1990 Legislative Session: 4th 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)

THURSDAY, JUNE 14, 1990

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

10325 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Lottery advisory committee. Ms. Marzari –– 10325

Mr. Sihota

Use of government aircraft. Mr. Rose –– 10327

Travel expenses of opposition leader. Mr. Long –– 10327

Presenting Petitions –– 10327

Ministerial Statements

Flooding in the interior. Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 10328

Mrs. Boone

B.C. Ferries anniversary. Hon. Mrs. Johnston –– 10328

Mr. Lovick

Tabling Documents –– 10329

Hazardous Waste Management Corporation Act (Bill 38). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. Reynolds) –– 10329

Mr. Blencoe

Mr. Perry

Mr. Lovick

Mr. Williams

Mr. Cashore

Hon. Mr. Brummet

Ms. Edwards

Ms. Cull

Ms. Smallwood

Mr. Clark

Third reading

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Environment estimates.

(Hon. Mr. Reynolds)

On vote 26: minister's office –– 10342

Hon. Mr. Reynolds

Mr. Cashore

Ms. Edwards

Mr. Loenen

Mr. Barlee

Ms. Smallwood

Mr. Zirnhelt

The House met at 2:04 p.m.

HON. L. HANSON : Mr. Speaker, we are honoured today to have in the gallery a former assistant secretary-general of the United Nations and now the Ambassador of Austria to Canada. Would the House please welcome His Excellency Kurt Herndl.

MR. ROSE : We thank Mr. Speaker for his hospitality at lunch. We all enjoyed meeting the Austrian delegation. On behalf of the opposition, I would like to welcome him as well.

MR. REID : On behalf of the first member for Delta (Hon. Mr. Savage) and the second member for Delta (Mr. Davidson), I'd like the House to make a special welcome to David and Janice Welsh from North Delta, who are very personal friends of mine.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : I would like the House to welcome today the mayor of Squamish, Mr. Phil Turner.

MR. SIHOTA : Out in the western community of Colwood we have a very active and vibrant group of seniors who reside at the Colwood Lodge. I've dealt with them on a number of constituency matters, and I must say that I hope none of them came here by B.C. Transit today, given some of the problems they've had before. Would all members please join me in giving a Okay, I'll talk to the minister about the problem. I'm sure the minister will improve service to Colwood Lodge now that they're here. Would all members please join me in giving a warm welcome to the 16 residents of Colwood Lodge who are in the gallery today.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : I'd like to introduce some good friends of the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Richmond) who are visiting today from Kamloops. Would the House please welcome Dennis and Sylvia Coates and their daughter Franie.

HON. MR MICHAEL : Would the House please welcome 53 grade 7 students from Haldane School in the beautiful community of Chase. They're here today with their teachers, Mrs. Routledge and Mr. Jones, as well as several parents. Would the House please give them a warm welcome.

MR. LOVICK : Mr. Speaker, seated in the gallery today are two visitors from the constituency of Nanaimo, dear friends of mine and of my colleague the second member for Nanaimo (Ms. Pullinger). I would ask the House to please join me in welcoming Ernie and Eileen Little.

HON. L. HANSON : I would like the House also to acknowledge that accompanying

His Excellency Dr. Herndl are Mr. Graham Clarke, who is the honorary consul-general

of Austria representing British Columbia and the Yukon, and Dr. Wolfgang Harwalik,

who is the Austrian trade commissioner representing British Columbia, Alberta

and the Yukon. Would the House please make them welcome.

MS. SMALLWOOD : I'd like the House to join me in welcoming students from Holly Elementary, their teachers and the parents accompanying them today.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Mr. Speaker, we have visiting with us from Trail, B.C., a wonderful family: Steve Coe, his wife Gerri and their delightful children Jonathan and Charity. I would ask the House to bid them welcome.

Oral Questions

LOTTERY ADVISORY COMMITTEE

MS. MARZARI : A question to the Premier, Mr. Speaker, in place of the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Dirks), who has a case of media rash today.

Your Provincial Secretary has stated that in order to help him select lottery grants over $150, 000, he selected himself a committee of cabinet members, four honourable men, to help vet these grants. Would the Premier be willing to tell the House who these four hon. members are, since the Provincial Secretary seems to want to hide the information?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : I believe it's the Provincial Secretary, the Minister of Native Affairs (Hon. Mr. Weisgerber), the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) and the Solicitor-General (Hon. Mr. Fraser).

MS. MARZARI : Well, for answering that skill-testing question correctly, tell us a little bit about political goals. The Provincial Secretary last night told the media that the lotteries were political and that the selection process was political. Tell us something about the guidelines that the auditor-general wants to see properly in place to make the lotteries accountable. Tell us about these political goals, Mr. Premier. Are the guidelines not good enough for the minister? What are the Premier's political goals with these lotteries?

MR. SPEAKER : The Chair was powerless to restrict the member from asking a question that might perhaps use the rest of the afternoon for the answer.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. members on the other side that I will not take the rest of the afternoon, because there may be important and pressing questions that I would certainly not want to see you denied. I will give you a quote first of all: "The reality is that government spending is political. I wouldn't say we wouldn't use government spending for political purposes." The quote was made by Mr. Glen Clark, the second member for Vancouver East. It was made on "For the Record" on March 10, 1990. So we have it on record.

[ Page 10326 ]

Having said that, I certainly appreciate that all of us have political roles.

MR. ROSE : And goals.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Political roles and political goals. That's a fact. Certainly for me politics Is not a dirty word. I see politics as being people for people with people. In that context a politician can certainly influence the decisions that are often made by government. For example, in my constituency I often meet with groups or individuals or schools or teachers or representatives of various community groups. I listen to them very carefully and I take their case, if it's a valid and good one, to the appropriate committee, minister or ministry, as we all must do as MLAs.

I will also say that there are many lottery grants dealt with during the course of a year, and as I look over the list that I've been able to accomplish for my good constituents, I see where most of them are to provide some assistance to a small group at a particular school, and I guess the bulk of the grants would range from $100 to $300 or $400. They are often, if not always, relatively minor amounts.

There are some major amounts. I recently, with the second member for Richmond (Mr. Loenen), after many meetings agreed that a social services centre for the constituency of Richmond was a very worthwhile project, because we now have many social services spread throughout the whole of Richmond working out of different buildings, and they're not able to coordinate all their activities very effectively. By bringing them to one centre, they will not only operate more efficiently, but they will serve the constituents far better, especially those people in need.

[2:15]

So for my colleague and me this is a priority project, as I am sure for the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Clark) and for the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) the Italian Cultural Centre was a priority. I agree that this is a very worthwhile project, because the Italian community is very strong and very influential and serves that particular community of Vancouver East very well. So I commend the members for achieving that. I wouldn't call it a political goal, but certainly it has a political flavour in the sense that you were responding to the people there.

I am sure that the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Harcourt), the Leader of the Opposition, who is again missing from the House today as he always is, and the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes), who's also missing from the House today, very effectively and very aggressively worked to get a million dollars from the Lottery Fund for the Stanley Park Zoo redevelopment project. That's important for Vancouver Centre.

I could go on and on, but just let me mention as well

SOME HON MEMBERS : Morel

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : I don't want to take up the time of question period.

Rossland-Trail has received a healthy slice of Lottery Fund disbursements from the GO B.C. program. The grant totals have averaged $570, 000 for each of B.C.'s 75 ridings. In Rossland-Trail we approved $1, 170, 000 so far: 205 percent of the provincial average, because the MLA certainly made a good pitch, and deservedly too, for his particular community causes.

I am very pleased that this particular program is assisting many community groups in all constituencies, but It is not a perfect program. I'm pleased that we've recently made changes in the process, and I'm hoping that as a result of these changes we will do a more effective job. I want to do the very best job possible.

MR. SIHOTA : British Columbians want open, fair and honest government. The Premier seems to have missed the point here. British Columbians want a process where these applications can be evaluated publicly, rather than a four-member ministerial cabinet that deals with these matters in secret.

Does the Premier not agree that a far more preferable approach would be the establishment of an independent advisory committee to take a look, on an arm's-length basis, at these applications and pass judgment on them that way? As a matter of policy, Mr. Premier, why do you not go the open route? Why do you maintain the secret route?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : As I said, we have an average of $570, 000 for each of B.C.'s 75 constituencies. I grant you that there are times, obviously, when we exceed this, and I gave the example of Rossland Trail - $1, 170, 000 –– 1 can also give you the example of the Victoria Conference Centre, which certainly is a tremendous asset for Victoria. I know that in Victoria we have two members from the opposition, one of whom is present today; the other is missing from the House. For them, this was a tremendously important project.

Mr. Speaker, I do agree that we need to have as much public involvement as possible and still have a very functional and effective program. The second member for Richmond and I have a wonderful process. We invite in the municipal council and the school board. We speak to community groups. We receive all their presentations. There's a great deal of public input and openness in the constituency of Richmond. In the end, we determine what the priorities are. We take it back to the council or the school board and again consult community groups.

For the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew, I would suggest that you get back to the grass roots. Consult your constituents. They are the people you represent in this House. If you consult the people, they're willing and ready to help at any time.

[ Page

10327 ]

USE OF GOVERNMENT AIRCRAFT

MR. ROSE : Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of Government Management Services, who has become fairly famous recently as a frequent flyer. I wonder if the minister has decided to stop violating the spirit - if not the letter - of her own air travel guidelines and cease using the government aircraft as a taxi.

HON. MRS. GRAN : I had expected something a little kinder from the opposition House Leader, but at the same time, I would like to thank him for the opportunity for me to clarify the n-mis

interpretation of the policy.

There are three priorities in the policy. The first priority is air ambulance service; the second priority is the Lieutenant-Governor, the Premier and ministers; and the third priority Is other officials and public service employees.

The policy distinguishes between cabinet members and other officials or government employees. Cabinet members have access to government airplanes for government business.

MR. ROSE : We also know, Mr. Speaker, that

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please. You have to be recognized first.

MR. ROSE : I'm surprised you don't recognize me, since I had lunch with you.

MR. SPEAKER : You looked quite different at lunch.

MR. ROSE : I know that the Minister of Government Management Services expects me to be gentlemanly, kind, old, warm and fuzzy -all of which I am. But I wonder...

Interjection.

MR. ROSE : How can you tell when you heard the Premier? It's not question period; it's answer period.

Does the big-spending minister agree that the guidelines need to be tightened up for ministers, so that the ministers can no longer use government aircraft as the commuter special?

HON. MRS. GRAN : Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that guidelines for airplanes and all other government vehicles are constantly under review. I would also like to say to the opposition House Leader that the member knows of my integrity and knows full well that I am not abusing the government air service, but following the regulations.

TRAVEL EXPENSES OF

OPPOSITION LEADER

MR. LONG : To the Minister of Finance. Could the minister tell this House

how many thousands of taxpayers' dollars have been spent by the opposition

leader traveling between Prince George and Victoria?

MR. SPEAKER : This has not been one of our more productive question periods.

HON. MR. COUVELIER : Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the timely and pertinent question, given the direction and focus of the other questions received during question period today. I'm very pleased to have the opportunity to respond to the legitimate question put to me by the member from Powell River.

The answer to the question is very similar to what I provided yesterday: that is, through some anomaly In the process, it develops that the Leader of the Opposition is apparently the only person who can authorize the release of his travel expenses. As a minister of the Crown in charge of the comptroller general's function, I am unable to unilaterally access that kind of data. Therefore, as I mentioned to the House yesterday, I have written the comptroller-general asking him if he would, in the performance of his duties and by virtue of the interest of the House on the subject, write a letter to the Leader of the Opposition requesting that kind of public information.

Presenting Petitions

MR. JONES : Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition. My colleague has suggested I name names, but actually I'm unable to do that, because this petition is signed by some 17, 046 British Columbia taxpayers, on top of a previous 10, 000 names on a petition that had already been submitted to the Premier. These names are not from one area of the province. They are from such diverse areas as the Premier's riding of Richmond, Langley, Kelowna, the Gulf Islands, Duncan, Powell River, North Vancouver and West Vancouver.

These 17, 000 people are requesting two things with respect to lottery grants: firstly, that there be a full annual public accounting of those lottery grants; and secondly, that 50 percent of those lottery grants go to top up our inadequate health care funding. Mr. Speaker, this is a

MR. SPEAKER : In the presentation of petitions, the member realizes that we're quite restricted. This should be a brief synopsis of the matter to be tabled and not an opportunity for debate.

MR. JONES : I thought I was being brief, Mr. Speaker.

Clearly there is concern on the part of these residents about the abuse of our system and the underfunding of our health care system. I request leave to submit these to the Clerks of the House.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : Mr. Speaker, if the member would look at the standing orders which bind us and under which we operate, he would know that there is a form for petitions, and it indicates how and

[ Page 10328 ]

when they should be presented. One of the things I should point out before we consider further submissions by the member is that no petition can be received which requests any expenditure, grant or charge in the public revenue. I'm sure that what he's suggesting would, so on the basis of that I think we would find his petition to be clearly out of order.

MR. SPEAKER :- We'll determine whether the petition is out of order once the Chair has had a chance to read the petition. But the Chair is in the position to receive the petition, and the member did give the Chair notice of the fact that he had a petition to present, for which the Chair would like to thank the member.

Ministerial Statements

FLOODING IN THE INTERIOR

HON. MR. FRASER : Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a ministerial statement.

On Wednesday, June 13, 1990, the Premier and I toured a number of the areas that have suffered flood damage in recent days. We viewed the central Okanagan, in particular the Joe Rich Creek subdivision where extensive damage occurred. We also visited the Stone Creek area south of Prince George, another location hit hard by flooding water.

My ministry, through the provincial emergency program, is committed to the provision of up-to-date information on flooding activities, Including warnings and flood damage reports. We are prepared to compensate through the provisions of the Flood Relief Act those who have suffered personal losses and damage to their dwellings and possessions.

At this moment advertisements are being prepared to inform the public how to apply for compensation. These ads should be appearing this weekend or early next week. A 24-hour, seven-day-a-week toll-free hotline has been set up, with the number being 1-800-663-3456. This line will allow persons who have flood-related questions to confer directly with provincial emergency program officials at Victoria.

[2:30]

As the minister responsible for public safety, I wish to caution all British Columbians at this time to be extremely careful around low-lying areas, especially those prone to water damage.

I wish to congratulate all the residents of the province who are digging in to assist their friends and neighbours through these difficult times. I also extend this government's condolences to all persons who have suffered losses and upsets due to the natural tragedies that have occurred.

MRS. BOONE : As the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Reynolds) made a statement yesterday, while you were touring the province, I'll make similar remarks to the ones I made then. I certainly appreciate the efforts of the ministry and the government to assist those people. The people that have been struck by this, particularly in our area and certainly in the Okanagan, are not used to dealing with the wet as you are here. It's been a tragedy for many families, so we certainly appreciate the efforts of the Premier and the minister to come to our communities and check these things out first-hand.

Any efforts that my staff can make to assist.... We will certainly lend a hand and are willing to help out wherever possible.

B.C. FERRIES ANNIVERSARY

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : I rise to make a ministerial statement. Tomorrow, June 15, 1990, will be an auspicious day in the history of the B.C. ferry fleet with the system celebrating 30 years of excellence in the provision of safe, dependable service to the traveling public.

On June 15, 1960, B.C. Ferries began with 225 employees, two ships and two ports of call - Swartz Bay and Tsawwassen. Thirty years later, B.C. Ferries employs some 3, 000 employees and operate 38 ships and 42 ports of call.

During the first year of service, B.C. Ferries carried 692, 000 passengers and 221, 000 vehicles. During their last fiscal year, the Ferry Corporation carried 19, 228, 592 passengers and 71/~ million vehicles. Over the entire 30-year period, B.C. Ferries have carried 27014 million passengers and some 99 million vehicles.

B.C. Ferries is one of the largest and safest ferry operations in the world. Our growth has been phenomenal and will continue to be so. In order to meet this challenge, B.C. Ferries has undertaken an aggressive new capital expansion program, which by 1993 will see a total of four new ferries built and in service. The two larger vessels will be capable of carrying 470 cars and 2, 000 passengers, with all the necessary terminal upgrading taking place to accommodate this expansion.

Moreover, I would like to emphasize that all these projects will be undertaken with great sensitivity paid to our natural environment. We very obviously no longer have the luxury of ignoring the impact any type of development might have on the biosphere which surrounds us all.

In dosing and in keeping with the theme of a healthy and nurturing environment, I would like to take this opportunity during the celebration of B.C. Ferry Corporation's thirtieth anniversary to announce that as of July 1, 1990, there will be no smoking in the interior of all B.C. Ferries vessels, with the exception of the two ships serving the longer Inside Passage and Queen Charlotte Islands routes. Included in this no-smoking policy are all the smaller ferries operated by the Ministry of Transportation and Highways on our inland waterways. Furthermore, and to reinforce the intent of this policy, all cigarette machines will be removed from the vessels.

Society has become more and more aware of the very harmful effects of secondhand smoke on people's health. These ferry voyages are short in duration, and we feel confident that this wholesome

[ Page

10329 ]

initiative will be welcomed and appreciated by the vast majority of those using and working on all our vessels. So happy birthday, B.C. Ferries, and here's to a cleaner, fresher, brighter atmosphere in which to enjoy our world-class service.

MR. LOVICK : First let me say thank you to the Minister of Transportation and Highways for doing me the courtesy of providing me with an advance copy of her statement; I certainly appreciate that.

We on this side are certainly happy to join in the birthday celebrations of the ferry fleet. How interesting to see a minister who likes to talk about the virtues of free enterprise stand here and celebrate the thirtieth anniversary of the socialization of B.C. Ferries. As the minister goes on to point out, it is a service that has treated us well, and W.A.C. Bennett -bless his spirit -had enough brains to recognize that a foolish adherence to one ideology, to the exclusion of all others, is simply silly. So we're happy.

It is a good time to quit smoking on one's thirtieth birthday - no question. We on this side of the House applaud that decision. I can't resist the temptation, Mr. Speaker, to acknowledge your involvement in that campaign. I recall that when you were the Minister of Transportation and Highways, one of your pet projects - if I can use that terminology -was also to make the ferry fleet smoke-free. So again, we on this side are happy to acknowledge the advisability of that decision.

I would also make a point that on a thirtieth anniversary, it's not only a time to point to the past and exult understandably in the accomplishments of the past; it's also a time to look forward. I fear that B.C. Ferries isn't doing much forward-looking these days.

What we're talking about doing is essentially carrying on with the old technology and the old approaches that have certainly served us well in the past. But I hope we are going to be receptive to some new technologies and some new approaches, rather than relying strictly on bigger ferry terminals and bigger ferries, because those will not solve the environmental problems.

Hon. Mr. Fraser tabled the report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Alleged Improper Treatment of Robert and Francine Fullerton by Members of the Matsqui Police Department On or About July 15, 1985.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. STRACHAN : Mr. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 38.

HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT

CORPORATION ACT

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 38; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

section 5.

MR. BLENCOE : I think this

section is the most critical one of the bill and also the one that really shows the ill-conceived deep philosophy of this government in dealing with environmental issues that face the province.

As I said before we had lunch, the public wants real action on environmental issues. The public wants real accountability on what government says it is doing for the environment. They want real cleanup. They want quick, efficient, effective and accountable action. This bill before us clearly does not do that.

If you read this section, the private sector is going to take care of the toxic waste problems in British Columbia. They are going to police themselves. The fox is going to be in charge of the chickens. What we have is another variation on a theme to sweep this issue under the carpet and have no accountability in the province to deal with toxic waste or environmental issues. Just imagine a self-policing board. This is the friend s-and -insiders bill for the environment. That's what it's all about.

They haven't got the decency or the ability to come clean on the problems that are facing us in the environment and ensure there is total public accountability and scrutiny of this kind of operation.

Private sector facilities will handle hazardous material. They are going to be responsible. The current administration has tried for years to sweep environmental issues under the carpet. Today we have a bill that is just a variation on that theme. The problem won't go away. They're trying to create an arm's-length organization with no public accountability and no scrutiny. Our future and our children's future will be watched over by those who are creating the problem in many respects.

In terms of the environment, the public wants to know that action is really being taken. This is a private corporation within the government circle that will have absolutely no accountability. I mentioned before lunch that we used to have a Crown Corporations Committee in the province. At least we had some mechanism to investigate for the Legislature and ask questions about Crown corporations and what they were doing. We don't have that avenue.

Under the duties of this corporation, I see nowhere in this bill where the people's business, in terms of the environment and the toxic waste, is going to be carried out in an open, forthright and environmentally safe way. There is absolutely no indication in this bill. All we've got is a bill that allows the minister and this government, when there's a problem with toxic waste, to say: "Oh, that's the problem of the corporation. We've given them all the mandate they want, with a board that is picked by the government." We'll wait to see who is going to be picked for this corporation.

Rather than this government being accountable for the environmental issues facing this province and dealing with them, they now have a corporation that is at arms-length, and when there is a problem, the minister can say: "That's not our responsibility~" It flies in the face of what other governments in this country and other jurisdictions are doing. They are

[ Page 10330 ]

saying: "We are the government of the people. The people want the government to directly take responsibility. They don't want an arm's-length corporation whose members will be hand-picked by this government-and we can be absolutely sure they will be hand-picked. The continuing theme, as we have seen with so many things this government has done, is the insiders and the friends of government who will continue to run the environmental cleanup in British Columbia. People don't want that, Mr. Chairman. They want to see a government that is prepared to tackle these issues directly.

They don't want them handed off to a corporation that Is going to be hand-picked by a minister who so far has made lots of noise about the environment; but we've seen little action, absolutely no action at all, in coming to terms with the issues facing the province.

Mr. Chairman, this government has had a policy to sweep environmental issues under the carpet. They know that the people want action. But what do they do? Rather than tackle it head on, with his own ministry, the minister creates a corporation, away from the government, that will take the blame for things that really won't change in terms of this issue They'll be able to walk away and say: "Well, we gave it to a corporation to do. And we've given these hand-picked boards of members the responsibility."

[2:45]

AN HON. MEMBER : Peter Brown.

MR. BLENCOE : Yes, we can start naming names that might appear on this corporation: the same group of people that appear every day on other organizations. This government has become famous in Canada, Mr. Chairman, for friends and insiders Friends and insiders were running this government and the business of British Columbia; and we'll have nothing changed with this corporation.

This government is trying to give the impression that it's serious about the environment. But I think this

section says it all: "The corporation shall ensure that, wherever practicable, hazardous waste management facilities and hazardous waste management enterprises are established, operated and maintained by operators from the private sector." Who's going to watch those people, as they take care of themselves? How is the public going to be protected? How is the public going to know that they're doing the job? Where is the accountability? It's not here. The foxes are in charge of the hen-house again.

The people of British Columbia have seen through this kind of smoke and mirrors. We see it over and over again with so many pieces of legislation this government brings forward. Politics aside, the people of the province of British Columbia want direct public action on the environment. They've created so much of the problem in the environment and are actually running themselves to clean it up. That's a nice little operation. And that's how the Social Credit government was going to do it. It won't work, because the people want action.

They want accountability, they want cleanup and they want to know the job is being done. They don't want rhetoric. They don't want smoke and mirrors. They don't want legislation that looks good but has nothing to ensure it's being done. The environment Is too important.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : I thought we were back in the 1983-84-85 era, when the member was up making the same speeches. In fact, I could even say it was a recycled speech.

Let me just suggest to you, Mr. Chairman....

Interjections.

HON. MR- REYNOLDS : It may have been wise then and may be wise now, but you still got beat in the last election. You got beat 37 out of 40 years because the people don't believe what you're saying. That's the reason we're here.

Mr. Chairman, the member talks about friends and insiders. Does he think the Recycling Council of B.C. are friends and insiders? They're the people we've just hired to do our hotline. If they're friends and insiders, or doing something wrong, I think you should apologize to them all.

The member asked who's going to be on the board. I've been talking to a very prominent municipal official ' who's a member of your party, about sitting on that board. So if you think that's a friend and insider, I hope you'll apologize to those people when they're appointed to the board.

I will also read again, Mr. Chairman, what I read this morning. It's under the headline "Toxic Waste Disposal Essential." "This spring all MLAs must pursue this issue until a site is picked and a safe facility is built. As with all things environmental, action on toxic waste disposal is too important to be delayed by partisan politics." That's in the mailer sent out by the member for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy) in April 1990. 1 happen to agree with that statement. I don't think this issue is a partisan political issue. It's an issue that all members of this House should be supporting.

And I don't necessarily agree either with the facility. I think we have to look at all systems, as we said this morning.

MR. PERRY : I'm glad that the minister recognized that this debate is a non-partisan debate. We do have a responsibility, as elected representatives, to raise what questions we have. And they're often serious questions. In this case, they're very serious questions about the advisability of the design of this legislation. Nobody on this side of the House who has listened to the debate - and nobody on that side who has listened - could mistake our intentions as being partisan, Mr. Chairman.

The need to deal with hazardous wastes has been recognized and conceded by everyone, just as the minister quoted moments ago from the constituency report of the member for Rossland-Trail. We can all agree with that wisdom. The question is how best to achieve that goal.

I confess that I displayed my naivety in parliamentary procedure this morning, when I meant to speak

[ Page

10331 ]

in favour of the amendment. But the amendment that was offered and rejected suggested that we modify the duties of the corporation to incorporate a phrase, "wherever practicable In the public interest, " or something to that effect. The corporation might facilitate or ensure that hazardous waste management enterprises and facilities are operated by the private sector.

I served notice yesterday during second reading debate that this

section particularly troubles me, and I spoke at length about the reasons I'm concerned that operation of toxic and hazardous waste facilities in the private sector may be less desirable in the reality than it appears in the dream - or I might even say, in the fantasy.

I have to turn no further than this morning's Globe and Mail to find evidence for the arguments I adduced yesterday. For example, on the front page, under a subheading, "Permit for incinerator is like having licence to print money, " is an

article which I trust the minister has read. If he hasn't, I hope he's familiar with the problems it outlines, because there is some very alarming information in this

article which reinforces the points I made yesterday. I would like to share it with the House. I think it is directly relevant, Mr. Chairman, to the objections we are raising to

section 5.

The

article by Mr. Peter Moon, reporting from Hampton, South Carolina, begins by saying that the local public is very upset about a hazardous medical waste disposal facility -namely, an incinerator. It quotes a local editor of the Hampton County Guardian, Laura McKenzie, saying, "I don't like it, and most of the people here don't like it one frazzling bit." Mr Chairman, I'm not sure what the expression "not one frazzling bit" means - even in a Southern accent -but it's clear that there are public objections. And as I read further, I understand why.

This points out that the company known as Decom Group of Companies is run by a resident of Toronto named Raymond Adams. I quote from page A4 in this morning's Globe and Mail: "Mr. Adams realized that owning an incinerator with a permit to burn medical waste is like having a licence to print money."

The

article goes on to say that hospitals often pay $1, 000 or more a tonne to waste contractors like Mr Adams, and that he realized this opportunity when a private laboratory that he was running ran into financial ruin and collapsed. He bought out the company to which he had been paying enormous amounts of money to get rid of his wastes.

The

article goes on to point out that Hampton, South Carolina, residents have complained about rats, dirty black smoke, odours, leaking trucks and the finding of syringes and other medical wastes on the county's roads. State inspectors have reported dead experimental animals in the dump, with their fur unsinged, maggots in the trailers, some of which have stood around in the steamy heat of the South Carolina summer for as long as a month without being unloaded.

Mr. Chairman, you and I shared a good lunch, and I don't want to spoil

it by reading further, but the state of South Carolina says that Southland -

that's the name of the incinerator - exceeded its limit of 91 tonnes of

biomedical waste on 84 days, that recognizable biomedical waste was found in

the dump on 62 occasions and that trucks were found leaking six times, In case

it wasn't clear from the citations I read, the point that the

article is

making is that the incinerator wasn't working up to specifications, and

the local county was not happy.

This

article says that Mr. Adams, the major proprietor of the company, offered the county $250, 000 a year in payments in return for its political help in convincing the South Carolina state government to allow the Southland facility to process more biomedical waste, when it was already not living up to its specifications. The first member for Nanaimo (Mr. Lovick) points out that it couldn't happen here. I'm not sure if he meant that sardonically, satirically, rhetorically or "Lovickly, " but I'm not quite as sanguine as he is on that assurance.

The

article goes on to say that in Gatineau, Quebec, there have been similar problems, when the same company, Decom, opened its incinerator in 1986. It points out that Quebec had relatively little regulation at the time. Hopefully we will be in a better situation. As the

article says:

"But residents immediately protested about black smoke and odours coming from the plant, and the province found emissions of dioxins and furans that exceeded Quebec's air standards."

It points out, to be fair, that the company did make expensive modifications.

"Problems at Gatineau have continued. The most recent involve toxic heavy metals in the incinerator ash. As a result of pressure from Quebec" - that's from the government of Quebec - "Decom now ships the ashes to a dump in Michigan.

"In East Chicago, Ind., it" - the same company -.was given an incinerator permit by the city but lost it when the state demanded public hearings. It applied for a permit in Yerrington, Nev., but municipal officials refused the necessary rezoning after public protests. Local opposition also stopped it getting permits in Westford, N.Y., and on Long Island.

"In Bunker, Mo., a community of 670 people in a poverty-stricken area, the mayor had land for sale. Decorn bought the land, the mayor went on the payroll, and in July of 1987 a new incinerator fired up. Residents complained immediately about dirty smoke and odours, and the incinerator was shut down three weeks later by a court injunction."

Mr. Chairman, I continue to quote from this article.

"Last year, Decom applied to the state of North Carolina for an air permit for a proposed 91-tonne-a-day incinerator in Halifax County, one of the state's poorest areas. North Carolina refused a permit, citing a 'bad actor' clause in state law that allows a refusal based on a company's past record.

"The state cited Decom's record in Hampton, Bunker and Columbia, S.C., where an incinerator associated with Decom had operating difficulties and shut down in 1988."

Mr. Chairman, what are we talking about when the state of North Carolina refers to that "bad actor" clause? A related

article in the same edition of the Globe and Mail points out why, perhaps, this govern-

[ Page 10332 ]

ment might be so keen under

section 5 of this bill that activities of this sort be contracted out to the private sector. Maybe there is something to be made from this field. In fact, the proprietor of Decom, Mr. Raymond Adams, according to the Globe's article: "...shows all the trappings of a rich man...." The house he lives in:

"...with about 1, 300 square metres of living space, is full of fine antiques, furniture imported from Europe and Asia, and works of art that include a Rodin sculpture. There is a swimming pool, sauna ... billiards room, separate accommodations for the couple who serve as his housekeeper and cook.... The house is set back about 400 metres from McVean Drive, opposite a golf course and" - even -"backed by conservation land. A winding paved drive leads through landscaped gardens, studded with statues from Greece and Italy, to a guardhouse that is manned 24 hours a day.

Only the invited are allowed through the final electric gate, past the life-size statue of a huge Charolais bull and roaming guard dogs, and into Mr. Adams's private world."

Where did this wealth come from?

This meteoric rise - "meteoric business career, " as the Globe refers to it - ended when he was sentenced to nine years in 1965 after he was found guilty of five counts of fraud in Australia. He then lived in many parts of the world, Including investing in two weight-reducing companies in Montreal and San Jose, Costa Rica, both of which collapsed.

He migrated to Canada in 1972, and -I continue to quote from this article:

"In 1977, when authorities learned his real name and his criminal record in Australia, he was ordered deported. But by then he and his wife, Ruby, had started Kipling Medical Laboratories in Toronto, and the Immigration Appeal Board set aside the order mainly because he was a successful businessman and provided jobs.

"In 1984 he entered the biomedical-waste-disposal business, and now runs what is believed to be the world's largest privately owned company in the field."

[3:00]

Just to complete our portrait of this personality, his "only known relaxation

is gambling. He plays roulette and baccarat in Atlantic City, Los Vegas and

Reno, where he was seen to win $72, 000 in one evening." But alas, even

he isn't eternally happy.

"In recent years" - the

article says - "his wife has tried to get him to slow down, arguing that they have more money than they can spend in their lifetimes and more than enough to pass on to their son, Robert. Last November, Mr. Adams underwent open-heart surgery after a heart attack. He is now separated from his wife."

Well, Mr. Chairman, this happened to be published in the national newspaper this morning, and it's only one example that makes the point I attempted to raise in second reading debate yesterday about the alarm the public will feel about not only the entry but the encouragement of the entry of private corporations into this immensely difficult field. I think that if the

article from which I've just quoted extensively does not raise the blinkers and cause the minister and his government to reflect even slightly on the arguments made by my colleagues and myself in the last day of debate, I don't know how I can make that point better. Therefore I'll simply express again my very strong reservations as to whether this particular

section and the bill in general are going to serve the public interest in this province.

MR. CHAIRMAN : The member for Surrey-White Rock-Cloverdale seeks leave to make an introduction. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

MR. REID : Mr. Chairman, it is with a great deal of pleasure that I take this opportunity to introduce about 30 students from Cloverdale Elementary School. Accompanying the students are some students from Ecole Seraphin-Marion in Gloucester, Ottawa. Would the House give a special welcome to the students and their teachers, Johanne Bdgin, Johanne Larocque and Jerome Tremblay.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : I have just a short comment on the comments made by the second member for Vancouver-Point Grey. I would agree with some of your concerns and would suggest that in the short period that I've been on the job, one of the most serious problems we have is biomedical waste in some of the incinerators in some of the hospitals around the province, which are certainly not privately run. They are run by the system.

As you know, some of the hospitals that don't have incinerators are sending material across the border, and there is no easy solution to that. As a doctor, you know the material is coming out, and it has to be destroyed. It can't be buried; we've got to do something with it.

I would strongly suggest that you and maybe some members of the BCMA environment group meet with Mr. Carr and his staff after this bill passes and give them your suggestions, because biomedical waste is a serious problem that we should tie in to the overall system. I don't think we should be shipping it outside the province. We should be doing it right here in the province if we can.

MR. PERRY : I would like to thank the minister for the invitation, and maybe through the minister I can invite Mr. Carr to contact me at an appropriate time. Thank you.

MR. LOVICK : Mr. Chairman, I would just like to ask the minister if he would be good enough to explain something about this section. As he knows, the classic argument concerning a privatized facility always is whether in fact there is sufficient staff to do the monitoring. I would like to know what is envisaged in this particular legislation as far as providing the wherewithal to ensure that those private contractors are working in the best public interest.

[ Page

10333 ]

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : The member may want to get into that more in my estimates when we get to the monitoring section, because the corporation itself is not the policeman, so to speak. The ministry is still the policeman. The ministry sets the guidelines and does the research, does the policing and lays the charges through the Crown attorney.

So if you want to get into that process more when we get into the estimates a little later today or Monday, I think it's more appropriate. But the corporation Itself does not do that.

MR. LOVICK : I appreciate that answer, and indeed I will respond in the affirmative to the invitation to look at that matter in the estimates.

I think, though, that the minister would surely agree with me that we have reasons for concern about this insofar as there are already, as you know, a number of complaints about the ministry's capacity to do the kind of monitoring and enforcement that it is currently charged with, let alone assuming a new responsibility.

The auditor-general's report corroborates pretty clearly that the so-called quality assurance program is a toothless tiger; it simply hasn't done the job. I am sure the minister would agree, given his stated commitment to the environment and to protecting the public interest, that we're probably going to require additional staff and expertise to do the kind of job required as a result of this legislation.

I wonder if the minister would like to respond to that.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : Yes, Mr. Chairman, I would, but it doesn't really fall under this bill. There will be more staff in the ministry, and I can go through the figures again. We will probably do them in the estimates. Fines under the acts last year were up 46 percent; the charges - this will be the April 1 fiscal year -amounted to $528, 773. That's a 46 percent increase over the previous year. Waste charges were up 67 percent to 432 charges. I think that should give the member some idea that there are people out there in the field doing a good job.

As he knows, with the new fines up to $3 million now, these are all based on fines of a maximum of $50, 000. Fines now can go up to $3 million, so those figures can jump considerably. We can have again a philosophical argument on the realities of privatization of highways maintenance. I would suggest to you that in my own constituency people are happier the way it is now than they were before. At least they're not less happy.

Interjection.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : Yes, at Whistler. You may have had some stories in the paper when there was a big snowstorm, but the biggest one we've had in 20 years.... Anyway, that's another issue which doesn't belong in this bill.

MR. WILLIAMS : Could the minister advise us how many companies are operating now in these fields and what their current capacities are.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : I don't have the number of firms that are operating in the field, but I'm sure we could get those for you. There are firms in the paint and oil recycling business. B.C. Hydro is doing PCBs at a low level. But I'm sure we could make that list. We could find it somewhere. I don't have it available here.

MR. WILLIAMS : I would have expected a more thorough answer, and I hope the minister and his staff can provide it to us. You clearly are establishing a bias in terms of private sector activity here, and you're not providing us with the background,

I happen to live on the east side of Vancouver. I've got a garbage incinerator right below my house in the port, and I'll tell you the damned thing doesn't work. I don't know how much poison it spews into the air. For me at my age it probably doesn't matter, but for other people in the neighbourhood it's pretty damned awful. It's an outfit with limited capacity. It is ill-regulated by the GVRD. There is acrid air and black smoke contaminating the neighbourhood all the time, and medical waste goes in there from hospitals in the community as well.

There's no evidence for me in terms of my local experience that we have a significant capacity in this field. The GVRD has developed its own burning operation in south Burnaby that clearly is meeting some standards, but the private one that I deal with every day, 200 feet from my house, is in my view damned dangerous. Clearly, if there were better facilities around, they'd be used.

I don't know why you've got this bias in terms of the private sector, because from what I've seen in my own community, the capacity and the ability aren't there. When I tie this

section of the statute in with the previous section, you're giving them a licence to steal. You're ready to lend them money under whatever terms you take to your cabinet colleagues and fund the operation, and they'll have some interesting exclusive right, more than likely, in terms of particularly hazardous elements.

That has the elements of all kinds of problems in conflicts of interest, regulating and so on, and you haven't given me any reason to feel differently in terms of the names of operations that are competent in this field and can do the job. You're scaring me.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : It wouldn't be the first time we've scared each other probably, but I welcome the born-again environmentalist here today to ask those questions.

[ Page 10334 ]

MR. LOVICK : You are saying that?

MR. REYNOLDS : I've been in this ministry since last November, and that member has never called or written me a letter to complain about the garbage incinerator in his constituency. I can tell you very honestly, Mr. Member, that if you had complained I would have checked it out.

From my understanding, if it's the type of incinerator you're talking about with biomedical wastes, it would not be the proper thing to do. I will have my people check it out right away. You stated that there's biomedical waste being burned there. I'll find out about that. But that has nothing to do with this bill. Garbage recycling is not considered hazardous waste, but burning hospital waste is.

I can assure you that when we look at this there will be proposal calls, and they will be companies that qualify We've said before -this morning when you weren't here - that this whole process would be a very public process. You will have ample opportunity to get up and ask questions about who the companies are and if they're friends and insiders.

MR. WILLIAMS : I think It's important in terms of the openness process. We have to take the minister's word on that one, and we'll hope that Indeed is the case.

In the case of the example I used, it's in the port of Vancouver and not under your jurisdiction. It's floating on the port, and that's federal jurisdiction. They claim to accept GVRD regulations, but that's the GVRD too, and the GVRD has its own staff that handle these activities In that area. But clearly it's a classic example of an undercapitalized facility just In the business and wanting to make a buck; nobody can fault them for that.

But there they are, and the port needs it because of Agriculture Canada regulations in terms of waste from ships in the harbour. The city is busy trying to change the rules so that the material can be moved to South Burnaby. That's the better answer because the GVRD has a facility that Is more or less state of the art. That will be the better answer.

But you're going to get these small operators who are undercapitalized, doing an Inadequate job and being dangerous. You Put that together with the monopoly power that it represents and with the lending power of the Crown, and you have all the elements of danger. It has to be a super-open operation in order to avoid pitfalls, even with the best will in the world.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : I have just one comment, Mr. Chairman. If that facility is in the port, as the member says, he's right: it's not our jurisdiction. But I can tell you that the air is. Maybe there's a way we should look at that.

It hasn't been brought to my attention before, but if the federal government is doing something.... I know I've intervened when they were going to do it up in the interior, and we got it stopped through another federal ministry.

But if it's polluting the air, and it smells like he says it does, that's our problem. Maybe we can get them to stop. I can assure the member today that somebody will be looking into it, and I'll get back to him as soon as I can.

Section 5 approved.

section 6.

MR. CASHORE : Mr. Chairman, I just want to reference it. In

section 6 it states that the board will meet at least four times a year. I would reference that with regard to a comment I'm going to make in a little while on

section 8. Mr. Chairman, if you wish to go ahead with sections 6 and 7 now, I'd like to speak again on

section 8.

[3:15]

Sections 6 and 7 approved.

section 8.

MR. CASHORE : Mr. Chairman, here we have this board that meets at least four times a year, and the Lieutenant-Governor can decide on reasonable traveling and incidental expenses. He can also decide on remuneration at fixed rates. Again, this is going to be a cost factor for this process. It's understandable that there would be an appropriate payment for this type of service. However, it raises again the whole question of where the priorities are.

Here we have funding that's in place for the people the minister wishes to appoint to the board. We have no idea how much work they're going to do or what their particular qualifications are going to be. We assume that it is not going to be that independent a process of deciding how these people are appointed, but it highlights the sin of omission by the lack of anything entrenched in the bill for public process.

In this particular case, it makes it very clear that this government doesn't uphold the principle of intervener funding. Surely if there's going to be remuneration for the people on the board, why would there not be, either in this

section or somewhere within the bill, the recognition that... ? Since the minister says, "trust me; there will be a public process that will be thorough, " why doesn't the minister go a step further and assure that there will be intervener funding?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : There's a very simple reason for that, Mr. Chairman. That's not the policy of this government.

MR. CASHORE : Mr. Chairman, the minister said the answer's simple; it's not the policy of this government. It's regrettable that it's not the policy of this government, but I appreciate the minister's candour.

But surely, if the minister is going to be consistent with the commitment that he made this morning that the public process will be a meaningful process, and

[ Page

10335 ]

that it will be in place and adequate.... What recourse does the public have when it does not have the same type of resource as the minister is making available to the board-granted it cannot be done willy-nilly- that would grant appropriate, legitimate public interest groups the funding necessary to perform the public service needed in researching and making the case that they would want to bring before the board in the public process that the minister has referred to? Why would he deny that to the public?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : The member makes the point himself. He says that you couldn't do this willy-nilly. Where do you make the breakdown?

I would advise him that groups such as Greenpeace raised $125 million last year to fund their causes. Most environmental groups are very well funded through tax-deductible donations. If you're saying that if there's a hall full of 500 people they should all get a per them to be there, that's not the.... The board of directors is working extra hours putting programs together and making decisions. Those people appearing through most of these hearings are funded by environmental groups who are funded one way or another, and the average citizen who wants to be concerned about it can come to the meeting. I think that's quite adequate.

MR. CASHORE : That's absolutely incorrect. The minister and the ministry have the resources to set up a process, to set guidelines, to set up a system whereby a decision would be made with regard to what would constitute a legitimate intervener group -for instance, an organization such as West Coast Environmental Law, or where there may be a regional problem that results in a coalition of concerned citizens coming together.

The government has the ability to set the guidelines, to set the standards and to set the amounts. Nobody is saying that it should be paying people a per diem, but to enable the research to be done that can deal with the other side of the question, the other side of the coin.... In the name of fairness and balance and the public interest, why would the minister not use the resources of government to set up a process whereby that can happen? It happens elsewhere; why can't it happen here?

HON. MR. BRUMMET : I was reading the objectives of the corporation in an earlier section, and I did not get the impression that this was to be an adversarial situation. This corporation was formed to deal with hazardous wastes and to find ways to do it. The member for Coquitlam apparently feels that there have to be objectors, adversaries, and that the adversaries should be funded, rather than by the process of openness to the board that's made available to them.

If intervener funding is built in, what constitutes an intervener? Everyone

who chooses to disagree? Everyone who feels that nothing should be done? Having

been through the process some years ago when we had established a site for hazardous

waste disposal.... When the process had been established, some objectors - and

certainly the NDP sided with them -said: "But you can't put it there."

A federal process, a provincial process, a technical process had determined

the best possible site for final disposition as well as for neutralization,

for reduction, close to the source. I guess those people who opposed it at that

time felt that because it was only 99.99 percent sure, it would be better not

to do anything, that the best thing to do would be to let it all stay where

it is now -store it, or let people dump it into the environment rather than

deal with it.

I would gather that what the member is saying is that he wants funding for the people who will try to stop the board from dealing with hazardous wastes. I find that somewhat strange from a group that claims to want to deal with hazardous wastes. They have to be dealt with, and here we have that member saying to the minister: "You'd better give some funding to the groups who want to stop you from doing anything about handling hazardous wastes."

MR. CASHORE : We've been spending a lot of time this morning trying to educate the Minister of Environment, but I realize now that we need the Minister of Environment to educate the minister of defence, because obviously the minister of defence hasn't been listening to the debate and he hasn't heard what the Minister of the Environment said in the House this morning in response to our concern that nowhere in this bill is entrenched the right of the public to participate prior to these kinds of decisions being made.

Listen carefully. Just before we adjourned at 12 o'clock, the minister gave me his word that there would be no development taking place in the terms of any type of technological hazardous waste facility prior to adequate, appropriate and full consultation with the public. The minister has gone on record as affirming the public process.

HON. MR. BRUMMET : So am I.

MR. CASHORE : just for Hansard, the minister of defence said: "So am I." But then people reading Hansard will want to read what the minister said a paragraph or so earlier where he was raising this consternation about not wanting to inflict a voice of opposition upon the board because it's the task of the board, so he says, to set up a facility to get rid of the hazardous waste. The minister of defence can't have it both ways. The fact is, Mr. Chairman, that the Minister of Environment is willing to at least pay lip-service to the need for appropriate public participation.

He recognizes the principle, or at least he recognizes the politics of the principle. We're trying to just move him a little step further to enable those people who would come in the role of intervener to fulfil the public service that they do fulfil by being able to do the appropriate research.

Mr. Chairman, I would point out that in the references that we have heard from the minister to Greenpeace and to other organizations involved in

[ Page 10336 ]

the environmental movement.... Yes, there's no question that these organizations are becoming more and more supported by the public, more and more contributions are being made. But the fact is, if you were to put up their financial resource against that of the waste management industry in North America, it would be a pittance. If you were to compare it, it would be a pea compared to a basketball. It Is simply no comparison. The fact is that the corporate sector, especially in the area of waste management, has a tremendous amount of money to put into advertising and promotion of their perspective.

There is nothing wrong with that, Mr. Chairman, but what is wrong is when there isn't some assistance to enable the public to put its view forward. Therefore it would be most appropriate for this minister to provide for intervener funding, to show that what he said this morning he really means and would enable.

The question was raised by the minister of defence: "Are you going to give it to everybody that comes along?" The answer is no.

HON. MR. BRUMMET : On a point of order, if that member is going to refer to members in this House, he might do so accurately rather than sarcastically.

MR. CHAIRMAN : I had suspected he was speaking of someone who wasn't even here.

MR. CASHORE : Mr. Chairman, we're getting into a matter of metaphysics and philosophy, and maybe even a little bit of psychology. Anyway, we'll come back to this bill.

The Minister of Education said: "Are you going to give this funding to everybody willy-nilly?" Of course not. We're asking the Minister of Environment to set up an appropriate process whereby that ministry would ascertain who would receive funding whereby an appropriate amount would be put into that funding pool and whereby there would be guidelines that would enable people to carry out that process.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN : The second member for Victoria.

MR. BLENCOE : Would the member for Yale-Lillooet (Mr. Rabbitt) wish to get in the debate?

MR. RABBITT : On a point of clarification, Mr Chairman, I listened to the opposition critic debating a point that was not in the bill. I thought we were to be debating points that are within the bill.

Section 8 Is talking about who is being paid, not who is not being paid.

MR. CHAIRMAN : We thank the hon. member.

MR. BLENCOE : Mr. Chairman, I'm glad the minister of defence is still with us in the corner. I am sure the Minister of Environment is not quite so sure he is pleased that the minister of defence Is with us.

[3:30]

We were talking about the public process, and the minister is basically saying "trust us." He keeps saying that the public is going to be involved in some form. We are talking about board remuneration responsibilities here, and my good colleague has talked about - I think quite correctly - interveners and their lack of support in terms of being able to participate In this Crown corporation.

Can the minister define where the public process is in this legislation? Where is the public guaranteed both accountability and a process? Or were you going to refer it to Public Accounts maybe? Where is the process? Show us that it's more than just "trust me." When we've had that line before in environmental and other issues in the province, I'm afraid the people have been somewhat disappointed.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : We all have a duty to be here during debate on a bill. This morning we debated this question under the proper section; we debated it and debated it. I don't feel it's proper for the House to start debating something under

section 8 that we debated under sections 3 and 4. 1 would suggest to the hon. member that if he wants answers on public participation, he should go back and read the Blues from this morning.

Sections 8 and 9 approved.

section 10.

MR. CASHORE :

Section 10 refers to fees for service: "The corporation may charge such fees for its services at it considers necessary to achieve the objectives...." It would seem to me that this

section again points up the differences in ideology, because the way I read it it's really consumer-pay rather than polluter-pay. That principle is ensconced in this section. It refers to the fees for services being charged, and I assume that those would be fees to consumers who make use of whatever services come out of this process.

It seems that this government has a penchant for providing grants to corporations. Taxpayers' money goes to corporations that are already very rich and powerful, and that are very intent on being able to cream the waste management profitability. As an example, just look at the money the soft-drink industry is willing to put into trying to get the government to abandon the litter deposit system.

Companies are involved that would fit into the context of the bill and this

section and that would be in keeping with the kinds of facilities and processes the minister has referred to. But the fact is that it appears in this

section that the principle is very much that of the consumer paying, not the polluter paying. Perhaps the minister could comment on that.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : All this does is allow the corporation to collect fees. If somebody is using a

[ Page

10337 ]

facility, it allows them to collect a fee. If the member goes to

section 20, which we will get to eventually, he will see that those fees also go into the sustainable environment fund, not into general revenue.

MR. CASHORE : I think we can now go all the way to voting on

section 15.

Sections 10 to 15 inclusive approved.

section 16.

MR. CASHORE : I would assume from the way it is worded that this

section ensures that the public will be provided with the most rudimentary information regarding the operations of the Crown corporation. This

section muzzles people who may have information that would be in the public interest. This is a muzzling section, and I am very offended by it. We would assume that the minister would appoint directors, officers and, through a process, employees who would be considered to be part of developing environmental solutions, not people they might want to shut up at some time.

What would be the kind of information that these people would be expected to hide? Or why would you want to muzzle these people? Would we not be expecting in good faith that the people coming into this process - if they had information of some nature that reflected a danger to the environment - would be doing the appropriate thing by making that concern known? Given the way this is worded, Mr Chairman, I'm sorry but this seems to be a very ominous

section of the act.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : Mr. Chairman, this is just a standard clause that most directors and corporations.... In fact, I would suggest maybe you don't need It in the church because you've only got one boss, and you can talk to him directly. But I think if you talked to the first member for Vancouver East (Mr.

Williams), who's a director of a major, very successful trust company, and the finance critic about the confidentiality of proprietary business information, they could explain why that clause is in this bill It's not meant to keep anything from the public, but certainly the directors of a corporation meeting somebody else in a confidential manner have certain things they must keep confidential. But in no way is it meant to keep back any information that the public should know.

MR. BLENCOE : I am wondering if you could clarify what is intended in

this

section - the kind of things you expect to be confidential. As you know,

Mr. Chairman, the kind of information that this corporation will be dealing

with may very well be sensitive in ways other than just being confidential to

the companies. It may be politically sensitive, and one of our concerns obviously

is the right of the public to know some of these politically sensitive issues.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : I can assure the member that that's not the reason. If you look at the board of directors meeting with other people who might have new technology that they want to share with the board of directors.... There might be competitive reasons for this information not to get out and many companies, when they come... I know I have, even as a minister, companies that come to see me and want us to sign a non-disclosure clause to show us information. If we want to see it, we have to sign it. That happens in business all the time, and that's why that clause is there.

MS. EDWARDS : Then I would gather that the minister could assure us that this clause would not be in contradiction to, for example,

section 3 (2) (a), where one of the functions of the corporation is to protect the health and safety of the public and enhance the quality of the environment, or

section 3 (2) (e), where the object is to promote public understanding and participation -that if an employee or director, officer, or employee of the corporation disclosed information with that goal in mind, it would not contradict what the legislation says.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : The clauses do not contradict themselves.

Sections 16 and 17 approved.

section 18.

MS. CULL : Earlier today I asked about the question of liability once the corporation ceases to exist, and the minister said that we'd get to that answer when we got to this section. And here we are. I find it's a very interesting

section in the bill because what it says is that in five years time -in 1995 -when this Crown corporation ceases to exist, the assets and liabilities of the Crown corporation go back to the government. In other words, anything that was started, operated or maintained - any agreements and presumably any toxic wastes in storage that the private companies don't want to assume liability for -goes back to the government.

It seems that what we have here is a little five-year vacation, where the whole question of hazardous waste is hived off first of all to the Crown corporation and then - hopefully, I guess, from the government's point of view - to the private companies, and anything that isn't done in that five years then comes back home.

I think what we've got here is exactly the same situation that we had with the last bill on environment that we were discussing, Bill 16. This bill is being created so that the minister can point to action on hazardous waste and make a lot of fanfare, PR and fuss about creating a hazardous waste corporation to deal with the issue, when it could have been done through the Ministry of Environment, through staff that already exists, through a public agency - as has been asked for by almost all people who have been taking an interest in this subject. The truth of it is that in five years' time it's going to come back home in any event.

[ Page 10338 ]

So once again it seems that what we have here Is a piece of legislation that is PR for the environment. It's not good for the environment, but it's good public relations for the Social Credit government. It's going to allow the minister, when someone comes to him and says, "Why aren't the toxic waste depots open?" or "Why is this problem coming up in my community?" or "Why are we having a fight over this facility?" to say: "Don't talk to me. Go see Mr. Carr over here.

The toxic waste corporation is going to look after these things, and that's where the problem is." In the meantime, he can hold up his bill and hold up his corporation and say that all kinds of things are happening in this province.

I just don't see, with this section, why all of these functions that we're

talking about, all of this activity, could not have been done under a public

corporation, with full public accountability. I know you're going to say

that a Crown corporation Is a public corporation, but this is only a shell that's

being set up for five years so that the money and the activities can be given

to the private sector, and then there's going to be nothing left. It seems

to me that all we're doing, again, is creating PR for the environment and

not action.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : It would be inappropriate for the ministry to undertake the achievement of the corporation's objectives, because the ministry's job is to set tough standards and make sure they're enforced. The corporation will be out in the marketplace, actively contributing to the solution of our hazardous waste problems -and carefully monitored by the ministry. If the ministry undertook these activities, It would be placed in the position of regulating Itself.

I refer the member to this section, because in the unlikely event that there's a need for the corporation's programs to be carried on, the sunset provision provides an opportunity for the government, the public and the opposition to revisit this legislation -a process which I'm sure hon. members couldn't disagree with.

MS. CULL : It seems to me that if it's inappropriate for the government to be undertaking these activities now, It will be equally inappropriate in five years' time, when they all come home to roost. The fact is that in the five years that you have set for this corporation to do the activities that it has, it has very little likelihood of being able to accomplish all that you've set out, particularly if you follow through on your commitments earlier today for a full public consultation process.

As you pointed out full well earlier in this debate, in other jurisdictions it has taken an awfully long time for that process to work through the community. If the Minister of Environment believes that it can be fast-tracked in some fashion and shoved down the throats of the people who live In this province, then I think we're going to be into one big fight. That's exactly what consultation in the first place would have avoided. That's probably where we're going to be; either that or we're going to be into another lengthy process.

I think that five years is too short to carry out all these objectives. It doesn't deal with the fact.... I don't know how some of the objectives can be carried out at all, in terms of promoting public understanding and education. We are educated for five years, and then we need no more? We encourage technology . . . ?

I'm getting onto

section 19, so I'll curtail my remarks right now, because I'd like to talk about that next.

[3:45]

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : Mr. Chairman, it's unfortunate that the member for Oak Bay thinks that this corporation is very unlikely to succeed. I can tell her that we've learned an awful lot from the other jurisdictions. That's why we have someone here with the qualifications of Mr. Carr, who's going to run that corporation.

I would again read into the record, for that member, the statement made by the member for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy): "This spring all MLAs must pursue this issue until a site Is picked and a safe facility is built. As with all things environmental, action on toxic waste disposal is too important to be delayed by partisan politics." There will be a process. It will be done. There will be public input. And the corporation will succeed.

MS. SMALLWOOD : As far as I can tell, this is the only

section that deals with liability~ Even though it's a transitional clause, I'd like a little bit more clarification, because nowhere in this bill can I see anything that would challenge what seems to be an assumption by the government: that as soon as hazardous waste is accepted by this corporation and this facility, they are then liable for any problems that may occur with that hazardous waste. Perhaps you can clarify that.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : The corporation is governed by the regulations of the ministry.

MS. SMALLWOOD : Can I assume that the answer is yes, the corporation is liable?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : Yes.

MS. SMALLWOOD : That differs considerably from legislation that I know to be in place in the United States, where they look for what they refer to as a deep pocket. One of the things they do with hazardous waste in the States is that they spread that liability as broadly as possible -the generators, the transporters and the disposal facility - so that the public can be assured that should there be a problem with the disposal or storage of the hazardous waste, there is someone there to deal with it and money to clean it up. Someone is responsible. This government seems to have chosen to put that on the back of taxpayers, and it's accentuated by this transition. The

[ Page

10339 ]

minister is shaking his head. I'd be happy to have that clarified.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : Mr. Chairman, the same process in the United States that the member was just talking about is the process in place here.

MS. SMALLWOOD : Yet with this particular clause -the only one in this bill that refers to liability -the minister has just said that once the hazardous waste is accepted by the facility, the facility is responsible. If there should be a transition, if the facility should run into problems, if it is not economical, then the taxpayer takes over the responsibility and the liability of any cleanup. When you're dealing with hazardous waste, the costs can be significant, and that is a gross understatement.

I'd like the minister again to clarify. A year or two ago we debated the waste management legislation and looked at how it dealt with hazardous wastes and their disposal. As the critic responsible at that time, I advised caucus to vote against the bill, because it did not protect the public. There were some serious problems with the level of protection. In some ways the legislation was actually a permit to pollute for a hazardous waste facility. Now the minister is saying through this

section that it will be the taxpayers' responsibility, should there be a problem or should the facility fail.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : Mr. Chairman, I think where the member is mistaken is that the corporation will charge a fee for disposal. Worked into that fee is the cost of the liability. For instance, the Swan Hills project -members may want to go and visit this very worthwhile project. If so, I'm sure I could make arrangements. Before material Is shipped to them, it's tested at their test sites in various areas of Alberta. Before they accept something for disposal, they know they can reject it, and they do reject certain things that they will not touch at that disposal site.

This corporation will be looking at all those things. But the fees charged the corporation for disposal of their product are built in so that the liability on what's happening in that plant is covered.

MS. SMALLWOOD : The fee

schedule is set by the corporation, I assume. Keeping in mind that this government is committed to private firms operating the disposal facilities and that the market is therefore dictating the fee

schedule being set to encourage the disposal and make it profitable for the company accepting the material, there still is a matter, first of all, of whether the fee is adequate to cover the liability.

Then there is the timing at which a problem may or may not occur and whether there is money in the fund to indeed cover the liability that may be felt by a community where the facility is situated.

When we're looking at the storage of hazardous waste and the potential

for contamination of groundwater and other things, it's very hard for

me to comprehend that a fee

schedule could even begin to address the problems

of a spill or of the leaching of hazardous waste into groundwater. I would like

the minister to explain the

schedule and perhaps supply some numbers as to when

such a facility would have a sizeable amount of money on hand to be able to

deal with that liability successfully, to assure the public that we are not

going to be saddled with a massive cleanup bill.

As an example, I would refer the minister to the situation with the Expo lands and the amount of money that it's going to cost to clean that facility. Look at any number of hazardous waste storage or disposal facilities in the States where they have been left with a legacy of contaminated land. I only have to point to the Love Canal as an example of past problems in Canada here. The issue of liability around hazardous waste, I think, is the centre, the core, the issue that we need to deal with here, and I'm quite disappointed.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : Mr. Chairman, I don't know why the member would be disappointed, because this corporation is going to solve the problem she's concerned about. The past problems of things like the Expo site and the Love Canal - you could go on and on -are problems from years ago when we didn't even know some of these things were problems.

This corporation will do what we quite often do as government now when we're dealing with major projects: make sure the companies can put up bonds and make sure they're financially responsible., We also have legislation in effect, and as you know, the federal government has orphan-site legislation in effect to assist various provinces across Canada in cleaning up some of the problems of the past.

We'll have a board of directors for this corporation who -as I said when the member wasn't in the House -are very competent, have experience at the municipal levels and will help us make decisions to make sure that some of the concerns the member has just will not happen.

MS. SMALLWOOD : Competence of the board is not particularly an issue here. The issue is whether or not the public is protected, not only by regulations governing the facility but by ensuring that the public is not eventually held liable for any problems. The reality -and one of the reasons that we have been very vocal on issues of hazardous waste -is that in our belief the very best way of dealing with it is to reduce it at the source, not to make it profitable to dispose of it. Because the government has chosen to use this model-a technological fix, a way for a private corporation to show a profit -increasingly the issue becomes liability to the taxpayers.

The minister has still not assured this House that in five years the taxpayers of British Columbia, once the technology has developed to the point where we have gotten all the bugs out, will not be saddled with a massive cleanup bill at those particular facilities. Without doing that and without ensuring that the people who are making profit over the disposal and trying to dispose of the toxic material have some kind

[ Page 10340 ]

of long-term liability and responsibility for their actions and their materials, it seems to me that it's a fairly irresponsible action on the government's part. It Is saddling future generations with that cost.

MR. CASHORE : Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that I share the concern expressed by the member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley (Ms. Smallwood). I think

section 18 is quite ominous. It leaves the taxpayer holding the bag. It means that there is the potential for these companies.... We don't know what companies they are. But we do know that this Crown corporation is really set up as a conduit, a process whereby the private sector will end up running some kinds of companies. Five years will go by, the costs will have been incurred, to a great extent by the public, and then when the operation Is up and running and presumably becoming profitable, at that point the public is left with the remaining debt.

This does not deal with what happens to companies that do not fulfil their obligations. It doesn't deal with the potential bankruptcy of companies and the potential debt of companies. What controls are there to make sure that these companies aren't running up debt all over the place that the taxpayers of British Columbia will be left with after this? Mr. Chairman, this is another example of the ominous nature of this bill. It is open-ended and allows wide-ranging opportunity for those who stand to make a tremendous profit. But when it comes to dealing with who would pay the cost, that is left for the taxpayer.

I just want to say that I think the member for Surrey-Guildford Whalley is right on In the points she made.

MR. BLENCOE : Mr. Chairman, I wasn't here this morning, but one of the concerns we have on this side of the House is what might happen to this corporation, because we see in the next

section that the act is to be repealed on September 1, 1995.

[4:00]

Is it the intention of the minister to sell this corporation after we have spent I don't know how much? Maybe the minister can clarify that on

section 20 when we get to it. How much of the sustainable environment fund is going into this corporation? So public money is setting this up and putting it together, the private sector is obviously going to benefit enormously - we're going to see that as we go along - and then we turn around and sell this entity to the private sector. What worries me is that the assets will be sold, but the liabilities will be retained by the government.

MR. CLARK : Social Credit economics.

MR. BLENCOE : My colleague, the finance critic, says it's Social Credit economics. Well, I think he's correct. It's the sort of thing we've seen in many right-wing governments; they sell profitable public assets. The public sector keeps the ones that don't do well and also keeps the liabilities.

The more I look at this legislation, what could happen with this really worries me and scares me, quite frankly. The minister is saying: "Trust me, trust me, trust me." But he's going to have the private sector running it, organizing it and setting up private sector facilities. Now we see that the government is going to retain the liabilities, and the assets could very well be sold off after we put in substantial infrastructure from the public sector.

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

I think this bill - the more we look at it - has bigger rats than we thought a few days ago. I am wondering if the minister could comment. Is it intended that you will sell this off, and that the taxpayers will retain the liability, but will lose out on the asset, yet will be putting a lot of public infrastructure and support into it?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : Mr. Chairman, the major beneficiary of this whole corporation will be the people of British Columbia. We could go on and talk.... This morning we answered a lot of the questions and concerns the member is raising now.

He talks about right-wing governments. Well, the government of New Zealand is certainly not a rightwing government; it's privatizing a lot of operations.

This corporation - if it does its job - will have a sunset clause, as I mentioned earlier. I would think that the members on the other side would be very pleased with that because in five years, if we're wrong and the corporation still has to be maintained for a while, we will have to bring it back for legislation. At that time you will get the opportunity to have this whole debate again.

I don't have the same feelings as members on the other side towards that issue, obviously. If I was a betting man, I would rather bet on my side than on their side. I probably will bet on it, too. As the member knows, unfortunately one of the aspects of this job is you don't get to invest in the stock market when you're in this position, and I don't. That is unfortunate because we have a good stock market in this province and in this country. But that's not in this bill.

I would suggest to the member that if this doesn't work out, we'll be back here in five years, and we'll be on this side - one of us anyway, and certainly everyone who is here is going to be around -and we'll be happy to tell you why the corporation is so successful. But it won't be as successful as we think if we have to come back here in five years, and I am fully not expecting to be here discussing this matter in five years' time.

Section 18 approved.

section 19.

MR. CASHORE : This is the grandfather clause, so we can't let this pass without comment. Okay, the act

[ Page

10341 ]

is repealed on September 1, 1995. So that means -according to this government - that within five years, all 400, 000 tonnes of hazardous waste currently in storage throughout the province, plus the 100, 000 tonnes of hazardous waste generated annually, will either be eliminated or become the private sector's problem, and all will be well. It will be possible to shut down anything further, because by that time we will have achieved some sort of new reality~ It might be the divine convergence-who knows? It might be some new era.

But we know that that's not likely to be the case. If the government makes the argument that there's a need for some kind of hazardous waste utility, it does so knowing that there's another option: setting up an agency that would deal with all aspects of waste from cradle to grave, from recycling to what you do to with the rest - a totally coordinated, comprehensive and appropriate program that upholds the principles of public consultation and enlists all of the people of British Columbia in resolving the problem so that we don't end up unfairly enabling the process to be creamed by the very rich, leaving the taxpayer to pay for the remainder.

It's not very likely, given the priorities laid out in the objectives of the bill, that by the time five years have gone by the 20 members of this corporation will have done much more than line up a few companies, provide them with some taxpayers' low-interest loans and get them off and running. I doubt very much that during that time a really significant public education program will have been accomplished. I doubt very much, even with the companies they'll be working with, that the kind of education that's needed will have been fulfilled.

What happens in the sixth year? The minister says: "Well, then we'll crank it up and start it all over again." If the minister really meant that, Mr. Chairman, he wouldn't have grandfathered it in the first place. He knows he has the ability to do that at any time - if he happens to be where he is now, which he won't be, so it's a bit academic.

Interjection.

MR. CASHORE : The second member for Richmond (Mr. Loenen) is concerned about what we're saying over here, and he should be. Maybe they'll end up locating a toxic facility somewhere in Richmond. We'll just have to wait and see.

Section 19 approved.

section 20.

MR. CLARK : I wonder if the minister could give some indication as to

how much is anticipated to be drawn from the sustainable environment fund for

the purposes of start-up costs and what the likely costs are anticipated to

be over, say, the life of the corporation.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : If the member would ask me that in estimates - we're getting into them shortly - it's a proper question there, but it's not under the legislation.

MR. CLARK : The legislation authorizes the drawing of money from the sustainable environment fund for the purposes of this corporation. It seems to me appropriate to ask what the magnitude of that withdrawal might be, or what's anticipated. I can appreciate that it may not be hard and fast yet at this early stage of the game, but I'm just looking at what the magnitude might be in the first year and subsequent years in terms of operating costs of the corporation.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : The business plan of the corporation hasn't been approved by the Legislature - it hasn't gone to cabinet - but I am sure that when my financial officials get here shortly I could probably get the numbers. If you want to ask me that right off the bat, I can probably come fairly close to what we're intending to spend until we can see the business plan.

MR. CLARK : Thank you; I'll do that. I wonder if the minister could just tell me whether it's anticipated that this - and I assume it is, given the sunset clause - will be a break-even proposition, so that the subsidy, if you will, from the sustainable environment fund will go down over time. Presumably five years from now it's projected to be at a break-even level. Is that correct?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : Even better-making money, we hope.

Sections 20 and 21 approved.

Title approved.

MR. CASHORE : Mr. Chairman, I just want to make the point that we will be voting on division in third reading.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved on division.

The House resumed; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

[4:15]

Bill 38, Hazardous Waste Management Corporation Act, read a third time and passed on -the following division:

[ Page 10342 ]

YEAS - 30

Brurnmet

Savage

Strachan

Gran

Reynolds

Jacobsen

Parker

Weisgerber

L. Hanson

Messmer

Michael

Reid

Vant

De Jong

Chalmers

Witch

S. Hagen

Couvelier

Fraser

J. Jansen

Johnston

Dueck

Pelton

Rabbitt

Loenen

Mowat

Bruce

Long

Mercier

Crandall

NAYS - 16

Gabelmann

Boone

Clark

Blencoe

Edwards

Cashore

Pullinger

Barlee

Guno

Smallwood

Lovick

Sihota

A. Hagen

Cull

Perry

Zirnhelt

HON. MR. STRACHAN : Mr. Speaker, I call Committee of Supply.

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. De Jong in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT

On vote 26: minister's office, $335, 500.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : I know it's traditional sometimes for ministers to stand up and make long speeches, but I always used to think when I sat in another spot that it was rather ridiculous when the other side was all ready to ask questions and get going. So please start.

MR. CASHORE : I've been trying to figure out the government strategy on having these two bills and the Environment estimates sort of wall to wall. I think it's a good Idea, because it means that we've canvassed some of the items in the last couple of days that we won't have to canvass as thoroughly as we go through the estimate portion now, although we will be getting into some of those areas.

Mr. Chairman, I have to leave in a very few minutes. Therefore some of my colleagues who are here in the House are prepared to carry on for the rest of the day. I'll be getting into most of my line of questioning and some of the items that I'd like to deal with when we reconvene on Monday. I understand that's when we're going to carry on.

I'd just like to mention at the outset some of the items that we expect to be canvassing during the time we're in estimates, in order to give the minister's staff some awareness of where we will be going over the next few hours of debate. Also individual members from the various ridings will bring some of their concerns.

First of all, I'd like to recognize that this is the first time that the

minister has been here to defend his estimates. I know it's traditional

to blame the minister for all the problems that have developed over the years

with regard to the environment, and I guess we won't be any different with

this minister. We'll blame him for all the problems of the past. In the

protocol of the House, we're blaming the position and not the individual.

I would like to say that I think the minister has done some things I would like to commend him for. As I said the other day, I appreciated him speaking at the meeting in the Fishermen's hall in January with regard to the people who have lost their livelihood in the crab and shrimp fishery in Howe Sound. I know that to be in those situations is very difficult. Yet he can only be admired for participating in such a volatile forum.

Since the minister came into his position, he has gone through a real learning experience. I think in doing so, he has realized that the public participation in environmental issues is for real. It's authentic; it's not fly-by-night. It's grounded in a great deal of concern and often in a tremendous amount of technical background and expertise.

It is true that sometimes we find that, in the area of tree-spikers and what-have-you, there are excesses in people who would call themselves environmentalists, and we all regret that.

But the minister had a baptism by fire early on in his ministry when he invited the press and others to come down to Howe Sound and eat crabs. He has made one or two other statements, which I won't go into now, that I think have been troublesome for him, and that have indicated a mind-set.

Yet I think the public, in putting forward its deep concerns about the environment, is making a very clear statement. Those of us who are in politics, regardless of what side of the House we happen to be on, know that we must pay attention to the voice of the people. That certainly was expressed in the principles that are stated within the Brundtland report -environmental writing, I might say, on the issue of environment and development - which makes it very clear that we cannot have an economy if we do not see the environment as being one and the same thing with the economy.

We're going to be canvassing themes in the area of waste management. We know that the opposition and the government have put forward their positions on waste management. Our opposition process has been a very proactive one.

Yes, we see our role in examining and critiquing what the government puts forward, but we have also been very diligent in putting our position out before the public, and we have been willing to stand by that position. That means that the minister has the same opportunity as we have to criticize publicly. Therefore that becomes part of the very healthy public dialogue.

We all have to recognize that as Canadians, we generate more waste per capita than the citizens of any other nation, that the costs in terms of wasted resources and the impact on our health and environment have been enormous and that most of the

[ Page

10343 ]

materials currently being disposed of as waste can be reused, recycled and composted.

To give you one example, I was referring yesterday to the Burnaby incinerator and going into some detail about the amount of solid waste that goes in and the kind of toxic ash that comes out. In a way, that's a kind of Pandora's box. That permit is still exceeded, and special permission has to be given by this ministry to allow that permit to be exceeded.

But we're talking about a process that might look to a techno fix as compared to a process that would, for instance, cause Union Carbide and other companies that produce alkaline batteries containing heavy metals, nickel, cadmium and what-have-you....

If we were to go into this in a way that required a deposit and required those companies to receive those materials back, we could actually, through a careful process and through regulation, place an onus on those companies that would make it economically worthwhile for them to develop the methodology to mine those heavy metals back out of those batteries, instead of them ending up in the Burnaby incinerator and causing the kind of Pandora's box and toxic waste problems that we have.

Mr. Chairman, you will remember that when the Burnaby incinerator first failed

to function, the technocrats looked around for something to blame. And they

found it; they blamed gypsum wallboard. Then they announced: "We've

solved that problem-L That's not happening anymore." But they were

still out of compliance. Then they found something else to blame. What was that

other thing to blame? It was the batteries that come in from the households

and so on and so forth.

We've seen the ideological belief of this government that the way you get at economic incentives to environmental improvement is to raise levies and taxes. Also, we pointed out the problem of sloppiness, and a bill is soon to become law that would mean you could even put a levy on a wheelchair or on pneumatic tires on a ten-speed bike, even though we've had assurances.

On the other hand, if we don't find ways to force the producers to develop a cradle-to-grave approach to dealing with these wastes, we're never going to resolve the problem. As long as we come up with solutions that are not really solutions in the long run, we're not going to resolve the problem there either.

The fact Is that this government has had the opportunity over a great many

years to start to address these problems. The record will show that this government

started to address the problems - and I mean started-after it became abundantly

clear that the majority of the people of Canada looked upon the environment

as the number one concern That's when something started to happen. We can

still point out the flaws in the way the government is going about it, but the

slow and tentative steps now being taken are brought about by the political

reality of public concern about the environment. Let that not be forgotten.

And let it not be forgotten that it was the Socred government which gutted the

Ministry of Environment by reducing staff levels by 30 percent as part of their

disastrously shortsighted and ideologically driven restraint program. Let it

be recognized that this year, when the government had an opportunity to increase

the budget to its line ministry, it increased it by 0.7 percent, which is a

net loss in dollars, thus increasing the difficult load for those people, while

setting up a slush fund - the sustainable development fund, a shell game.

We've canvassed that, but the fact is that this government, when it doesn't want to be at arm's length, lets its own cabinet be the process for giving out the funds which come from various sources -forestry, lotteries or whatever they may be. The cabinet gets to do that, but when it comes to somebody having to take the heat and do the government's dirty work, they set up a Crown corporation at arm's length to handle the very politically disastrous issue of hazardous waste.

[4:30]

Mr. Chairman, as we go through these estimates it will become apparent that this government has its priorities wrong, that philosophically and ideologically it's got it all mixed up, and it's awfully difficult for this government to turn that around.

It's interesting that in the debate a little while ago we were able to point out that there is some learning taking place, and indeed the Minister of Environment has a more appropriate world view than the Minister of Education. It's interesting that the Minister of Education has the world view he does when it comes to environmental issues.

Mr. Chairman, I will leave it at that, and we will revisit some of these issues on Monday, but I'll be reading the Blues to hear the minister's comments.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : First of all, I want to address a question that the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Clark) asked about the hazardous waste corporation: the estimate is $4.9 million the first year. As it goes along, every year the budget will be either up or down depending on how the corporation stands.

I have just a couple of comments on what the critic for the NDP said before he leaves, because I know he has to rush off.

The New Democrats - the socialists - are the only ones I know who can take a net gain and turn it Into a loss. I just don't know where he gets that figure. The facts of the matter are that the ministry is 22.3 percent over last year's budget, and that's a fairly substantial increase in times when the economy across Canada is slow.

I would suggest to him that the people of this province don't have the same feeling about the restraint program as some of the members of his party have, because they re-elected this government in '86; the restraint program started in '83 and has been very popular. The people out there that I talk to.... We can all have our political differences, but one of them that I find when I'm going around this province is that they appreciate that the percentage of money we pay for debt in this province is the lowest

[ Page 10344 ]

In Canada. That's appreciated by all the people of this province, with the good environment that we have.

I would also mention that quite often the critic on the other side talks about our staff and our enforcement activity. I would like to advise him and his party that in the past two months-April and May -we have laid 105 charges under the waste program. That compares with 18 charges in the same period last year-a 483 percent Increase. I hope those figures will start to excite them on the other side, to know that we are serious about what we're doing in this ministry, and that they will appreciate the job the staff is doing, which I think Is just tremendous.

The staff, just like me, will be happy when those charges are eliminated. I think once industry knows we are being tough, they tend to clean up a lot more quickly. The total fines were up 36 percent over the same period last year, from $50, 480 to $68, 785.

It proves that we are doing what we say we are doing. It's not a ministry that lacks spirit or lacks drive to keep the environment clean.

MS. EDWARDS : I look forward to questioning the minister on wildlife issues, which he knows is one of my particular interests. But before I get there, I want to ask him about a project in the city of Cranbrook.

This is a project to establish a voluntary program for the reduction of wood stove smoke emissions from residences. I think the minister is very well aware of the project. There are a number of things that the city of Cranbrook has asked the ministry to do, and there are things that the ministry has done in conjunction with the city. The program Is going to go ahead in the fall, but it is now an extremely... As one of the aldermen described It to me this morning, it has to go ahead in an extremely modest way, and it is a very rough and imperfect program because It involves predicting weather, an art that has not yet been established, despite the Old Farmer's Almanac.

The ministry has provided some machines and technical equipment which have been Installed in Cranbrook. The ministry has also worked with the city in order to help train staff and set it up so that readings of air quality can be taken and a scale that has been devised by someone in your ministry can be announced and translated for the public. The information can go out daily to the people of Cranbrook over the winter, which Is when we have a large number of air inversions, and of course it's the time when people are using their wood stoves.

The fact of the matter is that we still end up with some difficulties and some problems in establishing the program. One of the elements missing is air-quality standards for the province. The minister has written to the mayor of Cranbrook, saying that provincial interim air-quality guidelines for particulate matter less than ten microns should be completed by April 1, 1990. 1 am not aware that those have been put out. If they have been, I would be pleased to hear it. If not, perhaps the minister could give me some indication of when those guidelines will be issued and available so the city of Cranbrook can use them for this very laudable program that they are trying to put in place.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : We are developing, as the member says, a provincewide strategy on a number of smoke Issues. My staff advise me that we will be ready to go out to the public for Input by August.

MS. EDWARDS : I hope the minister can assure me that that is a more solid date. This date of April 1 was put forward in February. You know - several months and several months. I hope very much that those standards will be available by August and that they will be available in a way that will be helpful. The city needs them in order to go ahead with the program.

Another thing that the city needs is assistance. They've had some assistance with training staff and the media who will be working in the program, and they want to do a fairly good job of public education. In order to do that, I believe they have been promised by the ministry that there will be a generic brochure developed which could go out. I wonder if the minister could confirm that that's the case, and if he could enlarge on any other possible initiatives that the ministry will be taking which would be helpful in public education -in other words, education of the public in a broad general sense and also education of students in the schools - for these problems.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : I'm advised that the smoke management task force will have this material ready by the fall. I'm sure the member appreciates that in these cases we'd sometimes like to get things out a lot faster, but we do have a ministry that consults and talks to people and various groups, and you can't always have your meetings as quickly as you would like to.

MS. EDWARDS : Thank you, Mr. Minister. I understand that these things take a little time, and so on. I'm sure that the ministry and the minister himself would be very happy to see this program go ahead as a pilot, because it could work quite well. It could be adopted by other areas.

Our city, of course, has a very clear and obvious experience of air inversions. It has been very clear in the last several years, since so many people began to buy woodstoves, what problems can occur. It goes all the way from such things as letting the cat in in the morning, and you can barely stand to smell the cat for the smoke. Those are the kinds of ordinary, common things. But the health problems have been even more noticeable.

You might tell me if the ministry is doing the task - one that no one else can do - of establishing certification standards for woodstoves. There are certification standards that the federal government requires. They are not as stringent as those that are required in the United States. I've forgotten, but there is UL and various other letters.

If the province were to adopt some sort of standard, it could be very helpful In assuring that the

[ Page

10345 ]

woodstoves available for people who want to use wood as a fuel are the kind that help avoid air emissions, which can be so extremely unhealthy.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : I'm sure the member will appreciate that the air quality emission standards are part of our new initiative, which is $8 million in the sustainable environment.... It will be part of that initiative.

MS. EDWARDS : I believe the minister said "air quality standards, " and what I'm talking about is woodstove certification. Okay. So that's part of what the minister is talking about -quality standards for the stoves themselves.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : I'm advised they're working with Municipal Affairs and our ministry, and it would be the same timing: we'll be out in the fall with that.

MS. EDWARDS : That will answer some of the questions. I will be able to take some of those answers back to the community. That will be very good.

I have one very short question to ask the minister I hope it's short, and I hope the answer is positive Some of the people in my area have had some major problems. They have wanted to appeal decisions such as the location of a sewer line and that kind of thing. They are not -if I dare use the word; I don't know if it's parliamentary language - the sexy issues that allow large public hearings, but rather the quiet things that happen when sewer lines go through areas that you don't want them to.

They want information from the Minister of Environment and have been charged $1 a sheet for anything that they need out of the ministry. They not only have been charged that amount of money for things that they don't want to pay $1 a sheet for; they also have to travel to the ministry's office in Cranbrook. They don't live in Cranbrook, Mr. Minister; they live almost anywhere in the Elk Valley. This creates major difficulties for people who want to participate in the public process and have their say about some public work that's going through, and who have a legitimate right to that information. It creates a fairly significant problem for them.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : The policy itself is being looked at. As you know, it has been in for about three years, and it does cost an awful lot of money -not only for the paper and the machine but in staff time - to get this information. People are looking for individual things. We try to have a minimal charge I've asked staff to look at it to see how it's working out. But I think most taxpayers today, if they're looking for something, know there might be a little bit of a fee. I think all the taxpayers maybe shouldn't foot the bill for one special request from a taxpayer.

MS. EDWARDS : I might say that the staff in the office, in general, have

tried to be helpful with people like these. There are any number of people who

have talked to me about this issue. In general they have tried, and they are

overworked - let me put it that way. We consistently tell you that you have

gutted the ministry; we need more people. But it will probably never happen

that we will ever have enough. However, these people are very busy, and I recognize

their problem.

It also is a major problem for people who want to appeal a decision and who want to see what's going on in the ministry. It can be a problem not only of distance but of another fairly significant cost for them once they do get to the ministry's office. If there were some way that the ministry could provide certain very general public information without charge, I think that would be appropriate. The minister might be able to look a little more closely at it, because sometimes just certification -certificates and that kind of thing, that people should have a right to see - are now costing them money.

[4:45]

However, I will proceed to another issue. I am going to start talking about issues that relate to wildlife. The whole issue of wildlife is perhaps as important in the East Kootenay as it is anywhere. It's a major wildlife area. The resource is as diverse and valuable in the area as anywhere in the province.

As you're no doubt aware -and your ministry has put out a lot of the information that I use regularly when I point out the value of wildlife -it's not generally known that the estimated expenditure on wildlife-related activities in British Columbia in a single year amounts to $765 million, that in the East Kootenay alone there is $50 million of that, and that the net economic value of wildlife and wildlife-related activities is $448 million a year - that's in '89 dollars. That's a very valuable resource, Mr. Minister.

We know that people in the country are interested in wildlife, and various Canadian studies have indicated that 90 percent of Canadians are involved in wildlife-related activities. So it's not a matter of small importance. However, it is a matter of some considerable concern on various levels. I was absolutely delighted when the minister came into the area. The minister vows to end rancher-wildlife conflicts. I loved it, Mr. Minister. I've been in that area for 25 years, and the rancher-wildlife conflicts have gone on all that time, but if you can solve them, more power to you. Great!

The first issue is inventory. You told us during the debate on the sustainable environment fund that there would be 21 new staff hired in order to spend money on wildlife inventory throughout B.C. this year. You've been in the East Kootenay, and you know the extent and depth of concern about the wildlife. One of the major problems that became clear when we had the dispute over limited-entry hunting for bull moose in region 4 was that people did not trust the inventory. The inventory has been inadequate for years. I've been saying it ever since I was elected.

I've said it to every Minister of Environment and every other resource minister I get a chance to say it to. We've been asking for more inventory.

[ Page 10346 ]

You have now said that there will be wildlife inventory. I wonder if you could elaborate again and suggest how extensive this inventory is going to be, particularly In the East Kootenay. Presumably, whatever staff and whatever part of the budget is allocated to the East Kootenay will be partly for doing inventory of bull moose. But already we are in the dangerous situation of looking to possible shortages of availability for hunters of bull elk, and there are other species in the same situation. Could the minister please elaborate on what he sees happening in the East Kootenay?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : This year we'll be spending approximately $1.2 million across the whole province on inventory. I can't tell the member right now exactly how many people that's going to involve in her community - what parts are going to be inventoried - but we know we'll be doing inventories In those areas. Until the estimates are passed and our budget is passed.... Staff is working now on putting these programs together.

As you know, I have been to your area. I know the need for some inventory In that area this year. I have committed our ministry to do that. I can't tell you exactly whether that's one person, three people or half a person, or whether it's somebody hired on contract to go in and do It and give us the information; I can't give you an accurate figure right now.

MS. EDWARDS : The minister assured me yesterday that 21 people would be hired as permanent staff. Now, in talking about people who are contracting, I assume that would be above and beyond the 21.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : There are 21 FTEs in the ministry in addition to some possible contracts from the outside.

MS. EDWARDS : Can the minister also assure me that the inventory will go beyond a moose count? What are the plans? What species are involved?

There was considerable furor recently about the inventory of grizzly bears. I believe we have fairly good figures on grizzly in the East Kootenay, but we certainly have problems with limited-entry hunting; and we still have limited-entry hunting applied to goat, which is the classic case. I'm sure you heard about it. We don't want limited-entry on elk if we can help it. We frequently hear there are far too many elk in the area.

What species are involved? I'll star