advocate projects that are pertinent to their particular area. I know that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, for example, will be allowed under this particular act to take an advocacy position within cabinet for projects that she might feel are in the best interests of the province.

I think there are some aspects of the bill that we can support. There are some which undoubtedly will cause us great concern, and they will be explored at length in committee. All I can say is that some progress has been made from such humble and disturbing beginnings as Bill 32, but as speaker after speaker has pointed out, much more progress could be made during committee stage on this bill.

H. De Jong: I want to speak very briefly on Bill 29. Generally, I suppose, Social Credit supports anything that would make government more efficient. Putting under one bill a number of other processes in terms of environmental assessment seems to make sense. But there is little evidence that by supplanting the existing processes, this bill would indeed make it easier or more efficient to do things than the way they were done in the past. The past has certainly not been great. There is a lot of bureaucracy. If someone wants to build something that could have an effect on the environment, it can -- although not necessarily -- take a long time to get that thing through.

I think it's fair to say that the federal government's EARP guidelines have probably led to more litigation and uncertainty than ever existed before. To my mind, there is no evidence that the Yukon or Ontario environmental assessment acts have done anything to improve the efficiency of the environmental process in those jurisdictions. They are the only two provinces that have adopted the process that is proposed in this bill.

Efficiency is not simply economic efficiency; efficiency goes far beyond that. It means the appropriate balance between environmental, economic and other concerns of the community a project is going to have effects on. There could be a variety of them. Not every project has or could cause the same problems. Some may have air or water emissions, and perhaps some will affect the soil, as we have noted in some of the ground around the city of Vancouver.

I have a little difficulty in understanding the interpretation and purpose of this bill in detail, because so little information seems to be passed on to the governments where applications are made. Most applications for a building, factory, barn or apartment block are made at the municipal or regional district level. There is certainly no indication in this bill that those levels of government will 

[ Page 12190 ]

have a set of guidelines prepared for them so they can immediately judge whether such an application would have to go through the environmental assessment review proposed in this bill.

If it is the case that the minister will provide that to the municipalities and regional districts, why isn't that list attached to this bill, so we could properly review what this bill is going to mean to anyone who wishes to build something? It's very broad in terms of what it all entails and takes in, in terms of.... It could be a very small project somebody wishes to build, or even in fact....

We just had a large fire up in Mount Lehman a few weeks ago, with a Vanderpol's Eggs plant about half destroyed by fire. If I read this bill correctly, during the process of reconstruction, their operation cannot go on. That seems funny. It's simply not correct, because these people have enough of a loss as it is. Surely, if everything is not 100 percent, you might say, during the time of reconstruction, there has to be some latitude in this whole process. I find that type of latitude is not provided for in this bill. Again, I think it's very important whether the municipalities will be afforded some of that information as to what they can and cannot allow.

It seems to me that this government doesn't want to learn to provide the answers to these delicate matters. Certainly when we deal with people wanting to do something, after they put out their money it may have taken one, two or sometimes three years to get these applications through under the previous system. But there is no indication that it will be quicker with this process proposed here. I believe, with the absence of some detailed stuff that can be given to local governments, that this bill is going to provide a lot of problems for a lot of people who want to play an active part in the economics of British Columbia.

The section that deals with the review and a reviewable project is like most sections. It's like most bills from this government. It's full of flowery language and good intentions. The test, of course, is: can this bill deliver? I don't see it. While it may have a lot of good in it and, as other members have said, while it would be difficult to vote against this bill in second reading, I would hope that by the time this bill is completed it will have several changes made to it.

I also believe, as I've talked about municipalities and regional districts, that without giving governments in British Columbia jurisdiction and opening to challenge decisions by the government of British Columbia.... I'm thinking particularly here of giving first nations the right to challenge government decisions in perpetuity, or perhaps even after a settlement of land claims and other historical grievances. I'm concerned about that.

When we talk about the assessment process, I believe the process proposed in this bill will open up the process to lobbying directly with the government, as we have noted in the Kimber Cabs situation. It will be a potential abuse, offering investors in development projects no reliance on the regulations passed by government, because the regulations can change from day to day. Furthermore, the regulations will be subject to a lot of interpretation by the people who police those regulations.

I'm all in favour of a more streamlined process, but I believe very firmly that if this process is going to be streamlined for the smaller as well as the larger entrepreneurs -- but particularly the smaller -- then local governments must have a fairly good idea as to what has to go through an environmental process, such as is proposed in this bill, and what does not. Otherwise it is simply not going to be a benefit to the province. It's going to curtail the economic development of this province and of a lot of well-meaning people who have a sincere desire to make a contribution to this province, and they will go elsewhere. There are already a lot of roadblocks in the way of industry and commerce. Let's not put any more roadblocks in the way of those who want to make a contribution.

Hon. A. Petter: I'd like to ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Hon. A. Petter: Joining us in the gallery today are about 20 grade 5 students from Cordova Bay Elementary School in my constituency. They are joined by their teacher Mr. Quint and their principal Dominique Boltres. I'd like the House to join me in making them very welcome.

L. Fox: I'm sure it's appropriate that we have a class of young future British Columbians and perhaps some future politicians in on this very important...

An Hon. Member: They're current British Columbians.

[11:00]

L. Fox: Sorry, current British Columbians -- future politicians is what I meant.

...debate on Bill 29. In listening to the debate over the course of last evening and this morning, it's very clear that there is a common thread through the concerns put forward by members of all opposition parties. Everybody recognizes the need to have a process which brings all other processes into one and provides some certainty to development and industry -- and perhaps to communities -- on what the goalposts are and what the strong demands will be to protect the environment in British Columbia, at the same time representing an opportunity for investment. I think the bill falls short of that. Many comments have been made with respect to those issues.

I was somewhat surprised last evening as I listened to the member for Prince George-Mount Robson -- I'll paraphrase it, because I am not able to quote the Blues as of yet -- condemn the Utilities Commission hearings on the Kemano completion project. I wasn't surprised that she spoke against the project, but I certainly was surprised that she spoke against her own government's process. While there was suspicion in my constituency and in the city of Prince George at the announcement of that inquiry process, there was growing support that the process was working, that the mandate had been expanded significantly, and that the hearings will be a full set of hearings that will not be that much different, if different at all, from a judicial inquiry. Over the weekend, the Cheslatta native band decided that they were going to invite that panel to their traditional territories and are looking at being part of that process, which I think is good news for all British Columbia.

But what we have seen in the past? We have seen some growth over the course of the last few years. The government consistently talks about the fact that we've got the fastest-growing economy in any jurisdiction in Canada and, for that matter, maybe even in North America. But that growth has not come through industrial development; it has not come through larger projects. It has come from residential growth and the construction that that has created. In looking at developing an opportunity in British Columbia today, there is no question in my mind that one of the major concerns of industry is the lack of a consistent environmental 

[ Page 12191 ]

process which outlines the goals and objectives and goalposts that they have to meet and can rely on in the future in order to do business in British Columbia. There is no question in my mind that that is one of the reasons we have not seen growth in the resource sector of the province. The other part of that, of course, may very well be that the NDP government has never had a history of supporting industry and supporting that type of growth in the resource sector of our economy.

Interjections.

L. Fox: We have before us many hurdles beyond the environmental assessment hurdle.

Interjection.

L. Fox: We have many obstacles that industry may have to meet.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members. Hon. members, it is highly inappropriate for members to yell across the floor with a private conservation while a member is speaking, and I would appreciate it if members would respect the standing orders. Will the member please proceed.

L. Fox: It's always a pleasure to see the heckling grow, because you know you're hitting a nerve.

There are many hurdles beyond the environmental assessment hurdle that industry must meet if we are to see a growth in resource sector jobs in British Columbia -- or even, for that matter, to maintain those that we presently enjoy in the province. Some of those are native land claims issues, which is a very important problem for industries, because they want assurances and some security for their developments and investments. What we see in this bill is the opportunity for native bands to actually have veto power over any development processes that may be put forward by industry. It has to be a concern when we give one segment of the population veto power. No other segment of the population has the same opportunity or authority.

I suppose we should expect this kind of legislation from a government that chose to make a political decision in the Tatshenshini. I recognize that there is some discussion and some debate in the Liberal caucus as to whether or not mining should be allowed in the Tatshenshini: the opposition critic suggests it should, and the leader suggests it should not. There is that kind of controversy on both sides of the issue.

We in the Reform caucus believe that it is important for the investment community to have confidence in the processes that are in place for making economic and environmental decisions in the future. That's why we have some concerns about this bill. This bill sets up an elaborate set of lists for including and excluding projects but allows the minister to advance a project into this process at whim. There doesn't appear to be a time frame during which he can make that decision. This will not provide investors with the confidence to come to British Columbia and invest their money -- in our interest and for their interests.

The bill grants complete immunity to public servants who make mistakes in judgment; yet on the other side, employees of that private development, as well as their corporation, are held responsible. I have some difficulty that on the one hand we can grant public servants immunity and on the other hand we actually have the ability to make private employees responsible. It's different from what we saw with the Nanaimo Commonwealth Society, where all we're doing there is charging a piece of paper; not even the society's board members are responsible for any actions. It seems like there's one rule for the NDP, and there's another rule for other British Columbians.

This bill creates an extraordinary number of hoops and processes for proponents to go through in order to put a development forward -- instead of doing what the intent of this legislation was: to bring all these different processes under one umbrella.

Those are some of the reasons that I stand up and speak against this legislation. It's unfortunate that this government did not take the opportunity it had to design a process that would have provided some confidence, not only in the environmental movement but also for industrial and business development.

If we are going to continue to meet the needs of our social programs, health programs and education costs, we're going to have to have jobs beyond the low-paying jobs that we've seen created by the government over the last few years. Where can we look for those jobs to be created? Nowhere else but the resource sector, which will drive the economy and job opportunities. I'm afraid that this bill will not help us to encourage those kinds of opportunities; it will, in fact, discourage those kinds of opportunities.

H. De Jong: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

H. De Jong: On behalf of the member for Okanagan West, I would like to introduce George and Adele Northan to the House, and their guests from Germany: Hans and Heidi Schacht. I would ask the House to give them a hearty welcome.

The Speaker: The minister closes debate.

Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, many times in this House I have put forward the argument that politics is all about values. The values we bring to this chamber define us not only as individuals but also as political parties. I have said in this House many times in the past that we have to ask ourselves who represents what values. Whose side are various members of this chamber on?

I have listened with great interest to the arguments put forward by the opposition with regard to this Environmental Assessment Act. Let us not lose sight of the purpose of this act. This act is on the side of the environment. This act says that before you engage in a major economic development project in British Columbia, such as a mine, you have to go through an environmental assessment process to determine whether the project will have a positive or negative impact on the environment. It is rational legislation.

It seems to me that in today's world, it is essential that we in British Columbia have environmental assessment legislation which evaluates major economic development projects in an environmental context. If we do not do that, if we do not apply environmental standards to economic development proposals in this province, then we stand to lose a lot. We stand to lose our environment. We stand to lose the very attribute that defines us as British Columbians and makes us proud of the province we live in, because the environment ethic is so much a fundamental component of our psychology as British Columbians. We in this province place a premium on environmental leadership and stewardship. We do that because we on this side of the 

[ Page 12192 ]

House think that it is essential that future generations -- those people from Cordova Bay and from other areas who are watching this debate -- inherit an environment that is at least as safe, as clean and certainly as bountiful as the one we found.

There have been problems in British Columbia in the past with the way in which we managed our forests. That's why this government has started to move on an agenda that changes the way we manage our forests. There have been problems with how we have allowed for mining and other economic development enterprises. There was a time when members representing the political party opposite used to make the argument that it was okay to have effluent coming out of pulp mills and smokestacks. After all, that was just the smell of money. That was the attitude of the Social Credit Party in the past, and it typified their approach towards economic development.

These are the 1990s; they are not the 1960s. Different values drive society. One of them is the environmental imperative to make sure that environmental factors are considered when making decisions. That's why this government has brought forward the toughest standards in North America with regard to discharge from pulp mills. That's why we've brought forward the toughest standards with regard to CFCs, which erode the ozone layer in British Columbia and throughout the world. That's why we can bring forward tough standards, which were in the legislation we debated last night, to deal with the impact of the stuff that comes out of the tailpipes of automobiles and causes so many negative health impacts in British Columbia.

[11:15]

I could go on. In fact, I'll go on to one more example. As a government, we have made a conscious decision to create more parks -- to double the number of parks in wilderness areas from 6 percent to 12 percent -- to make sure that the representative ecosystems in British Columbia are protected for future generations. Kids in the future will be able to go down to the Juan de Fuca Marine Trail between Sooke and Port Renfrew and see the remarkable splendour of British Columbia; they can go down the road to Tod Inlet at Finlayson Arm and see the remarkable splendour of British Columbia; they can go to Stoltz Pool just outside of Duncan and see the last remaining old-growth stands adjacent to the Cowichan River. These are things that we have to protect for future generations. It is essential that environmental values are taken into account when we as a government do our economic planning.

I make no apologies whatsoever for standing up on this side of the House and speaking for the environment. I'm disturbed when I sit in this House and listen to the arguments that the Liberal Party in particular has put forward this morning. The Liberals argue that this legislation, which speaks in favour of environmental assessment and tries to strike a balance between the environment and the economy, is "flawed," is "punitive" and "costly," will "stop wealth creation" in British Columbia and will "cost jobs." I'm even more disturbed when I hear members opposite from the Liberal Party stand up and say very openly that they are here "to represent big business," and they make no apologies for it.

This is all about values. This is 1990, not 1960. Yet we are seeing and hearing from a Liberal Party that wants to benefit the rich and powerful at the expense of our environment and future generations. A leader opposite -- selected by and given that stamp of approval from Howe Street -- comes to this House, and his caucus and party stand up and say that this legislation is punitive and will stop wealth creation. I said at the outset that politics is all about values and whose side you're on. It's abundantly clear that the opposition in British Columbia is on the side of the rich and powerful; they are not on the side of future generations, and they are opposed to sensible environmental legislation.

What is even more disturbing as I listen to this debate, is that after members opposite call this legislation flawed and punitive and say that it will stop wealth-creation, they lack the courage of their convictions to vote against this legislation. They have said in this House that they're going to support environmental assessment, because they want to be able to go out there and say: "Look, we're green; we're clean."

An Hon. Member: That is the Liberal way.

Hon. M. Sihota: That is the Liberal way: speak against the legislation; speak to your friends on Howe Street; speak to the rich and powerful; stand up and say that you're on the side of big business. Make no apologies for it, but then camouflage it all by walking out of here and say in front of a television camera: "We support environmental assessment."

An Hon. Member: They're two-faced; they're wrong.

Hon. M. Sihota: Two-faced, confused, irrational, hypocritical -- those are the kinds of....

G. Farrell-Collins: On a point of order, we were doing quite well with the substance of debate this morning. The minister is now moving into personal insults and attempting to impugn the opposition. I'd ask him to withdraw those comments and keep in line in future.

The Speaker: The Chair has been listening quite intently. However, if the member believes that there has been an improper imputation toward hon. members on the opposite side, I would ask the minister to withdraw.

Hon. M. Sihota: Of course I wasn't referring to any members. But those are the kinds of adjectives that come to mind to describe the tactic of people standing up in this House, speaking against the environment, defending the interests of the rich and powerful, and then not having the courage of their convictions to vote against the legislation that they speak against. I will at least give credit to the opposition Reform Party, who say where they stand, who stake out that territory and say they'll vote against the legislation. I will say that it is shameful that some members of this House in the Liberal Party will speak against this legislation, speak with their heart, show themselves in terms of where they're coming from, and then in order to mislead the public, vote in favour of this type of legislation. We know....

The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove rises on a point of order?

G. Farrell-Collins: I was listening very intently at that point in the minister's speech. I believe the minister is trying to make the case for the public that somehow the opposition is attempting to mislead. I believe those were the words he used. I would ask him to again withdraw that comment and perhaps stick to the content of the debate.

The Speaker: The hon. member for Richmond East, on the point of order?

[ Page 12193 ]

L. Reid: Not on the point of order. At some point, could I beg leave to make an introduction?

The Speaker: If the hon. member would allow this matter to be addressed, then you could seek leave.

If the minister is imputing an improper motive to the opposition through an improper statement, would the minister please withdraw.

Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, I'm not making a reference to any individual member; I'm talking about a tactic here. But it is clear, hon. Speaker....

The Speaker: Order. The hon. member says....

Hon. M. Sihota: But, hon. Speaker, if I offended any member, obviously I'll withdraw.

The Speaker: I believe his complaint was with respect to comments directed toward the opposition. However, if the minister has withdrawn, that should suffice.

If the hon. minister would permit the hon. member for Richmond East to make an introduction....

Leave granted.

L. Reid: I thank you most sincerely. The individuals are in the precincts now, and this is why I choose this moment, hon. Speaker. They are 30 grade 7 students from Garden City Elementary School, accompanied by Ms. L. Scharf. I would ask the House to please make them welcome.

Hon. M. Sihota: It is very true in this House, of course, that interjections occur when one gets close to the mark.

The Leader of the Opposition, in February of this year, said that should his party ever form government, the first thing they would do is reduce and eliminate environmental regulations in British Columbia. Now when the opposition stands in this House and makes the case, as it did, that this legislation is flawed, that it's punitive and that it will stop wealth creation in British Columbia, one must ask: which provisions would they eliminate from this legislation? Which activities would they suggest ought not to be covered? We know the opposition has said they would like to see mining in parks. Would we see an amendment that would allow for mining in parks? They have said that activities ought not to be covered by this legislation. Would they eliminate the activities provision of this legislation?

I could go on, but the point I want to make is that the opposition Liberals want to gut new environmental laws introduced by this government, be it the Forest Practices Code, the pulp mill pollution controls, new regulations to protect the ozone layer, the automobile standards or this provision with regard to environmental assessment. That should be on the record, and it should be clear on the record that people on this side of the House stand up for the environment. We on this side of the House are not in the pockets of the rich and the powerful.

I would say to the opposition: have the courage of your convictions. Keep to what you say. Stand up in this House and vote against this legislation, but don't play this silly game of speaking against a particular bill and then voting in favour of it because you want to create the impression with the public that you are in support of the environment, when the content of your comments would suggest otherwise.

With that, hon. Speaker, I move second reading.

[11:30]

Motion approved on the following division:

Bill 29, Environmental Assessment Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call Committee of Supply B, the estimates of the Ministry of Skills, Training and Labour.

The House in Committee of Supply B; D. Lovick in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF SKILLS, TRAINING AND LABOUR
(continued)

On vote 49: minister's office, $372,200 (continued).

L. Reid: Because time is short this morning, I will simply begin by making a couple of statements and ask for the minister to comment. Salaries, benefits and operating costs are up for skills development programs while grants and contributions are down. These are important programs. Are we taking dollars away from clients and using them to pay for increased bureaucracy? Could I have the minister's comment?

Hon. D. Miller: I will resist the temptation to talk at length about skills initiatives. I really thought we had canvassed that rather well, but I will very briefly try again to encapsulate some of the things that this government is doing.

I recounted the last time we debated these estimates.... That seems like a long time ago -- last Wednesday, I think it was. I read the review conducted by the British Columbia Chamber of Commerce on their view of the deficiencies both in the K-to-12 system and in the post-secondary education system. I've noted their concerns. I read their checklist of what needs to be done by government to address these deficiencies. I also noted that this government is taking action in every single area. We have a $200 million program over two years that is very exciting, and I know members on the opposite side have expressed their strong support -- $200 million that will expand the number of opportunities in 

[ Page 12194 ]

our post-secondary system by an additional 8,100 full-time-equivalents.

Not to get into the details, although I could -- it's a topic that's near and dear to my heart -- I was at the annual convention of the Advanced Education Council of British Columbia on Friday in Kamloops. I am pleased to report that the response from both board members and administration was very enthusiastic. I don't say that in terms of trying to blow my own horn but simply to say that the people who have been appointed to college boards around this province -- not all of them New Democrats, by any means -- the people in charge of the post-secondary systems, and people from California, for example, who said that they were really excited about the program that we have launched here in British Columbia, all lead me to believe that we are on the right track.

I indicated that there was an increase in our administrative costs, but you cannot deliver such a huge new program without having the people in place who can make sure we deliver. Starting last September, my challenge to my staff in developing this Skills Now program was that it had to be real; it had to be deliverable. I don't want anything on paper that we can't absolutely deliver. Although it's a challenge for both us and the post-secondary system, I am satisfied that we will deliver. So we have increases in the administrative side, and I will ensure that we continue to have the people in place to make sure that these programs, which will do so much, will put British Columbia in the forefront in Canada, if not North America.

That's a large statement, but I'm convinced that we are there, and that's good for all British Columbians, regardless of political persuasion, because we will be developing a workforce and developing those educational opportunities that will last far beyond any of our time in this chamber.

L. Reid: Because the minister spent a great deal of time earlier in debate talking about partnerships, I would like to make specific reference to a proposal that CompuCollege School of Business has taken forward. Their introductory comment is:

"It is the intent of CompuCollege School of Business to jointly sponsor entry-level vocational training.... This training will be available at a reduced cost for specific social assistance recipients who may not otherwise have access to such training. Training will be short term -- average program duration is six months -- and is designed to enable the graduates to penetrate local labour markets upon completion."

This proposal, from my understanding, has been before your ministry and before the Ministry of Social Services for some months. The individuals in question simply need some understanding of whether or not there will be an opportunity for trainers such as this to participate under your Skills Now initiative. I have a copy of their proposal, which I would be happy to share it with you, but I would be interested in your comments and not just for CompuCollege. If we're looking at a Skills Now initiative, how do these individuals filter into the system?

Hon. D. Miller: I'm really not prepared to comment on the specific application. We have literally hundreds, and maybe thousands, of applications.

I want to say two things. First of all, members may be aware that a commission had previously been established to deal with the private training institutes in British Columbia. I met recently with the board, and I'm reasonably pleased with the work that has been done by the board. The premise for the creation of that was twofold. One, there had been a tremendous increase in the number of private training institutes. I want to come back and close, as well, with an issue that's current and involves the federal Liberal government and ESL training, and perhaps the Liberals may have some response for me on that.

The Private Post-Secondary Education Commission was established to provide, first of all, consumer protection. A lot of these institutions advertise. We thought it was important that there be a basic level of consumer protection. Where a student had laid out money -- in some cases thousands of dollars -- for training, there had to be a system in place to assist those students where the training institute perhaps went bankrupt. We had a vivid example of that here in Victoria not that long ago. I think it was a good example and a good illustration of how that commission works, because the students caught in that dilemma, unlike the students caught in a similar dilemma about half a dozen years previous, were covered and were protected. They had the balance of their tuition fees refunded. There was an arrangement to try to get them into public institutions so they could complete the courses they'd enrolled in. So I'm satisfied that we're really doing the right thing in terms of that consumer protection.

The next step -- and work has always been done in this area but needs to be ongoing -- is the articulation of programs between the private and the public institutions. What good does it do if you shell out thousands of dollars to take a course at a private training institute, only to find that you don't get credits for that program when you want to transfer into a public institution or perhaps go higher in your education? That's the two-part mandate of the institution.

The Ministry of Social Services really, as the ministry formerly responsible for training individuals on social assistance, had engaged in a number of contracts around the province with both non-profit organizations and private institutes. We have done an extensive evaluation of that. We are currently in the process of disengaging with the Ministry of Social Services programs. We've extended the funding in many cases to the end of September. We are targeting September or October for a clear disengagement or disentanglement, so we then really can take ownership of the provision of training for individuals on social assistance.

Our general thrust in that is to try to avoid the scenario that in my view has developed a little too often, which is to take someone off social assistance and plug them into an ABE class, which lasts some duration. When they come out of that, our analysis indicates that all too many of them simply go back onto social assistance. Our thrust is to try to do a better job of assessing the individual's needs and providing good career counselling; in other words, designing a training program in conjunction with the community college -- but not necessarily; there's a role for the private trainers or private training institutes -- that will equip that individual with skills that will not guarantee but allow the individual a better opportunity to become more permanently attached to the labour market.

It's a tough area. You can see the experiments that have been conducted across Canada, some of them quite costly. The New Brunswick Works program is one that received a fair amount of publicity and seemed to be in favour.... My own view was that it was pretty costly for the results. I don't quarrel with the end result that some people benefited in a significant way. But the challenge, from a public policy and from a financial point of view, is to get the maximum benefit for the money you have available.

[11:45]

We'll continue some of the existing programs, but clearly we'll look at new opportunities. We talked about those when we launched the Skills Now program. We talked, for 

[ Page 12195 ]

example, about our sectoral proposal with private sector employers, where we will allow a training credit of up to $10,000 to someone on social assistance. They can take that to a private sector employer. It's not a wage subsidy; it's a training subsidy. If there's a surplus in that, it can be used to benefit existing employees of that particular private sector employer. There has been a good response, at least from an organizational point of view. The Business Council of B.C. has been helpful in bringing a number of private sector employers together. We've had some meetings on that. Those private sector employers have said that they indeed want to participate. I expect that we'll see some good uptake on that kind of program and approach.

There is no single model; we need to use a variety of models. I personally prefer hands-on training, but I recognize that acquiring a basic skill level is a prerequisite to going anywhere for many people. I also recognize that quite often we need to look at the issue of lifestyle and what kind of assistance and counselling and training we can lend individuals to deal with some of the very real, individual problems they may have that may inhibit their ability to get into the kind of training I'm talking about.

We're also mindful that we in British Columbia have a very large influx of people from all over the world. English-as-a-second-language training is a critical component of adult education. I was very disturbed by the recent move by the federal Minister of Immigration, Sergio Marchi, to deny funding to Vancouver Community College, which has an outstanding 25-year track record in teaching ESL. I was startled by the response of the federal minister, saying that they will no longer supply funding to the Vancouver Community College to put those courses on. I think some 1,400 individuals expected to register in that program this fall. Even though it's the same cost as last year, the reason they have denied that funding to Vancouver Community College is that the instructors at Vancouver Community College, who are represented by the faculty association, have a benefits package. The arbitrary federal rule is: "I'm sorry. Your benefits package is too good. We're not going to give the money to this college." The college has been in the unfortunate position of having to issue layoff notices to 60 instructors who are eminently qualified. In fact, Vancouver Community College was selected nationally to establish standards for ESL training. I am just flummoxed by this contradiction.

On the other hand, Mr. Axworthy, the Human Resources Development minister, is running around the country making speeches about how people need full-time work. One of the biggest problems we have is part-time work and no access to benefits. You can clearly understand my concern. And Mr. Cruickshank, the president of VCC has been quoted in the paper yesterday and today.

I don't know if the provincial Liberals have any influence with the federal Liberals, but if you have any, you may want to try to persuade them that they are on the wrong course. I have ongoing discussions, and I hope I can play some role in trying to resolve this issue and get that ESL back on track at Vancouver Community College. As I say, it's shocking.

At the same time, I was very pleased that the Premier was able to go to Vancouver Community College recently and announce an additional grant of $1 million in an area that has some potential and is quite innovative, which is the combining of skills training with ESL -- in other words, not to view them in isolation. We are going to put some people in the class and teach them English as a second language, but we are also going to combine the language training with skills training. Not only do they get the language training, but at the end of the day they acquire a skill that they can take out into the province and find real jobs.

We recognize the innovation of Vancouver Community College, and I was very pleased that not too long ago the Premier announced a grant of $1 million to expand that kind of training.

L. Reid: I think we can address the minister's concerns about VCC in terms of where we began this morning. For me and for individuals in this province who wish to provide a private service, the minister's comment looked at whether or not they had membership in the Private Career Training Association. I would like the minister to comment on whether that is the level playing field. If the ministry is going to look at purchasing service from private trainers, will one of the criteria be whether they are members of that association? I fully understand the minister's comments about student accountability. I think that if you're purchasing a service, you absolutely want to ensure that the program is going to take you to completion and you're going to get something for the dollars you invest. If the minister can respond to that, I'll continue my comment.

Hon. D. Miller: Well, absolutely, we would not do business with a private training institute that had not registered with and paid the fees to the commission. The latest status report is that in excess of 800 private training institutions indeed have registered. There's some question about how many there are in total; I think there was a bit of a guesstimate, quite frankly. A couple are a problem, and we are pursuing those. First, it's clearly the law; it's a bill that was passed in this Legislature. Second, the reasons outlined with respect to consumer protection and articulation need to be addressed. So I'm really pleased, and the commission is pleased. We had a very good discussion down in the Hemlock Room two or three weeks ago. Some really good, dedicated individuals have spent a lot of time making this thing work, and I think it's working quite well.

We're not going to discriminate. I think there's a role for the private training institutes -- no question about it. Some of them have developed their own particular expertise. In fact, there are some trade unions in the field that I think are doing a very good job. We don't fund the private institutes; my mandate only allows me to fund the public institutes. I do believe that there's a better role for the public institutions as well.

Again, I was pleased to be in Prince George two weeks ago to announce the first program -- I hope the first of many -- that fall under the Quick Response training initiative, part of the Skills Now package. In that particular case, we combined with a local employer. The total cost for the entire training program, which I think stretches over an 18-month period, was almost $90,000 -- $87,000, I think. In that case, I believe the employer was paying 20 cents on the dollar, and we were picking up the rest. They were working with Northwest Community College -- some of the training delivered on-site at the workplace, Canadian Woodworks, and some of it delivered on site at the CNC campus -- but the result will be a workforce in that particular operation that is very good. I'll give them a commercial right now, if anybody is watching. It's one of the outstanding value-added manufacturers in this province. It produces finished windows and doors, a lot of it for the domestic market but clearly some of it going right into the German market. They compete on quality and price with the best manufacturers in the world, in that German-European market. It's a real British Columbia success story. They are very sharp operators, and 

[ Page 12196 ]

I'm very impressed by their sophistication. I'm impressed by the workforce that I talked to when I was there making that announcement.

Clearly, programs like Quick Response give us the ability to work with public institutions to give them the kind of flexibility that I think perhaps they may have been lacking in the past to do this kind of training. It's very flexible, as I say. It's delivered on site, at the campus. It upgrades that workforce and makes that operation more efficient, but at the same time it gives those employees some fairly sophisticated skills that open up opportunities for them as individuals in British Columbia. For example, given the kind of skill and knowledge they acquire through work and training, they may decide to move into the field themselves. As we encourage the development of value-added manufacturing, we are building the kind of strength that allows those kinds of ventures to be successful. So it's a good mix. We'll continue to have that mix -- we don't discriminate -- but we will not do business with someone who refuses to register with the commission.

L. Reid: From the minister's remarks, I think it's fair to say that one of the criteria is membership in a private career training association. Other than that, if the ministry is interested in purchasing that service, will the lowest price -- i.e., what they can purchase for X amount of dollars -- drive that decision?

Hon. D. Miller: I intend to move a motion because of the hour, and we'll get into more substantive debate after question period, but let me say that we will never adopt the position taken by the federal Liberal government, which they have now applied to Vancouver Community College. Where there is expertise in delivery and where the costs are competitive -- and clearly they are in this case -- we will not discriminate simply because the employees, the real workers who deliver the training, have a benefits package. We will never allow ourselves to get into that position.

Having said that, I know that there is more discussion and that that is not a complete answer.

I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Committee of Supply B, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. D. Miller moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:58 a.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1994: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada