1988 Legislative Session: 2nd

Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The

following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, MAY 24, 1988

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 4593 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Long-term-care user fees. Ms. A. Hagen –– 4593

Provincial rights under free trade. Mr.

Harcourt –– 4594

Increased costs from privatization. Mr.

Lovick –– 4595

B.C. Savings Bonds. Mr. Peterson –– 4595

Committee of supply: Ministry of

Environment and Parks estimates.

(Hon. Mr. Strachan)

On vote 34: minister's office –– 4595

Hon. Mr. Strachan

Ms. Smallwood

Mr. R. Fraser

Mr. Lovick

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. VEITCH : We have some very

distinguished visitors in the gallery today: His Excellency Zhang

Wenpu, Ambassador of the People's Republic of China, and Mr. Duan Jin,

consul-general of the People's Republic of China in Vancouver, who are

accompanied by Mr. Lan Lijun, the consul at Vancouver. I would ask the

House to bid them welcome.

MR. PELTON : Hon. members, our Speaker has a

very special guest in the members' gallery today, Mr. Daniel Izzard,

and his wife Denese. As many of you know, Daniel is a very famous

Canadian artist who has pictures in the Queen's collection. He also has

another claim to fame, which is that he received a new heart on January

12, 1986. I'd like everyone here to really welcome Daniel and Denese.

MR. HARCOURT : I too would like to pass on

greetings to the consul-general and our distinguished visitors from the

People's Republic of China. As we know, there is a tremendous and

growing relationship with the people of Canada, and as British Columbia

is the front door to the People's Republic, I think there are nothing

but very exciting opportunities to extend our friendship. Indeed,

welcome.

HON. MR. REID : I'd like to introduce three

special people here today. They're tourists in their own right, over

here trying to help the economy of Victoria and the members in the

Victoria area. I hope they take full advantage of it. In the gallery

today are my daughter Laurie Reid, who works at Woodward's in Surrey,

my wife Marion and my executive assistant Hans Schinz. Would the House

make them especially welcome.

MR. SIHOTA : In the gallery today is someone

I can probably.... I'm sure not too many of us get an opportunity to

introduce their best friend, but certainly my best friend is in the

gallery today. He's a chap I've travelled all around the world with and

had probably a lifetime of laughs with. I'm sure he knows all sorts of

things that are inside my closet, but he swore not to tell anything

about them.

Interjections.

MR. SIHOTA : That was tempting for the

members opposite.

Now that he's been successful in his business ventures, his

sole ambition in life is to get elected to this Legislature so that he

can ask me questions in question period. Will the members please join

me in welcoming Herb Dhaliwal to the Legislature today.

HON. S. HAGEN : I rise today to inform the

House of something that happened on Saturday up in my riding in

Parksville, where we had a great fishing derby. One of the boats that

took part had six people in it, three female and three male. There was

a bit of a contest to see who could catch fish and who couldn't. The

female persons were Margot Sinclair, Daphne Bramham and Donna Sitter,

and the male persons were Gary Mason, Keith Baldrey and Greg Lyle from

Manitoba. As the minister responsible for women's programs in the

province, I'm pleased to inform the House that the three female members

of this crew all caught fish, while the three males did not.

MR. BARNES : I'd like the House to join me

in welcoming a very distinguished guest, a man of letters who had the

recent, somewhat dubious distinction of having been interviewed on the

CTV documentary "No Fixed Address." Mr. Richard Greene, a citizen of

Vancouver, is here with me today to see if we can find ways of making

this a better place to live.

MR. JACOBSEN : We have 100 grade 10 students

from Westview Junior Secondary School in Maple Ridge visiting the

Legislature today, and on behalf of the first member for Dewdney (Mr.

Pelton) and myself I'd like the House to give them a good, rousing

welcome.

HON. MR. PARKER : In the House today,

visiting from Kitwanga, we have 20 grade 7 students and their

vice-principal, Mr. Baker. Would the House please make them welcome.

Oral Questions

LONG-TERM-CARE USER FEES

MS. A. HAGEN : Two months ago the Minister

of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) delivered a budget in this House that

hurt seniors, and two weeks ago that same minister stated that the

Minister of Health was reviewing user fee increases targeted to those

seniors needing long-term care. Will the Minister of Health advise this

House and seniors and their families when he will roll back these

unfair user fees, namely the $900 annual increase to every senior

living in a long-term-care facility, the up to $5,000 annual increase

that seniors will pay in long-term-care facilities under a sliding fee

scale, and the additional charges to seniors who require home support

to remain independent in their own homes and communities?

HON. MR. DUECK : I wasn't in the House when

that question was posed, so I'm not sure what the question was or what

the answer was. I will have to take that as notice, look it up in the

Blues and give you an answer when I find out.

MS. A. HAGEN : The Minister of Health

doesn't do his homework and should be aware of what his Minister of

Finance is advising.

Another question to the Minister of Health. The Minister of

Finance has advised me in writing that this government is going to take

30 million additional dollars out of the pockets of seniors as a result

of these senior fees. I've been asking questions about long-term-care

facilities. Will the minister now advise this House and confirm that

the sliding scale of fees that he has proposed to introduce for home

support services will have many seniors paying all of the costs of

those home support services, and that those seniors will be paying an

additional $10 million over the next year and a few months from the

present fees charged for those care services in their homes?

[2:15]

[ Page 4594 ]

HON. MR. DUECK : Again, I'm not going to

comment on a letter that the Finance minister wrote. I don't look at

his mail and he doesn't look at mine. However, when we are speaking

about additional fees for home support, there always has been a fee

charged for homemakers for certain clientele. I made it very clear in

the House, and it was also brought down in the budget speech, that as

of August 1 we would probably have a plan for income testing for the

homemaker service and also perhaps income testing for the residents.

That is being reviewed. I have mentioned it in the House before and I

am saying it again. There is no secret about that. We're reviewing that

and have been, and when we have reviewed it and come up with a

conclusion as to how, whether and when we're going to do it, we will

make that public to you.

MS. A. HAGEN : Would the minister please

advise this House now if he is going to continue with this unholy

attack on seniors in this province? Will he advise this House when he

is going to inform seniors and their families what in heaven's name

this government has in store for them? When, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. DUECK : Again I'd like to make it

very clear that we have sent a letter to all senior citizens telling

them that the fee now is $19.20 a day. There is no secret; there is no

holding back; there is no wondering what we're going to do. It is there

on record. They have received letters and that's being charged at the

present time.

It appears from the opposition that everyone is very upset.

This is not so. I have received letters in my office from

establishments, from resident managers. I have received letters and

calls and personal commitment from people who are now paying that

charge, saying that it is quite in order, that they're quite happy to

pay that. We are not attacking the health care system of the seniors at

all; the health care system remains as it is. But we're saying that as

far as shelter and food are concerned, perhaps some people should pay a

little more for that. That is in place and is now being paid as of May

The other, as I have told you, we are looking at, reviewing,

and when that information is public you will know.

PROVINCIAL RIGHTS UNDER FREE TRADE

MR. HARCOURT : I rose earlier to question

the Premier about provincial rights while we still had some — they are

disappearing so quickly. I thought that the Premier would be able to

give us some answers about the Mulroney-Reagan trade deal and its

threats to provincial rights. The province has constitutionally

guaranteed energy powers which are threatened by this trade deal. Is

the Premier prepared to surrender these rights to the federal

government?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Mr. Speaker, most

provinces, with the exception of Ontario and, prior to that, Manitoba —

and of course that's all been changed now — are satisfied that there's

no infringement on provincial rights in the free trade arrangement

between the United States and Canada.

AN HON. MEMBER : That's not the question.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : That's the question.

MR. HARCOURT : In other words, our energy

for jobs in the U.S. is the Premier's response. We lose the two-price

system.

Let's look at another area, Mr. Speaker. We've always had the

provincial power to implement buy-B.C. policies. Is the Premier

prepared to abandon this right, to allow Ottawa to proceed with the

deal?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Mr. Speaker, we are

not giving up rights. There is no requirement within the free trade

agreement for us to relinquish rights.

I would suggest that, from all I've heard from the opposition,

it's not rights that we're talking about. It appears that when we hear

from the NDP, it's a sort of Stadium-Expo- SkyTrain syndrome: we can't

compete, we're somehow not as good as the others, and therefore it's

all bound to be a failure. We heard that with SkyTrain; we heard it

with the stadium; we heard it with Expo. They no doubt had the same

opinion about the Olympics, if they'd been requested to comment on

Calgary.

We're not afraid to stand up alongside and compete with the

Americans. We are satisfied that not only can we do this, but the whole

of the country will benefit tremendously, especially a resource

province like British Columbia, where we want to diversify. We'll get

the diversification, and the economy in this province will continue to

improve, as we've seen it in the last couple of years.

MR. HARCOURT : I have a supplementary. I

heard those same remarks from the Premier in October and November 1984;

the people of Vancouver didn't think much of them then and they still

don't. From the opinion polls of the last two weeks, I don't think the

people of B.C. do either.

The Premier and his government were asleep at the switch on

our fish-processing, unlike the Maritimes Premiers, and of course GATT

too. Now they're asleep at the switch in the giveaway of our provincial

powers and rights.

British Columbians want to know why you, Mr. Premier, are

prepared to surrender B.C.'s provincial rights to the Mulroney federal

government.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Mr. Speaker, we are

not. There is only one case in history that I'm aware of where a

provincial leader went out of his way to turn over authorities to a

federal government. That was former premier Dave Barrett, when he

wanted to give it away to Trudeau and the Liberals.

MR. HARCOURT : A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Clearly, the Premier is prepared to surrender B.C.'s rights to make our

own independent economic decisions. He's putting his own laissez-faire

ideology ahead of the rights of the people of British Columbia. Will

the Premier put aside his personal agenda and show some moxie? Will he

stand up for British Columbia and B.C.'s constitutional rights, instead

of going blindly for this trade deal?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Well, I'm not exactly

sure of the question, so I will accept it in generalities and attempt

to address that which I think the Leader of the Opposition is

attempting to convey.

First of all, Mr. Speaker, this government, more than any

other government, has stood up for provincial rights. We've seen it

time and time again. Fortunately, we've been successful

[ Page 4595 ]

in seeing a federal-provincial council

of ministers established, which is addressing the inequities and

shortcomings in Confederation that we've already brought to the

attention of the federal government. We're making great gains in that

respect.

Mr. Speaker, the opposition is afraid of free trade because —

as I said, and I'll repeat it again — they were afraid we couldn't

compete, and therefore Expo couldn't be a success. They were afraid

that we couldn't build SkyTrain, and they were against SkyTrain. They

were against the stadium; they've been against all of these positive

projects that we've seen throughout the province. We are not giving up

rights; we are not doing as former NDP premier Dave Barrett did when he

proposed to give away all rights over energy to the federal government.

The Social Credit government stands for this province. We're not

committed to some leader in Ottawa such as Broadbent. We stand on our

own here.

INCREASED COSTS FROM PRIVATIZATION

MR. LOVICK : Mr. Speaker, to the Premier.

Mr. Premier, we on this side of the House have been arguing for some

time that privatization is actually going to cost the taxpayers of this

province money rather than save them money. We now have some evidence.

For example, a stop sign that used to be made in the Langford sign shop

cost $19. Today the same sign will cost $22.78. That's an increase of

about 20 percent. The obvious question for the Premier is: will he

kindly explain to us why that increased cost should be the case?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : The suggestion from

the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) is that I take it as

notice. I will provide more information to the member with respect to

that, because I haven't heard those figures before. Obviously, one of

the advantages of privatization is that you do arrive at true cost

because it is a competitive system. That definitely is always an

advantage in the free enterprise system. I appreciate that for

socialists this is difficult to comprehend, but the hon. second member

for Nanaimo is not afraid, I should think, of competing and seeing the

people in the private sector competing, or are we again hearing an Expo

syndrome, a B.C. Place Stadium syndrome? Is it the same thing all over

again? "We're afraid to compete, because as socialists we can't."

B.C. SAVINGS BONDS

MR. PETERSON : I've got a question for the

Minister of Finance, and it concerns the current issue of provincial

bonds that are up for sale. Could you tell us who is responsible for

setting the interest rate at 8 3/4 percent?

HON. MR. COUVELIER : The 8 3/4 percent

interest rate was set after much consultation with the trade. We had

extensive conversations with the banking community, the trust

companies, the investment brokers and those that are interested. The

House may be interested to know that out of 12 firms, individuals and

corporations we canvassed, seven recommended a rate of 8 1/4 percent,

four recommended 9 and only one recommended something at 9 3/8 percent.

So the 8 3/4 percent rate was obviously the one that was most popular.

Secondly, the hon. member might be interested in knowing that

as a consequence of sales over the close of last week and the beginning

of this week, it looks like we've had a tremendous reception of the

offering. I'm advised that at the moment sales are somewhere in the

order of $150 million.

HON. B.R. SMITH : I ask leave to make an

introduction, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

HON. B.R. SMITH : In the gallery today from

England is a distinguished retired judge, Judge Alan King-Hamilton of

the Old Bailey, who is also a well-known commentator on British TV on

justice matters. He's here with his wife Rosalind and their daughter,

Mary King-Hamilton. They are here as the guests of Mr. and Mrs. Edward

Ward-Harris. Mr. Ward-Harris is a well-known local author and book

reviewer. I would ask the House to make this party welcome.

Orders of the Day

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

[2:30]

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

ENVIRONMENT AND PARKS

On vote 34: minister's office, $260,049.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : I would like to begin

this second series of estimates for me in this portfolio by reminding

all members of the committee and you, Mr. Chairman, that staff are at

hand and that although the ministry is large and varied –– 1,800

employees encompassing management strategies dealing with everything

from ecological reserves to toxic waste — we do have technical

expertise available to the committee to answer all questions the

committee may put to us.

I'm pleased to present to the House the estimates of the

Ministry of Environment and Parks for the fiscal year '88-89. During

the coming year these estimates will equip the ministry to take

significant steps in environmental protection and enhancement. These

initiatives encompass virtually the entire range of ministry programs.

Our activities are also taking place within a much wider framework,

which extends beyond what has traditionally been seen as the context

for environmental programs. This agenda has national and international

implications, which I would like to touch on before drawing your

attention to some of the highlights.

Last year the World Commission on Environment and Development,

also known as the Brundtland commission, issued its report. It has been

widely circulated and endorsed by world leaders. This report will have

a major impact on global thinking, and its future influence cannot be

overestimated. The commission issued a challenge to all nations to

adopt better strategies for resolving environmental and

industrial-development problems.

Most importantly, this report lays to rest the persistent and

destructive myth that economic development invariably has to involve a

tug-of-war between environmental and industrial priorities. The

commission proposed that we will not have sustainable communities

without a sustainable economy and that we cannot have a sustainable

economy without a sustainable environment. Management of our resources

and environment, investment strategies, social and

[ Page 4596 ]

community planning, and technological

development must all work in harmony if we are to increase the

potential to meet our needs, both today and in the future.

Canada was the first nation to take up the Brundtland

commission's challenge, when the Canadian Council of Resource and

Environment Ministers formed their national task force for the express

purpose of looking for ways to implement the Brundtland recommendations

in Canada. The task force was made up of federal and provincial

Environment ministers, senior executive officers from industry, and

people from environmental organizations and academic institutions. Its

report, issued last September, was approved by all Canadian first

ministers at their conference in November, and subsequently every

government in Canada became committed to its implementation.

The task force called on each province and territory to

develop and carry out a conservation strategy, a blueprint for a new

era of development based on the principles of sustainability. A key

element will be the setting up of round tables on environment and the

economy in each province and territory. Each of these groups will be

multisectoral, with senior decision-makers candidly discussing

environment economy issues and making recommendations directly to

cabinet. The Premier and I will shortly be setting up such a round

table in British Columbia, and I will be calling on prominent citizens

to participate.

Beyond that, our government has committed itself to

encouraging a fundamental shift in direction, a new cooperative spirit

not just between government and industry but among governments,

industry, environmentalists and community planners. Many of the

initiatives in which the Ministry of Environment and Parks is currently

involved represent the spirit already in action. It would be

misleading, of course, to suggest that this new direction has been

taken only at the urging or instigation of government. No, it is very

encouraging to see some very practical demonstrations by citizens and

organizations in British Columbia who are already — to use a well-worn

but very apt description — thinking globally but acting locally.

Environment and parks staff can cite countless examples of this kind of

activity.

Some weeks ago at Government House I had the pleasure of

presenting the annual environment awards. These awards gave recognition

to projects carried out across the province by people from many walks

of life, and I'll give you just a few examples now. Two high school

students and their teacher were there representing a school in Heffley

Creek, just outside of Kamloops, where young people took

part in an

innovative wildlife habitat project, practising the kind of integrated

management that wasn't even dreamt of by professional biologists and

foresters until very recently. Two fish and game clubs and an Indian

band on Vancouver Island have been very effective in helping to

discourage poaching of the region's Roosevelt elk herds. We also

honoured a major food retailer for the contribution it has made by

introducing photodegradable grocery bags, made of plastic which breaks

down after exposure to sunlight instead of persisting for years in the

environment.

These achievements illustrate a principle which cannot be

overemphasized and which forms the basis of our environmental policy

for B.C.: that environmental quality in a viable economy cannot be

based on unilateral government action alone. This basic truth is

illustrated in practically every area of this ministry's activities.

More and more, environmentally sound policies are the result of

building resource management considerations into economic proposals at

the earliest stage. The Nechako agreement, struck last year by Alcan

and the provincial and federal governments, is an excellent example of

this process in action. Recent applications of the mine development and

review process and the coastal fisheries-forestry guidelines also

demonstrate how multiple resource use can be best managed for our net

benefit.

I will not attempt, in the short time available to me now, to

present a

summary of every program initiative the ministry is going to

take during '88-89, but I will give you some prominent examples of how

we will be discharging the environmental mandate in this broader

context. Each is the result of months — in some cases years — of

diligent technical preparation by ministry staff, but each is also the

product of careful consultation with other government agencies,

industries and citizens' groups and will require the same level of

cooperation in order to be carried out effectively.

One of the most important projects coming to fruition this

year is the provincial strategy for managing special wastes. Some years

ago British Columbia committed itself to developing a user-pay system.

Through the efforts of the Special Waste Advisory Committee, we now

have such a system nearly in place, one which will be capable of

handling all types and quantities of special wastes, including those

produced by small-volume generators and municipalities. The entire

regulatory system for special wastes has been put into effect, and

during the coming year the ministry will be conducting a provincewide

training program in cooperation with industry to make these regulations

familiar to anyone who may be affected by them, from workers in

large-scale operations to those in small businesses. This provincial

strategy also has a national dimension, because B.C. is actively

working with other provinces and the federal government to implement a

national hazardous wastes action plan released early last year.

It should be clear from this description, then, that our

approach to special waste corresponds at every point to the pattern for

environmental action and economic development which we have endorsed.

It is participatory in the fullest sense; it is being developed and

implemented through consultation and cooperation with all sectors of

society; it will use technology constructively and in a way that is

environmentally sound. But most important, it will protect the health

and safety of British Columbians while giving industry an acceptable

means of treating and destroying their hazardous wastes. It is a

classic example of good environmental management making good business

sense. There are parallels to this approach — and similar benefits to

the province — in the new direction we are planning to take in

pesticide control, which will give special encouragement to

agricultural users of restricted pesticides to take responsibility for

prevention of misuse. It is in the best interest of food producers as

well as of the environment and the public to make sure accidents don't

happen.

Our wildlife program provides another example of how we can

promote sustainable development through responsible environmental

stewardship. We have introduced a policy for game farming which permits

commercial raising of fallow deer, bison and reindeer to meet consumer

demands from both within and outside the province. To make sure such

operations are economically, environmentally and technically sound we

have established an advisory council with representation from

government, agriculture, wildlife and animal welfare organizations. We

are convinced this industry

[ Page 4597 ]

is ideally suited to the British

Columbia landscape, and consultation and cooperation will be the keys

to its success.

We are also setting new directions for the management of our

provincial parks. In the last two years we have made some major

additions which make our B.C. system more than ever a world-class

system, and we have increased its size by over a sixth. The emphasis

will continue to be on quality as well as on quantity and must be

accomplished while avoiding the tug-of-war approach to environmental

and economic concerns which I mentioned earlier. The Strathcona Park

Advisory Committee is currently carrying out the public review which

will help to resolve the question of resource commitments in the park

as well as set the future direction for its management. There will be

further public consultation as the ministry drafts and implements

master plans for other parks in the system.

Very recently I also announced the expansion of our policy of

contracting some park services to the private sector. As I said at the

time, this approach has proven so far to be extraordinarily successful,

and it represents the kind of constructive partnership which is going

to be essential to all of our programs in the coming years.

Complementing this will be an intensive province-wide

marketing program during the coming year to make British Columbians

better aware of what their parks system has to offer. Ecological

considerations are fundamental to our conservation program, and public

enjoyment of natural areas provides an equally powerful rationale for

preserving and maintaining them. We are going to encourage our citizens

to find this out for themselves.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, the mandate of this ministry is a

broad one. It encompasses recreational opportunities, environmental

quality and safety and many aspects of resource management. Their

common denominator is simple but challenging. None of these priorities

exists in isolation from the social and economic fabric of our province

and its communities. We have the opportunity in British Columbia to

usher in a new age of cooperative and sustainable development both in

the private and public sectors. We are well equipped to rise to that

challenge, and the Ministry of Environment and Parks is ready to do its

part.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : You don't want to hear

that again, do you? With that said, I will take my place and let the

games begin.

MS. SMALLWOOD : I have to admit that the

minister's last comment with regard to games was more like the minister

than the speech he just gave. I'd like to compliment the writer of the

minister's speech, because it certainly hit on all of the issues that

we have raised in the last year.

I'd like to start off by complimenting the writer of the

speech in reference to the Brundtland report. The first that this House

heard of the Brundtland report was when we rose during the estimates of

last year and brought to the minister's attention the good work that

this international commission had embarked upon.

I'd like to start by taking a look at some of the things that

the ministry has done. The minister certainly has been out and about

the province giving speeches about their compliance with the Brundtland

report, although I think that there are some very serious problems with

the ministry's commitment. I would hope that by raising them now, we

would see the minister dealing with those problems and hopefully coming

back to next years' estimates reporting that they have been completed.

The

summary of the environmental protection report that was

done federally — and I think that the minister commented on that — lays

some of the groundwork and recommendations for the ministry. It talks

about some of the things that ministries can do to bring themselves

into compliance. One of the things is a conservation strategy for every

province and territory to be implemented within five years. I hope the

minister can comment on whether that work has been undertaken and what

direction we can look forward to seeing the ministry taking.

It talks also about all ministers with any responsibility for

economic development being required to demonstrate that their

departments' projects are more environmentally sound, and being held

directly accountable. I'd be particularly interested in how this

government intends to bring that recommendation into practice.

What we're seeing across Canada and, indeed, in British

Columbia is a very strong commitment and understanding by the majority

of people on environmental issues. Some of the recent public opinion

polls, for instance, show that nine out of ten Canadians believe that

their health has deteriorated because of environmental pollution, and

93 percent fear that they are being poisoned by toxins that have not

yet been identified. Another poll, the Decima poll, shows that most

Canadians believe that the responsibility for protecting the

environment falls primarily on government. I am hoping that in this

time during the estimates we can take a look at what your ministry is

doing and what the record has been in protecting the environment and

fulfilling your mandate, as well as looking a little bit into the

future, and hopefully using the Brundtland report as a model for

changing not only your ability to fulfil your mandate, but also

changing the outlook and the structure of the ministry to deal with

future needs in the province.

I will lay out some of the ground that I intend to cover

during the estimates, so the minister can do some planning in having

his staff available. I'm hoping this afternoon to deal basically with

administrative and budget items, followed by the issue of privatization

and the lab. Tomorrow afternoon I will be dealing with waste management

issues. That may take us to Thursday morning. Under waste management,

I'm hoping to touch on issues such as chemical pollution and some of

the hazardous waste and solid waste management issues in the province.

I will also be dealing with enforcement and some previous legislation

this House has passed that I am particularly concerned with. I'm hoping

the minister can enlighten us on the ministry's progress, specifically

Bill 66.

[2:45]

Following that, I will deal with parks, wilderness and

wildlife issues, and I will finish up the estimates dealing with

aquaculture and water management — including free trade. That,

hopefully, will bring us to the same time allotment as last year's

estimates — approximately 10 hours.

We can start by getting some more information from the

minister about the specific budget allotments. I have the dollars

indicated in your budget, Mr. Minister. There are some increases and

some decreases. I wonder if you might enlighten the House as to the

reasons for those.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : At the outset, I would

like the committee to acknowledge the presence of Tom Johnson, the

[ Page 4598 ]

deputy minister of Environment and

Parks. I also thank the member for her acknowledgement of my speech

writer. His name is Ron Kawalilak, and he'll be delighted to know that

you enjoy the stuff he writes. I enjoy his writing as well. I think Ron

will be remembered forever as the designer of the B.C. bird contest. He

put that whole package together, the advertising strategy and the way

we were to ballot, and he did a superb job. For that, I'm sure all

British Columbians will be forever grateful — most specifically, the

recipient, the Steller's jay. Ron is a great writer and a great idea

man, and having his service to our ministry is of good benefit to us.

Briefly on the Brundtland report, it really has — as we both

know, Madam Member — become the thing that everybody talks about this

year, at least in fiscal year 1987-88. As it unfolds more and more,

among ministers, environmentalists and industrialists, it's become the

buzzword and the direction we're seeking to go. It's so simple and so

obvious in its logic that I think a lot of people missed it.

Nevertheless, it has become the direction of the 1980s and, I'm sure,

the 1990s, in terms of industrial economic development, and how we can

maintain a sustainable development and yet maintain a sustainable

environment.

One of the things I wanted to talk about — because the member

mentioned it — is what role Environment ministers play in governance. I

found out to my surprise last September upon attending my first CCREM

meeting — that's the acronym for the Canadian Council of Resource and

Environment Ministers — that many of my counterparts throughout Canada

do not play a role on any economic development committees, nor do any

Economic Development ministers play a role on the environment

committees. Maybe not typically, but occasionally the poor old

Environment minister will wake up one morning and read in the paper

that there's going to be a steel mill in the province, and he has had

no input on the environmental implications of that project.

That is not the case in British Columbia. I don't know when

this began. It probably began with the first Ministry of Environment,

which had some life breathed into it as one unit in 1977 with the Bill

Bennett administration. Since 1979, it's been my knowledge that the

Minister of Environment always sits on the Cabinet Committee on

Economic Development, and vice versa — the Minister of Economic

Development sits on the environment committees. So it's always been the

case in British Columbia that Environment officials and ministers know

exactly what is happening in economic and industrial organization and

development in the province. I think it's a good thing. It ensures that

there are no surprises and that the environment constituency is

represented at the cabinet table when development issues are being

discussed. As I said, that's always been the record of management in

any of the Social Credit administrations that I'm aware of.

I do thank the member as well for laying out the agenda of

what she wants to talk about in the next couple of days. As I said at

the outset, Mr. Chairman, it's a large ministry dealing with things

from toxic wastes to ecological reserves and has a lot of staff who

have their own expertise. Having an agenda laid out for me greatly

assists all of us in ensuring that we can provide you and the committee

with the most appropriate answers as quickly as possible.

I said this last year and I'll say it again, because the

member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley brought it up: the environmental

awareness that we all face, and the way we have had a major attitude

change in the last ten years. It is significant. The polls, as you

indicate, Madam Member, indicate that people are concerned about their

environment. They're concerned about health hazards because of what our

lifestyle is putting into the environment, whether it's cars, industry

or something else polluting the air, water or ground that we live in

and on. Some polls will tell us — quite correctly, I'm sure — that

environment in the minds of the average Canadian is just as serious an

issue as unemployment is, which puts it right up there as a very

serious concern indeed. I'm not at all surprised by that. I would say

that the attitude change in the minds of the citizen, the developer and

the captain of industry is probably just as significant as the attitude

change we've all undergone in the last ten years with respect to

drinking and driving. It's something we all did ten or 15 years ago and

didn't think much about it. Then there was a Counterattack program in

this province and other programs in other provinces; now it's something

that's socially unacceptable. I would say the same attitude change has

really taken place with respect to how we feel about the environment.

Conditions that we would have put up with ten or 15 years ago in our

community, such as sawmills that pollute and spew out fly ash, or

industries that pollute our watercourses, or people that spill on the

soil — that's just not allowed nowadays, not only by the regulations

that we've introduced as a government but by the way we the citizens

feel about how we want to see our environment.

You'll recall, Mr. Chairman, a concern you had in your area.

It's now a very common political decision to make, that you have

industry that is producing jobs and revenue to your community, but

they're not doing it in the best possible fashion, so we are obliged to

make sure that these people take remedial measures. We do that now with

a heavy hand and very quickly, and the economy — wages — is set aside

because we place a greater value on the air we breathe and the

community we live in. There is that attitude change, and it is

significant.

I've rambled a bit here, and the member wanted me to talk

about specific budget items. I'll begin with the most significant,

pesticide. You'll notice that there's an increase of over $1 million,

from $964,000 to $1,995,000. That's an increase that's going to be used

for food-testing and for pesticide residues, training of agricultural

users and inspection on farm users.

Waste management has gone from $16 million to $20 million, and

that will be used for the program of special wastes as we put it into

place. That will be registration, audit and inspection of the handling

of special wastes as they go to our hopefully soon to be announced

treatment facility.

We've got an extra $2 million into surveys and resource

mapping — that's the TRIM project, a very good private sector project

mapping the whole province for the benefit of the private sector as

well as the government agencies that use our maps.

For parks, we've had a $2 million increase in our budget.

That's for facilities upgrading: everything from flush toilets to

showers to just better conditions for our visitors. Let me end that

point, as I went through that part of the budget, by pointing out that

the B.C. park system is the second-largest accommodator in Canada. The

federal park system is first. We had 19 million visitors last year, and

the feds had 20 million. I think our record is quite remarkable because

we're looking at a system that goes from Pacific Rim to, I presume,

Newfoundland in terms of a federal park system. It includes the huge

Rocky Mountain parks, Banff and Jasper. Yet our one provincial system

was only one million visitors off what they did right across Canada.

[ Page 4599 ]

I'm very proud of that system. It has proven to be immensely

popular. It's growing; it's well received. It's a world-class

attraction in bringing people to our province. I think I can justify to

Treasury Board or any other person who's going to look at my budget the

reason for increasing that specific line on the parks budget from $30

million to $32 million.

I'll take my place now, Mr. Chairman, and welcome more

questions from the member opposite.

MS. SMALLWOOD : There are two other

questions outstanding, before I go back to the budget items that the

minister raised: (1) the conservation strategy, and (2) the

responsibility and accountability for the environmental impact by all

ministries. Is it an intent of your government to bring those

recommendations of the Brundtland report into place?

I would suggest to the minister that if he is truly committed

to the Brundtland report and to the work that the environmental

ministers are doing across Canada, one of the things he could do to

show his commitment would be to bring in environmental legislation that

would guarantee public involvement in decision-making, full public

disclosure and freedom of information. Very clearly, that is the heart

of the Brundtland report.

It suggests that the very best way, both cost-effectively and

for the province to deal with the changing consciousness of people on

this planet, would be to involve people in that decision-making. Would

the minister please comment on: (1) the conservation strategy, and

(2) the accountability for the environmental consequences of economic

development from his government, and perhaps comment on whether he

would consider bringing in legislation that guaranteed public

involvement in decision-making.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : Conservation strategy as

mentioned in the Brundtland report, of course, is wide-ranging.

Throughout the various branches of the Ministry of Environment and

Parks we do practise conservation, whether it be wildlife, fish or

wilderness. It is part of a plan. It's part of the policy in all

branches that where conservation can be practised it be practised, and

strategies are continuing in place to ensure that.

In terms of the public access, I think I'll have to admit that

probably my mind changed a bit on that over the last year since I last

stood here. Without trying to blow my horn too much, I think my record

so far has been pretty good in getting the public involved in helping

me address the problems faced by the Ministry of Environment and Parks.

I guess the most significant and public issue right now is the Dr.

Peter Larkin hearings on Strathcona Park and other contentious park

issues in British Columbia, centring mainly on Strathcona.

As I said earlier, I didn't feel that strongly about public

involvement at this time last year; however, the public got itself

involved, didn't they? Therefore I had to reconsider what sort of input

we were going to hear. On the basis of that, it became apparent that it

would probably be best that we have a former member of the Wilderness

Advisory Committee, Dr. Peter Larkin — who had done such good work on

that first committee — carry out some of the recommendations that it

had further recommended. Of course, in the Strathcona recommendations,

they said we should have a further public review; so on the basis of

that evidence, we put that policy in place.

[3:00]

Public input — there's quite a public appetite for that now,

and I can't say I blame people. They want to know why governments make

decisions and how they can be part of that decision-making process. Of

course, all of us in government are Members of the Legislative

Assembly; we all represent a riding, a geographic area. When you are a

minister, you represent a constituency as well which is provincewide

but has various people giving you input. I would say that the B.C.

Wildlife Federation, for example, is a very significant group. Outdoors

Unlittered.... Just about anybody with some good advice I'll listen to.

So there is that avenue which, I would submit, all ministers have. They

all have their constituencies and various associations that they listen

to.

We have, of course, by legislation the environmental appeal

process, whereby people who are concerned about a permit or a decision

made by the Ministry of Environment do have the opportunity, through a

proper appeal process, to have their concerns raised and adjudicated.

Another good example would be the issuance of variance orders.

I know the member has some concern about those, but the member is also

aware that in the case of an industrial operation we involve the union

and we like their input. If there is going to be a variance order, we

involve the local municipal council and other people we see fit and we

think should be involved. We do try to encourage someone applying for a

variance order — as a matter of fact we insist — to broaden the scope

of whom they're going to talk to, whom they're going to listen to and

whom they're going to present their case to. If they want a variance

order for the pulp mill, then the union or unions are involved and the

municipal council and other people we see fit and think should be aware

of what that industrial operation is going to be doing. I think the

record of previous administrations and my administration in this regard

is pretty good. We do want to involve the public as much as we can and

we do want to ensure that they are a part of our management process.

In terms of bringing in legislation and having the public

commit to that.... I can't discuss this, because it's a bill we haven't

seen yet but one that is coming. For your benefit, Madam Member. I'll

just speak to it briefly, before the Chairman rules me out of order.

That's river rafting; I guess that would be the best example. Because

of the tragedies of last summer, we quickly put together a committee of

people from the industry and some people who had been in the industry

but weren't anymore. In other words, we tried to get a good public

involvement of experts and former experts, and we did. The report they

issued was extremely good and was well accepted by that industry, and

I'm sure it will be accepted by the consumer, and we are right at the

eleventh hour of presenting a bill. But you and I can't discuss that,

so I’ll just leave that alone, only to say that I was quite pleased in

that case to have good public involvement, and that did help me draft

the legislation that is appropriate to what we had to do.

MS. SMALLWOOD : This is the third time I'll

ask this question. I hope I'm going to get an answer this time, because

we are knocking off some of the answers. I'd like the minister to

comment on whether or not — through the committees he talks about

sitting on, the economic development committees and so on — there has

been any discussion that would suggest that the recommendation from the

Brundtland report with regards to holding each ministry accountable for

the environ-

[ Page 4600 ]

mental impact or environmental

consequences of their own plans has been discussed.

The minister talked about several different things. He talked

about the public process he is now committed to. It took, what, 69

people being arrested in Strathcona to get your attention and to get a

commission that I would suggest does not deal with the issues of

concern to those very committed and active community people, those

people who care so much about their park, those people who are standing

and being arrested for everyone in B.C., because if it can happen to

Strathcona it can happen to any park or any place that is near and dear

to any community.

I'm glad that the minister is finally saying that he is

committed to a public process, but I would like to compare what this

government is doing to a more junior level of government. The municipal

area, whose power predominantly revolves around land use, is by

legislation required to hold public hearings before land use is

changed. It would seem to me, when we're looking at the planning

process and community involvement, that that is the very least this

province could expect from a provincial government that is making

decisions that impact not only one community but the whole province and

impact it significantly. We're not talking about the minister talking

to his friends; we're talking about the minister hearing what the

people of this province have got to say. My request is that the

minister not only bring in legislation to make it compulsory for public

involvement in decision-making but also to provide legislation that

gives people the information that allows them to participate in a

meaningful, informed way.

Much earlier on — approximately ten years ago — I went to my

local council about a land-use issue and found myself sitting in an

audience with a large group of community people trying to figure out

what it was my government was talking about, because it seemed to be

all in code. The agenda that was before us was laid out giving numbers

of municipal bylaws. There was so little information there that you

needed a decoding book. Our community group fought for information. We

now have information packages in Surrey to all community associations

and interested citizens. If you want to go to council, you not only get

an agenda that you can understand and read but you also get information

that the council members are looking at which allows them to make their

decisions. In that way, you know if your concerns have been dealt with

or whether they ever ended up on that table for discussion, giving you

an opportunity to raise them and having your elected people be more

informed and better able to make a decision that is more reflective of

the community.

It seems pretty basic. It's not very threatening. I have to

admit that when we first raised it with our local council there were

several council members — some of them having sat on the council for

20-odd years — that were pretty darn intimidated by these activists

wanting to have information. But you know, it's worked out pretty well

for the council. They get a lot more support for the decisions that

they make. It has also worked out very well for the community too. We

feel more involved in the decisions that are being made.

I'm hoping that the minister, while he's very clearly heading

down that road.... I would say from my own community, it was perhaps as

painful as the year that the minister has just undergone. Mind you, we

didn't have 69 people ending up in jail in Surrey. Hopefully, with the

minister's new eye on public involvement, he may also look at some of

the other important steps that he can take this year as far as access

to information.

I won't go on too much further because, again, I want

to remind the minister about my third question: has there been

discussion about accountability among the economic ministries?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : I regret I didn't quite

follow the question. I hope I've got it now because there are some

processes in legislation, in regulation or just from practice — I don't

know how they came to be, but they are in place now — that are

significant. I am advised by industry that they are some of the most

significant regulatory processes in Canada.

An example is the mine development review process. Our good

former colleague Tom Waterland, now president of the Mining Association

of B.C., tells me that the mine development review process in British

Columbia is the most comprehensive in Canada. I have a tendency to

believe him. It's a very good process. All the concerned agencies,

including the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, get together, and the

mining proponent has to present programs and plans to all the concerned

agencies — Environment is just one of them. We look at them to ensure

that if the mine is going to go ahead, it's going to go ahead in a

fashion that's appropriate to everyone.

I'll give you a good example. We worked on this one all last

winter. It was Golden Bear mine. It had a variety of concerns. The

Tahltan Indians were concerned. I was concerned as the minister

responsible for wildlife because there were some major game trails that

were being dealt with. The DFO was concerned about, I think, eight or

nine creek crossings that the mine developer had to do in terms of his

access road, and we had a little concern about acid. The major concern

was not so much the mine but the road into the mine, but it was a major

one. As I said, it involved a whole bunch of issues: native Indians,

wildlife, the environment, soils, streams, fish. You name it; it was

all there.

We had to put a hold on it. The application came last fall. We

looked at it, and the recommendation which came back from the mine

development review committee was that we just didn't have enough

information. There were too many mysteries out there. We had to find

out a lot more. Well, they worked on it all winter. They came back —

and, coincidentally, I was talking to one of the officials in my

ministry the other day who told me this — with a recommendation that

has made the native Indian group very happy because it avoids some of

their hunting area and is also going to supply them with a little bit

of work in terms of building the road. It satisfies Environment because

it's avoiding a confrontation with game. It satisfies the Department of

Fisheries and Oceans because it avoids, I think, five or six of the

stream crossings. Lo and behold, it's come out cheaper than the

original road proposal was. By having all agencies have a look at this

proposal, we have satisfied ourselves on every count, and we've also

saved the company some money.

We do have master-planning process in Parks. We're all aware

of what happened at Strathcona, and it wasn't that pleasant. Some

people were very upset and, I guess one could argue, justifiably so. In

many cases it works very well.

The other example is in my part of the world, and that's

Tweedsmuir. We had good, extensive hearings with respect to the

Tweedsmuir master park plan all last fall and in the winter. We

listened to groups from Bella Coola to Burns Lake and made the various

changes here and there as they were presented to ministry officials. I

think we are finalized now — if not, we're very close to it — with a

very satisfied public

[ Page 4601 ]

in that area. They're satisfied on all

accounts that the master planning process for the development of

Tweedsmuir Park was done on a first-class basis and everybody had their

input. So you win some, you lose some.

Strathcona is heeded. Strathcona has been kicked around for 77

years; we all know that. It's been logged, mined, used for this, that

and the other thing. Former governments have traded off wood for this

and that. They've traded off wood for other pieces of park outside of

Strathcona that they wanted. It has really been ripped — I'll admit it.

So will anyone who looks at the history. Your government and my

government, your administration and our administration: Strathcona has

been hit, and hit hard, for a long time and for a variety of good — and

maybe not so good — reasons. That's why we had the Wilderness Advisory

Committee have a look at it, and that's why we are following up with

the Peter Larkin committee. I don't blame some of the people for

protesting, because they have seen that park of theirs hit for a

variety of reasons over 77 years.

In any event, I think I have outlined all the interagency

discussion we go through. We have a forestry-fishery policy now in the

Ministry of Forests in terms of how close they are going to cut to a

bank — that type of thing — to prevent soil erosion; we have guidelines

there. We have the mine development review process. The ELUC deputies

all sit together and discuss any proposal and how it is going to fit

environmentally or with the other agencies.

I think we are really light years ahead of a lot of other

jurisdictions. I guess the bottom line of what I want to say is this:

when we put together our Premier's round table in British Columbia and

they look at Brundtland's recommendations and at our own administrative

process in B.C., I think they'll have to conclude that we are in fact

meeting a lot of Brundtland's administrative recommendations now. I

really can't think of too many holes that are out there. There may be a

few, but by and large I'm satisfied, as I sit around the cabinet table

or as I look at the reviews that are going on for whatever activity

might be taking place, that we have a good administrative process in

place.

[3:15]

MS. SMALLWOOD : I hope I'm misunderstanding

the minister — you're not saying everything is fine and you don't have

to do any more work?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : No, no. There's always

more to do.

MS. SMALLWOOD : I would hope the minister

would acknowledge that there is more work to be done.

I'd like to ask him about some of the budget items. On the

issue of surveys and mapping, the minister said the increase was a

mapping project, and then he referred to parks and the private sector.

Can the minister elaborate on that? Is that geological mapping?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : It is resource mapping,

Madam Member. The significant item is operating costs, up $2 million.

Asset acquisitions are up about $350,000.

MS. SMALLWOOD : When the minister says

resource mapping and he connects that with the private sector and

parks, is the ministry at this time increasing the budget for the

Ministry of Environment...spending taxpayers' dollars to identify

resources in our parks?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : Maybe my speaking notes

confused the committee. No, the resource mapping that we're talking

about is not in parks. It's the resource mapping that is taking place

throughout the province, where a private sector consortium is

identifying.... The Ministry of Environment is the agency coordinating

that mapping activity for Mines, Forests, Hydro and anybody else who

wants to have a look at what the province looks like. It's on digital

maps — very state of the art. In a couple of years it will all be

finished and we'll have 7,000 floppy disks. If a developer, Hydro, a

mining company, the Ministry of Mines, the department of fishery and

oceans or whatever wants to look at a specific area, you come to us and

we put in the appropriate floppy disk, and the map comes out. Its

contour, hopefully its minerals.... It shows forests, forest licence,

roads — just about everything we can put in. It's a one-stop library of

the maps in British Columbia on a digital basis.

That's what we mean. If I made any reference to privatization

of parks, I didn't mean to. I wasn't attempting to, nor is there any

connection there.

MS. SMALLWOOD : I'm afraid the minister's

explanation doesn't make me feel too much better, because in the last

year we have seen the minister and this government bring in legislation

that creates recreational areas and multiple-use wilderness areas,

which downgrades parks. Now we're talking about spending taxpayers'

dollars, albeit not in designated parks areas, if I understand the

minister correctly, but to identify resources in this province. That

information subsequently gets used by the private sector to exploit

those resources. All we have to do is look at the history of other

surveying or mapping projects in the province, and clearly some of the

public quotes by the person responsible for the projects that justify

the expenditure of taxpayers' dollars in the return to the province of

mineral exploration. My question is: is the Ministry of Environment and

Parks in the business of mineral exploration?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : That was one question.

No, we are not in the business of mineral exploration. We are, though,

the resource ministry for doing mapping in the province of British

Columbia. In this day of computers and technology, we have gone from

hand-drawn maps to digital mapping using satellites and a variety of

very technical methods that we have TRIM, the acronym for this private

sector consortium, doing for us — just providing us with maps. If

you're alarmed that maps are going to cause more exploration or more

resource development in the province, then you have a right to be

alarmed, because I guess that's what maps will do.

In terms of park policy, that's totally separate, and I do not

advocate exploration. That's not the mandate of the Ministry of

Environment and Parks. We manage parks that are parks. Where we have

claims, we label them recreation areas and we do our best to buy them

out and quitclaim them so we can turn them into parks. Where the land

is Crown land — in other words, not encumbered by either park status or

recreation area status — we as the Ministry of Environment ensure that

the environment is looked after, which is everything from game trails

if there is development to whatever development is going to take place

there — mine, pulp mill, whatever. But just because we do mapping is

not going to make resource extraction go away.

MS. SMALLWOOD : Can the minister tell us if

the $15 million that is allocated for surveys and mapping will include

surveying and mapping in the parks system?

[ Page 4602 ]

HON. MR. STRACHAN : It's $12 million. It

went from $10.6 million to $12.59 million. Yes, it's the whole

province, but you have to map everything. It's digital mapping. It

shows contours, but it's not specifically designed.... No, it is not

designed to encourage exploration in parks. The program is in place to

map the province. It's that simple.

MS. SMALLWOOD : The minister has said that

it is resource mapping; it identifies resources — whether they're

mineral or forest resources. The minister is telling us that the

mapping will also include the parks. What we have seen over the past

year, with the minister working alongside the Ministry of Energy, Mines

and Petroleum Resources, is a downgrading, quite contrary to what the

minister said in the last year's estimates. The minister said last year

that we would never see the downgrading of parks, that we would only

see the upgrading of status; but not more than a month after those

words left the minister's mouth, we saw legislation in the House that

caused downgrading of parks.

Some of that downgrading, moving from class A park to

recreational area, was not due to existing claims as the minister had

indicated, but was due to the information that was provided by such a

program, information that showed that mineral values in Kokanee, for

instance, were substantial, and this government downgraded that area to

create a recreational area alongside of the parks and invited the

private sector to stake claims in that area. So we used taxpayers'

dollars to erode the park system. My concern is that with an increase

in the budget item for that particular program, we will see a more

rapid downgrading of the parks next year, a speeding up of the momentum

that has already been set by this ministry.

I'd like to ask the minister about the expenditure for parks

and outdoor recreation. We've seen an increase there of.... Obviously

our numbers are out; the information I have doesn't seem to be the same

as yours. At any rate, I have an increase of $2 million. You've said it

is an upgrading of facilities. Can the minister explain: is that in the

campgrounds? The minister says that the upgrading of the facilities is

for campgrounds. How does that jibe with the minister's privatization

of campgrounds? Are we spending taxpayers' dollars to upgrade

facilities and then have the private sector make the profit off them?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : The $2 million increase

is, as I identified in my opening comments, for such things as flush

toilets and other amenities that make camping a bit more comfortable

and enjoyable, and more what the expectations of the twentieth-century

park visitor are. I think it's a very good program that will do nothing

but increase visitors to our parks and our province. Increased

attendance will enable me to go to Treasury Board and get a bigger

budget again next year.

The parks are not being privatized. Operations within the

parks have been privatized since 1983, and we will be increasing that.

That's such services as cleaning out those privies, if they have to be

cleaned out, cutting firewood, bringing the plumber in, collecting

garbage and doing all the manpower services needed to carry out an

efficient operation and make sure that the parks are attractive to our

visitors. I know that is not philosophically acceptable to the members

opposite, and I accept that opinion of theirs. That's what politics is

all about — those of us who have different opinions about things. I'm

of the opinion that a lot of those services can be carried out by

someone not employed by the government, because I believe that you

don't have to be employed by the government to work properly and carry

out a good job. So far the results have been just that: the private

sector does a good job of catering and servicing our campgrounds. We

are doing nothing except encouraging that. In areas where it's more

cost-effective to use our own government forces we will, but clearly

for the majority of services that we want to provide in campgrounds,

it's better to have a private sector contractor performing those

services for us. That's what we mean by privatization in the parks.

MS. SMALLWOOD : I would suggest to the

minister that it's not just the government's opposition that has some

concern about your privatization initiatives. You haven't asked the

people of this province whether they want their tax dollars going to

making profit for somebody else. The people in this province are paying

taxes to have services rendered, to have their province managed to

address and serve their needs, not to put money into somebody else's

pocket.

I'd like to move on and ask the minister to provide some

information about the revenue your ministry made in the last year. We

talked a little bit about some of the funds available to the ministry

in previous legislation — the Crown land fund, the heritage

conservation and so on. Could the minister provide the House with the

dollar value of fees and permits?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : On the revenue side,

we're estimating for natural resources — this is water licences, which

we characterize as a natural resource — $249,000,000; the Wildlife Act,

$10 million; sales and services, $715,000; licences and permits,

another $10 million; miscellaneous revenue — I'll have to get more

detail on that if you wish, hon. member — of $100,000; and

contributions from the federal government of $2,500,000; for a total of

$273,394,000.

[3:30]

MS. SMALLWOOD : The Ministry of Environment

is a significant money-maker. Can the minister assure the House that

that money is going back into the Environment ministry and into

addressing the environmental concerns and the preservation needed in

this province, or is it also being funnelled off into general revenue

like the other funds we heard of earlier?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : For the most part, hon.

member, we are in fact a net spender. This all goes to general revenue,

with the exception of the habitat conservation fund. But we still have

a net expenditure on the general revenue of the province of British

Columbia, with one exception. That's the big one: $249 million. That's

water licences. The Ministry of Environment is the taxing authority

there, so we take in more as a ministry than we spend. If you take out

that water licensing job that we do, then we are a net spender out of

the provincial coffers.

MS. SMALLWOOD : So the minister is saying

the Ministry of Environment takes in more money than it spends. Is that

correct?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : Yes.

MS. SMALLWOOD : Okay. I think it's very

important for that to get on the record, because I'm hoping that people

[ Page 4603 ]

begin to understand the significance

of the ministry we're dealing with here. When we have one of the

government's back-benchers making remarks about the ministry's money

going into general revenue and spending it on seniors and health care

and belittling the whole issue, he is completely oblivious to the very

assumptions of the report that we've been talking about and the

understanding that people are coming to — not only in B.C. but in

Canada and internationally — that the Environment ministry is the

number one ministry. If this one isn't taken care of, it really doesn't

matter what we do about health care, jobs or our seniors. If we don't

get our act together here, there very well may not be a future.

I want to touch on a couple of items before I go on to the

issue of the Environmental Lab. I hope that some of the government

back-benchers would be encouraged by the Minister of Environment's

commitment to the Brundtland report and would take that report and do a

bit of homework. Read it and see what they've got to say about the

Environment ministry. It would only help the minister in persuading the

government as to the wisdom of the work that was done.

I had a very interesting clipping come across my desk a few

months ago about the New Zealand parliamentary commissioner for the

environment. I'll just give this to the minister for his information.

Hopefully it will be one of the things that he will take a look at. New

Zealand has put in place a parliamentary commissioner who is almost at

the level of an ombudsman and is responsible for environment. It takes

the concerns of the environment and puts it somewhat at arm's length

from the political process, and in that way makes it a little more

responsive to some of the environmental needs. I hope that the minister

will take a look at that.

I would also like to ask the minister about the standing

committee of the House and why that standing committee has not met. We

have now had two full sessions of the Legislature, and we've yet to see

the standing committee on environment sit.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : A good comment. With

respect to the member's comments about how we're spending, I think that

might have been better directed to the budget debate. As you know, we

develop a budget every year at Treasury Board. Mine is up from $135

million to $142 million, so I feel that I've been reasonably successful

— as well as anyone can be — at Treasury Board this year, and that I am

able to extract from my colleague a couple of seats down the

appropriate amount of funding to look after the constituency that I

serve — which is what we, as ministers, do when we go. We don't do this

alone; our officials are there to make the good arguments for us and

help us make our case, in which they do a very good job. It's all part

of the budget process, and that can be criticized at budget time.

In terms of the New Zealand commission, Madam Member, I don't

know exactly the details of what you're talking about. I'd be

interested in hearing more of it. Would it not, from your description,

compare to the Environmental Appeal Board, which is a body that hears

complaints about actions of the Ministry of Environment? If it doesn't,

then perhaps you could explain that to me further. I'd be interested in

those comments.

Lastly, with respect to the Select Standing Committee on

Environment, you're right that we haven't referred anything to that

committee. I really hadn't given that much thought. Perhaps you could

suggest items you wish to have referred to that committee. I'm always

open to suggestions. We've seen other committees work pretty well so

far: the Select Standing Committee on Forests and Lands, to do with the

contracting clause; the Finance committee was put in place; we had a

Gulf Islands committee last year. As you know, it's not characteristic

of this government not to have select standing committees. I think our

record is very good on that. If you have any specific suggestions you'd

like to see a committee do, I'd be more than happy to hear them.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Before we proceed — and I

know the minister was very kind in answering that question — I would

just remind the committee that we cannot while in committee ask why

another committee doesn't sit. If we want to do that, we have to ask

the House. Please proceed.

MS. SMALLWOOD : I won't repeat the question,

since we're dealing with the substance of it anyway.

The list is long. I think there are many things we could sit

down and talk about, like my next topic, the privatization of the lab

and the enforcement of waste management permits in this province, and

on and on. There are times in this House when we don't seem to get down

to some of the issues that are so important and so fundamental to, I

would think, everyone in this House. Sometimes I think it takes some

kind of extraordinary action, and maybe that extraordinary action is

the government and opposition members sitting down to explore some

solutions.

I have some things that have crossed my desk in the last

while, and they've really jogged my attention and really made me ask

the question of why in our busy days we don't get to talk about some of

these important things.

I've got a letter here from Friends of the Ozone Layer asking

for some attention. It's a pretty important issue to this planet.

I have another letter here from the Canadian Coalition for

Nuclear Responsibility. It includes an information package from the

Okanagan with their concerns about Hanford, their nuclear backyard.

It's a Penticton peace group. It's a pretty important issue, the impact

of having the Hanford nuclear reservation so close to our border. Has

this government considered putting together some kind of forum for this

province to begin to get a grip on some of the major issues that impact

this province because of the Hanford nuclear reserve?

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

I have another package that was prepared by the United Church

of Canada. This is with regard to American bomber training over B.C.

They lay out some of their concerns about the flights over northern

B.C. I have in the past year helped them and sent letters to your

ministry asking for information, because information is quite hard to

come by.

Those are some pretty major issues that we never seem to get

on the public agenda, that we never seem to manage to get into the

House for debate. Part of that could very well be that because they are

so big, we need to sit down and put some resources to looking at B.C.'s

position on those important issues, and how we can be part of the

answer.

I would like to ask the minister to comment on that before we

move on to the lab.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : We're really dealing in

the federal realm here, but I appreciate the member's concern.

[ Page 4604 ]

It's a concern we all have in British

Columbia. Number one, I think all Canadian ministers and all Canadians

were proud of the work that Tom McMillan did in terms of ozone layer

protection and the initiative he took on behalf of all of us in Canada.

As federal minister, he had the responsibility to do that. As a matter

of fact, he won an environmental award for it. I think we can be proud

of that. I'm sure to a man and to a woman — I don't think we have any

ladies in our club right now.... All the Canadian ministers at CCREM

supported Tom McMillan's initiative. As a matter of fact, he presented

his paper to us in September last year in Quebec at the ministers'

meeting. So we do support that. Anything we can do provincially will be

done to encourage the initiative, in terms of protecting the ozone

layer.

In terms of Hanford, I've dealt with this a bit in my previous

Ministry of Intergovernmental Relations, and Garde Gardom had a file on

it as well. Essentially, it boiled down to a series of letters between

Garde Gardom — and latterly me — and Joe Clark as Minister of State for

External Affairs, expressing our concern about the presence of that

nuclear plant just south of our border. We were assured by Mr. Clark in

response that they were monitoring that as closely as they could in

terms of their ability to discuss that operation within appropriate

protocol with the American government and the Atomic Energy Commission,

or whoever they deal with there.

In terms of the bomber training on those flights, I can't

really offer too much assistance, Madam Member. I guess the one concern

we would have from a realistic point of view would be extensive and

noisy flights over game trail areas. Outside of that I don't know what

influence we could have on that type of flight. It's governed by Canada

air regulations, and how the province of British Columbia could make

comment in an official capacity is beyond me. I think as citizens,

though, we have to make our concerns known to our federal leaders so

that they are aware of how we feel about that type of involvement.

MS. SMALLWOOD : I would suggest to the

minister that one of the best ways to make your voice heard is to

actually get involved and get some more done. What we've seen

all around B.C. is municipalities, right down to individual schools and

school kids, creating nuclear-free zones all around this province. I

think it's a challenge to the ministry and to this government to

actually do some work and get involved in this issue.

I'd like to talk to the minister a bit about the privatization

initiative, the Environmental Lab and the audit the minister has just

announced. I'd like the minister to continue with some of the comments

he made during question period, where he said he would be pleased to

elaborate on the audit and some of the safeguards the ministry has put

in place to ensure that issues of public health and safety, standard

regulations and conflict of interest have been taken care of.

[3:45]

HON. MR. STRACHAN : We have officially

communicated with B.C. Research to undertake all audit programs. These

would be in air and water monitoring, and we would have the permit

holders pay the bill. We want to ensure that we have an active audit

industry. B.C. Research are the best people to ensure that audits are

correct, that there is nothing dangerous happening in terms of

emissions. I don't know what else I can say. I've got lots to say if

the member wishes to ask me more specific questions.

The audit process is simple, as I understand it from the

scientific community. You take a sample at random from the agency

you're permitting and the one you want to test, and you say: "This one

has to be split. The private lab is going to do one; B.C. Research is

going to do the other half. We're going to compare the results and make

sure everybody's singing off the same song sheet, getting the same

results and using the appropriate methodology in testing." That's the

simplistic way of doing it, and that's what will be done. We know that

will be technically and environmentally correct.

I'd like to hear more questions you might have.

MS. SMALLWOOD : Did the minister say that

B.C. Research will be responsible for making sure that everything is

okay in the province?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : No. The Ministry of

Environment and Parks is the regulatory agency, the permit issuer, the

permit inspector, and regulates all the activities you're concerned

about. We have other methods of ensuring that our regulations are

carried out, one of them being B.C. Research.

MS. SMALLWOOD : I am sure the minister was

pleased that I gave him that question so he could clarify that, because

there would be a lot of people in the province who would be very

concerned about his previous statement.

Can the minister tell the House the value of the audit program

that has been given to B.C. Research?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : We're just going to find

that out. I don't know if we have generated numbers yet. Let me read

our general statement into the record with respect to B.C. Research and

the role they are going to play acting on behalf of this ministry:

"B.C. Research would report all audit

results to the ministry monthly in a form compatible with its existing

data storage facilities. In addition, B.C. Research would produce an

annual

summary report assessing overall accuracy of permit holders and

analytical laboratory results and reviewing method development

activities. Progress reports on the latter would be provided during the

year as appropriate. Liaison would be maintained with the ministry

interface group to ensure that we are responsive to ongoing needs and

priorities. Our current expenditures on audits and standards

development total about $670,000. It is anticipated that permit holders

will pay about $250,000 to $350,000 for their share of the B.C.

research program, this representing 5 percent to 10 percent of the

existing monitoring budget."

MS. SMALLWOOD : Two points. The minister has

said that B.C. Research will be acting on behalf of the ministry.

That's very different than having a lab do a job for government —

contracting out a particular task. Is the minister suggesting that B.C.

Research will act on behalf of the ministry? What powers will the B.C.

Research Corporation have and what responsibilities beyond collecting

and analyzing data?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : Wherever you have an

audit, whether it be in the financial world or the environmental or

scientific world, the auditor acts on behalf of the person who employs

him to do that. In that case, it is the government, and

[ Page 4605 ]

that auditor — B.C. Research — is told

to test someone's evidence and test it just the way your colleague the

hon. first member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) would test someone's books.

There are a series of tests that are standard and are applied by people

with expertise, and that's that type of audit. When that audit and

those tests are satisfied, the first member for Nanaimo says: "I have

accomplished these tests, and I am satisfied they are correct." A

scientific audit is a different process but arrives at the same

results. "Here are the tests that I have done on this evidence given to

me. I find that this" — whatever the results are — "happens to be the

case." And they sign their name. But they work for the Ministry of

Environment and Parks.

MS. SMALLWOOD : I would suggest to the

minister that this is a very different relationship than an auditor.

The minister seems to be wanting to compare it to the auditor-general

or something of that stature. We are talking about an environmental

audit that is being done by the province at arm's length and

responsible to the Ministry of Environment. Can the minister tell the

House — because this is a cost-shared arrangement between industry and

taxpayers, via the Ministry of Environment — whether or not B.C.

Research will be getting other contracts from the government?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : The new dioxin lab or

dedication of the mass spec that is going to be there — yes, they'll be

doing that. But surely you are not suggesting that B.C. Research is

somewhat suspect, are you? They are clean, pure research and are

clearly at arm's length, and if we can't trust B.C. Research to do a

good job for us, then we have a major problem.

MS. SMALLWOOD : I think that what the

minister is doing is confusing people's concern and quest for

information with casting aspersions on B.C. Research. Part of what we

have to do is take a look at the history — who B.C. Research is — and

seek information from the minister that will indicate whether or not

the people's interests in this province are being taken care of.

What the ministry is doing is relinquishing some of its

responsibility. The ministry is now saying that the responsibility for

auditing and analyzing the data, the checks permits, will be done by a

private corporation — a corporation that, incidentally, up until the

end of March this year was the B.C. Research Council, which had

government representation on it.

What I am trying to understand here is how, with this

arm's-length audit, the people of the province can be assured that

their interests will be protected. I have actually spoken to some of

the people at B.C. Research and asked them for information about what

they are doing with their new structure and their new corporation, how

they will be able to protect their mandate, their 40-year history of

being an innovative centre in this province that worked very closely

with industry and shared technologies. It was a technology transfer

between industry and the Research Council. I asked them: what will

change now that you are the B.C. Research Corp. and are no longer a

non-profit society, and are a profit-making company? What will make

certain that you can maintain your mandate — the mandate that the

non-profit society had? They haven't quite figured that part out yet.

They are still working on the board of directors and all the rest of

that. But you have put these people in such a situation, to say nothing

of the fact that we now have a situation that is tantamount to a

crisis, where the people of the province can't be sure that their job

is being done for them by the Ministry of Environment....

Perhaps the minister can tell the House whether or not this

audit program actually went out to tender.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : There are a couple of

things I'd like to answer. Number one: the ministry is giving up no

responsibility. Our responsibility is clearly stipulated in the

statutes. Until you see a legislative change, there is no way you can

anticipate that we are amending our responsibility. Our responsibility

is statuted; it is there for everyone to see. It is some of the best —

if not the best — in Canada and North America in terms of what we have

a responsibility to do.

In terms of setting out a bid to B.C. Research to do an audit

for us, I think that would fly in the face of what you are concerned

about. We wanted to reduce the costs of government to the taxpayer.

That's the reason we have a privatization program.

If I can speak about that generally, in some cases it has

worked; in other cases it has not. As you follow privatization, you

will be aware that there are some initiatives that we have said no to,

because in fact we couldn't see any substantial saving to the taxpayer;

nor could we see an improvement in services. So we have had

initiatives put to us that we have turned down. This one might still go

the same way. I have the time-line here, and.... Today is May 24. On

June 24, 30 days from today, the bids close. In the meantime, according

to this calendar, we have had an expression of interest from staff, and

we are going to go through the whole thing, which you probably have

before you. That process is in place.

You make the assumption that it is going to be sold. Maybe it

will and maybe it won't. Right now we are simply receiving expressions

of interest. They may not be satisfactory to the government. In that

case, the process will remain the same. However, they may be quite

satisfactory. The private sector or the employees may come up with a

very good offer which provides a service to the public and to the

government of British Columbia. We will be happy to privatize that

industry so they can operate it on behalf of our government.

In terms of your other question — would we accept a bid for

auditing? — that would cause us some problems, and I think that isn't

what you wanted to ask. We specifically stated that B.C. Research,

because they are pure, academic and at arm's length — everything you

want a good audit function to be — would be designated as the audit

authority in this type of auditing. We have faith that they will act in

our best interests. As I said earlier, if we can't see that group, with

their expertise, independence and autonomy, doing appropriate and

responsible testing for us, then we have a major problem. I am

convinced that they will be first-class, and I have no fear about the

process that they will undertake.

[4:00]

MS. SMALLWOOD : The minister says that this

group with their independence.... Independence from whom, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : Independence from

industry — the industry they are auditing or, I should say, the

permit-holders they are auditing.

MS. SMALLWOOD : I'm glad the minister

clarified that about permit-holders, because while B.C. Research has

[ Page 4606 ]

stated that they will not do testing

for the industry that they are auditing, by virtue of their makeup they

work very closely with industry. The reason for the Research Council in

the first place was a technologies transfer to industry.

I suggest that they are not independent from

industry. I also suggest that you don't have the answers. You are

asking us to take it on faith that this is a good group. Quite frankly,

their history is irrefutable; they have a great record. But there are

no safeguards. There is nothing more than a couple of well-meaning,

dedicated people at the helm saying: "I'm the one who will stop it from

happening." That's not good enough. This ministry is turning this

province upside-down as far as the policing and regulating of waste

management in regard to all kinds of tests. The ministry just tells us

we should trust and is doing nothing to assure the people of this

province that they have given any thought to the concerns of conflict

of interest. For many months the minister was served notice as to

people's concerns about conflict, and he has done nothing to alleviate

those concerns.

I understand that the ministry has engaged the B.C. Research

Corp. in a program for dioxin testing. This is a separate program. Has

the minister offered that to other labs, or was this again a contract

going to the B.C. Research Corp. without any public process?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : Again, no. We went to

B.C. Research on this because they are the best and because they have

the facilities and the equipment. It's the GC-MS, a mass spectrometer,

and we want to test for dioxins. If we want to look at current

state-of-the-art testing, we're looking at 120 parts in the family of

dioxins, some very toxic, others benign. When you're testing for

dioxins, you have to test in parts per trillion, so this machinery —

the mass spec — has to be dedicated to dioxin testing only. Parts per

trillion is fine testing, so the machine has to first of all be

dedicated and do no other testing, and secondly be set up in a totally

clean environment, which requires a separate building or separate

rooms, walls or whatever, to the tune of $200,000 — an extensive

facility to house the machine so that you have this purity of very fine

parts-per-trillion testing.

So that's where we are. We expect it to be in place by

September 30. We had to go to it. In B.C., particularly since we have a

large kraft bleaching industry that causes some suspicion with respect

to dioxins in the water and the receiving environment, we know we had

to do it. We couldn't get dioxin testing done in B.C. We had to send to

Ontario or the United States. The waiting-list was extremely long, so

we went to dedicating our own piece of equipment and our own testing,

and B.C. Research has it. We're quite satisfied that we'll have

state-of-the-art testing in B.C. We'll be able to look at our own

industries, our own water, our own soils, our own herons, our own heron

eggs, crabs, all the aquatic animals where we have a concern, and we'll

be able to do it right here to better protect the people of our

province.

I guess we're first in Canada outside of Ontario, and I'm

quite proud of it. And I'm quite proud we could have that included in

our budget and that we had a facility like B.C. Research to do the

testing for us.

MS. SMALLWOOD : The minister talks about the

mass spectrometer. Can the minister tell us where that machine came

from?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : It's ours; we've always

had it. The money is being spent on the room. The machine has been here

for some years now, but it hasn't been dedicated for dioxin testing. If

you use it for other testing it gets contaminated for that fine

testing. We've had it for some time. It's just that now we're

dedicating it.

MS. SMALLWOOD : Is this not the B.C.

Research Corp.'s machine?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : To get you totally

correct on that, it's been here for some time. We've been half-owner.

The new arrangement, by the way, is a bit different. When we dedicate

it, it's going to be owned 51 percent by B.C. Research — so we clearly

indicate who the manager is — and 49 percent by the Ministry of

Environment.

MS. SMALLWOOD : My understanding, Mr.

Minister, was that this machine was purchased by the ministry

approximately a year ago; that the arrangement was that B.C. Research

Council at that time would own the machine; that the lab, which up

until now has rented space in the B.C. Research building, would use the

machine when they needed it; and that the arrangement in the purchasing

of that machine was that should one of the partners in the purchase

fail to exist, the other partner would assume ownership. At the time of

purchase, I don't know if anyone ever imagined that the lab — the very

tool and the organization responsible for environmental testing to the

ministry — would be the agency that would no longer exist.

So again, we have taxpayers' dollars purchasing this very

expensive machine; I understand it's approximately $300,000. We have a

loan — is it an interest-free loan? — for renovations to B.C. Research

to provide a space for the machine. I think you alluded to that loan of

$200,000?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : We're going to provide

$200,000 to B.C. Research to establish test facilities. That will be

repaid with interest over the next three years beginning on September

1, 1988. The interest will be paid in terms of testing, because there's

a value to testing.

MS. SMALLWOOD : So the interest to that loan

will be paid in terms of testing — services rendered to the province.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : And the loan as well.

MS. SMALLWOOD : I thought we were talking

about the loan. Okay, because the machine is already owned.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : The principal and the

interest.

MS. SMALLWOOD : Right.

What we have here is a dioxin-testing lab that has been set up

pretty much with taxpayers' dollars. It's a private corporation now.

B.C. Research is no longer the B.C. Research Council; this is B.C.

Research Corp. — a private corporation. The dioxin-testing lab is the

only lab in western Canada; the only other lab for dioxin testing is in

eastern Canada. It is an extremely lucrative test. It costs a lot of

money to do a dioxin test — approximately $1,000 per test. If the

ministry is talking about a dioxin-testing program for the province, we

have set up in a private lab a dioxin-testing facility which in essence

is a permit to print money. This is an extremely lucrative situation

that has been set up for B.C. Research Corp.

[ Page 4607 ]

I need my mind refreshed here. The minister said that this did

not go out to any public tendering process and that no other labs had

an opportunity to bid on the dioxin test.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : I'm glad the member

admits that this is like a licence to print money, because don't

forget: we still own 49 percent of it. So we're in the game too — the

government and the people of the province. We're still a 49 percent

owner.

The $200,000 that we are going to get paid back — principal

and interest, in tests done for the government and the people of

British Columbia — is to build the facility, the super-clean walls, the

filtration and all that type of thing that goes with the mass specs. So

that's our investment in cash. April 7 is the date we signed the

agreement — yes, the day after my wife's birthday. We've got that in

place. We're going to get the loan returned to us with interest, and we

are going to be in the business of doing our own testing in British

Columbia, and we are still the 49 percent owner of the machine. There

is no other facility that could do that type of testing — nor any other

company that we would want to do that type of testing — in the

province. So I don't see why you're concerned. We've got half the

action, we're gaining our money back, and we have our own

dioxin-testing lab. So we're a winner on all counts.

MS. SMALLWOOD : Further clarification. Is

the minister saying that because the ministry at this time owns 49

percent of that machine, you will be getting 49 percent of the revenue?

Is there a contract indicating that you have that kind of agreement?

How long will that agreement be in place?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : As we are paid back, we

will be paid back for our investment into the infrastructure, but we

will not get the revenue from the other testing.

MS. SMALLWOOD : I'm glad the minister sought

clarification. So the ministry is no longer in the business of doing

dioxin testing. The ministry has set up a private lab and given them

the contract to do this very lucrative testing for the province, and

the only thing the ministry will be getting back is the money put into

the renovations, not for the machine, not for the ongoing profit made

from the dioxin testing that has been done. Indeed, if there is a

dioxin program in this province, which there should be, paid for by

taxpayers' money, the ministry will not get a portion of that profit.

Is that correct?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : Yes, but we're still

happy with the arrangement. We do have the facility in place, which

means we will have on-the-spot, accurate dioxin testing done in British

Columbia, and that is the prime concern. We're satisfied that this is

probably the best arrangement we could have made in terms of having the

machine dedicated for that purpose and having our industry and the

people of British Columbia served in a good fashion.

[4:15]

MS. SMALLWOOD : The minister has indicated

that he's pleased that we'll now have accurate dioxin testing. Can he

tell the House whether this is a state-of-the-art machine and how he

knows whether it is?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : I'm advised, Madam

Member, that it's state-of-the-art for industrial testing, not for

research. It's industrial testing that we want to do.

MS. SMALLWOOD : I'd suggest to the minister

that while this is a very good and very expensive machine, it is not

accurate to the extent that will be needed for some dioxin testing.

While it may test for a certain level of some types of dioxin, it will

not test for many of the lethal dioxins that would be of concern not

only to industry but to the province as a whole.

I might also ask the minister, going back to his comments

about fulfilling the mandate of the ministry and the ministry's

responsibility for environmental protection, how the ministry will

know, once it gets the information from the testing lab — the analysis

of the dioxin testing, for instance — whether the information is

significant.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : From time to time we'll

have some split sampling done by the federal government in Ontario, so

we'll have our own external audit as well.

MS. SMALLWOOD : Mr. Minister, I'd suggest

that one of the things you're going to need is expertise on staff. You

are going to need people on staff — and you would have had it in the

Environmental Lab — who know what state-of-the art machinery is, know

how the technology is changing daily and know what the data they have

in front of them means.

I have argued for some time that what you are doing is putting

the communities of this province at risk. One of the things I don't

believe you have considered is that you are also putting the industries

at risk, because you are gutting your ministry. Because you are cutting

back on all the human resources in your ministry, you no longer

have.... If you do have, you are putting those people at risk. You are

in a situation that when you have the information coming back to you,

you are not able to make the public policy decisions necessary to

protect the industry and the community.

On the federal level we have seen.... I would bring to your

attention the testing of shellfish contamination last year. The federal

ministry put itself in a situation where it no longer had labs to

analyze the problem and had to rely on private labs. Once they got the

information, because they no longer had the mechanism to deal with it,

they panicked; they shut down the industry; they cost the industry an

enormous sum of money. You, Mr. Minister, will be in that situation

very shortly. You will receive information from private labs and have

to make a decision as to whether you have to take some action. Are you

going to err on the side of the industry and then wait until you see

the statistics coming out of the communities, the health effects of

pollution, or are you going to act and possibly shut down those

industries?

I would suggest to you that not only are you putting this

province in an untenable situation, but you are putting yourself, your

government and the industry in an untenable situation. You don't know

if this machine is going to be able to deliver. The range of dioxins

that are of concern is substantial. There are dioxins not of

significant concern, and there are those that are so toxic that a very

small amount can kill a person. If you don't have the resources in your

ministry to analyze the information you are getting, to advise you on

whether that machine and the machines doing the testing are

state-of-the-art, then you don't have the information to make public

policy in this province.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : The member is upset

because we are privatizing one part of a lab-testing process, and she

is trying to connect that to a new program we are putting in

[ Page 4608 ]

place, dioxin testing, which has never

been done. Let's start from there.

Dioxin testing has never been done in British Columbia,

because we haven't had the dedicated machinery to do it. We have now

leapt into the twenty-first century. We are using very sophisticated

industrial-quality testing machinery, state of-the-art for industry

testing. We are establishing that program at B.C. Research to better

look after the concerns you've expressed. Prior to that, we were doing

nothing. If you are advocating that we shouldn't have done this, I find

that you are arguing at cross purposes. But we have done this. The

agreement was signed on April 7, and we hope the facility will be in

place by September of this year. We are doing something new and

innovative and something we have to do in British Columbia for dioxin

testing.

I don't know how you can say that we won't have control or

knowledge or expertise to run this. I believe that in fact the people

who will be there are hired and have the training, expertise and

equipment to give us expert opinion. But just to show you that we want

to ensure that everything is up to snuff, we have an agreement whereby

we will have auditing done by the federal government, so that we can

ensure that our results are the same as theirs and theirs are the same

as ours and that we are getting accurate results.

Getting away from the dioxin lab and the more general

privatization position, regarding privatization of the lab, I should

point out to the committee — because the member already knows this —

that we will be retaining six employees to form a data standards group

within the ministry to monitor all the evidence that we are getting. As

well as having an audit function performed by B.C. Research to have

elements and whatever we want to test tested and audited appropriately,

we will have our own interface group to ensure that all processes are

in place.

We do suspect that the private sector — as nasty as they may

appear to some people in the province — can accurately carry out the

job they are being paid to do. I am quite convinced that we can satisfy

the concerns of the public, and in terms of our being able to have the

policy to react quickly, we have done it in the past. We will do it in

the future, and I am quite proud of the policy and strategies we have

in place for reacting to any environmental concern.

MS. SMALLWOOD : I was just asking my

colleague here whether "silly" is unparliamentary. I won't bother to

ask the Chairman that, because quite frankly, the comments belittling

the concern around dioxin testing don't do it justice.

The point I have been making all along is that the government

and the ministry have a responsibility to public policy, to fulfilling

the mandate of the ministry, which is to protect the air, water and

environmental quality of this province. To do that, Mr. Minister, you

need information; you need certain resources. You are cutting your

ability to make good policy decisions quickly.

The minister makes comments about the private sector. Quite

frankly, I think that his comments belittle the concern. People in the

government's opposition have confidence in the private sector,

in business people doing a good job. But that doesn't in any way

address the responsibility of this ministry, and that's what we've been

talking about.

Let me tell you a little bit about the toxicity of the

chemicals we're talking about here. To kill a 154-pound person, it

would take 120 drops of PCBs, 20 drops of DDT, one-fifth of a cup of

PCPs, two drops of cyanide or a two-hundredth of a drop of dioxin. So

when we're talking about dioxin contamination in this province, we

fully realize the significance of that contamination and the concern.

The minister forgets that it was the opposition that called on

the ministry in the first place to do a dioxin-testing program in this

province. We compliment you, and we are pleased that you are doing it,

but there are concerns that need to be dealt with. The minister

suggesting that he has confidence in the private sector does nothing to

acknowledge or address the concerns we have stated.

Since the minister has indicated that he sees no problem, even

with the concerns identified, as I have done, around the need for

expertise on staff.... We've heard in the privatization debates that

have gone on before in the House the concern about the public service,

about the real brain drain going on through this government's

initiatives to encourage people to take early retirement; to privatize;

to put at risk the very confidence that people have, or need, to be

able to plan for the future.

I think I will allow one of our other members to ask the

minister some questions before we wrap up.

MR. R. FRASER : It's a pleasure for me to

take my place in the debate and to put on record some of the great

things this government has done with respect to the environment, and

some of the things we can probably anticipate as a result of this

thoughtful minister's efforts — supported, naturally, by his cabinet

colleagues and the Premier.

I would like to hear a little bit of good news, just to remind

the opposition that everything isn't gloomy, as they always say it is.

I must say it's the one consistent thing that socialists have in

common. They're so depressing and so depressed, so completely negative

about everything. You know those beautiful words: "Mr. Minister, I'm

afraid"; or, "Mr. Minister, I am concerned." Did you ever hear of a

group that was afraid of tomorrow like the socialists over there? I

don't know how they live, waking up and looking at the sun and saying:

"It's probably going to rain."

But what did this government do? How about Moresby? Hundreds

of thousands of acres of land into a park. Not bad for a little

government that does great things for the community and this province.

Oh no, we were not concerned about putting hundreds of thousands of

acres into parkland; not a bit. Naturally those things take time. But

it got done, didn't it? Not bad for that minister, who came in fresh

like that. But do we ever hear anything like that from the opposition?

The answer is never. Now that they've got the park, they never think of

saying to the government: "What a good idea that you got it done, and

got it done right."

What are we going to do now? Now we've got to worry about the

lab. We're going to talk about the privatization of a lab. Oh, and the

crime of that! All of a sudden the people who were government employees

who will now be working in the lab in the private sector will change

from being honourable members of the BCGEU and will become

dishonourable, I suppose, from their point of view. They will change;

their integrity level will change. Well, I say to you, Mr. Chairman,

that if you have a good level of integrity working for the government,

you'll have the same level working in the private sector. You'll do a

good job. You have to do it right. I've been in that kind of business,

and I've had to disappoint a few clients. But you do it because of what

you are.

I want to hear a little more good stuff from that member over

there who constantly downs this good minister — now

[ Page 4609 ]

that he's looking better from all the

great support he should be getting from you, on the great parks system.

[4:30]

MR. LOVICK : It's always such fun to follow

the learned first member for Vancouver South, who always reminds me of

my mortality, in that we are all, after all, only human, as the saying

goes.

I wanted to deal just briefly with a couple of the assertions

made by the minister in defence, dare I say, of the privatization of

the Environmental Laboratory, and I want to give him an opportunity to

answer a couple of questions. The argument, as nearly as I can

understand it from listening to the minister's comments both today and

previously, was that this really was all about saving taxpayers'

dollars. That's the essential argument: that we can perform the service

as effectively and efficiently at less cost. I am wondering if the

minister would be kind enough to outline for me precisely where the

savings are going to come from in terms of this particular initiative.

I haven't heard those yet, and I would like to.

Do you want me to give you a couple of questions?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : Yes, if you wouldn't

mind.

MR. LOVICK : Let me just, if I can, explain

why I asked that question by posing another question. The latest glossy

pamphlet extolling the virtues of privatization landed on my desk

today. I delight to receive these. It's rather like getting the Sunday

funnies; they brighten up one's life and so forth. This one talks about

the new look to privatization of the Environmental Laboratory. What

strikes one instantly is: well, wait a minute, this is a newly

announced program. How, then, is it that already we have a new look?

What the document points out to us is that there are apparently a

couple of changes — and I can quote — that amount to "a restructuring

of the Environmental Laboratory privatization." That's the kind of

thing the minister has been talking about.

If we are going to break the job that was hitherto done by the

Environmental Lab into those two other functions — one to be done by

the research council, the other to be done by a six-person data group

staying within the ministry — the obvious question then is: what are

the costs going to be for each of those initiatives? That is just, as I

say, a kind of subset question to my first question about total costs

and savings.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : I mentioned this earlier

to the member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley (Ms. Smallwood). We are

anticipating that the permit-holders will pay about $250,000 to

$350,000 for their share of the program.

You had another question. I'm sorry; I got looking at this and

forgot the other part of your question.

MR. LOVICK : Let me rewind the tape just a

little bit, Mr. Minister, and I will come at the first question again.

As I said, the basic argument we have had from the beginning

about privatization is that we are providing comparable services at

less cost. Explain to me, please, if you will, where the specific costs

are to be achieved in the privatization of the environmental testing

laboratory. That's the first question.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : If the bids come in

appropriately, there will of course be a revenue to the Crown. We

haven't seen that yet, so it is hypothetical at this point, and I will

admit that to you. Secondly, we are convinced that the private sector

will be able to perform that testing appropriately, and because they

will be doing it they will be paid only by the permit-holders and there

will be less of a cost to the taxpayers. That's where the saving comes

in. I would suggest that efficiency would be a factor to consider as

well as the revenue from the bidder.

MR. LOVICK : The answers to those questions,

with all due deference, are vague rather than specific. In other words,

we aren't talking about specific cost projections and so forth. I guess

the obvious follow-up question is: are there no specific cost

projections? Are we simply rather given, dare I say, an ideological

response to the question?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : I wouldn't call it

ideological, but I would call it a bit premature, because we are

looking at a date in June before we open the envelopes. If we look at

how the bidding has come in other privatization initiatives, it comes

in a variety of forms. The bidder may extract a contract from the

government for so many years, saying that they have to get all of this,

that or the other thing, or there may be other features. All of those

features to the bid, whatever the bid might be, have to be analyzed.

I wish I could be more specific, but I can't. We're dealing in

a mystery land. But you know full well that our government record to

date is that if the bid is not acceptable and we can't show a saving to

the taxpayer — liquor stores are a good example — and if we can't show

a better operation, we're not going to consider it; we will stop at

that point. I know you are concerned, and I'm concerned too. But I

think the government's record to date on privatization initiatives has

been that clearly we have to have a better deal to provide to the

taxpayer. Otherwise the deal's off. That's really all I can say, Mr.

Member.

MR. LOVICK : The temptation to speechify

strikes me. The liquor stores.... We're confusing different things.

It's very clear that the reasons for not going through with any liquor

store privatization had nothing to do with finances. We weren't talking

about getting a better deal or not getting a good enough deal. That

wasn't the issue, and I'm sure the minister will agree with me.

Again, with proper deference afforded and accorded, I think

that the arguments are indeed ideological. When we hear statements such

as "increased efficiency," one of the arguments enunciated by the

minister suggesting why we are going to do this, without proof.... If

we don't have any evidence, if we can't demonstrate any efficiency

automatically accruing to the privatized operation, then it seems clear

to me that we are making an ideological argument. Indeed, I would

suggest to the minister that most of the literature on the subject

comes up with precisely the conclusion that unless and until one can

come up with specific, tested-out arguments demonstrating cost savings,

the only thing one does at that point is make some kind of ideological

claim. Perhaps that's a debate for another time; I won't belabour the

point here.

I do want to touch on a question. The minister makes the point

that one of the savings to the taxpayers — we are led to believe — is

from the revenue from the sale itself. In other words, we suddenly have

in our hands a certain amount of cash because we sold the particular

asset. Surely the point is

[ Page 4610 ]

that by any honest accounting

procedure, all we've done is change from one kind of asset to another.

All we've done is effectively taken a tangible or concrete asset and

rendered that into cash. That doesn't mean we've suddenly become

wealthy; rather it means only that we now have more liquidity. We've

got the money in our hands rather than the assets. Surely you will

agree with me, Mr. Minister, that the simple transfer of the asset is

not where the cost saving is to be achieved. Would you not?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : Not necessarily. I

follow your drift; I'm not going to try and duck it and say that I

don't know what you're getting at. But until we open the envelope —

which will be public — I really can't say much more. Don't forget that

there are two concerns when we open the envelope. How much are we going

to get? What are the future works going to be? What sort of contract do

they want to extract, and what will they pay for that? It's our

anticipation that there will be a saving. Again, it's hard to say until

we see what the bids say.

Maybe the liquor store example wasn't all that good, but the

one that comes to mind.... This, of course, is not as sophisticated as

environmental testing, but we found generally in the parks branch that

we were saving about 15 percent on the contracted services as opposed

to the services done by government employees. We thought it far better

to have our parks people doing the supervision and management and a

contractor cutting the firewood and taking the garbage out than to have

those employees doing that type of thing. That general rule-of-thumb

saving has been about 15 percent, achieving the same service.

MR. LOVICK : I'm pleased to hear that, and I

would like to ask the minister if he would be good enough to table the

study that demonstrates that 15 percent cost difference, because I

recall from the auditor-general's report — I believe it was 1986 — that

when they examined campground privatization and so forth, they weren't

able to determine whether there were any savings accruing to the

taxpayer. So if you have that data, Mr. Minister, I for one would be

very grateful to receive it. I would love to see that, believe me.

I want to pose another question. I'm glad the minister does

agree with the validity of the case I argued about liquor stores. The

minister essentially presents three arguments in terms of where this

saving to the taxpayer will occur. One, you said, is efficiency. That

remains to be seen; we haven't yet determined that. Second is the sale

of the assets themselves, and third is what the minister tells us is

the fact that the private sector will now have to pay for this testing.

Is it the case, then, that privatization is effectively shuffling off

services hitherto performed by government and giving them to the

private sector? In other words, those companies are now assuming c