1984 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 33rd 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)

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 14, 1984

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

3821 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Committee on employment development. Mr. Gabelmann –– 3821

Employment development. Mr. Gabelmann –– 3821

Mr. Nicolson

Mr. Blencoe

Mr. Lauk

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Education estimates. (Hon. Mr. Heinrich)

On vote 15: minister's office –– 3823

Mr. Nicolson

Mr. Davis

On vote [6: management operations and educational finance –– 3828

Mr. Rose

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Environment estimates. (Hon. Mr. Brummet)

On vote 24: minister's office –– 3829

Hon. Mr. Brummet

Mrs. Wallace

On vote 25: resource and environmental management –– 3831

Mrs. Wallace

Mr. Kempf

Mr. Cocke

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 14, 1984

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour to draw to

the attention of all hon. members the presence of a very distinguished

guest in our gallery today, His Excellency Dr. Hasjim Djalal, who is

the ambassador of Indonesia, accompanied by Mr. Abdul Aziz, who is the

consul of Indonesia. I know all the members will extend a most warm and

cordial welcome to these visitors to our province.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I'd like all sides of the

House to extend a very warm welcome to Mr. George Chan and his son

Newton Chan, who are in the gallery. As you know, Mr. Speaker, they are

fine Delta businessmen.

Oral Questions

COMMITTEE ON EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the

Minister of Human Resources. On July 9 last the cabinet approved an

order-in-council establishing the Cabinet Committee on Employment

Development, of which the Minister of Human Resources was named

chairperson. I would ask the minister if the committee still exists

and, if so, when it last met.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, the committee was struck to

assist in handling the federal-provincial programs as well as

initiatives for students. The program ended, or at least was put under

the jurisdiction of the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) following

the end of the NEED program.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, I want to clarify that answer

with the minister, if I may. Do I understand then that in these times

of record high unemployment the cabinet committee on unemployment no

longer exists?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: No, Mr. Speaker, that is a misconception.

I'm sorry, I said the Minister of Finance; it is under the Minister of

Labour (Hon. Mr. McClelland). That committee and that effort in regard

to student unemployment, and all unemployment, comes under the Minister

of Labour and very much exists. As you know, the Minister of Labour has

just announced two new initiatives in the last month, as a matter of

fact. It is very much alive.

MR. GABELMANN: That order-in-council 884 has not, to my

knowledge, been rescinded, and because it has not been rescinded, the

minister is still chairperson of the committee. The committee

presumably still exists, and the minister could theoretically, if she

would like to, convene that committee to deal with high unemployment.

May I ask her if it is her intention to convene a meeting of that

existing cabinet committee on unemployment in view of the alarming

statistics in British Columbia today?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: No, I am no longer the chairman of that committee,

but I am the chairman of the social services committee, and I am the chairman

responsible for B.C. Transit, which has just this week announced an initiative

for 2,200 man-years of employment. I thank the member for bringing to our attention

the fact that perhaps a clerical or bookkeeping problem may exist in the non-cancellation

of an order- in-council that is still existing. I will certainly check on that

with the staff of the Provincial Secretary, who look after those things.

EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT

MR. GABELMANN: I used the word "chairperson" deliberately. I

have never thought the minister was a man, Some of us on this side of

the House recognize that creating man-years of employment is not the

only thing necessary in this province, because women, too, need work,

I want to ask the Premier, Mr. Speaker: inasmuch as no cabinet

committee appears to exist or be functioning relating to this serious

problem, which minister of his cabinet is responsible for the fact that

20 percent or more of our workers in the southern interior are now

unemployed, and which cabinet minister is responsible for working on a

strategy for developing jobs in both the public and in the private

sector in the southern interior, where the rate is now over 20 percent?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, all cabinet ministers take

part in planning the development of the economic strategy that this

government is employing in trying to encourage the private sector to

invest and create jobs for our people. We know that our prosperity and

recovery will be led by export.

The functions of the committee that Mrs. McCarthy headed have been

taken over by the economic development committee of cabinet. I know

that the member is aware of that committee. A number of ministers sit

on that committee, which meets at least weekly to develop objectives.

It meets with individuals and groups as part of the government

involving itself and the community in general in establishing

solutions. The chairman of the economic development committee is the

Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. McClelland), but a number of key ministers

who have portfolios that relate to industry, economic development and

trade are also on that committee. Rather than mention them all, I will

name a few: the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development

(Hon. Mr. Phillips), who is responsible for trade: the Minister of

Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Rogers) ; the Minister

of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer), who

plays a key role in that strategy. That committee is very active. The

reason that the extra committee headed by Mrs. McCarthy is no longer

active is not because the government is not attending to the problem;

it is the fact that the very good work done by Mrs. McCarthy and her

committee, and the number of initiatives that they undertook, can now

be taken over completely by a single committee structured to operate on

a continual basis.

[2:15]

MR. NICOLSON: A question to the acting Minister of Labour,

who I believe is the Minister of Education: would he advise which

person on that committee has the regional responsibilities for the West

Kootenays?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, taking that....

[ Page 3822 ]

MR. NICOLSON: No, I asked the acting minister, not the Premier.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, the question was

directed to the hon. Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich), who is

the only one who can reply to that particular question. However, a

ministerial statement could be entertained, but only at the conclusion

of question period. Notwithstanding the fact that an answer could be

given to the question, the Chair is powerless to recognize the member

who is currently standing.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I'm going to offer you some assistance, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I could use some assistance right now, hon.

member, but I must recognize almost anyone who would be prepared to

stand on a question.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The question was addressed to someone acting in the place of the Minister of Labour...

MR. NICOLSON: That's very disorderly, Mr. Speaker — deliberately so.

HON. MR. BENNETT: ...and I'm willing to take that question

for the Minister of Labour. If the member is sincere in seeking an

answer, then he'll allow me to answer the question.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, this is a very different situation that the Chair is faced with.

MR. MITCHELL: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I believe

that the reason behind asking the acting Labour minister was an order

from the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), given to me by you,

that any questions had to go to the acting person. It was by your

ruling that we all got these lists of people to ask.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, that was circulated to all members.

Nonetheless, the Chair must advise that it is possible for one minister

to respond in the absence of another minister. If it is the request of

the House to proceed, then so be it. If the members are not willing to

listen to the answer, then the Chair is powerless to.... Hon. members,

on the question, shall leave be granted?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: I hear some noes, hon. members.

MR. NICOLSON: I didn't say no.

I will ask the question of the acting Minister of Labour. Is he willing to defer to the Premier?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, if that's what the member

wishes, I'm certainly prepared to defer to the Premier. I would only

like to say that everybody on this side represents everybody in the

province. I'll take that question, as a matter of fact, as notice. I'm

quite prepared to have the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. McClelland)

respond.

MR. NICOLSON: Then to the same minister: as the West Kootenay

region has the highest unemployment in the province at a rate of 23.5

percent, what employment strategy and plans has the cabinet committee

developed for the West Kootenay region?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I'll take that question as

notice and pass it on to the chairman of the economic development

committee. I should advise the member, through you, Mr. Speaker, that I

am not on that particular committee — I'm on social services. I'll

certainly pass that on.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, a question for the same minister as

acting Minister of Labour. Victoria and Vancouver Island have faced

staggering unemployment increases in the last few months. The

unemployment rate has gone from 14 percent to 19 percent. Will the

minister adviwse hich member of the cabinet committee on economic

development has had regional responsibility for Vancouver Island?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I mentioned earlier that we

are all interested. We all have some concern in this particular area. I

mentioned before that I am not on that particular committee. I'll take

that question by the second member for Victoria and relay his concern

to the Minister of Labour.

MR. BLENCOE: Supplementary. Will the minister bring back to

this House the plans and strategies the committee has developed for

employment development on Vancouver Island? Close to one-quarter of all

the people on Vancouver Island now are unemployed. Will the minister

bring back the development strategy for this island?

MR. LAUK: My question is to the Premier. It was four years

ago approximately that a new program of encouraging the private sector

to create jobs in British Columbia was introduced by this government.

In four years we've gone from a producing province to one of the

highest unemployment provinces in Canada. There's more unemployment

than in Alabama. There's more unemployment than in most areas of the

western industrial world. Has the Premier now decided to reconsider his

policy of four years ago?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, that's always been our policy,

not just four years ago. I guess I could answer that question with a

question. It was a few years ago that the government of France decided

to have a socialist policy of big government as the answer. Today they

have an even worse economy than in any other country in the

industrialized world. I would suppose that has been no answer at all.

The answer to development of jobs in our province — real jobs,

permanent jobs — is to be found in the private sector. The government

is not the answer for permanent jobs.

Encouraging investment carries with it a number of things that are

very important. I found out recently, when I was in California meeting

with high-tech industries and energy development concerns, that they

look first of all for areas that do not face onerous taxation,

particularly taxation that would be implied in the future because of

excessive government spending, particularly large debts and deficits.

Secondly, they looked for areas in which their people would be happy to

be employed, with good transit access to their

[ Page

3823 ]

work. That's why announcements such as the extension of transit into Surrey

is very important to these private sector investors. That those who, for political

purpose, claim they are concerned about unemployment — in the name of Solidarity

and whatever friends they have left over here in Victoria — would boo that announcement

and picket it is a very significant fact. The third thing they look for is a

reliable industrial relations climate. That is something that is the responsibility

of everyone — management, organized labour and others. That type of plan involves

the cooperation and enthusiastic will of all the people — government members

and opposition as well — to make it work, and it is working. British Columbia

is attracting international investment attention, and that will pay dividends

in the way of permanent jobs in the future.

MR. LAUK: A question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. It's my

privilege, I think, that every once in a while, when I drop in to visit

th ese folks, I have an opportunity to cross-question a minister or two,

without the kind of speechifying that went on from the member for South

Okanagan, whose own riding has a 20 percent unemployment rate. I won't

mention that in a question of privilege, of course, because that would

be out of order...

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member.

MR. LAUK: ...or the fact that their employment committee hasn't

met, or that their whole employment strategy and policy has failed. I

will not mention that as a question of privilege. But I would like to

mention...

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member.

MR. LAUK: ...that speeches by cabinet ministers....

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. LAUK: On the other hand....

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the Chair has been informed that the member for Skeena wishes to raise a matter under standing order 35.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to standing order 35

to ask leave to move the adjournment of the House to discuss a definite

matter of urgent public importance, namely the ill-mannered and

insulting statement by the Premier that those in this province who are

unemployed and seeking employment are bad British Columbians. We have

people in this province who are unemployed because of the policies of

that Premier and this government. If ever there was a need to set aside

the other business of the House to discuss the plight of those people,

and to discuss that callous verbal assault upon those people by this

Premier, now is the time to do it.

MR. REID: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, those statements are entirely

untrue. I wish them to be withdrawn in this House. He lied. Those are lies.

He wasn't there, but I was.

MR. SPEAKER: Order. please.

MR. REID: He's a liar.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order. please, hon. members.

Hon. members, I must first instruct the second member for Surrey

that he must withdraw the remark that he made. Hon. member, the remark

is unparliamentary, and the Chair has no alternative but to ask the

member to withdraw the remark. In order to maintain parliamentary

excellence and decorum, I ask the member to withdraw the remark.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, the words spoken by that member are untrue. I will not withdraw.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. For the last time,

while we may have differences of opinion and while we may take

exception to remarks, I must ask the member to withdraw the words "lie"

or "liar." It is incumbent upon the Chair to instruct the member to do

so.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, in respect....

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I must simply ask you to withdraw the remark without equivocation.

MR. REID: Out of respect for the Chair, Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the remarks.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, regarding the matter that was

forwarded to the Chair, I will review the matter and bring word back at

the earliest opportunity.

[2:30]

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. In order

to assist the Speaker, I am prepared to meet with him and show him the

context of the remarks which form the basis of the motion. They are

untrue as related in this Legislature.

Orders of the Day

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

(continued)

On vo te 15: mini ster's office, $186,000.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, if I may, I want to very quickly answer some questions which were raised.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps the hon. members could afford the minister some parliamentary courtesy.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, the member for Skeena (Mr.

Howard) asked a question yesterday. I have a reply and would like to

read it into the record, if I may. The question related to an apparent

anomaly in student funding at Kispiox Elementary School. This school is

operated by the

[ Page 3824 ]

Anspayawx School Society, which is incorporated

under the Society Act. It enrols mostly Indian students and is

basically funded through the Department of Indian Affairs on behalf of

the status Indian students living on reserve.

Last year the school applied for and was granted group 1

classification as an independent school, so that it might claim support

grants on behalf of eight kindergarten and primary level students who

did not qualify for federal funding because they were either non-status

Indian or non-Indian. For those few students the independent school

support grant was $290.88 per student. For the other 59 students

enrolled, the federal support grant was $4,000 per student.

All of the students living in Kispiox have the choice of attending

either the Kispiox Elementary School or the John Field Elementary

School in Hazelton, which is a public school. There is a school bus

which runs the 10 miles between Kispiox and Hazelton. The anomaly in

this situation is that the status Indian students are fully supported

through federal funds, directly or indirectly, in both the Kispiox

independent community school and the John Field public school,

whereas

the non-status and non-Indian students are fully supported by

provincial government funds only at the John Field school. At the

Kispiox school they are supported to the extent of only 9 percent of

the cost. This year the Kispiox school is being evaluated for group 2

classification, which if granted will qualify the school for 30 percent

of the cost. The enrolment of non-status and non-Indian students is

also up from 8 to 2 1. Any simple resolution of this anomaly is not

readily apparent. It appears that the federal government is giving full

financial support for educational choice to status Indian students but

not to non-status Indians,

whereas the provincial government is giving

partial support for choice to non-status and non-Indian students. It is

a complex issue, and we will be looking into it carefully. I think it's

important because I think all members will realize that the question

which the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) asked was rather a difficult

one.

Another question asked was from the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms.

Brown); it involved ESL. I'll quote from Hansard : "I would imagine

that Burnaby is second only to Vancouver South. The minister can

correct me if I'm wrong. The funding for that program has been very

severely eroded, certainly for the adults who use the program, so it is

impacting on the quality of education in Burnaby." I said at the time

that I could not give the answer, and I would now like to respond as

follows. Next to Vancouver, Burnaby does have the largest number of

percent of the provincial total. In 1984, Burnaby School District 41

had included in their allowable budget the sum of $1.206 million to

support the education of those children.

A third question came up from the member for New Westminster (Mr.

Cocke) involving surplus. I wish to advise that the New Westminster

School District had a budget surplus utilized and transferred from 1983

to 1984 of $113,418.

The last question I wish to answer was one the member for

Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) had asked with respect to the Crane

Library. The ministry does not provide funds to UBC for talking books

and has not withdrawn any such funding. The production and distribution

of talking books by Crane Library for UBC students is funded by the

university and private donations.

In the early stages of operation of the Provincial Resource Centre

for the Visually Impaired, in 1978, the ministry contracted with the

university for production of master tapes and copies of school

textbooks. At that time, the university indicated it had some capacity

to do work for the ministry but cautioned that the work for UBC

students would take priority. By 1980 it was clear that UBC and

ministry priorities did clash and that our students were not getting

many books when needed. In 1978, 1979 and 1980, UBC was unable to

provide the number of hours for the ministry for which it had

contracted.

At this time we called for tenders through the Purchasing Commission

asking UBC to submit a bid if they could meet our requirements. In

subsequent years, UBC sometimes bid and were successful, and other

times did not bid at all. Library officials at UBC continued with their

stance that UBC students came first, and that's understandable. In

fact, they urged us to seek supply elsewhere. In fact, UBC did not bid

in 1981 and again did not bid in 1982. By 1983 UBC was doing very

little work for us, the majority of the talking book production coming

by tender from the Canadian National Institute for the Blind or through

contracted readers of the library services branch, Ministry of

Provincial Secretary.

Lastly, in May 1983 the president of UBC wrote to our deputy

minister advising that no work at all could be done for agencies

outside of UBC. That concludes the best answer I can give at this time,

unless there's something further with respect to the Crane Library.

I do have some notes with respect to the Western Institute for the

Deaf, but I'm not so sure that the member for Nelson-Creston had really

finished his comments on that particular issue, so I'll defer to him.

MR. NICOLSON: I thank the minister for his response. By this

kind of dialogue at our level, maybe we can help the people at the

University of British Columbia and in the ministry to get their acts

together. It would appear that there is also more to it. I think it is

definitely a two-sided question, and there would appear to be some

misunderstanding. I know the president of the university is no longer

Dr. Kenny, and one cannot ask the current university president to

release such information. Perhaps the minister, having that kind of

letter.... I think just the nature of that letter could spread some

light on this problem.

While I accept that everything the minister has said is correct, it

would appear that the Crane Library has had some troubles in dealing

with contracts from the ministry. I've discussed this with people from

the university as well, and their understanding goes along pretty much

with this

article that appeared in the Sun on February 20, in which

Melville said that a letter from UBC president Doug Kenny informed the

ministry that to keep the facilities going at Crane required two

full-time people funded on a continuing and reliable basis of about

$39,000, and the ministry just doesn't have that money to spend. He

said they wanted a lump-sum advance payment and they certainly could

not justify that. Apparently Mr. or Dr. Melville says that he was

misquoted in that article. The library did not need upfront moneys,

just an assurance that orders would be forthcoming, and some estimate

of the scales upon which those orders would be forthcoming. He said

that the financing problem was created by the ministry's insistence

that the recording work be done on a piecemeal basis. Thiele said that

the ministry would go to Crane with a request for, say, 300 talking

books, and Crane

[ Page 3825 ]

would quote a price of $265 per book for an order

of that size. The ministry would come back with half the quoted number

of books, or even less, and expect Crane to do them for the quoted

price. He said that the library wanted the money more or less up front.

In my discussions with the university, I got the idea that there was

a high-grading, that it was the real tough books to translate.... I

guess "translate" is the right term. When the contract was reduced in

size....

AN HON. MEMBER: That's not high-grading; it's the other way around.

MR. NICOLSON: Then maybe you've heard it the other way around.

Okay, this is the kind of difficulty between the ministry. I am

suggesting to the minister that it's a very important problem, and it

may be a thorny problem. Really, the kind of money that's being talked

about is not a great amount, even in times of austerity — amounts in

the order of $40,000. But we're talking about people too. We're talking

about the sight impaired and their ability to participate in university

studies. I understand there is one sight-impaired student in the

faculty of law right now. Obviously it costs a great deal to translate

those books in that profession.

I seek assurance from the minister that he would really take a fresh

approach to this, keeping in mind the needs of the students in what has

become a bit of a battle between bureaucrats of both the university and

his ministry. Let's not worry about fault-finding or blame-fixing or

anything like that. I would hope there could be a pretty fresh

approach. There must be some way in which some reasonable terms can be

realized. I know one could say that the university has a budget, and if

it's a small amount they should find that small amount in their budget

as well. It would seem that we could find a reasonable course of action

whereby this kind of translation could take place. It makes it a more

viable operation when your ministry contracts for some of those

services. I realize that somebody who is going through the faculty of

law is not your direct responsibility, but if the participation of your

ministry helps to make this a viable program, then it really benefits

everyone. In fact, your ministry and the ministry of universities

really shouldn't be separated anyhow and probably won't be in a few

months.

[2:45]

I think the Western Institute for the Deaf would like to know if the

minister is aware of a proposal by Dr. Frank Cassidy of the continuing

education division of the ministry for present and future educational

opportunities for adults with hearing impairments in B.C. It is my

understanding that not only are we going to be experiencing a baby boom,

but right now we're experiencing another kind of a boom. The children

who were the victims of a rubella epidemic about 18 years ago and have

gone through the school system with some special programs are also

entering post-secondary education in colleges and universities. They

are wondering to what extent the minister is aware of that study. Is he

familiar with the proposal? Has the minister taken steps to implement

any of the recommendations?

Again you have this mixed funding. In 1983-84 they received $20,000, administered

through the Universities Council of British Columbia, but they also received

$33,000 from the Ministry of Education. The grant from the Universities Council

has been eliminated for '84-85, and the Western Institute for the Deaf have

been told that they'll have to apply for these funds directly from the universities.

Again, there's a 5 percent reduction in those budgets. Is it

reasonable to expect, without some kind of grants coming directly from

the Ministry of Education or the Ministry of Universities, Science and

Communications, that the) n see the universities take up the slack when

they're having to cut other programs to meet a 5 percent reduction in

budget? We're talking about reasonable, manageable amounts of money. I

think sensible people can sit down and realize that a baby boom of a

sort is coming into the post-secondary level of education. These people

are hearing-impaired because there was a rubella epidemic about 18

years ago, more or less. Does the minister have any commitment to

providing equal access to post-secondary education for hearing-impaired

people? If so, is he willing to make sure that funds are provided for

the continuation of the services?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, I thank the member for the

information which he's advanced. I will advise you that this is one

area in which I have very little knowledge, since assuming this

portfolio not too long ago. I think what is important, in view of the

concern which the member raised yesterday, is that I answer with the

information which has now been given to me. It might be of some

assistance. If I can assist in any way, I will. I'll tell you why I may

have a past personal interest in this: I spent two years working with

deaf children and blind children at Jericho Hill School.

First of all, some background on the Western Institute for the Deaf,

which is a non-profit society that has been in existence for about 50

years. It was funded mainly by the Ministry of Labour. It's an agency

of the United Way. Funding was also received from post- secondary...approximately

$33,0 00 which the member for Nelson-Creston has raised. From special

education there was another sum of about $5,000. I gather there had

been in the past, and I'm not sure right now about whether there were

moneys advanced by another ministry in government. The two contracts

for special education, by the way: there was $2,000 for special

education and $3,000 for Jericho, and both of those items look after

interpreter services. We know what the mandate is: to service adult

people whose hearing is impaired. I think it's a tremendous

organization. It's involved in job placement and counselling. It has an

audiology clinic and provides interpreters free of charge to school

districts, especially for court appearances. It sponsors social events

and looks after appointments with doctors, dentists and interpreters at

the university level.

As for contacts for grants from us now or in the past, there have

been no outright grants, to my knowledge. The two contacts were those

to which I made reference.

Our relationship to the Western Institute for the Deaf and services

which we access. Students at Jericho, when they reach age 17, are

referred to the job placement counselling service offered by the

society. The services are free and are also available to the

hearing-impaired in school districts. We assist with interpreters in

this area and again for court appearances and appointments. To our

knowledge — when I say "our," I mean the Ministry of Education — the

Western Institute for the Deaf has never been represented on any

committee. Interestingly, the name which was raised, Mr.

[ Page 3826 ]

Eric Cardinall.... He is the past president and

also the chief fund-raiser. He did sit on several committees but not as

a representative for the institute. As a matter of personal interest, I

might mention that Eric Cardinall was the gentleman who hired me about

25 years ago to work with deaf children and blind children.

There have been no requests for funding. It seems that the institute

is happy with the relationship with post-secondary. They have been told

verbally that what funding is there will continue. The question raised

by the member.... It may very well be that even those grants which will

be continued may have been reduced. This I cannot give you an answer

to, but I will look into it. I can't really say much more than that,

but I will look into that; also the funding that apparently had been

given by the Ministry of Universities, Science and Communications. If

that funding — and I do not know — has been withdrawn, the concern

obviously will be

interpretation for those students at the

post-secondary level, and we'll look into that.

MR. NICOLSON: I suppose one thing I can do is undertake to

give the minister some of the information I have. Because of the

rubella epidemic of the mid-sixties, they are anticipating a real

increase in demand for service. They have made a proposal for an

internship program. Employment and Immigration have agreed to give some

funding to that. However, I think there's a shortfall in their funding

requirements. That's one of their concerns. I'm satisfied that the

minister will look into this, perhaps with a pretty fresh and fairly

informed attitude toward the problem.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: The member has raised something with

respect to the outbreak of rubella some years ago. In just checking

with one of my deputies, I'm advised that not only are they very much

aware of it, because it is now starting to surface with respect to

post-secondary, but Cariboo College, the College of New Caledonia and

Vancouver Community College are attempting to accommodate those

students whose hearing has been impaired. I'm glad you raised that

particular point. We're now in the process of determining allocations

between all institutes and colleges in British Columbia. I have not yet

reviewed those allocations or anything about them, but I think this is

one of the items which will be raised. Now it's fresh up here, and

we'll keep it in mind.

MR. NICOLSON: I thank the minister for his response.

Just before closing these estimates, if they close, I would just

like to say to the minister with regard to David Thompson University

Centre.... I know the minister's feelings about the amount of

post-secondary educational funding per capita that is going into that

part of the Kootenays. I would just ask the minister to temper that

thought with the fact that the facilities there predate post-secondary

education outside of the lower mainland and Capital Regional District

areas. It was the first pretty well full-blown.... It was an accredited

university in that area, and a university which predated post-secondary

funding. It was a lighthouse — a beacon — for those of us who live

beyond Hope, which both the minister and I do. A lot of initiative went

into that, and I think for that reason there is a reason to treat it as

a different area.

The minister has received a proposal in which the city of Nelson has

taken a very courageous step. They have said that they recognize the

minister's concern that the institution as it is presently being

operated is costing more per student than comparable colleges even

though it did provide some university function. The city has said that

they would be willing to operate it if they can raise the money locally

and get provincial government assistance only on provincial government

formula funding, so that, in fact, it would not be getting twice as

much per student but simply receiving provincial averages per student

in assistance. If the city sought to bring in a new, innovative

program, that would be funded through debentures raised in the

community, the province or throughout Canada.

It really does put the ball in the city's court as they have

undertaken such a huge undertaking. I don't know that they have made a

wise choice in going that far to meet the minister's objections, but

having gone that far — and that is a consensus of the community — I

would ask the minister if he has made any progress in his consideration

of the proposal of the city which would really require the local

community to raise hundreds of thousands of dollars before they could

actually go into implementation. It clearly puts the onus on them, and

it also, again, shows the kind of initiative that the area was willing

to take before any community college was ever constructed in this

province, or even the old campus on the old King Edward site, one of

the first in the province. Perhaps the city can't realize its

objective, because it is setting a very difficult target for itself in

terms of what it would have to raise in funds to go ahead with this

proposal. Has the minister given that any further consideration?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I am going to confine my remarks to the

last point because the member is aware of all of the other material. I

cannot advise the member of anything more than when we talked here a

few days ago. He requested that I contact His Worship Mayor Maglio as

soon as the session concluded that day. I did that. I think I got to

him about ten after six that evening. I recognize it has been received;

I have looked at it. I am not in any position to make any comment on it

at all, and I can't be any more honest than that. I just don't think

it's really important. It's important, but I don't think it's wise to

say anything more. It was a very difficult decision, and I can't really

say any more right now.

[3:00]

MR. DAVIS: I want to ask the Minister of Education a few

questions. They relate primarily to students whose first language is

ask is how many students in that category we have in our primary and

secondary schools system in the province. My understanding is that it

is of the order of several tens of thousands, if not higher. I would

like him also to indicate where the principal concentrations are. I

and 50 percent of the school enrolment in the city of Vancouver, for

example; lesser percentages, of course, in Burnaby and surrounding

lower mainland municipalities.

I'd also like to ask him whether the government condones advertising

overseas, particularly by private schools, of space in the school

system in British Columbia. There's a problem there. There are eight or

nine private schools in the province of British Columbia which

currently intensively advertise overseas for foreign students. I'm not

talking at all about landed immigrants; I'm talking about students who

are upfront foreign nationals. These schools are advertising

[ Page 3827 ]

space in British Columbia and asking prices in the

order of $10,000 per year for one, two or three years instruction in

the province of British Columbia for grades 10, 11 and 12, but

principally grade 12, the main bait being low-cost university or

college education thereafter in British Columbia.

The student abroad often has great difficulty getting into

institutions of higher learning, particularly universities, despite

their abilities as students. Because of their problem of getting into

universities and colleges, etc. In other countries, British Columbia is

a haven of sorts — no questions asked; first come, first served. If they

can get into our school system, particularly if they can get grade 12

accreditation, they are into our universities and colleges where the

fees are 10, 12 or 15 percent of the actual costs of instruction. So

they not only obtain unqualified entry, but they also get a highly

subsidized education at the expense of the B.C. taxpayers.

I'm aiming my remarks principally at those private schools which

engage in this kind of commercial endeavour. They cover their costs.

They are expanding, and they are really trading on the fact that we

have a good educational system in this province, and that entry into

our institutions of higher learning is, comparatively speaking,

unlimited.

I'd like to ask the minister whether his ministry makes grants to

these private schools. I know it has in the past. What conditions are

now attached to those grants? Do those schools, when they give a grade

12 accreditation to a student, meet all of our B.C. standards — at

least the standards that are required of our public schools? Again,

this wasn't the rule a couple of years ago. Is it the rule now? What

priority do foreign students have, if any, in getting into our school

system? How many foreign, as opposed to landed immigrant or Canadian

citizen, students do we have in our public school system? Finally, to

what extent does the federal government, which has a major say in

immigration policy, participate in the funding of our school system,

particularly primary and secondary schools? My impression is that it is

next to nothing.

I've heard several members opposite concern themselves about federal

moneys coming to British Columbia for education, and they're suggesting

that some of those moneys nominally earmarked for education find their

way into road and highway construction, and so on. I suggest that on

balance the exposure of the province to the immigration policies of the

federal government in the area of education is an expensive one, and

that moneys coming from Ottawa are more than offset by provincial

government expenditures in the area of education.

Mr. Chairman, we have several areas of concern. One is the illegal

immigrant into Canada. There are between 100,000 and 200,000 illegal

immigrants in Canada. That's the range of figures provided by a House

of Commons committee on manpower and immigration recently. I suggest

that British Columbia's share has to be of the order of 20 percent of

that — 20,000 to 40,000 illegal immigrants in British Columbia. A

relatively small fraction of those are children of illegal immigrants,

either born here or brought in by the illegal immigrants, Perhaps of

the order of 5,000 to 10,000, to use a conservative range, are children

of illegal immigrants in this province. They're here and they're in our

school system. They're not identified, but they're here. They are being

financed by the taxpayers of the province, including, in some

instances, those aliens who are here in the country illegally. That's

one category — the illegal immigrant; 5,000 to 10,000 in our primary

and secondary school system. There is a similar number of visa

students: students who are properly identified in their country of

origin, and who come in as foreigners and are reported by Statistics

Canada in our immigration statistics. The number of visa students who

entered British Columbia last year was 6,500. In the previous year the

figure was 5,700. The trend has been steadily upward over the last

decade or so.

So we have two categories of foreign students — one the illegal

immigrant student. and the other the upfront visa student who is

identified as foreign — coming to this country. We have in the range of

7,000 to a high of 15,000 foreign students in our school system. That

is a significant number. If you assume that the average operating and

capital cost of educating a student in our primary and secondary school

system is at least $4,000, then the expense is in the order of $40

million, $50 million or $60 million for educating foreign students —

not landed immigrants or Canadians of originally foreign nationality,

but those who are here illegally and those who are here because we have

a good, open and low-cost education system. I suggest that this is a

question to which the ministry must address itself. I suggest that it

is a matter of some concern to the provincial taxpayer, and I think we

should develop an upfront policy in this area. I know it is difficult

to identify the illegal immigrant. Certainly the federal government is

having difficulty in getting them to come forward, even with various

enticements. But they're there and the numbers are substantial.

Once the foreign student — who is brought here in part by the

private schools, but also in part by institutions like Vancouver

Community College, which has advertised abroad — gets into our public

school system, they do not pay anything like the costs incurred by the

system and the taxpayers of the province. I've heard various stories,

and I know of first-hand examples of students brought here by let's

call them tourist agencies. They're brought here for a year of

education in North America, even a year of recreation in North America:

variety of experiences. After a few weeks they disappear. These tourist

agencies are claiming foul; they're saying: "You're allowing them to

slip into the public school system. We lose them and are no longer able

to charge them because we no longer know where they are." I know of

instances like that, where these children are in the public school

system — for example, in North Vancouver. They slip into our system. We

don't discriminate, we don't ask about an individual's background, and

we certainly don't ask about their ethnic origin; first come, first

served. Registration in the fall, they're in, and they're in without

identification. I can understand why there is this leakage out of the

privately sponsored tourism activity, out of the private schools. The

private schools advertise up front. They charge substantially for their

services, but they deliver a student into our public school system,

giving them grade 10, 11 or 12. The majority who reach grade 12 are of

course headed toward our universities, colleges and so on.

There's a problem there. I know it is difficult, and a subject which

many people don't like to discuss, but it is still a matter of some

concern to a large number of people, and one of considerable concern to

a significant few. I think it is healthy to talk about and address a

problem of this nature. Perhaps the minister is not equipped right now

to answer some of these questions, but I would like to know about the

standards which the provincial Ministry of Education requires from the

eight, nine or ten private schools — most of

[ Page 3828 ]

them relatively new — which advertise abroad and make it their business to bring students here. They make $10,000-plus a year.

An interesting fact is that a visa student coming to this country

can get renewals for up to ten years. So once you're in, you can stay

here for up to ten years by simply renewing your visa. Under the new

federal rules, if you're here five or more year and hold up your hand,

you're a Canadian — and that's another subject of some concern.

Mr. Chairman, I'll look forward to the minister's answers. I know

this is a subject which will be addressed again, so perhaps if he

doesn't give the answers to all these questions, he'll give them at

another time.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: The member is quite right. I won't be giving answers to all of these questions right now.

Interjections.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: "Explain!" "Get on with it." Listen to that!

advised by the ministry the total is 14,480. Earlier I responded to an

inquiry from the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown), and it seems

to me that the number in Burnaby totalled 589. The largest

concentration of ESL students is in the Vancouver area. Perhaps it

might be interesting to do a breakdown throughout the province. I

suspect that information will be available to us under the framework.

[3:15]

The member gave me a list of his questions. A number of them seem to

be oriented toward the immigration policy. You know that immigration

policy comes under the jurisdiction of the federal government, not the

provincial. If there is a concern raised with visa students in Canada

and if there are illegal immigrants, as the member believes to be the

case, I suppose we ought to be directing our concern in this area to

the federal government.

One of the questions is: "Does the government condone the

advertising overseas of openings in the B.C. school system?" First of

all, our ministry does not have any authority in this area at all.

The next question is: "Does the Education ministry give grants to

private schools which advertise abroad?" I suppose the grant to those

independent schools which are either group 1 or group 2 funding....

What they do is something over which we do not presently have control.

But the funding which is advanced by the government is only for

students who are here as landed immigrants or otherwise are legal

residents of the province under federal law.

The next question is: "What school standards are enforced as a

condition of accreditation?" There are normal curriculum and teaching

standards for group 2 funding, and I think the member is aware of the

provisions of the independent school legislation.

Next question: "What priority, if any, do foreign visa students have

in entering our public school system?" They have none. Such students

receive no financial recognition in the funding formula unless they are

residents. I might add in that area, with respect to post-secondary, at

least as far as the college component is concerned, which comes under

the Ministry of Education, that there are contracts which some colleges

have to look after overseas students. Three such colleges are

Malaspina, Vancouver Community College and Pacific Vocational

Institute. What we're doing in these cases is exporting our training

and our curriculum overseas. But those people who attend on that

basis.... The country from which they emanate pays the full shot, all

the costs related to it. Secondly, what is important is that those

contracts cannot displace any of our own students. I think that's

probably a policy which is followed all around, in other jurisdictions

as well.

With respect to question number 7, I do not know the answer but will make the appropriate inquiry.

The last question: "To what extent is the federal government

involved, financially or otherwise, in the education of visa students

and immigrant children?" The response that I have is that no federal

funds are received to support these students, and we assume that the

federal government exercise their normal supervision of visa students

and illegal immigrants.

That may seem like a number of hollow answers to the member at this

time. I will give this undertaking: we will pursue an answer to each of

those questions in greater depth when the opportunity affords itself.

MR. DAVIS: Just a comment, if I may, Mr. Chairman. The hon. minister

implied that immigration is solely a federal matter. Anyone who has looked at

the British North America Act knows that immigration is a concurrent responsibility

between the federal government and the provincial government. Certain provinces,

notably Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba and Nova Scotia, have agreements with Ottawa

as to immigration, and they send scrutineers to foreign points to interview

potential immigrants. There are extensive agreements in those provinces. Perhaps

I could put it this way: British Columbia has chosen to ignore its responsibility

in this area. It may have been a convenience in the past, but I don't think

it'll stand up in the future. I think that the province has to take an interest

in the flow of people into this province from overseas and that the concurrent

responsibility has to be recognized.

Vote 15 approved.

On vote 16: management operations and educational finance, $24,148,535.

MR. ROSE: I want to clarify one of the things the minister

said the other day, and I think it'll take me about two minutes. I want

you to know that the House Leader promised to buy my supper tonight if

I didn't speak at all, so this is at least costing me a meal. But I

really don't intend to speak more than two minutes.

The minister intimated yesterday that I and this party are opposed

to exams. That's not the case, and I want to make that clear. We're not

opposed either to examinations or.... We're in favour of

accountability, both as far as the student is concerned and as far as

the instructor is concerned. So I wouldn't want to let that go

unchallenged. But we believe that everything shouldn't ride on one

test, no matter how sophisticated that test may be, and that in

contrast we should have as many samples of the student's work as

possible before we can make a valid and reliable assessment that is

fair both to the student and to the instructor. That's really all I

wanted to make clear. Our main criticism of the provincewide

examinations, aside from the ones I mentioned earlier

[ Page 3829 ]

— and I'm not going to repeat them here — is that

we think too much rides on one test. We don't think that's a

progressive viewpoint. We wouldn't object to having a number of

assessments, both student and teacher, and, if necessary from time to

time, an external assessment. But we feel that both students and

teachers need to be held accountable for their work, and from that

point of view we criticize the government exams. It's not that we are

not in favour of examinations or testing.

Vote 16 approved.

Vote 17: public schools education, $999,534,707 — approved.

HON. MR. McGEER: Not too many years ago the whole of the estimates didn't amount to as much as vote 17.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point is well taken, hon. member, although

you didn't rise in your place, but you're absolutely correct. Just

presenting the vote, Mr. House Leader, is fine.

Vote 18: post-secondary colleges and institutes, $308,659,687 — approved.

Vote 19: independent schools, $23,355,960 — approved.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT

On vote 24: minister's office, $145,194.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, I would like to introduce my

estimates with a few comments to cover a few areas. First of all, I

would like to recognize the contribution of senior and regional staff

and, for that matter, all employees in the Ministry of Environment, for

their response and adjustments to the restraint measures that they've

had to cope with, and particularly for the initiatives that they have

shown in restructuring so that services and their performance as

individuals can continue and improve. I can assure this House that

there is a very strong dedication throughout the ministry to protecting

the environment. One thing that is not often recognized in criticisms

levelled in a crisis, when a spill or something of that nature

happens.... Generally the emphasis is on the problem. But I would like

to recognize the effort that these people put forth. They're on call

virtually seven days a week, 24 hours a day, when a crisis such as that

develops. I also recognize that their interest often extends far beyond

the hours of duty, and that is throughout the ministry. I can assure

you that throughout the ministry we are committed to preserving the

environment.

I can also inform the House that sometimes the choices are not quite

as easy as others would have them. Sometimes we have to very quickly

choose the least harmful approach to take. I can use innumerable

examples in one category alone. For instance, at some point the

ministry and I might have to decide whether to drain a reservoir or

take a chance on it bursting and doing severe damage. Those choices are

not easy, but often they have to be made. It's not a case of burying

our heads in the sand and hoping that it will go away.

Some very positive measures have been taken in this ministry. I

would like to refer briefly to a few of these, even though they don't

come anywhere near touching on the entire scope of the Environment

ministry. For example, special waste management; I think it has been

agreed for some time that it is an urgent concern. Certainly dealing

with special and hazardous wastes in this province is an issue that

warrants our attention. I think that most of the public and the House

are aware that last September we announced a special waste management

plan for hazardous products which included a collection system,

receiving and storage, physical treatment and a secure landfill on

Crown land. The ministry identified the two most suitable sites

according to an objective evaluation, and discussions are now going on

in those communities closest to those sites. Also, open houses are

being held throughout the lower mainland over a period of time to deal

with the treatment facility, which, it was acknowledged, should be in

the area where most of the wastes are generated. There are many reasons

for that — responsibility, if you like, and transportation concerns.

Whatever way you want to approach it, you try to deal with them as much

as possible in the areas where most of the waste is generated. That

process is ongoing. Hopefully we can come to a successful conclusion in

the next little while.

[3:30]

I note that in Alberta the secure landfill site area has just

recently been selected, and we wish them luck in their endeavours. I'm

sure that they wish us luck in ours, because it is very important to

the province. We can look at some of the suggestions that it should be

done on each site, at each factory, at each place. There is

considerable evidence to indicate that we would have the problem

multiplied in a thousand sites, and it would make it difficult for

people to comply. The other thing we faced, of course, is that

enforcement has been somewhat difficult, in that we could not say to

people in this province that there was somewhere to dispose of this

properly. Naturally we are also concentrating....

Part of our program is recycling — destruction on site as much as

possible. Those incentives are built into the program. As long as we

have factories and industries in this province, there are going to be

some wastes which just can't be recycled, and those must be dealt with.

That is most important if you like to do job creation. If those

factories cannot operate here successfully, then they will go

elsewhere. So it does mean jobs, and our waste management plan does

help a great deal in that regard. That's the special waste plan.

I would also like to briefly comment on the solid waste management

plan. Some of this had been in the works last summer, of course, before

I became minister. We met and decided to get all communities in the

lower mainland to deal on a cooperative basis with the solid waste

disposal program. Since then, a study has been ongoing, which should be

concluded early this summer, with two years' implementation, to deal

with a rational, workable plan for solid waste disposal in the lower

mainland.

I'm touching on a few here that I think have been successful. I'm

sure we will deal with others later. The salmonid enhancement program

has had considerable contribution by the federal government. The two

governments have spent more than $157 million to rehabilitate the

salmon and searunning trout of the province. We're presently in a

transition phase, with estimated costs of around $68 million to

continue the operation of the facilities. Then we will be going into

the next phase in '86-87. I think that the good news for sports

[ Page 3830 ]

fishermen is that the province has successfully

implemented a program of restoring badly depleted steelhead and

cutthroat runs through fish culture and habitat improvement. I was

pleased to note that some newspapers in the lower mainland had reports

coming in from others that the fishing was much better. With continued

management, hopefully it will improve.

One issue which has had fairly widespread publicity — an inordinate

amount of publicity, if you like — but which was really only an ongoing

part of our wildlife management program, is the wolf control program.

That has been ongoing in northern Vancouver Island, in the Nimpkish

valley. The emphasis, of course, was on the Kechika valley in

northeastern British Columbia — and on the Muskwa region, which was a

new program. The Kechika program has been ongoing for three years. The

results indicate that it is effective and that it does considerable

good for wildlife management. The studies are ongoing as well. I

suppose the problem there is that as a politician, one is subject to a

great deal of criticism and, in my opinion, unwarranted attacks and

untrue allegations and accusations. Unfortunately, that is publicized

far and wide through the media. I would think that some corroboration

efforts or research efforts might go into whether statements are true

before they are actually publicized. For instance, I have been accused

of political payoffs. That's not true. I have been accused of

corruption. That's not true. We have been accused of doing this

strictly for the benefit of a game ranch, because it benefits one

person in the area. That's not true. Statements were made that that

person owns all the land in the area. That is not true. As in many

guiding areas, he owns one

section of land. The game goes throughout

10,000 square miles. For those of you who are not familiar with land

delineation, one

section of land is one square mile out of 10,000.

As I say, one gets some of this political flak because one is a

politician. Yet to continually respond publicly to ridiculous

accusations about campaign funds, which are not true, only prolongs the

argument in a senseless way. I feel it interferes with the ability of

the ministry staff to carry on with the job that they have to do. The

saddest part of this is that game management in this province — for

whatever purpose: viewing, hunting, fishing, and so on — is for the

purpose of enhancing tourism within the province and attracting people

from outside. It is a major factor. In endeavouring to get at me, some

of my opponents are trying to harm people and destroy jobs in the

tourism industry. Because they don't agree with something, why do they

then try to hurt the livelihood of other people?

I would like to again touch briefly on the habitat conservation

fund, which seems to be very well accepted by people who have a vested

interest in wildlife management. The fishermen and the hunters of this

province have gladly contributed an extra $3 to their hunting licences.

As a matter of fact, I think they have made a recommendation that the

amount be increased to $6. We have not acted on that, but I think it is

indicative of their support for the habitat conservation program.

Again, let me assure all concerned that the funds from those extra

surcharges do go into a special fund which is strictly for those

activities and is, in effect, based on recommendations made by the

habitat conservation advisory board. Any proposals which come in go to

that board, which evaluates them and makes recommendations to the

minister.

Despite the many criticisms of the ministry, the enforcement of

environmental standards and game, wildlife and fishing regulations have

all improved in the last few years because of refinements in our

approach. I don't think there will ever come a time in this province

when we will have enough "policemen" to control all the users of our

environment, in whatever form they take. Therefore we do depend heavily

upon the responsibility of the users of our environment. In enforcement

we end up dealing with a violation rate of 5, 10 and 15 percent,

depending on the areas. I find that the compliance rate of people who

are checked in the field is 85, 90 and 95 percent, and that is

certainly a credit to the people of the province and the interest that

they show in that regard.

One thing that has increased our enforcement ability is the response

from the public to the observe, record and report program. Every

hunter, fisherman and person who uses that wilderness is, in effect, a

conservation officer in their own right. We have asked them not to try

to make arrests — because they have no authority to do that — but

rather to report to us and let us know what is happening, and they have

responded very well. For what value it may have, I would like to

recognize the contribution of those people and further promote the

understanding that rules are not made by us to try to restrict people

from enjoying our environment and having fun, but they have a definite

and rational basis. As more people accept those rules for a good reason

rather than something to try and beat, I think we will have what we

really need ultimately in this province: support and compliance with

the regulations because of the value and the good that they do. So

again, I think all of us can be conservation-minded. I know the

accusation has been made that because I happen to have done some

hunting in my time I cannot possibly be interested in conservation. I

unequivocally reject that. If I've taken an animal, I've been very,

very much interested in never wasting and also, on the other hand,

wanting to see a whole bunch left there for the future and for anybody

that wants to see them or use them in any form.

Just while I'm on the positive note of commending people, this

evening I have the honour of presenting some environmental awards to

industries and public service groups and individuals who have shown

exemplary action in doing things for the environment or to protect the

environment. I think in fairness to them I won't announce who they are

at this time.

With that brief introduction, I would like to now acknowledge the

presence of my deputy minister, who got here since the last estimates

ended, Mr. Ben Marr. I'm sure there may be the odd question that some

of you have, and we will do our best to answer them.

MRS. WALLACE: Well, I thank the minister for his remarks. I

understand that vote 24 provides for the operation of the office of the

Minister of Environment, including the salaries and expenses of the

staff. Does that mean that the minister does not get any salary as

Minister of Environment?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: There are some who might support you on

that, but no, the answer is that I have the two ministries, but I only

get one salary, and that salary is covered in the other ministry. Last

year, as you may recall, I became minister during the middle of the

year, and so the estimates were prepared accordingly. But this year I

suppose if anything else happens, an adjustment will have to be made.

So we put zero in this one; my salary comes out of the other one.

[ Page 3831 ]

MRS. WALLACE: Inasmuch as the minister's salary vote is not

paying him any salary, I suspect he's getting paid about what he's

worth, and I have no objection to this vote passing.

Vote 24 approved.

On vote 25: resource and environmental management, $88,866,952.

MRS. WALLACE: This vote is the total vote for the ministry's

activities. You will note that it's divided into several sections, (

a) through (j), which deal with various things. I will try and deal with

them in some order of sequence under that vote.

The first is general administration. I note that in an $88 million

budget, $22 million is for administration. That's 25 percent of the

budget. That seems somewhat high for administrative purposes. According

to the description, the subvote provides for executive direction and

coordination, for central ministry services, information, personnel,

finance, systems, space, laboratory, conservation, communications....

It lists the whole gamut here, a grant to Vancouver Regional District,

and some recoveries. Be that as it may, the 25 percent seems to be a

fairly sizeable chunk of money for administration. Certainly it's

higher than one would normally expect to see in the undertaking of any

enterprise. We usually think in terms of more like around 10, 15 or 20

percent maximum, so I'm wondering if the minister has any explanation

for why that is such a high percentage.

[3:45]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Yes, thank you, even though by implication

I've been told I'm worth nothing. That was an unkind cut, I think, from

that member. I do an awful lot of work in this ministry for nothing, if

you like.

However, to answer the question, I think even the estimates book,

under vote 25, basically gives you that answer. It depends on your

connotation of administration, because here administration includes, as

the member has already acknowledged, a wide scope of this ministry.

General administration not only provides for the direction and

coordination of the central ministry services but includes information,

personnel, finance, systems, space, laboratory, conservation,

communications, planning, environmental assessment, inventory and

general administration.

MRS. WALLACE: I recognize that all those things are in there,

but they are in there because they're are part and parcel of the

responsibilities that the ministry covers. You are simply listing the

administration for the various things that you cover. What I'm saying

is that the percentage going into administration seems very high in

relation to the amount in dollars going into the actual providing of

the various programs that are listed there.

I do have a question that relates to administration. I understand

that you are now charging individuals for copies of material requested

from your ministry. I have a note here from the West Coast

Environmental Law Association, which apparently was charged $1 per page

for copies of public documents. I understand this is an administrative

policy of your ministry. I have certainly not heard of that being the

case in any other ministry, and I wonder how it is you have decided on

those kinds of charges to the public for government documents. That

seems pretty onerous, certainly a lot more than the cost of copying.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I don't know that I can satisfy the member,

but because of the nature of our ministry for consultative engineering

reports and other documents, there is an expense involved in providing

documents. Many requests come in, and yes, there are charges for

documents; there have been for a long time. The charges have probably

been increased to try to reflect a little more the cost of that service.

MRS. WALLACE: I don't know if it is really in order, Mr.

Chairman, but does the minister know whether this is a common practice

across all ministries, or is it only practised in the Ministry of

Environment?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Well, I think it would be a little

dangerous for me to know exactly what goes on in all of the other

ministries, but I think it is fairly common practice to charge for

documents that are available. For instance, we have for years charged

for aerial photos and maps. We happen to have certain documents in our

ministry which perhaps other ministries don't have. We don't charge for

our annual reports, we don't charge for a number of documents; but the

nature of it is that in this ministry we do have quite a few documents

that need to be charged for.

MRS. WALLACE: I thank the minister for that comment.

He mentioned salmonid enhancement, and I'd like to turn to the whole

fisheries situation. A lot of concern has been expressed that the

rather large artificial things done under the enhancement program have

many disadvantages as well as advantages, and there is a strong feeling

among a great many people who are very knowledgeable about the subject

that the better route to go is natural habitat enhancement. It is less

costly — less capital cost — and certainly more productive dollar for

dollar. Not only that, but it avoids what often happens when you create

an artificial species in a given area: that as a result of quite a

major enhancement there may be more excessive fishing allowed. Of

course, that fishing does not separate the natural, native wild fish

from the others, so they are overcaught. As in the case to the south of

us, disease overtook the artificial group and wiped them out, and there

was little or none of the wild species left. So there is some concern

and much evidence to indicate that by far the best route to go is

natural habitat enhancement, rather than other costly measures. I have

seen some figures on the sort of things that the program has

undertaken, but it always seems to me that those large major operations

are the main focal point of that program, and that certainly leaves me

with some concern.

While I'm talking about fisheries, I wonder whether or not the

minister has been involved at all in trying to deal with, in

consultation with the federal government or with any of the commercial

and sports fishermen in the province who....

That industry is facing a real crisis. We saw not long ago a fairly

massive march on Ottawa, and I recognize that it is basically, under

the statutes, a responsibility of the federal government, but certainly

it is also partially our responsibility here. Those are our people who

live here and who fish and make their livelihood here, and much of the

provincially

[ Page 3832 ]

controlled resource industries — forestry and

mining, for example — are the industries which create many of the

problems for the fishing industry. The same is true of hydro

developments — again under provincial control. So I don't think that

you, as Minister of Environment responsible for fisheries in this

province, really can just say it's strictly a federal problem. What, if

anything, has the minister done in working with the federal authorities

or with the local fishermen from British Columbia — the trollers, the

UFWA, the native fishermen and the sports fishermen — in trying to do

anything to resolve this situation? Has he put any pressure on the

federal government to take some actions other than those as proposed,

or has he even taken any action to support the recommendations

contained in the Pearse report and the Cruickshank report? Certainly

the recommendations in neither of the reports are acceptable to the

local fishing industry here in British Columbia in reality — the Pearse

report particularly and the Cruickshank report to a great degree. I

know it's the federal responsibility to negotiate international waters,

but when it affects so severely our fishing industry here in British

Columbia, I'm wondering what the minister has done in relation to

dealing with the federal government or working with the fisheries

people in that respect.

So there are several questions relative to the whole concept of fish

conservation, habitat conservation and, actually, the conservation of

our whole fishing industry here in British Columbia.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I'll try to answer the questions in the

order they were delivered. Regarding the salmonid enhancement program

or the other fisheries program, I think the member was pointing out

that natural enhancement is more beneficial. I can't argue with you on

that, because our efforts go about 75 percent into natural habitat

enhancement — in other words, the natural rehabilitation of the fishing

industry. The other 25 percent goes into the artificial means, and

basically those are to supplement situations where because of, as the

member mentions, hydro or other reasons something has gone awry and so

we try to get it back into the natural situation with enhancing the

habitat of these species and also trying to get them back into natural

reproduction rather than artificial reproduction. For that reason we

have been very reluctant to move in any direction or to any extent on

several proposals we've had for fish farms to provide breeding stock.

We're concerned about the possibilities of disease and that sort of

thing.

As far as the concern over fisheries, certainly we have ongoing

discussions and we have an interest and a concern over what's happening

to the difficulties that fishermen are facing. It would seem that the

two main problems there are marketing — and the province is working on

that — and that we need more fish. So we continue our enhancement and

protection programs. That's really mostly what we can do, except in the

case of the freshwater fish, of course; we manage them on behalf of and

along with the federal fisheries people.

As far as the international negotiations are concerned, yes, we have

representatives at each of the conferences. We've developed a strong

position trying to resolve the impasse with Washington, Oregon and

Alaska. It seemed like the negotiations had almost gotten there, in

negotiations with Washington and Oregon state, and then there was a

problem from Alaska. But as you know, we've discussed that at the

senior staff level and the Premier in his discussions with the Governor

of Washington state was pursuing that. So we will continue to work with

the federal colleagues who are trying to come up with an agreement that

will share the fish equitably on an international basis and try to

provide the livelihood that the fishermen need. In a nutshell, it would

seem there are too many fishermen chasing a depleting stock of fish. We

don't regulate the number of fishermen, particularly in saltwater

fishing. We regulate the inland fisheries through various regulations —

with catch-and-release and enhancement programs — to try to get more

fish into the streams, with limits to control the number of fish that

people take.

[4:00]

MRS. WALLACE: I certainly agree that it seems to be too many

fishermen chasing too few fish. That's a direct result of government

policies — both federal and provincial — that have allowed this

situation to develop and have allowed the depletion of our fisheries

resource. Certainly the marketing situation as it exists in British

Columbia today can be laid at the feet of this government, who allowed

foreign ownership and consolidation to come into that whole processing

and marketing arena, which is part of the problem.

I mentioned earlier the Pearse report, the buyback proposals and the

Cruickshank report. Do I gather from what the minister says that he is

supportive of those policies, programs and the whole buyback thing now

being touted by the federal government? Is he supportive of that way

of, well, bailing out the banks at the expense of the fishermen, which

is actually what it amounts to? They'll buy back the quota and the

fisherman is left with his boat, which he can't fish with. Certainly

there seems to be an intention to place real restrictions on the

commercial fishermen, much more so than on the sports fishermen. It

would almost seem that the federal government is trying to start some

kind of warfare among the various groups interested in those fish, with

the approach that they are taking under those two reports. I don't know

if I understood the minister correctly or not, but he said he had been

negotiating very closely with the federal government on this program. I

would like to know whether he supports the federal government's buyback

proposals.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, the member raises some rather

interesting points in saying that too many fishermen is a direct result

of our and federal government policy. It also raises the question of

rights — human rights, if you like. Should governments say that one

person may be a fisherman but that another may not. If you had to make

those decisions, how would you do that?

As far as the buyback is concerned, no, I think it's unfortunate

that the taxpayers now have to correct the mistakes of the federal

government. That is the same government which licensed more and more

fishboats. No, I personally can't be too supportive of that.

MRS. WALLACE: Well, as I understand the buyback program, it's

not a burden on the taxpayers; it's going to be a burden on the

fishermen who aren't bought out. The ones left are going to be assessed

to cover the payments that buy the others out. But that's beside the

point. Anyway, I'm pleased to hear that he is not supporting that

particular program.

I want to talk a bit about his responsibility for marine resources —

in particular, oysters. At the time the Ministry of Agriculture was

renamed Agriculture and Food, I thought

[ Page 3833 ]

that the whole oyster industry was going to be

transferred over to the Ministry of Agriculture. Certainly, from my

contacts with the people who produce oysters in this province, that's

the direction in which they would like to go. They feel that they are

producers of food; they're commercial producers of food. As such, their

interests are somewhat different than environmentally oriented

interests. I understand they have made several approaches to be

transferred. Their reading of the situation is that it's the Ministry

of Environment which somehow doesn't want to part with them. The excuse

that's been given is that the Ministry of Agriculture and Food doesn't

have any staff to deal with this, because they've been asked to reduce

staff. You know, if you transferred them over, you could probably

transfer a couple of your staff over to the Ministry of Agriculture and

Food — if, in fact that is the direction in which we should be going.

It seems to me that commercial oyster growing is quite a different

thing than the enchancement of oysters for tourists along the beaches

at Yellow Point, or whatever.

I am reasonably familiar with the Ladysmith Harbour situation,

because I used to live in that area. I know that the pollution that

occurred in that harbour has literally wiped out oyster production

there. I don't know how many growers there were back in 1964, but it

was a goodly number, probably in the area of about 15 or 20. The one

remaining producer in that area has an oyster lease of 189 acres, of

which only 25 acres are usable and only five are in production. In

order to produce oysters in Ladysmith Harbour now, you have to relay

them — take them to other water and leave them for a couple of weeks —

before they're saleable. Of the many producers who were there, only one

has been able to hang on.

I know your ministry has been studying the conditions in Ladysmith

Harbour for a long time. Various studies have been done there, but it

is the same old conflict: is it the forest industry, pollution from

sewage, or a combination of both? The fact remains that Ladysmith

Harbour, which was one of the richest producing areas for oysters, is

now almost nonexistent as far as production goes. The area was a great

producer of seed as well — there are about four areas on the west coast

that produce seed — but Ladysmith Harbour oysters have not produced

seed since 1971. There has been no set of seed. That means that not

only are the commercial oystermen affected, but also any natural

regeneration along the various tourist beaches, and I speak

specifically of Yellow Point, because that's the area I know, where

that natural seed would set and we would have reproduction of oysters

as a natural enhancement of that particular area. You can produce seed

artificially and sow it, but it washes off and doesn't catch; the

natural seed does. As a result of the lack of setting of the seed, any

tourists coming to Yellow Point to pick up oysters, or even see them on

the beach, are almost a nonexistent thing now. Raft culture is

supposedly going to offset this, but raft culture is a very small

percentage. Bottom culture is more economic and much less risky. So it

is really not taking the place of natural regeneration.

Relative to Ladysmith Harbour, I think there have been some studies

and reviews made. The planning team reported in June of last year

and.... Oh, I'm sorry, the other one was not on Ladysmith Harbour; that

was on another area. There have been some reports, but it seems

impossible to get any final decision as to what the problems are, or to

get any action to do anything about them. That could be a very valuable

and labour-intensive industry if we could in fact get that harbour

cleaned up enough so that the oyster industry could re-establish itself

there.

I am sure the same kinds of problems occur in other areas where

oysters are produced. I'm using that one as an example because it's one

I know very well, but I've heard other members in this House talk about

other areas where they have similar problems. Just what is happening

relative to ensuring that marine oyster culture is continued and

expanded, what efforts are being made to clear up this whole situation,

and why is the ministry not agreeable to having the commercial

section

of that industry transferred over to the Ministry of Agriculture and

Food?

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: First of all, I'd like to deal with the

question of whether oyster culture should be under Environment or

Agriculture and Food. I suppose an argument could be made for both

sides. In her continuing discussion, the member probably gave some of

the best arguments as to why it should be under the Environment

ministry, because it is affected by the environmental considerations of

protection of the water and the adjacent foreshore. I know that we are

trying to encourage better methods and better research with the

aquaculture industry. We are trying to encourage the raft method.

Ongoing studies are being done about trying to clean up areas that have

been damaged by pollution, as far as, say, oyster culture is concerned.

Immediately, of course, we know a way to do it, and that's to shut down

all the forest industry in the area. It's fairly difficult. So not

taking that extreme path, the only thing that we can do next is to try

to analyze just how we can minimize the pollution effects and how we

can rehabilitate the areas that are needed for oyster culture. There

will, I suppose, be conflicts as long as we have different industries

that are all trying to operate in the same areas and trying to create

jobs, which the people seem to want. We are trying to protect various

areas from even aquaculture development, because they are breeding

grounds for fish, stock and other areas that we're trying to preserve

for aquaculture. We then have rehabilitation to the extent that is

possible, and studies are ongoing on that.

MRS. WALLACE: Well, the studies are ongoing, all right.

They've been ongoing since 1975 when that Ladysmith Harbour report came

down. Sure, there's a conflict. There always is when you have multi-use

of any resource, whether it's land, water or whatever. But what I'm

talking about is resolving some of the conflicts, and that's not

happening. It's going on and on. We're down to one of the lowest ebbs

we ever were in oyster production in Ladysmith Harbour. It's even worse

than it was in 1975, because there were two or three growers there at

that time and we're now down to only one.

You talk about raft culture. That's a much more expensive way of

doing it, and it's not as sure — It's more hazardous, and it's more apt

to have problems. We should encourage more of the bottom culture, and

then you also get your seeding if you have the proper water conditions,

as you do have in Ladysmith Harbour if that water is pure. But it's

just ongoing. Every year for the last I don't know how many years I've

talked about this same situation, and every year it's just the same:

"Well, we're reviewing it, and, you know, the forest industry, and so

on and so forth."

[ Page 3834 ]

The forest industry should be required to utilize less of that

harbour and utilize it in a cleaner way, if, in fact, it is the bark

that's causing the problem — and that seems to be the consensus. If, in

fact, the sewer outfall is part of the problem, then there should be

something done to ensure that that is corrected. But to just keep on

saying: "Well, it's multi-use and it's a bad situation.... It always

seems that it's those kinds of smaller industries that get phased out,

and in many instances, those smaller industries are far more

labour-intensive, if you're talking about jobs, than the larger

concerns are.

[4:15]

In his opening remarks the minister talked about his hazardous waste

disposal, and I want to talk about hazardous waste disposal. I think

probably we all agree — I'm sure we all agree — that hazardous waste in

this province is a problem. It's estimated that something like 70,000

tonnes of hazardous waste are produced per year. The majority of it is

in the lower mainland, but it's scattered from the north to all areas

of the province. But the minister seems to think that if anybody is

opposed to or questions what he's proposing, somehow they don't want to

solve the problem. I suggest that this minister's approach is really

the reason we're in the situation that we're in today. He has made a

decision as to what he's going to do, and then he's trying to sell it

to people. I submit that that decision may be an incorrect one.

I think the primary basis on which he has made the decision to allow

the treatment and disposal of hazardous wastes in this province to be

handled by a company for the purpose of making a profit from it is a

completely wrong premise for that particular kind of operation. I've no

objection to a company doing something to make a profit. But I do think

that when you take a very new thing — and it is a new way to go, in

spite of what the minister may tell us — and you put it in the hands of

a company which, by their own admission, say they're not sure whether

there's enough hazardous waste in this province to make it a viable

operation, and then you tell them that they can more or less police

themselves, but other people can go and have a took once in a while, I

have some very grave concerns.

When the company which that minister has decided will have the job

has taken.... I'm talking about Genstar-IT. I have no information as

far as Genstar goes. I think probably the things they do may be quite

adequate. But by Genstar's own telling, they amalgamated with IT

because IT is supposed to have the expertise in this kind of thing,

particularly in hazardous waste disposal sites. My reading of IT's

history is anything but good. I have done some research on three

different states; the first one is Louisiana. They have been in there

for some length of time, and they still haven't got the landfill in

place. The first inkling we had was back in 1980. This was a press

release in the Nashua Telegraph , in December 1980:

"Louisiana's chief health officer said...that an

independent study should have been conducted before the state approved

construction of the world's largest hazardous waste treatment and

disposal facility in an area dotted with homes and schools. 'It's

insanity,' said Steve Irving, the Baton Rouge attorney, to Save Our

Selves, a residents' organization which plans to fight the plant in

court. 'We found 28 water wells on the site that IT didn't find, and we

didn't even look very hard.' IT has said that all of the toxic waste,

including such things as chlorinated hydrocarbons...will come within a

20-mile radius of the site."

Another

article is from the Boston Globe , in August, which was later on. It

says:

"'If they didn't lie, they were so misleading that you

couldn't trust much of what they said,' said Ruby Cointment" — who is a

resident of the area. "'IT representatives would tell people in one

community one thing and tell people in another community something

different. We were led to believe that the hazardous waste would be

local. We're in an industrial area, and there are many illegal

hazardous waste dumps. But in a community across the river IT was

telling people of job possibilities on a waterfront receiving terminal.

When we finally pinned them down — you don't need a river terminal for

local waste — IT said they were bound by federal law to accept waste

from other areas.'"

The point I'm making, Mr. Chairman, is that this company has a very

unsavoury record in the United States. This is from the San Francisco

Tribune , December 19, 1979:

"The Bay Area Quality Management District has filed a

civil complaint asking for $18,000 in fines from IT Corp., alleging 36

violations of the district's odor emission standards. The violations

are alleged to have taken place since early this year. District

representative Teresa Lee said violation notices have been given to IT

Corp. throughout the year, but the company has not paid any of its

fines."

Let's move to Massachusetts. This is another area where IT was involved. This is from the Boston Globe , August 2, 1982:

"Citizens' groups in Massachusetts and in other states

are unanimous in accusing IT of a lack of candor in its claims and presentations.

Some of IT's claims of sophisticated technical accomplishments are overstated

and misleading. IT and several state officials are under investigation by the

Louisiana State Ethics Commission for alleged impropriety in obtaining land

and for alleged conflict of interest in employing state contractors to approve

sites."

What I am saying, Mr. Chairman, is that obviously there should be

some serious investigation into just what inspections are happening. If

we are going to let a company that has that kind of an unsavoury record

be responsible for handling our toxic waste, then I am not at all sure

that we can really trust them. They're in it for the sole purpose of

making money. As I've said before, I have no objection to that being

the sole purpose of any company operating. But how is that going to

affect the operation when it comes to safety? Are they really going to

live up to the kind of statements that they've been making? There is a

tremendous concern about a disposal site. This is from the December 30,

1982, edition of the New York Times :

"Few engineers believe landfills can be made

completely safe unless they contain thick-walled subterranean vaults to

contain the waste. Some toxins remain dangerous for centuries, and

experts say the cost of landfills built to prevent leakage for that

long would be very high."

It goes on to say that a number of companies are looking for other

ways to dispose of hazardous waste, and certainly I recognize that

Genstar-IT is going to have a recovery plant.

[ Page 3835 ]

That's the name of the game — to try to recoup as much of the

hazardous wastes that would be saleable and usable and bring them some

return.

They are talking about various methods: chemical, biological and incinerating. I'm quoting again from this article:

"Incineration, however, is largely limited to treating

hazardous substances that contain organic or flammable materials. Many

waste materials, such as the dangerously toxic metallic residue left

over after metal plating and steel fabrication, cannot now be

incinerated effectively."

I've read that you can perhaps incinerate up to almost 99 percent if

you have a sufficiently high temperature. But if we are talking about

70,000 tonnes per year and about 1 percent of that that cannot be

destroyed, we are talking about a fair chunk of highly toxic material

each year.

Certainly to build the kind of landfill that's a subterranean vault

sufficiently safe to hold those wastes is beyond what we can expect

Genstar to do. From what I've seen of what they're doing and what I

have been able to glean as to what's going on in the Ashcroft area, it

would appear that there are some real problems. In the first place,

they are probably into groundwater, which means that you would be right

into the strata of water that supplies the wells, particularly on the

Indian reserve in that area.

I am not convinced that it is a good place to put that kind of a

toxic-waste disposal site at the confluence of two rivers — not that

far away. I'm not at all convinced that technology has been

sufficiently developed that we can safely proceed, and certainly to get

rid of one hazard, which is hazardous waste around this province that

we all agree is a hazard, by creating two or three other hazards, one

of which could well be the disposal site, one of which could be the

treatment plant, because we're going to have all kinds of material

brought in there for treatment.... A couple of "spills" happened not

too long ago, one of PCP and one of cyanide, which have had some

serious effects. Any operation is only as efficient as that plant is

being handled, and when you're trying to work quickly and recoup the

material that's going to be of value to you, there's always a danger

you're going to get a bit careless. I don't think that's the way to go,

Mr. Minister.

[4:30]

The third one is transportation. I know there's a small percentage

of it.... Someone left on my desk just today the ministry's assessment

of where these things are, and only a small percentage of the wastes

are outside of Vancouver. But I see that 4 percent of the wastes are on

Vancouver Island; how are you going to get those safely over to any

treatment facility in the lower mainland? We're going to be posing some

real hazards in transporting those, although probably not as great a

hazard as transporting the I percent from Fort St. John, the 2 percent

from Nelson, the 3 percent from Kitimat, the 3 percent from Prince

George, down the Fraser Canyon and into the lower mainland. I think

that transportation is going to pose some very severe problems. I don't

know if we're talking about 70,000 tonnes or 25,000 tonnes that they're

going to transport annually. Genstar is talking about 25,000 that

they're going to treat; is it a percentage of that or a percentage of

the 70,000?

I know there has been some talk about evaporation or filtration, and

I see you've got some things in here about this. When you evaporate,

how do you know you're not getting dioxins in the atmosphere? When you

filtrate, how do you know you're not getting particles or something in

solution?

What sort of checks and balances are you going to have? If you're in

fact going to evaporate the liquid off this material before you

transport it in order to get it to a smaller amount — that's what I

understood you to say, and that's why the 70,000 versus the 25,000 —

what happens to the material you filter off? How well is that tested?

How do we know that's pure? What becomes of that? And what happens to

any emissions that can be airborne if you're evaporating? I don't think

we've reviewed those things. I don't think we really know what's going

to happen in those areas.

One of the real problems that has developed with this thing is that

what is going to happen was all laid out. There was no public

consultation beforehand. Public hearings seem to have a new meaning now

in this province; instead of having a public hearing....

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: Too bad you apologized, or withdrew, or whatever you did.

The method of doing it...the public hearing is gone. A ministry

decides what's going to happen, and then we go out and tell people what

we're going to do to them and try to convince them that it's okay. In

his opening remarks the minister mentioned the Alberta situation, and

certainly that company is as vulnerable as IT if you start looking into

its history.

I want to talk about the Manitoba situation. They're taking an

entirely different approach there. They have said to people: "We've got

this much hazardous waste. It's a problem, a concern. These are the

things we can do, the possibilities, the directions we can go. Let's

talk about it, learn about it and understand what we're going to do,

and then let the people decide." The people in Manitoba will decide

what kind of treatment they want, where they want the treatment plant,

where they want a waste disposal and what kind, if any, of waste

disposal they want — a silo, above-ground, below-ground. In the

meantime, the government is simply collecting this material and

shipping it out to a disposal place in the States — which is what we

are still doing here — until they come up with a decision. But there

it's being treated as a very broad and basic public hearing long before

the fact.

Now, the minister had a task force. It was interesting to know that

the only group that you might even consider to be an environmental

group that sat on that task force about the hazardous waste was SPEC.

The others were all from corporations or governments and so on. But

even that task force recommended that this very important, critical and

somewhat experimental job be left in the hands of a Crown corporation

and not given to private enterprise. It certainly concerns me, and a

great many people in this province, that we have an organization with

such a shaky track record involved as a co-partner in dealing with

hazardous waste here in B.C. It certainly concerns me that the minister

is simply telling people: "This is the way it's going to be. This is

where it's going to be. This is what we're going to do, and you really

don't have anything to say about it." I'm sure I must have almost taken

up my half hour on this subject, but it is a very critical subject. I

know the minister is as concerned about it in his way as I am in mine.

He spent some time on it in his opening remarks. Perhaps he would like

to make some comment on what I have said.

[ Page 3836 ]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: There is really so much territory here that

it's difficult to know how to condense it. Any comment can be taken out

of context, I suppose, and used, and that's what's going on. For

instance, that member insists on referring to this as a "toxic dump."

MRS. WALLACE: I didn't say "dump."

HON. MR. BRUMMET . And the reason we're trying to get into a secure.... Yes, you did refer to it as a "toxic dump."

MRS. WALLACE: I said "waste."

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Toxic waste, we agree. What we are trying to do is deal with a secure landfill, but let me get back to that.

I wish that member would spend as much time studying and analyzing

what this waste management plan is trying to accomplish throughout as

she does'trying to research all the bad examples that exist. In putting

together this waste management plan, the ministry, the Reid-Crowther

report, a number of studies and the task force have looked at all of

the mistakes that have been made in the past in order to try to avoid

making them in the future. I could tell the member that I've talked to

a well-known authority who has toured European sites and sites in many

places, and he informs me that the measure that we're taking

technically provide for two or three extra security measures than the

best sites that he has seen. The technology, the proposal and the

management plan is the ministry's; it is not Genstar's. Genstar, in

effect, would be the operator. The Ministry of Environment would be the

regulator. Whenever we check with people and say, "How does our

proposed technology compare?" we're told it's good and far and above.

Yes, it's new, and the member says it's so new that perhaps we

shouldn't do anything. You implied basically that until we come up with

the perfect answer, we should put it on hold. In effect what we're

trying to do is prevent the very sort of problems that that member has

referred to. The wastes that are being produced are there.

The member said: "What about the groundwater there?" Surely that's

what all the testing on the site is about. The critics are objecting to

analyzing the site. They say: "Don't look at the site. Just don't put

it anywhere." If we followed that to its logical conclusion, where

would the member, or anybody, suggest that we put it, because somewhere

it has to be somebody's back yard. The member mentions all of the

public hearings we've had to determine what is there, what should be

done, and so on. The Reid-Crowther report, a provincial-federal study,

determined that there are wastes being generated, that they are

dangerous toxic wastes, that they are going into our environment now

and something should be done about it. That report indicated that

whatever treatment program you do, you have to have control and

regulation over the collection; you have to have inventory — I'm not

quoting you the whole report — of what's being produced; you have to

have a collection. You have to have a temporary storage system; you

have to have treatment; and you have to have a final, secure disposal

site.

The member mentions that in incineration no matter what you do there

may be some products left over — a small portion. Granted, and these

are toxic materials. That is the type of thing that something has to be

done with. It's there. It's now in our environment. So the proposal

that we have, in the simplest terms, is the best technology available

to take that material and solidify it into a block which makes it the

closest thing to inert that is possible. In other words, arsenic,

cyanide and some of these things occur in nature in rocks, but they

don't leach out except under special acid conditions. These will be put

back into the equivalent of rocks in nature. That is what would be

stored in the secure landfill. Then the extra precautions have been

taken that this landfill, to be in the safest possible location, should

be in a dry climate where there are heavy, impervious clay soils. In

other words, these are extra, additional securities. You could take

that solid and store it in the lower mainland. You could store it in

places where it rains more and more water collects, and that presents

an additional problem. So a dry climate, a high-evaporation climate

where the soils are, where the groundwater isn't, where you don't have

flood conditions.... These were all of the criteria that were built

into the site selection, and that was done.

You may recall that the Reid-Crowther report selected this general

area. Our people looked at that and then with a series of overlays

said: "Okay, what are the other problems?" Groundwater was one.

Everything that was known about groundwater was screened out — where

that was a potential problem. Anywhere where there were faults — all of

this was screened out through those overlays, and then it ended up with

some white spots on this map. These were, according to all the

available criteria, the most logical and best possibilities.

So yes, we have made some decisions. We made the decision that

something should be done instead of nothing, and the sooner the better.

We don't want to wait until we get into a lot of the problems that have

happened in the past, and then, when we have a crisis, have to deal

with it. We are yet in the position in British Columbia that we have a

very grave problem, but we do not have it in crisis proportions, and so

we want to do it.

The member mentions that some spills have happened from temporary

storage. That's what we want to do something about. You cannot prevent

temporary storage if you can't tell someone: "Here's what you can do

with it." All of the treatment and evaporation, if you like, all of

these factors.... If we don't collect them centrally somewhere and do

something under the best possible conditions, under the best possible

means, then you are saying, in effect, that it's better for everybody

to do it in a haphazard way, any place, all over the province. I cannot

accept that. I think it is much better to do it with proper controls —

under a controlled situation. I can't emphasize enough that it is our

waste management program — the Environment ministry's. Technically the

approaches that we're taking are sound, from all the information we can

get. Since it's our program, we regulate it, we control it, we attach

the conditions. Monitoring committees, facilities monitoring committees

to be structured, representing the public, are going to be in place.

I guess where the member and I

part company is that somehow she

feels that it's got to cost the taxpayers a bunch of money for it to be

any good. We're saying that if all of these control conditions,

regulations and safeguards can be met and it can be done on a

self-sustaining basis and even if somebody makes a buck at it, so be

it. We think that is better. It does not have to cost the taxpayers a

fortune in order to be good. If we just turned this over to any company

for the sake of profit alone, and absolved ourselves of any regulatory

[ Page 3837 ]

control, then I could agree with the member. But we're not doing that. We're controlling the program.

[4:45]

The member has mentioned the public hearings. I guess we could have

done that. There will be public opportunity. We really thought that

having studied the Reid-Crowther report, having learned about the other

studies that had been done and all of the other public hearings,

eventually, in some form or another they came back to.... I would

venture to say that's exactly what Manitoba is going to do when they

complete their study a few years from now. They're going to find that

you've got to find ways to make sure of what you have in inventory,

you're going to have to find ways to collect it and transport it

safely, and you're going to have to find ways to treat as much of it

and recycle as much of it as you can, and you're going to have to end

up with something left over that you've got to put somewhere. That's

what they're going to find. That's what all of the studies have

eventually resulted in, in whatever form.

So we thought it might be more productive to put together a proposal

taking these necessary factors into consideration, putting them into

place and saying: "Here is the proposal. Now do you have any questions

about it? We'll answer any and all questions. We'll even hire

consultants, if necessary, if you're not satisfied with us." I don't

know why the ministry and myself, who are interested in protecting the

environment, are immediately suspect, as though we are trying to

destroy the environment. That stuff is going into this environment now.

It is going into streams, it's being dumped all over this province,

because there is nothing else to do with it. Before the thing gets bad,

we'd like to do something about it.

I guess I'm getting a bit emotional, because I do feel that if

everybody takes the attitude that yes, we agree, something should be

done, but not until it's absolutely foolproof and guaranteed for six

centuries, not until everybody agrees on it; and whatever, never in my

back yard.... It's got to be in somebody's back yard. Some people say:

"Well, why don't you just take it and put it back into the mountains?"

I asked the same question: why not just put it out there? It would be

out of sight. But it would be a worse problem, because when you put it

up in those mountains you have rock fissures, groundwater, all kinds of

problems. Somehow or other all the water in British Columbia sooner or

later runs downhill, so however far back you put it.... It might be out

of sight, but by golly it creates a greater problem than if you keep it

in sight and do something with it, and treat it — for instance, the

solid waste disposal that we're talking about in the secure landfill

and then the dry climate; all of this. Then we turn around and say:

"There will be a protective layer underneath but we don't count on that

holding. So there's a pickup system that anything goes into that does

happen to leach out." Despite everything that we think isn't going to

happen, we've still got the safety and the safeguards built in; we pick

it up and recycle it, and a constant monitoring system is built into it.

I don't know how much more you can do with the technology. Below

that we are insisting that there has to be so many feet of impermeable

clay that it won't go through. Yet we are told that somehow or other

we've picked the site, we are interested.... I guess this is what makes

me emotional, when people seem to imply that we don't care about the

environment, that we haven't considered the fisheries, the groundwater

effects, the leaching effects and so on. All of that has been

considered. I wish I could in all conscience say that whatever we do

can be guaranteed forever, but I don't think anybody in this world can

say that. I can assure the member and anyone else that whatever we do

is going to be the best and safest possible way to do something.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, I would like to change the direction of debate a bit at this point.

I'm going to deal with a number of concerns and questions, most of

which are in the area of wildlife management, but before I do I would

like to take a few moments to commend this minister for his actions....

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF: You haven't heard why yet, Mr. Member. It's in

regard to the predator control program that he has entered into in the

northwest comer of this province. It's a control program that has been

needed for 10, 15 or more years in British Columbia. Finally we have a

minister who has taken the bull by the horns, so to speak. He has had

the intestinal fortitude to do what has to be done, regardless of the

bleeding hearts who live in the west end of Vancouver and other such

places in this province, and who don't know what they're talking about

when it comes to a predator control program. The program embarked upon

by the minister on the advice of his people certainly is a landmark in

British Columbia. I look for it to continue for years to come. It's

necessary. I have stood in this House — this is going into the ninth

year — and spoken on the need for a predator program in this province.

In those nearly nine years I've seen our ungulate populations deplete

to almost nil, to a situation where we almost did not have moose,

cariboo, deer and sheep, and the other ungulate species which abound in

our north country. We almost did not have any left. I can't say too

many words in support of that minister and that program.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Mr. Chairman, the only concern I have is for the cost of helicopter

hunting. Certainly I understand why the minister has entered into that

kind of a program. I have a concern because it is the taxpayer who pays

for everything in this province, including the helicopter hunting

predator program. As the minister knows and as many in this province

should know, there is a more economic and just as safe way of carrying

on that predator program, and that's with the use of 1080, which is a

canine poison. It is called 1080 because it was the 1,080th try to

perfect a canine poison, and it was successful. It attacks only those

species of the canine family and can be used very successfully when in

the hands of people who know what they're doing with that poison.

Now that we have accepted the fact that a predator control program

is necessary in the province of British Columbia, I would ask that the

minister consider allowing fixed-wing hunting of the wolf, and also the

bagging of that predator from snow machines. That, in itself, would

help the program and save the taxpayers of this province many thousands

of dollars.

As I said before, I have a number of concerns that I want to

approach in this minister's estimates. One of those concerns — and I

know it's a bad time to once again bring up this particular subject

during a period of restraint, but I think it's false economy not to

approach this problem at any time — is the imperative need,

particularly in the northern two-thirds of

[ Page 3838 ]

this province, for more conservation officers in

the field. There is an absolute, definite need to have more people in

that category out in the wilds of our province looking after our

wildlife and making sure that it is properly managed. By properly

managed I mean hunted and fished at the proper time, and done within

the regulation and the law prescribed by the province. Countless

hundreds of animals are taken through poaching every year in this

province, simply because our conservation officers are spread too thin

to ever possibly do the job that they are hired to do. We have a vast

area out there in the rural areas of this province and we need more

conservation officers to ensure the protection of our wildlife. I said

it was false economy, and it is. A moose is estimated to be worth

$2,500 to $3,000 to the people of this province. For every one taken

out of season or under the guise of a sustenance permit it is costing

this province $2,500 to $3,000. It doesn't take many additional

conservation officers to ensure that that doesn't happen out of season

— or in season, except for the prescribed bag limits. It is a false

economy and I think we have to take a long look at putting more

conservation officers in the field.

In that regard I would also like to say that we could do with a lot

less of the experts who sit in Fish and Wildlife offices shuffling

paper, writing reports and doing those things which have nothing

whatsoever to do with the protection of our wildlife, the so-called

experts such as biologists and others.

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF: No, I don't think I'm consistent, Mr. Member for

Victoria. If you knew something about this subject, you could talk on

it. I'll be interested to see you when you stand. That's the trouble.

That's why we haven't had a proper wildlife management program in this

province. That's why we haven't had a predator control program until

this time. It's because of people like you'who speak out and don't know

what they're talking about. That's why we've lost our valuable herds to

predators over the years. It's because of people like that, who speak

out and don't know, and because of people like Paul Watson, who are out

there not for the protection of our wildlife but to make themselves a

damn good living, and for that reason only. Mr. Member, I'll be

interested to hear what you say in regard to wildlife management, which

I would suggest you know absolutely nothing about, when you stand on

your feet in these estimates.

[5:00]

I'd like to read a paragraph from a letter which I just received,

dated February 28, from a chamber of commerce in my area. I would

remind the minister that there are wolf problems in many other areas of

this province besides the northwest corner. It's from the Vanderhoof

and District Chamber of Commerce, on the subject of wolf control.

"Please note that your government has the full support of our chamber

of commerce to continue with whatever means are required to keep the

wolf population down. We would welcome such a project in our area." Mr.

Minister, I hope that you note that.

Mr. Chairman, for just a moment I want to talk about the actions of

some of the so-called experts in the Ministry of Environment. I'd like

to talk for a moment about a headline in the Interior News of February

22 that I took a lot of exception to. It said: "Government Branch Wants

Alpine Land-use Control." I think this is a prime example of a so-called expert sitting behind a desk — in this case, in a Fish and

Wildlife office — and thinking that he knows everything about wildlife

management, when in fact just the opposite is true. The

article reads:

"The fish and wildlife branch is seeking to administer and

control the use of land in the Telkwa Mountains above the 1,350 metre level,

said wildlife technician Rick Marshall. Marshall said the branch wants to limit

disturbances to the habitat of the rebuilding mountain goat and caribou populations."

Mr. Chairman, I'll show you how much that so-called expert doesn't

know about the environment that he's supposedly there to protect.

First, he doesn't know that there is no way a snowmobile can traverse

the area in which a mountain goat spends the winter. That would be a

strange snow vehicle indeed. The

article goes on about upsetting the

browsing of the caribou, upsetting the feeding habits of the caribou —

again, an indication that that individual knows nothing about the

habits of those animals which he's being paid to protect. A snowmobile,

for anyone who has ever been on one, when utilizing a range such as the