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)

TUESDAY, JUNE 12, 1990

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

10245 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

An Act to Permit the Televising and Other Broadcasting of Legislative Proceedings

(Bill M220). Mr. Sihota introduction and first reading –– 10245

Fair Elections Practices Act (Bill M221). Mr. Sihota

Introduction and first reading –– 10245

An Act to Prohibit the Resale of Lottery Tickets. (Bill M222). Mr. Sihota

Introduction and first reading –– 10246

Tabling Documents –– 10246

Oral Questions

Travel expenses. Mr. Clark –– 10246

Challenger jet and government air logs. Mr. Rose –– 10247

Air-ambulance service. Mr. Perry 10247

Business development centres. Ms. Cull –– 10248

TV program production in B.C. Mr. Mowat –– 10248

Expo lands. Mr. Williams –– 10248

Vancouver Charter amendments. Mr. Perry –– 10249

Royal assent to bills –– 10249

Ministry of International Business and Immigration Act (Bill 37). Second reading.

(Hon. Mr. Veitch)

Hon. Mr. Veitch –– 10249

Mr. Gabelmann –– 10250

Hon. Mr. Veitch –– 10251

Sustainable Environment Fund Act (Bill 16). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. Reynolds) –– 10251

Mr. Cashore

Mr. Lovick

Mr. Miller

Mr. G. Janssen

Hon. Mr. Strachan

Mr. Perry

Ms. Edwards

The House met at 2:03 p.m.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

Everyone in the House has a little chocolate on their desk with the

number 50 on it, and that is in honour of the fiftieth birthday of our

Minister of Native Affairs (Hon. Mr. Weisgerber). He's also the member

for South Peace River. I'd like the House to wish him a happy fiftieth

birthday.

MR. MOWAT : Mr. Speaker, I'd like to

recognize two Members of the Legislative Assembly today. Last Friday

the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Reynolds) noted the proclamation

of National Access Awareness Week. Our second member for Okanagan South

(Mr. Chalmers) and our member for Mackenzie (Mr. Long) are spending a

day in a wheelchair, trying to perform their legislative duties, and I

commend them for that. The only word I've heard so far, mostly from

staff, is that today they're not standing around on the job. I want to

commend them for their efforts today.

MR. SERWA : On

behalf of my colleague the second member for Okanagan South (Mr.

Chalmers) and myself, I would like to have the Legislature welcome

approximately 60 grade 7 students from Raymer Elementary School in

Kelowna. They are accompanied by their teacher, Mrs. Ann Waldo, and

several parents. Would the House please make this group welcome.

MR. BARNES :

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr.

Harcourt) and myself, I would like to ask the House to join me in

making 50 students from Grandview Elementary welcome, along with their

teachers Miss M. Beedom and Ms. M. Fanning.

HON. MR. MICHAEL :

Mr. Speaker, visiting your precincts today are 40 students and several

parents and teachers from Hillcrest Elementary in Salmon Arm. Would the

House please give them a warm welcome.

HON. MR. SAVAGE :

Mr. Speaker, visiting with us today from Delta are Betty Baldo, Karen

Charters, Patricia Ludwinowski and Janet Snukowich. They were here

earlier today. They met with the Premier; they had lunch with the

Minister of Government Management Services (Hon. Mrs. Gran). I believe

they arrived by ferry. I would ask the House to give them a very warm

welcome.

MR. BRUCE : Mr. Speaker, in your gallery

today are two friends of mine from Cowichan-Malahat. I would ask the

House to make them welcome: Mrs. John Smith and Mrs. Pat Lines.

MR. MERCIER : Visiting the parliament buildings today is a group of grades

4 and 5 students from Armstrong Elementary School and their teacher, Mrs. Carol

Taylor — all from my Burnaby-Edmonds riding. Would the House make them welcome,

please.

MR. WILLIAMS : In the gallery today also is George Lawson, a longtime supporter in Vancouver East. I would ask the House to make him welcome.

Introduction of Bills

AN ACT TO PERMIT THE TELEVISING

AND OTHER BROADCASTING OF

LEGISLATIVE PROCEEDINGS

Mr. Sihota presented a bill intituled

An Act to Permit the Televising and Other Broadcasting of Legislative Proceedings.

MR. SIHOTA :

The purpose of this act is to open up the process of government by

ensuring greater public access to the work of the Legislative Assembly.

It enables all debates and proceedings of the assembly to be broadcast

on an ongoing basis by both television and radio.

It seeks

to implement the intent of the Nova Scotia decision that we learned of

last week, which held that it was a constitutional right for the

television industry to come into a chamber and broadcast the

proceedings therein. I am sure this bill will be embraced by the

government, and it will then, of course, give the Premier an

opportunity to fulfil his election promise of ensuring that there be

television broadcasts of the proceedings of the legislative chamber.

Bill

M220 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders

of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after

today.

FAIR ELECTIONS PRACTICES ACT

Mr. Sihota presented a bill intituled Fair Elections Practices Act.

MR. SIHOTA :

Mr. Speaker, this is

an act which expands the opportunity for all adult

British Columbians to ensure their democratic right to vote in

provincial elections, and this is done in two important ways.

Firstly,

it lowers the voting age in British Columbia to 18 years of age,

bringing it into line with the federal voting age. There is no reason

why young people in British Columbia should have a right to vote at the

federal level and be denied that same right at the provincial level. It

will attend to discrimination in that regard.

Secondly, it

provides the right of all qualified voters to cast ballots, in that

that right was taken away. It allows their names to be restored to the

voter list if they have been left off, and to swear an affidavit of

eligibility on election day.

Mr. Speaker, the removal of

the

section 80 provisions, as they're known, will disfranchise

literally thousands of British Columbians come election day,

[ Page 10246 ]

especially

in light of the fact that the current voter list was drafted almost two

years ago. Therefore, in order to ensure that all British Columbians

have an opportunity to vote for the candidate and the party of their

choice on election day, we are proposing this to address and remedy

that state of affairs.

Bill M221 introduced, read a first

time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading

at the next sitting of the House after today.

MR. SPEAKER : Do you have another piece of legislation?

MR. SIHOTA : That's right.

MR. SPEAKER :

It's normal courtesy for members of your caucus to advise the Chair in

advance, just to let you know that. All other members do.

MR. SIHOTA : Mr. Speaker, I apologize for that oversight. Just to let you know, it is the final bill that I intend to put forward today.

AN ACT TO PROHIBIT THE

RESALE OF LOTTERY TICKETS

Mr. Sihota presented a bill Intituled

An Act to Prohibit the Resale of Lottery Tickets.

MR. SIHOTA :

Mr. Speaker, this act makes the resale of lottery tickets an offence in

British Columbia and creates penalties for such illegal activities

commensurate with the prospective profits of such activity. It would

then allow for a state of affairs in British Columbia that would match

what has happened in other provinces in Canada and allow for the

implementation of the recommendations of the Interprovincial Lottery

Corporation.

Just this week I was talking to authorities in British Columbia who told me that they had recently witnessed....

Interjections.

MR. SIHOTA : To point out the remedy that this bill addresses, let me say that authorities pointed out to me this week that a group of....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

Point of order, Mr. Speaker. With all due respect to the Chair, the two

minutes allocated to a member when introducing a bill are to explain

the nature of the bill, not to editorialize.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please. The point of order is valid. The explanation of what is permitted during introduction

of bills is very clearly laid out in our standing orders. However, we'd

like to hear from the member, and then the Chair can decide afterwards.

MR. SIHOTA :

Mr. Speaker, I apologize in advance if I'm out of order, but I was

going to give an example of the situation that this bill seeks to

remedy.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER :

Order, please. You can't tell me you're going to do it, then do it and

expect me afterwards to say you can't do it. We're going to stop you at

that. I have to ask you to explain the principle of the bill and not

get into editorial comment or comments you've had with other people on

the side.

MR. SIHOTA : The purpose of this bill,

then, is to prohibit the type of activity that I referred to earlier,

to create penalties for that type of activity and to bring us into

conformity with recommendations elsewhere.

Bill M222

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the

day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

MR. SPEAKER :

Hon. members, before proceeding with the next order of business, I

would like to advise you first of all that the Chair is tabling the

annual report of the British Columbia Legislative Library.

Secondly,

His Honour will be here immediately following question period. As there

seems to be a rapid exodus from the chamber immediately following

question period, it might be nice if today, as a courtesy, the members

would stay until His Honour has assented to the various pieces of

legislation.

Oral Questions

TRAVEL EXPENSES

MR. CLARK :

A question to the Minister of Labour. Is there a policy with respect to

officials of the Workers' Compensation Board accepting free gifts or

services from suppliers to the board?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN :

I have no idea what the member is referring to, so I'll take the

question on notice and ask him to provide me with the information.

MR. CLARK :

A new question. In 1988 Jim Nielsen, chairman of the Workers'

Compensation Board, and his wife, Robert Taylor, general manager of

workers' compensation, and his wife, and Dr. Rigby, medical counsel to

the board, and his wife, travelled to Germany to visit Siemens Electric

facilities with a view to the board purchasing a Siemens MRI machine.

In light of what we know of other Siemens

[ Page

10247 ]

junkets, can the minister responsible inform or undertake to inform the House who paid for this trip?

[2:15]

HON. MR. JACOBSEN : As with the first question, I would have to take that question on notice.

MR. CLARK :

Perhaps the minister could, while he's undertaking research on the

other questions, confirm that after the trip but before the dismissal

of the three individuals, discussion took place between Siemens and the

WCB with a view to the purchase, untendered, of a Siemens MRI machine.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER :

There are a number of people, obviously, offering the Chair advice as

to whether the question is in order or not, but the Chair will actually

make that decision on behalf of members.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN : In answer to the question, I cannot confirm that at all.

CHALLENGER JET AND

GOVERNMENT AIR LOGS

MR. ROSE :

I have a question to the Minister of Government Management Services.

The minister has stated publicly that she will release all government

air traffic records as quickly as possible. Has the minister decided to

follow the established procedure and table these records in the

Legislature?

HON. MRS. GRAN : The logs will be made public very soon.

MR. ROSE : I really didn't ask that question, Mr. Speaker, but that's fine.

The minister is quoted in this month's B.C. Woman to Woman

magazine as saying: "I have to stay open and honest.... When I can't

remain open and honest, it will be time to leave." Mr. Speaker, the

facts of this case show that the minister was ordered to release this

information publicly only after a taxpayer blew the whistle on her

misuse of the government jet. Does the minister feel that in this

instance she has been open and honest, and does she now think it's time

to leave?

HON. MRS. GRAN : Yes, I have been open and honest. The trips I have taken on the government jet have been for government business.

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

MR. PERRY : A question to the Premier. I'm told that because the

government refuses to authorize overtime, there are no advanced life-support

paramedics available on the government air ambulance service on the morning

shift today and tomorrow or on the afternoon shifts this weekend. Can the Premier

explain why, in this emergency situation, essential air ambulance service is

being cut back at the same time as air ambulances are being used as a political

taxi service?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

I'm not familiar with the question raised by the member. However, I can

say that air ambulance is always a priority and will remain and must

remain at all times a priority. It's very much a priority.

I'm

pleased, too, to have this opportunity of complimenting the paramedics

in this province for the wonderful job they do. I am very proud of

their efforts; they carry out their functions extremely well. I'm very

pleased with the ambulance service and the service it provides to all

parts of the province. As a matter of fact, as I speak to my

colleagues, the first ministers from across the country, they are very

complimentary about the service in B.C. They are aware of it, and

certainly there is an envy elsewhere in the country for the excellent

service offered in our province.

MR. PERRY : Mr.

Speaker, supplementary. I'm sure all hon. members recall who

established the provincial ambulance service in this province. I find

the Premier's comments passing strange in view of the fact that this

government is prepared to spend thousands of dollars of taxpayers'

money to provide commuter services...

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please. I must ask for a question during question period.

MR. PERRY :

...but it refuses to spend the $300 per day to maintain the overtime

service for ambulance attendants. Can the Premier explain how the

government can find that money to use the air ambulance as a private

political taxi but can't find the dollars to staff the emergency

ambulance service?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Mr.

Speaker, I too use the government aircraft regularly, but certainly not

if it's required for ambulance service. When I do, it's to serve the

people of the province and to provide whatever is necessary to carry

out the democratic process in involving people throughout the whole of

the province. This is a very large province, and obviously we need to

be available as much to people in Prince George, Smithers and Fort St.

John as we are to people in Vancouver.

I understand the

member asking the question takes Helijet home every day at government

expense. That certainly isn't necessarily serving the people of the

province. So I suppose we could extend this. But I'm saying that when

the government's planes are made available, it's to serve the

commitment we have to the people of the province.

MR. PERRY :

Mr. Speaker, I began my question by pointing out that my information is

that the government ambulance is not staffed with an emergency

paramedic this morning, tomorrow and this weekend. Will the Premier

make a commitment to ensure

[ Page 10248 ]

that the public air ambulance will be staffed on a continual basis?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

Mr. Speaker, I'll make several commitments. First of all, I'll look

into the allegation or suggestion made. As far as I'm aware, the

government planes are certainly available for ambulance services first

and foremost.

Also, as you are aware, the minister

mentioned that the logs will be made available as quickly as possible.

Perhaps it's fair that we need to consider policy from time to time —

and perhaps not only as it applies to members on this side but also as

it applies to members on that side. I see that the Leader of the

Opposition is not in the House today. I wonder If he took a flight at

government expense to do politicking in some part of the province.

These issues ought to be considered.

BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT CENTRES

MS. CULL :

My question is to the Minister of Advanced Education. Last week I asked

the minister about the decision to close the Camosun business

development centre. He had difficulty justifying the decision, which

was to cut off funds as of May 30. After looking into the matter, I can

understand his difficulty. Has your ministry's review of the centre

confirmed that for an $80,000 provincial contribution last year, the

centre helped create 39 new businesses, injecting $1.5 million into the

local economy and employing 90 people?

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

We are doing an extensive review. One of the things I've found in the

review is that other community colleges are operating that excellent

program without government assistance and doing very well. So there are

some questions there. When the review is complete, I will make the

member aware of my findings and also of the total provincial picture

with respect to the enterprise centres.

TV PROGRAM PRODUCTION IN B.C.

MR. MOWAT :

My question is to the Minister of International Business and

Immigration. It has come to my attention that two television shows —

namely, "21 Jump Street" and "Booker" — have been cancelled. Both were

filmed in the Greater Vancouver Regional District and throughout

British Columbia. I wonder if the minister can tell us what impact the

cancellation will have on the television industry and production in

British Columbia.

HON. MR. VEITCH : It's a fact that

"Booker" and "21 Jump Street" have in fact been cancelled, but that has

had nothing whatsoever to do with the quality of workmanship, the

craftsmanship or indeed any of the production companies in British

Columbia. It's simply a matter of fact that the Fox corporation did

cancel those two serials.

I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker that, even without that, we are getting....

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please. Perhaps at another time we would have a ministerial statement on the issue, but not at the present time.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER :

Order, please. Questions designed to elicit long responses that are

vague and open-ended really fly in the face...and make the job of the

Speaker difficult. The question has been answered to the satisfaction

of the Chair. I ask the minister to take his place. If he wishes to

discuss this at another time, that would be appropriate.

EXPO LANDS

MR. WILLIAMS :

To the minister responsible for the Expo lands contract: are there

unresolved obligations of the province still being negotiated with

respect to the contract?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : I take the question as notice.

MR. WILLIAMS : Could the Minister of Environment advise the House whether he is responsible for negotiating with the McBarge people?

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

MR. WILLIAMS : Could the Premier advise the House who is responsible for handling the Expo contract?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

Mr. Speaker, quite rightly the Minister of Environment is responsible

for matters as they affect the environment. If the member has some

knowledge about an environmental problem relative to McBarge, that is

certainly a matter of concern to the minister. If, on the other hand,

it's a financial contract, he should properly address it to the

Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier). I thought perhaps the member

was aware of these things. He certainly should have been, because he's

had ample opportunity to talk about this particular issue for a good

while now. He should be aware of these things. He's wasting the time of

question period.

MR. SPEAKER : The Chair's having difficulty determining the urgency, but the Chair only follows the guidelines.

MR. WILLIAMS :

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Crown Lands (Hon. Mr. Parker) responded to

this very question some six weeks ago, and took it on notice as the

minister responsible. Would the minister have any comments today?

[ Page

10249 ]

MR. SPEAKER : The question is taken as notice.

VANCOUVER CHARTER AMENDMENTS

MR. PERRY :

Mr. Speaker, a very easy question for the Premier. The city of

Vancouver has frequently requested amendments to the Vancouver Charter

which would allow it to control the destruction of mature trees and to

mitigate the social impacts of redevelopment. Has the government

decided to support the reintroduction of the these amendments, which it

refused to pass during the last session?

MR. SPEAKER : That question is out of order. But the Premier....

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

As a horticulturist in past times, I'd like to talk about trees. I

think trees are a very necessary part of our environment, particularly

in a city environment, because obviously trees give off the oxygen

required in the air. Frankly, I'm a great proponent of saving trees. As

a matter of fact, much of my life has been spent encouraging the

planting of trees. I am sure that the member, who has practised

medicine, is similarly concerned about saving life and saving a tree.

I'm

impressed with the suggestions put forth. We'll certainly be

considering them, although I can't really talk about legislation.

[2:30]

MR. SPEAKER :

Hon. members, if it's agreed, we'll declare a short recess and ask

members to stay in their places until His Honour is here, and then

we'll deal with that.

Hon. members, I am informed that His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor is in the precincts and will shortly enter the chamber.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor entered the chamber and took his place in the chair.

CLERK-ASSISTANT :

Provincial Court Amendment Act, 1990

Crown Lands Statutes Amendment Act, 1990

Electrical Safety Amendment Act, 1990

Home Owner Grant Amendment Act, 1990

Income Tax Amendment Act, 1990

Budget Measures Implementation Act, 1990

Social Service Tax Amendment Act, 1990

Property Purchase Tax Amendment Act, 1990

First Peoples' Heritage, Language and Culture Act

Personal Property Security Amendment Act, 1990

Fuel Tax Validation Act

Financial Institutions Statutes Amendment Act, 1990

Taxation Statutes Amendment Act, 1990

CLERK OF THE HOUSE : In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor

doth thank Her Majesty's loyal subjects, accept their benevolence and assent

to these bills.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. RICHMOND : I call second reading of Bill 37, Mr. Speaker.

MINISTRY OF INTERNATIONAL

BUSINESS AND IMMIGRATION ACT

HON. MR. VEITCH :

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to move second reading of Bill 37,

Ministry of International Business and Immigration Act. In moving

second reading, I wish to describe to the House the provisions of the

bill and the environment within which the ministry operates.

All

provinces recognize the importance of maintaining and expanding their

economic relations with the international community. British Columbia

is unique in that we recognize the interrelationship between matters of

trade, investment and immigration.

Most members of the

House will recall that in July of 1988 the Ministry of International

Business and Immigration was formed by order-in-council. Since then the

ministry has been actively and aggressively carrying out its mandate

and responsibilities.

The purpose of the Ministry of

International Business and Immigration Act is to provide statutory

authority for the ministry to develop government policy and to

implement programs and matters relating to international business and

immigration. This encompasses areas of trade, investment and

immigration for British Columbia. The bill also repeals and replaces

the Agent General Act.

Export promotion is a key objective

of the Ministry of International Business and Immigration. External

trade, which accounts for over one-quarter of British Columbia's GDP is

essential to our continued prosperity. One in seven jobs in British

Columbia is dependent upon trade; about 27 percent of all our goods and

services are traded.

Together with the British Columbia

Trade Development Corporation, we have developed policies and programs

designed to promote and increase our exports. The result has been

significant.

Our increasingly diversified value-added

products and services are sold to progressively wider markets. For

example, major increases have been recorded in the sales of electronics

and telecommunications equipment to Japan. The Pacific Rim now rivals

the United States as British Columbia's chief export destination. The

growth of British Columbia's economy depends upon our capacity to

maintain and to strengthen the quality and range of products and

services we provide.

The Ministry of International Business

and Immigration, in conjunction with the Ministry of Regional and

Economic Development, is working hard to encourage investments in new

industries and regions of the province. Foreign investment contributes

to the strength of our economy; it generates greater

[ Page 10250 ]

economic

activity, opportunities for technology transfer and market access. It

thus contributes to greater employment opportunities and incomes in the

province.

The Ministry of International Business and

Immigration has contributed to the province's success in attracting a

diversity of business enterprises to British Columbia. New high-tech

electronics and software production companies, clothing designers,

small building-supply manufacturers, plastic products manufacturing and

aerospace technology enterprises have been set up in British Columbia.

Hughes Aircraft Co.'s world headquarters for air traffic control

technology is now based in Richmond, and we're talking with many more

aerospace companies, both large and small.

The Ministry of

International Business and Immigration is responsible for coordinating

the province's role in immigration. Immigrants bring with them their

skills, ideas, creativity and wealth. In British Columbia roughly 22

percent of our residents are foreign-born. The coordination of the

province's involvement in immigration policy and programs is designed

to ensure the achievement of provincial objectives with respect to

immigration. Ten other ministries are also involved in the planning,

selection and settlement aspects of immigration.

Immigration

— a concurrent constitutional responsibility first established in 1867

in the British North America Act — requires considerable

federal-provincial cooperation. This ministry is currently negotiating

an immigration agreement with the federal government. The objective is

to improve planning, selection and settlement provisions to better meet

the economic and social needs of British Columbia. As negotiations are

continuing, the details of this agreement cannot be provided at this

time.

The ministry's trade, investment and immigration

functions are supported through offices in Victoria, Vancouver and ten

offices outside the province. Two of the external offices — London and

Tokyo — are headed by agents-general. These external offices are

essential to the effective delivery of the ministry's and British

Columbia Trade Development Corporation's programs and, indeed, of

international programs all across government.

The three

main functions of the ministry are carried out with the cooperation of

others — the federal government in particular. Federal programs and

offices abroad provide important support to our own international

operations. The Ministry of International Business and Immigration Act

was developed in recognition of the potential need for formal

arrangements or agreements with others, in particular between the

province and the federal government on matters of trade, investment and

immigration.

The MIBI Act, in

summary, is designed to do

the following: outline the purposes and functions of the ministry;

state ministerial responsibilities, duties and powers; provide for the

appointment of staff; replace the Agent General Act, recognizing that

agents-general play a key role in achieving the ministry's mandate; and

provide authority for arrangements and agreements with others,

recognizing that trade, investment and immigration responsibilities

require considerable coordination and joint effort.

I have

summarized the major issues relating to this ministry. The proposed

MIBI Act will provide the Ministry of International Business and

Immigration with the statutory authority required to fulfil its

mandate. I am pleased to move second reading of the bill.

MR. GABELMANN :

Just a few brief comments. This is the last of the ministry bills to be

dealt with by this legislation, if my information is correct. It's not

a bill that will keep the Legislature preoccupied for weeks to come;

it's routine. It establishes the ministry, as the minister says. A lot

of the questions that the minister touched on in the first 90 percent

of his speech, in fact, were estimate-related issues, I thought. I had

planned to save my comments on those subjects until estimates, and I

intend to keep to that plan. But I did want to make a few very brief

comments about the decision the government has made to link immigration

to trade — which is a fundamental decision and, I think, the essential

question that comes up when we debate a bill of this kind.

The

minister said right off the bat that British Columbia is unique in that

it has married immigration to trade-investment policies. I don't think

that's the case. Ontario, for example, just off the top, subsumes its

immigration responsibilities under its trade and economic development

ministry — whatever its correct title is. They don't name the

immigration portfolio in the ministry title, but nonetheless the

functions and obligations are subsumed under the trade and economic

development ministry.

Quebec, on the other hand, has a

different approach to this question. They have, as I understand it, a

ministry of immigration and culture. Quebec's view of immigration is

that it has more to do with the cultural integrity of the province,

with the cultural direction and survival of their people as a people,

with their language and culture intact. It is clearly a very direct and

conscious political decision of government of every political stripe in

Quebec, I suspect, that immigration relates more to culture.

have different imperatives here, I would agree, but nonetheless,

immigration policy clearly is more and more now in the provincial

ambit. Following June 23 it will be made even more clear in the minds

of Canadians that immigration now is, as the minister describes it, a

joint responsibility of federal and provincial governments.

[2:45]

It's the only part of the Meech Lake agreement that I have any

difficulty with — not a major difficulty. But it's curious to me how we

can provide immigration responsibility to provinces, because once

people immigrate, they are free to move to another part of this country

in any event. What we will find happening increasingly over the years

to come is that immigrants who choose to come to Canada will go to the

province that is most able to take them and is most desirous or most

anxious to

[ Page

10251 ]

have that category or class of immigrant come to

their province, even though they may want to settle elsewhere in the

country. Once they are here, they have the right — clearly under the

Charter as well as any other traditional rights in this country — to

move.

The whole question of attempting to design an

immigration policy at the provincial level is fraught with that basic

contradiction which will never be different. I think we need to

remember that when, on the provincial level, we are embarking upon

significant immigration policy-making or significant efforts to attract

immigrants. We need to recognize that, in fact, there's no reason at

all that they will stay here in this province. That was an aside.

come back to the issue of the political decision of the placement of

immigration, we need to include it with trade and investment questions,

but we also need to give equal weight to other considerations. Those

other considerations include, to a certain extent — for different

reasons — the kinds of considerations that the province of Quebec

employs in terms of the kind of culture they want to promote and

enhance in their province.

But it also includes — and the

minister mentioned it tangentially — questions of integration into the

community, education and settlement planning. All of those questions

that are really fundamental to sound immigration policy get lost in the

shuffle when the ministry obligations are exclusive of those kinds of

issues. The ministry obligations, essentially, are to promote and

encourage and to get people to make the decision to come here, and then

the ministry obligations end.

The minister mentioned there

are ten ministries involved in settlement-related issues. But the

ministry itself is not charged with that responsibility. There is no

clear leadership on the question of settlement, and I use that in the

broadest possible way to describe what happens to immigrants when they

arrive in this country, from learning about the country right through

to learning the language and then all the questions of integration into

the community. We don't have that when we have such a narrow focus as

we have through linking immigration strictly with trade and investment.

I'm

going to make comments in the estimates debate later about what I think

is more appropriate there, which is the whole question of what the

trade offices do, what their daily mandate appears to be and what their

obligations are in terms of fulfilling their responsibilities. Those

questions are more appropriate then than now.

What we are really discussing this afternoon is simply a bill to give statutory

authority to the order-in-council's establishment of this particular ministry.

I have no problem with the legislation other than making the comments I made,

which, in

summary, are that we need to not just deal with immigration until

people arrive here, but we need to think in a much more integrated and coordinated

way than we do to date about what happens after people arrive here and are settling.

With those comments, I think that's all the members on this side have to say on this bill.

HON. MR. VEITCH :

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for North Island for his

very cogent remarks. There are six provinces, hon. member — or seven

perhaps now — that have agreements of some type or other with respect

to immigration and the federal government.

As you are no

doubt aware, under the British North America Act — or the constitution

act, if you will — of 1867, rights were given to the provinces along

with the federal government in matters of immigration. That, along with

income tax and a few other things, has been frittered away over the

years.

The strongest of these acts, of course — as you are

quite correct — is the Cullen-Couture agreement, signed between the

subject to federal veto, for Quebec to not only have settlement but to

also grant landed immigrant status to immigrants. There are all sorts

of other acts that go all the way from that sort of intensity down

to.... Prince Edward Island, I think, more or less says, "Let's just

get together and talk, " and not much more. The imperatives in British

Columbia are quite different, and the negotiations we are carrying on

have those in mind.

The hon. member mentioned settlement

problems, and he's quite correct. While I'm not going to get into any

negotiations that we're involved in with Ottawa at present, I can tell

you that settlement problems are at the top of the list and that the

government of British Columbia advanced an additional $20 million this

settlement problems all over this province and indeed this country, and

I wouldn't be bringing back an agreement for the consideration of

cabinet without that being addressed.

I want to thank the hon. member for his comments, With that I move second reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Bill

37, Ministry of International Business and Immigration Act, read a

second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for

consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : I call committee on Bill 16.

SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENT FUND ACT

The House in committee on Bill 16; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

section 1.

MR. CASHORE :

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask the minister to give a fuller description

of this committee: who is on it, what does it do, how often does it

meet and what are the criteria?

[ Page 10252 ]

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

The Cabinet Committee on Sustainable Development is made up of a couple

of cabinet ministers. The committee meets every week on Thursday

mornings, usually at 8 o'clock and sometimes at 7 o'clock. It receives

submissions and has also had input from the public. People can request

attendance at cabinet committee meetings to make presentations, and

we've had a number of those.

MR. CASHORE : Would the

minister explain the difference between the kind of work this committee

would do and the kind of work that would be done in the normal course

of work coming before his ministry? Obviously the Ministry of

Environment is a line ministry which is set up to fulfil the mandate of

the Minister of Environment. So I'm asking the minister if he would

describe — perhaps in philosophical terms, but as descriptively as

possible — just what the difference is between those two functions.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

The member knows that there is a cabinet and that there are cabinet

committees. Maybe he hasn't had the opportunity to be part of a

cabinet, but maybe he could talk to some of his members who have. As he

well knows, what appears before cabinet is confidential. I don't

discuss what comes before cabinet, and I'm not about to do it here; nor

am I about to discuss what happens in a cabinet committee.

MR. CASHORE :

Mr. Chairman, we don't expect the minister to describe the particulars

of what comes before this committee. But could he give the House and

the people of British Columbia an example of how the work of this

committee differs from the work of his line ministry? Why do we need

this committee?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : Mr. Chairman,

this committee deals with all matters of economic development in the

province. It has a different name than before, but there are other

cabinet committees. I certainly would never discuss what happened in

cabinet or a cabinet committee, but we have groups appear before a

committee, whether it's cabinet or cabinet committee, and they come and

make representations to the cabinet of the government as to what their

project is, what their products are. Cabinet looks at those and reviews

them.

But with regard to a line ministry, I don't really

get what the member's after. We function with our staff and do our

jobs. Like everything else in government, it goes through cabinet or

through a cabinet committee.

MR. CASHORE : What we're

getting at, as will be seen as we continue this section-by-section

debate, is that no credible reason has been given to justify the

existence of this committee to administer this fund, given that there

is a line ministry that has a mandate to carry out the very functions

that this fund is purported to carry out. We'll be having more on that

later.

I would like to ask the minister, since there is no

definition in this bill and I'm not aware of there being a definition

in other legislation, and since the minister has chosen to refer in

section 1 to the Cabinet Committee on Sustainable Development: would

the minister give a definition to this House of "sustainable

development"? What is the working definition of "sustainable

development" that is operative for this committee?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

Mr. Chairman, I might suggest to the member across the floor that this

is the first time in North America or anywhere else where there are

dedicated funds for environmental projects. That is the reason that

this is being done this way.

I hear the member for Nanaimo

saying: "Why does it have to have a committee?" Well, that's the way

the system works. If you're telling me that if you ever had dreams of

being government you were going to eliminate cabinet committees and

eliminate cabinet and just do everything on the floor of the

Legislature, that's one story, but it's not the way it operates.

MR. CASHORE :

Mr. Chairman, that was a very interesting response. If I heard the

minister correctly, he said this is the first time in North America

that government has dedicated funds for environmental projects. What an

incredible admission. I would think that this government, which has

bragged about its Ministry of Environment, in granting budget to that

ministry had been dedicating funds to the environment, but apparently

the minister doesn't see it that way. Apparently, now that we have this

fund, this is the first time.

Perhaps the minister can tell

us: what on earth was the Ministry of Environment doing before now if

the funds that were committed to it were not dedicated to the

environment?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : Mr. Chairman,

unfortunately I can see we're going to be here a long time trying to

explain to this member what we mean by that term. He knows full well —

or if he doesn't, he should — that in any budget in any government, at

the end of the year the funds are cut off and you go into a new budget.

With this dedicated fund, the money does not go back to general

revenue. It's staying in for the environment.

This is the

first government in North America that's done that, and you should be

proud to be in this Legislature as part of the system — the first one

to make the environment the number one issue, the most important issue.

You should understand that. You should understand how that system

works. This money that's coming into this fund at the end of this year

will be dedicated, and it will be there.

To talk about why

we bring things to cabinet committee.... You know, you've got to be

integrated and coordinated. No ministry makes decisions and goes off

and spends their money without going through a process, much like, I

would hope, your

[ Page

10253 ]

caucus doesn't make decisions without going through a process. You operate as a team, and that's what we're doing.

[3:00]

MR. CASHORE : Mr. Chairman, the rhetoric of that answer is consistent with the kind of rhetoric that we see in this special edition of B.C. News

— which cost the taxpayer half a million dollars — to prove to the

public that this minister was doing something for the environment.

Strictly, Mr. Minister, it has all the markings of a public relations

approach to dealing with the environment.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : You wouldn't know anything about that anyway.

MR. CASHORE :

By saying that I wouldn't know anything about a public relations

approach to the environment, the minister's bang on. I believe in a

substance approach to the environment. That's why I'm not satisfied

with the kind of comment that this minister has made. He has not given

any substantive measure of difference that would show why there is a

necessity for such a fund, as opposed to the funds that go into

operating the Ministry of Environment.

The minister also

evaded a question that I asked. The question was: define "sustainable

development." It is a term that is in this act. The term is not

defined. Actually, if this bill was drafted properly, the minister

knows full well it would be defined. Would the minister define for this

House what he means when he uses the term "sustainable development"?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

Certainly. I would want to advise the member across there that I don't

agree with some of the statements that he's making, but nevertheless he

can keep going on. Sustainable development is development which ensures

that the utilization of resources and the environment today — that's

today — does not damage the prospects for their use by future

generations.

MR. CASHORE : I thank the minister for

that answer. It's an answer that is consistent with the Brundtland

report. I think it would be appropriate in a bill such as this to have

such an important term defined when it is used.

I know that

in the House a few days ago the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Richmond)

talked about the environment and the economy as though they were two

very separate entities. It seemed to me that an appropriate approach to

a concept of sustainable development would recognize that you can't

have one without the other, that they come from the same root and that

they are one and the same thing. By that definition, anything that

could be done that would damage the opportunity of a future generation

would be economically foolish, and therefore that which benefits the

economy also benefits the environment.

I would have hoped that the minister would push the definition that much further,

at least to recognize that the environment and the economy are one and the same.

If we are going to have a sustainable environment, that's how we are going

to do it.

would also recommend to the minister, when he is using the term

"sustainable development, " that he consider that the task, if we're

really going to be diligent about this, is to develop sustainability.

It does not hurt to reverse those two words from time to time and

recognize the role that we have in developing sustainability. I think

when we do that, we will find that we have our priorities in the right

place.

The minister said in response to an earlier question

that the sustainable development committee meets once a week, and he

said some cabinet members are on the committee. I wonder if he would

fill that answer out and say which cabinet members are on the committee.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

Yes. The hon. Minister of Regional and Economic Development (Hon. S.

Hagen); Minister of Environment, obviously; Minister of Native Affairs

(Hon. Mr. Weisgerber); Minister of Advanced Education, Training and

Technology (Hon. Mr. Strachan); Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries

(Hon. Mr. Savage); Minister of Crown Lands (Hon. Mr. Parker); Minister

of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Davis); Minister of

Finance and Corporate Relations (Hon. Mr. Couvelier); Minister of

Forests (Hon. Mr. Richmond); Minister of International Business and

Immigration (Hon. Mr. Veitch); Minister of Municipal Affairs,

Recreation and Culture (Hon. L. Hanson); Minister of Parks (Hon. Mr.

Messmer); Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Michael); and Minister of

Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mrs. Johnston).

Interjections.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : Add it up. Can you add?

MR. CASHORE :

Just for the record, when the minister was speaking about this

committee earlier, it sounded as though it had been meeting for quite

some time.

Interjection.

MR. CASHORE : Years. Okay.

Would he tell me how long this committee has been in existence?

HON. MR. RICHMOND : We've been meeting for years, but not all one meeting.

MR. CASHORE :

Mr. Chairman, I think the government House Leader is clearly out of

order. He's making a point without standing up, and for the record....

Would the minister tell us how long this Cabinet Committee on Sustainable Development, defined as such, has been in existence?

[ Page 10254 ]

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : I can't give you the exact date, but it has changed names — roughly around budget time.

MR. LOVICK :

Just a very quick question to the minister, given that he made

reference to a comment I made across the floor a moment ago. When I was

asking why, what I was doing was simply trying to elicit from the

minister an explanation of why it is that we need a special committee

of cabinet when all we're talking about doing is distributing the

proceeds in a special fund, all of which have as their fundamental

purpose environmental causes.

Surely the minister would see

the reason for the question: namely, that it seems to undercut the

integrity, function and primacy of the Ministry of Environment. This is

a special fund for environmental purposes; money apparently built into

the fund or coming into the fund from improved environmental practices.

You

can understand our skepticism, Mr. Minister. Why this special committee

for this particular function? The function seems very narrow indeed.

All it does is recommend how this particular batch of money gets spent.

Does one really need a special committee for that? We're talking about

divvying up a pie.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : It amazes me

that members on the other side obviously haven't read the budget — or

they wouldn't make those comments For the first time this committee —

if you read the budget — has money in it from other departments; and

they come before this committee, which decides what we're going to be

doing on the environment. It also is going to have funds coming into it

from tires, batteries and chemicals.

The committee is going

to make those decisions, but it will make them in an integrated manner

with all ministries working together. Read the budget and you'll

understand what I'm saying.

MR. MILLER : The minister

went through that list fairly quickly, and I didn't get all of the

members of cabinet who.... If the minister could send a copy across,

that would be helpful. I wonder if he could advise.... I believe I read

somewhere that it would be co-chaired by the Ministers of Environment

and Regional and Economic Development. Perhaps the minister could

indicate if that is the case.

I'll just continue, Mr.

Chairman. We are going to reach a point in this bill when we might want

to have some latitude in terms of crossover. We're now starting to

debate the committee, and it seems that's fundamental to some of the

concerns we want to raise in terms of how the fund will operate or what

the process will be. So hopefully there will be that latitude in the

committee stage of the bill.

So we have a new committee.

It's comprised of a good number of cabinet members, and their purpose

is to deal with those issues as outlined in the bill and to some extent

in the budget documents. But I wonder how that impacts. Or does it

impact at all on the existing cabinet committee? There is an existing

committee called the Environment and Land Use Committee, which deals

with matters of environmental concern. At one time it dealt with some

of the more significant areas of land use conflicts. Is the role of

that committee denigrated at all in terms of this new committee?

think this is probably more appropriate to a further

section of the

bill, but I wanted to talk about the process in terms of how the

committee would be operating. Do individual cabinet members have to

bring initiatives to that committee?

I want at some point

to get into the issue of reforestation, because it's my view that many

of those expenditures are routine expenditures in that they're required

to be undertaken. They don't, in a legislative sense, fall within the

jurisdiction of something that you would normally take to committee and

seek approval for. I realize there are other sections where we can get

into that, but that's an opener in terms of that question.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

The member is right. I think when you get to

section 5 you can probably

get into some more questions in that area, but routine expenditures of

any ministry do not come under this committee. The ministers will come

to that committee seeking the funds, and if they are approved by the

committee, they spend the money for programs. There's no change in that

area at all. It's going through a process that's been done time

immemorial in parliamentary democracies. There's no change in that area.

MR. MILLER :

The minister said, in response to an earlier question from my

colleague, that this was a dedicated fund and that this is a first. He

said that

whereas government expenditures are normally subject to the

vagaries of budgeting and any unexpended funds are reverted back at the

year-end, this fund — once the money was dedicated — would be there.

That could be interpreted as saying that not all of the money will be

spent in the fiscal year and that there is no particular obligation on

the ministry or whoever presents the budget for this — and I would

presume it would be the Minister of Environment who will present an

annual budget here on in — that those funds be expended in that fiscal

year. That's clearly what you said: "not going to spend it all in the

fiscal year." Perhaps the minister would like to comment on that.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

What is meant by that, Mr. Chairman, is that you may get some of the

money that's being collected on tires, batteries and chemicals, and

it's there in the fund. It will stay in the fund and you may not spend

it. You may, for instance, as we're doing in Nanaimo, offer to fund a

facility. That money may not be spent in that one year. It would go

into the next year.

MR. MILLER : In terms of us being able and the public being able to look at the figures that the

[ Page

10255 ]

government has put forward from year to year and

the objectives that they've defined, will there be any way that you can

calculate those multi-year expenditures?

I realize that the

Minister of Finance makes a commitment to multi-year expenditures.

Having been in other political forums besides this one, I realize that

most often those commitments are not ones that can be kept.

Legislatively, there is no particular comfort, beyond the words

themselves, that the public can draw from a statement that we will have

multi-year budgeting. The budget is set every year, and it's debated in

this House and it's passed, and in the normal course of events it's the

budget that the government with the majority wants. So you can't really

make an iron-clad commitment to future expenditures.

this fund is going to do that — if that's the purpose of this fund, as

outlined by the Minister — will the figures be broken down so that the

public will be able to see with some degree of clarity how those funds

are going to be spent?

[3:15]

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : The answer is yes.

MR. G. JANSSEN :

The sustainable environment fund that is being established under this

act again takes money from many areas: the diapers, the batteries,

lotteries, and so forth. Does the minister have any indication, sort of

a futuristic look, of how much money he expects to collect from the

various components of this act? How much money will there be for him to

carry on the various programs that he obviously has in mind to sustain

the environment?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : The member asks

a very good question and I think there is an answer. The exemption

removed from disposable diapers will put about $2 million into the

fund; the disposal levy on new vehicle tires we estimate at about $7.5

million; the disposal levy on new lead acid batteries at about $2.3

million; and a levy on hazardous products, which as you know was

announced in the budget, and which we will announce around July, we

expect at about $3.8 million; the pollution discharge fee increase, and

a method of calculation based on volume and toxicity, about $2 million.

The transfer of current discharge fees to the fund — previously they

went into general revenue — is $3.2 million.

As you know,

we only estimate environmental prosecutions. Last year we were over

half a million; this year we are estimating half a million, but that's

just a figure you estimate. There are charges before the courts right

now that could go up to a million. It's an estimate. And of course

there's the transfer from the lottery fund of $50 million; that is

$71.3 million for this year.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Just before the member for Alberni continues, the member

for Prince Rupert mentioned when he was on his feet that there might be a requirement

for some latitude in dealing with this bill, and the Chair is quite prepared

to do that, providing there is no objection on the part of the minister. But

I notice now that we have jumped quite a bit in the question that was just posed

by the member for Alberni, and I wonder if we might clean up some of these first

sections. Shall

section 1 pass?

MR. MILLER :

I agree, Mr. Chairman. I haven't actually sorted out in my mind a

grouping of sections together, and I'm not concerned about passing

section 1 particularly, because I think

section 2 gives us ample scope

to discuss the fund. I would presume the Chair would concur with that.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Maybe we can deal with 1 to 4. How would that suit members? No?

AN HON. MEMBER : One at a time.

MR. CHAIRMAN : One at a time. All right, that's fair.

MR. MILLER :

I have a further question with regard to

section 1, then. The fund

itself is comprised in the main from moneys that were previously

allocated to the Ministry of Forests. As I read it, the vast majority

of that is money that is required to be spent. In other words the

ministry, through their calculations, have figured out that we will be

obliged to spend this amount of money in terms of meeting our

requirements for reforestation. Added to that is a little bit of a

carryover on the FRDA money, some $7.2 million. But the fact is that

the bulk of the fund — at least 75 percent of the fund — is comprised

of money that really reflects statutory obligations on behalf of the

Crown through the Ministry of Forests.

This concerns me,

and I am wondering — the bulk of the moneys having been drawn from the

Ministry of Forests, why is that not reflected in the makeup and the

operation of the committee? I realize the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr.

Richmond) is a member, but the two co-chairmen and the vice-chairman

are respectively the Minister of Regional and Economic Development

(Hon. S. Hagen), the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Reynolds) and

the Minister of Native Affairs (Hon. Mr. Weisgerber). It seems to me

that that sends a message, and there has been concern expressed to me.

don't know if that same concern has reached the government's ears, but

there has been concern expressed to me about the appearance of a

denigration of the role of the Minister of Forests in terms of the

obligations of the Ministry of Forests, which are now really being

routed through the fund. Perhaps the minister might want to advise us

as to the government's thinking in not giving the Minister of Forests a

rather prominent role in the operation of a fund which is, in the main,

spending money allocated to the Minister of Forests.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

I would suggest to the hon. member that the program is still the

Minister of Forests' program. There is no denigration of his job

[ Page 10256 ]

whatsoever.

If anything, this puts it in a higher profile. I just don't understand

where you would come from in thinking that there was any denigration of

the Minister of Forests in this act at all.

MR. MILLER :

Well, the denigration is in the fact that you have drawn three-quarters

of your funding for the fund from the Ministry of Forests. When I look

at the makeup of the cabinet committee which will be making decisions

about expenditures from the fund, I find that the Minister of Forests,

although he is a member of the committee, is certainly not in any one

of the three key roles in that committee — either one of the

co-chairmen or the vice-chairman.

I respect that all

members of cabinet presumably do their best. But I would think, when it

came to the wisdom of particular expenditures and perhaps when it came

to forestry, the Minister of Forests might actually know a little more

than the Minister of Native Affairs. Why he was not given a more

prominent role? Why wasn't the Minister of Forests one of the

co-chairmen? It would seem logical to me. That seems to be one of

the....

Interjection.

MR. MILLER : The

Minister of Advanced Education (Hon. Mr. Strachan) advises me that

logic has no bearing at all on the decisions of the government.

don't want to get hung up on the point, but why the Minister of

Forests.... That appears to be one of the significant areas of concern

in British Columbia today when we are talking about environmental

issues — whether those are land-use conflicts, forestry harvesting

practices, the concern about setting aside natural areas of British

Columbia or concerns about slash-burning. All of the topical issues

that the government side is as well aware of as I am fall under the

category that I would think this fund was designed — and the committee

was structured — to deal with. Yet we don't see that kind of prominence

given to the Minister of Forests.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

I just don't agree. When you look at this committee, I think it is not

only giving prominence to forestry, but also to the environment. And to

think that the Minister of Native Affairs....

The native

people in this province aren't environmentalists? I don't agree with

that. I think the Minister of Native Affairs is here representing a

bunch of people who are great environmentalists and who are a very

important part of this committee.

To suggest that the

people in the forestry industry, a lot of whom are probably the

greatest environmentalists we have in this province.... They've done a

tremendous job. You go up to communities like yours and others in the

north Island, and there are forestry companies that show what good

environmentalists they are.

I just don't understand your

whole attack on this thing. I think the fund itself is promoting

forestry, the environment and working together, and it is coordinated

and integrated with all the ministries.

I think it is a

positive step for this province, and we have seen encouragement for it

in meetings of the round table around the province and in talking to

people in your communities.

MR. MILLER : Not to

belabour the point, but I did outline that the bulk of the moneys was

drawn from forestry. We'll deal later on in another

section with the

fact that the Ministry of Forests, prior to making expenditures, has to

receive the approval of the committee. I would say again that the bulk

of the expenditures that would have been made — and I hope will be made —

out of in excess of $200 million that has been taken from the Minister

of Forests' budget and put into this fund is for statutory obligations.

Under the legislation that the ministry operates under in this

province, there is a requirement that Crown lands be reforested. There

are other requirements that the Minister of Forests is obligated to

fulfil under his mandate. This has been transferred to the fund.

The

bulk of the money comes from the Minister of Forests, yet we have as

the co-chairmen the Minister of Regional and Economic Development, the

Minister of Environment — which I can understand; I have no quarrel

with that or with any of them as individuals — and the Minister of

Native Affairs. It suggests the denigration of the Minister of Forests.

is of concern that the minister has to go to the committee to seek

approval for what I think should be statutory expenditures. There is no

real consideration of: "Should we do this, or should we not?" They are

basic requirements; they have to be done.

When I look at

the history of regional development in British Columbia, there is

additional cause for concern. Certainly it's been a bit of a

topsy-turvy administrative approach to that question. Ever since I've

been a member of this House, I certainly recall early announcements

that there would be a minister of state. That's gone through I don't

how many transformations. There are many questions, and I don't want to

get into an extensive debate about them. It's not part of this bill.

Just

to illustrate my point that there is some suspicion in parts of British

Columbia that the mandate or program of regional development is not to

follow some kind of cohesive strategy in terms of what needs to be

done.... Rather, there are elements of a political strategy. I could

get into specific examples on that score where decisions have been

made, presumably by the regional minister, that smack more of politics

than of any kind of logic and rationale for the particular area.

does present some cause for concern that the Minister of Forests is not

given that kind of prominence. I hope the Minister of Environment

didn't construe anything I had to say. I guess he'll read the Blues.

But I wasn't suggesting that there was a lack of commitment to

environmental concerns by the Minister of Native Affairs or by any

member of the committee at all. We'll take our shots as we see fit on

[ Page

10257 ]

specific issues and on the record. Presumably we'll get into that

reasonably quickly — hopefully before the onslaught of the winter

weather on the north coast.

I think there's a reasonable

point to be made in terms of that role. The Minister of Forests has

given you most of the money. How come he's not getting a little more

prominence in the actions of this committee?

[3:30]

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

MR. CASHORE :

Mr. Chairman, we canvassed some very significant points under

section

1: what is meant by sustainable development and what the difference is

between this fund and the work of the line ministry. Those are

important considerations. The public has the right to know just what

the line of demarcation is between these two procedures, which

purportedly have similar goals.

I know this may sound like

rhetoric, but in some ways it has been characterized as a

sell-the-environment fund more than a sustainable environment fund. It

leaves the door open for decisions to be made at a political level in

cabinet with regard to how tax dollars, lottery dollars and levied

dollars — which are also tax dollars — are going to be used. It gives a

continuation of a process that we see too much of with this government,

where members of cabinet are able to decide on the deployment of funds

purportedly for the public benefit.

We're not talking about

a small fund here; we're talking about quite a large fund. We're

talking about decisions being made on almost a regular weekly basis

when this committee meets. Presumably many of these decisions would be

far better dealt with at arm's length through an appropriate instrument

in the Ministries of Environment and Forests themselves.

Indeed,

I'm sure that the minister has received feedback from the public, since

it has been observed that.... With the transfer of about $222 million

from Forests, it has certainly had the appearance of being a shell

game. It certainly has the appearance to the public of money being

taken out of one ministry and moved into the other. That enables the

minister to say that he's increased the spending for Environment by 24

percent, using dollars that already exist elsewhere.

One of

the real concerns I have — and I know the minister and I have engaged

in this issue both inside and outside of the House — is about the

people who work in the ministry. The minister stated on one occasion

that he was glad to see me in the House and went on to accuse me of

having said negative things about his staff. Mr. Chairman, that simply

is not true; the minister knows it isn't true.

I believe that the people who work in the Ministry of Environment are by and

large outstanding people who have a very difficult task. It's a task that's

made difficult because of current and pressing issues that relate to the environmentalism

that we are all so much aware of, somewhat as a result of the work that has

been done by environmental organizations — as the minister points out, very

much by the work that has been done by people who have been working at environmental

causes for a great many years: people who work in the Ministry of Forests, people

who work in the Ministry of Environment, working people.

There

is no segment of society or the community that has a corner on

environmentalism. Whatever the sum total of those expressions of

urgency are that have come from various parts of our society and have

resulted in such things as the development of the Brundtland report,

and resulted in such things as politicians being pressured into

positioning themselves on environmental issues, the fact is that I find

it unconscionable that there be virtually no increase in the available

funding for this line ministry, for the people who work so hard within

the Ministry of Environment.

This kind of money made

available to a cabinet committee, which clearly consists of people who

therefore have the opportunity to carry on the time-honoured tradition

with this Social Credit government of allocating funds on the basis of

political reasons and not on the basis of the reasons that really tie

in to a deep, deep definition of sustainability, sustainable

development, developing sustainability, and combining economic and

environmental concerns.... I feel very deeply about that.

have talked to people in the Ministry of Environment. I know that this

minister has also, and he is aware of the anxiety being experienced by

people who work within that ministry: the handful of people who are

employed as uniformed conservation officers, who have such a huge

caseload with regard to the number of investigations they have to carry

out; the people who work in the ministry offices and carry on the daily

clerical work that is building up; the people who have hung in there

since the early 1980s when a previous Social Credit government saw fit

to decide that the environment was expendable. They cut back on

ministry staff because at that time the polls weren't telling them the

environment was important, so they thought they'd cut back there.

There

are some things about the basic philosophy of this bill and of this

approach that are frankly baffling. They tend to belie the stated

position of this government and of this minister that this government

is becoming environmentally appropriate and environmentally friendly.

When

people see that the closest thing we get to recycling is the recycling

of old money in a bill such as this, they can be forgiven for seeing

this as a slush fund. As my colleague the member for Coquitlam Moody

(Mr. Rose) said: "With a fund like this, you can buy a lot of pork."

The

public, having seen the kind of smoke and mirrors and shellgame

activity that has gone on in the past, has every right to see it in

that way. Just what is this fund? Is it a pork-barrel fund? Is it a

friends-and-insiders fund? Is it a sell-the-environ-

[ Page 10258 ]

ment

fund so that the minister can funnel dollars to people in the corporate

sector so they can set up their technological solutions to

environmental problems, so that we have more of the same?

Not

only do we have corporations producing the problem by producing too

much packaging, for instance, or producing toxic waste when they don't

have a cradle-to-grave philosophy of dealing with toxic waste, but

then, having helped to create the problem, they come along and they're

going to solve the problem by setting up — what will it be — a very

expensive resource recovery plant that produces RDF, or an incinerator,

or one of these technological solutions?

Mr. Chairman, the

minister knows full well that even when we have started appropriately

with appropriating funds to really make recycling work, to really

reduce the waste stream so that the problem we're dealing with when

we're dealing with some of those big ticket issues becomes a different

problem, that's not a simple thing to have to deal with.

But

the way this is set up leaves it open for that cabinet committee, which

does not have the training, the expertise or the objectivity contained

in the line ministry.... It is a very questionable priority to allow

that kind of money to be dealt with in that way by that kind of

committee. I'd be interested in the minister's comments on that.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

I appreciate the comments that the member made about our staff, because

they are great. I only have to say it once, because my staff all know

what I think about them and that I don't play politics with them and

their jobs.

I want to comment on what the member said. He

used the terms "slush fund, " "allocation of funds for political

reasons" and "purportedly for the public benefit." Those are easy

things to say in this House. But I would suggest that if you've got

accusations, bring them out; give us projects that I have approved in

my ministry that you think are politically motivated. Don't make weak

accusations that damn everyone in this House.

I ask you if

the BRINI project In Nanaimo is in a New Democrat riding. Has that gone

to our friends? The blue box program in the Capital Regional District

that we're helping to fund — we don't have a member in Victoria, but

that hasn't bothered us, whether it's the environment or the Conference

Centre. We do things for the good of British Columbians, and that's our

policy. The hazardous waste days — the first one was in Port Moody, the

opposition House Leader's constituency; one of the first ones was done

there, not in a constituency with a Socred in it.

If you

want to get up and make accusations that we could do it.... I will

quote the auditor-general. "The revenues and expenditures of the

sustainable environment fund are disclosed in the estimates" — that's my

statement. According to the March 1989 annual report of the

auditor-general: "As long as the estimates include adequate information

about planned expenditures from special accounts and the actual

expenditure is subsequently accounted for on a timely basis, there is

no reduction in legislative control." I would suggest to you and to the

members on the other side that there is definitely no reduction in

legislative control; in fact, there may be more.

The member

also talks about some people in the environment field who have been

around for a long time and who were there years ago when nobody thought

about it. I consider myself one of those, because I was fighting for

it in 1972 on various issues in the lower mainland. But I would also

suggest to that hon. member that the Wright brothers, who discovered

the airplane, don't own any companies today either. There are people

who are involved at the start; other people get involved later.

Progress comes along, and we have to make sure that both of those groups

are working together.

MR. CASHORE : Mr. Chairman, the

point is that if you take a look at where this government and this

minister have allocated dollars, the priorities are clearly towards the

techno fix, not towards the kind of process that's really going to

enable this province to resolve the waste management problem through a

recycling process that really works.

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

couple of weeks ago in Vancouver the minister announced some

initiatives that he was taking. It's interesting that the largest of

those initiatives was a million dollars for an advertising campaign

under the name of Education. There were also some dollars announced for

some other grass-roots things; I commend him for that. But if you take

a look at where the really big money is going compared to where the

crumbs from the table are going, it's pretty clear what the philosophy

is that fuels the kinds of decisions that are going to be made by this

cabinet committee.

[3:45]

I cite $5,000 going to each municipality and regional district for

the development of their recycling plants. That's a pittance, Mr.

Chairman. There's an abandonment on the part of this government and

this minister of their main responsibility to those municipalities and

regional districts to resolve the problem. This government is really

not doing the job that's needed to develop and coordinate markets so

that there are markets for these substances. So there's a real concern

that people who are very much big corporate entities in the waste

management field are going to be able to continue to cream the waste

management system. While that's going on, there's a failure to allocate

the resources that are needed to enable it to really function at the

local level.

I know the minister has the ability to listen

to two conversations at the same time, so I expect that he'll be able

to give me a lucid response.

Well, Mr. Chairman, I suppose

the minister can read what I just said. He was carrying on quite a

conversation with a minister who caused the division bells to be rung

many times yesterday when government ministers weren't paying attention.

[ Page

10259 ]

Mr. Chairman, basically the point is that it's obvious from the way

this fund is being set up, from the lack of controls and from the fact

that there are going to be political decisions made by members of

cabinet, and given the kinds of funds that have been made available to

municipalities and turning them into orphans who have to fend for

themselves with a measly $5,000 to develop their recycling plans, that

the priorities of this government are really upside down.

The

major financial resource should be going into enabling the communities

of this province, in partnership with the government with an enhanced

line ministry, to work on recycling programs, markets and the kind of

procedure that's really going to make that work. Then, when that's

done, some of those other issues, such as BRINI systems, can be

addressed at that time. It's a matter of first things first. The point

is that this bill indicates that this government has its strategy

reversed in terms of the most appropriate initiatives to be taken first.

This

minister is going around the province putting a great deal of time and

energy into trying to give money to projects that will get resource

recovery plants up and running. While that type of approach may

sometimes fit in the hierarchy of methods used to address the question

of the waste stream, it's obvious that the minister has put most of his

eggs into that basket, when he should have been putting those eggs into

the basket of enabling a coordinated recycling program to effectively

function within this province — and not simply giving the

municipalities a pittance here and there.

I did

acknowledge, while the minister was talking a few moments ago to the

Minister of Finance (Hon Mr. Couvelier), that this minister made some

announcements a couple of weeks ago and that some of them are

worthwhile. But I also pointed out that it appears that again the main

thrust under the guise of education is a public relations campaign — a

million dollars. The main portion of that initiative announced by this

minister is public relations. All of these things, when you look at

them together, tend to cast a pall on this bill and make it very clear

to the public what the government is really up to here.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

Mr. Chairman, it wasn't that I didn't hear what the member was saying

before. I didn't really think there needed to be an answer. But now

that he's got up a second time, let's talk about what he talks about:

the techno fix — the BRINI project.

I'm sure the first member for Nanaimo (Mr Lovick) would be rather upset

that you don't like the project going ahead in his community. So would members

of your party who support the project in that area. This project was not enforced

upon them by the Minister of Environment or the government of British Columbia.

It was put together by Ian Terry of the regional district in that area, one

of the hardest-working municipal officials in this province, who coordinated

other municipalities and got them all working together to decide that this was

the project they wanted.

This

government doesn't play Big Brother, like the NDP wants to play. We

work with communities and work with their projects, just like we're

working with the Capital Regional District now on a composting project

they're going to forward to this government very, very shortly. We

don't believe that there's one solution to the problem; we believe that

different communities have different solutions and that we should work

with them and their various solutions.

Certainly we believe

that there is high technology available in some areas of the

environment. We're not back with the Wright brothers like the

opposition leader and the critic of the NDP are. We believe we have to

look at all projects in this province.

He talks about the

blue box system. The blue box system is thriving in this province with

support from this provincial government. And you talk about pittances.

I'm giving a cheque to the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head (Ms. Cull)

and the capital region sometime this week for $160,000. That's not a

pittance. That's support of a project in this community, and we're

doing that all around the province.

The member talks about

controls. Maybe I'll read it to him again, because it has to be read

and read again so that he understands. Here's what the auditor-general

said in March 1989: "As long as the estimates include adequate

information about planned expenditure from special accounts and the

actual expenditure is subsequently accounted for on a timely basis,

there is no reduction in legislative control."

You will get

a detailed explanation of all the money that's spent in this fund, and

you will have ample opportunity on the floor of this House to criticize

it. You'll hear of the projects as they are announced week by week,

month by month, as this committee's working. And you'll have a chance

to criticize them. If you don't like the project, stand up in the House

and say: "I don't want the BRINI project in Nanaimo." Tell the people

of British Columbia that you don't want the blue box system and that

you don't want this government funding it. Come on!

The

projects we're working on are working very, very well. That's what has

got you so upset. You know that the UBCM are meeting with me on a

regular basis, which they haven't done for a long time. They are happy

with the projects we're putting forward. They're happy with the

hazardous waste proposals. Instead of knocking it all the time, stand

up once in a while and say: "That's a good project. That's a good

program." Let's work together for the environment and stop playing

these silly political games about lack of control and friends in the

business. If you've got accusations, make them. But try and get above

that for the environment. Rise above it.

MR. CASHORE :

Mr. Chairman, the minister gives his book definition of sustainable

development, but when you hear him try to describe his situation in

such a simplistic way, you'd think that he would at

[ Page 10260 ]

least

try to apply his definition in deciding upon a workable approach to

reducing the waste stream. It's not a question of slamming this system

or that system; it's a question of starting at the beginning. I pointed

out to the minister that he is putting a pittance into getting

recycling really functioning in the province. I think if he's talking

to people in municipalities who are happy, he is certainly talking to

different people from the ones I'm talking to.

Be that as it may, I have no further comments on

section

Section 2 approved.

section 3.

MR. CASHORE :

Well, this defines the object. The object of the fund is to provide

for programs to protect and enhance the environment and for forest

renewal initiatives. Would the minister explain in what way this

objective is different from the objectives of those two line ministries?

HON. MR REYNOLDS :

This

section describes the two objectives of the fund: to finance

environmental programs and forest-renewal initiatives. Is that

difficult?

MR. MILLER : I think the question was: how

does the object differ in any substantive way from the mandate of the

two ministries that currently have a similar mandate?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : The fund just overlaps a number of other ministries. But the objectives of the ministries are the same.

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

The committee really seems to have trouble understanding the concept

here — first of all, with the naming of the sustainable development

committee and exactly what we do.

I can tell the committee,

as a member of this sustainable development committee and as the

Minister of Advanced Education, Training and Technology, that the

funding is available to many ministries, including the ministry I am

responsible for in terms of research that is being done, and the

Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, with respect to acid

mine drainage. There are many environmental issues that go beyond just

what you consider to be forest renewal or whatever.

It was

interesting to hear you talk about Forests as being the priority and to

hear the critic talk about Municipal Affairs being the priority. I

think maybe you should caucus together and figure out what your

priorities are. You have nine, ten, 11 or 12 of them. I guess you've

got principles. If you don't like those principles, you'll have other

principles. But let me tell you that this is a multi-ministry

committee, and it does multi-ministry work and includes work that will

be done by and is of benefit to many ministries, not just Forests or

Environment.

MR. MILLER : Well, that was a sterling

attempt at defence there. I don't think that the minister's remarks, in

terms of the object, should be left without being straightened out.

Certainly the minister is completely off-base when he says that my

colleague is saying that recycling is the priority, that I am saying

forestry renewal is a priority and that there's some kind of conflict

there.

I suppose — in a much more serious vein — there was

a bit of conflict when the Minister of Finance said he couldn't spend

money out of a nonexistent BS fund, and the Minister of Health said he

should because we've got some problems in health. So if you want to

talk about real conflicts between cabinet members, we can always refer

to those.

I don't think it's one or the other. Clearly

environmental initiatives need to be developed, enhanced, promoted and

budgeted for in a number of areas. I think we have pointed out that the

bulk of the money in this fund is essentially comprised of money that

has already been committed to statutory expenditures by the Ministry of

Forests. We have also registered our concern that somehow the decision

of the government to proceed with this fund, this act and the process

that's put in place to meet the object is politically motivated.

Hence

our question: what difference is there in the two quite broadly defined

objectives of the fund under

section 3...? What difference is that

in, for example, the Ministry of Forests? If it's to bring some kind of

clarity to the expenditure of money to meet certain environmental

concerns that we think are important, why then was there not an attempt

to consolidate? For example — just a small point — why was not all of

the silviculture money from Forests put into the fund? It seems to me a

reasonable question. Why take almost $220 million and yet leave another

$70 million parked in Forestry? Surely the minister would agree that

that in itself might give rise to some confusion. Do people dealing

with reforestation and silvicultural issues now go to the Ministry of

Forests on the one hand and to the cabinet committee on the other hand?

What rationale is there for leaving these funds separated? And, really,

the object is so simple it becomes so broad. Why do that? Why leave

another $70 million parked in Forestry and take over $200 million and

put it in your fund? We're having some difficulty here.

Interjection.

MR. MILLER :

Well, the difficulty is in trying to interpret what the government is

doing, Mr. Chairman, in response to the member for North

Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Ree).

So we are trying to get to

the bottom of how you made these decisions and how the thing's going to

work. I'll give you that question: why did you leave that $70 million

parked in Forestry?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : Mr. Chairman, the member knows full well that if he wants to ask that question, he can ask of the Minister of Forests during

[ Page

10261 ]

his estimates what he did with something that's already still in his ministry.

[4:00]

He said these are politically motivated decisions. Imagine saying

that we do politics in this place. It's terrible. But I want to assure

him that forest renewal was included in the fund because of the size of

the resource and its special recreational, ecological and economic

characteristics. That's why it was done, and I don't understand, other

than maybe that you want to try and get some Forestry people thinking

Forestry isn't as important.... I think just the opposite: we made it

more important by including it in a committee that's going to work

together for sustainable development, the thing that you people keep on

talking about. The Minister of Forests plays an integral

part in that

process on that committee. I don't understand what your problem is.

MR. MILLER :

Indeed, it is a curiosity. Here I am trying to elicit information from

the minister responsible for this bill, and he tells me: "Well, don't

ask me. I don't know. Ask the Minister of Forests during his

estimates." Is the minister saying that he had no hand in making any of

these determinations? And it's a bill that he is bringing before this

House. He doesn't know why they left $70 million with the Ministry of

Forests but decided to take the $220 million? You don't know the answer

to those questions, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

I would prefer that the hon. member over there doesn't put into my

words what he thinks I said. He knows full well what I said: that if he

wants to talk about the money that's in this bill, he can talk about

it, but under the rules of this House I cannot talk about what's in a

minister's bill, and I will not talk about what happened inside

cabinet. If you want to talk about what's in this bill, it's open. You

can ask any question on that amount of money. When it gets to that

minister's estimates, you can ask him about his ministry. That's the

way the rules are. I don't write those rules, and the Chairman and the

Speaker uphold the rules of this House.

If you want to talk

about what's in this bill I'm more than pleased to talk about it. I am

proud to talk about it. It's one of the best bills that's ever been

before this Legislature.

MR. MILLER : Perhaps the minister could explain why the decision was to take the $220 million — whatever the precise figure is....

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : What's a million?

MR. MILLER :

Well, I didn't say that. Let the minister go on record as saying:

"What's a million?" I know it would take you a long time to count by

ones.

The budget says.... Well, actually it's $212,755,315.

What considerations were given, rather than taking all of that money, to leaving

some within the ministry and dividing it up?

MR. CHAIRMAN : Shall

section 3 pass?

MR. MILLER :

I'm not asking about the other part of the reforestation money, Mr.

Chairman. The minister advised that he can't talk about what's within

the Ministry of Forests budget. I'm asking about moneys in this bill in

this budget. I asked why it was decided to take that full amount rather

than, for example, split it in half and leave some with the ministry.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

I don't quite understand the member's question. I told him that if he

wanted to ask me any questions about what's in the bill and what we're

going to do with that money, I'd be more than pleased to answer them.

But with regard to decisions, those are cabinet decisions, and I'm not

prepared to discuss those in the House.

MR. CASHORE :

Surely the minister, who does have the ability to be gracious, can

respond to the question without being Pharisaical about it. It

shouldn't be an answer that's going to embarrass him that much. It's a

worthwhile....

MR. CHAIRMAN : Order, please. The Minister of Environment rises on a point of order.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : On a point of order, could the member explain what that one word was?

MR. CASHORE :

Yes, Mr. Chairman, I'd be glad to. On the same point of order, it's the

term Pharisaical. It means legalistic, so I don't think it's

unparliamentary. I don't even think it's close, Mr. Minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Please proceed, hon. member.

MR. CASHORE : I think it's descriptive.

I hope the minister would think about that and would give an answer.

Obviously what we're trying to find out has to do with the whole thing

about a kind of fragmentation that's taking place now with regard to

public funds and with regard to silviculture. I think it's a perfectly

appropriate question, and it deserves a reasonable answer in the

graciousness of this debate that we're having.

I wanted to

mention that when the minister of defence — the Minister of Advanced

Education — stood up a few moments ago, he mentioned acid mine drainage.

I just wanted to ask the minister if he sees the sustainable

environment fund being used to address the issue of acid mine drainage.

If he does see it being used in that way, would he say in what way it

would be used with regard to acid mine drainage?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

Yes, one of the things that we've done is put a chair at the University

of British Columbia on acid mine drainage, which I think is a very

positive thing. It's getting our universities and our scientists in

this province working towards a solution to the problem that hopefully,

when they discover it, we'll be able to sell all around the world.

[ Page 10262 ]

MR. CASHORE :

Thank you for that answer. Would there be any more aspects to the

answer besides the example the minister has given, such as helping to

pay to mitigate the effects of acid mine drainage? Would any of the

money be used in that way? Is that foreseen?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

Yes, if the member were to look at the fund, there's $3 million in the

fund that we can use at the universities for that type of research. As

the member knows and can probably canvass with the Minister of

Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Davis) when his

estimates are up, there's work being done in those areas. Companies put

up bonds in those areas, and all of those things are being looked at.

They can be looked at through this fund and through this committee.

MR. CASHORE :

The minister anticipated the direction in which I was going with this

question. I'm trying to find out if these moneys are being seen not

just in terms of research, but in terms of actually paying the cost of

dealing with the damage that is created by acid mine drainage. The

minister mentioned that there's a bonding process in place.

With

regard to what might be considered — for want of a better term —

orphaned mine sites, would the fund be seen as being applied in such

circumstances?

While the minister is working on his answer

to that question about the sustainable environment fund possibly being

used on orphaned sites where there has been acid mine drainage, I have

another question that perhaps somebody over there could make a note of.

the context of the objective of the fund, we have to recognize that the

amount of increase in the Ministry of Environment goes from $113

million to $113.7 million, which in real dollars is a decline in

funding. The minister is well aware that there are morale problems in

the Ministry of Environment because of overwork and very heavy

expectations upon the staff there.

Why would the minister

not see fit — or has he seen fit or might he see fit — to put a portion

of this money toward helping the line ministry do its performance task?

HON. MR REYNOLDS :

Mr. Chairman, with regard to the first question about orphaned sites,

no, this fund will not be used for those. I would hope that if there is

any cleanup in those areas, it would come out of our regular funding.

Again I would suggest you could ask much more detailed questions in

that area of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources when

his estimates are before the House.

The same, I think, with

your second question: if you want to talk about our staff and their

morale, and where we could put money, I think that's more appropriately

done during estimates than during this

section of the bill.

MR. CASHORE :

Yes, we will be glad to put some questions to the Minister of Energy

about orphaned sites. It certainly does fall under the purview, at

least with regard to questions about the money that's in this fund,

since it's seen as a sustainable environment fund and since, as the

minister pointed out earlier, it relates to the environmental work

that's involved in several ministries. So I'll just leave it there.

MR. PERRY :

I'd like to explore a few of the purposes and objects of the fund. My

first question: I wonder whether any consideration has been given to

using any of the fund proceeds for advertising.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

I think one of things I'm happiest about is the fact that we started

the environmental hotline, which I understand is working extremely well

and is working with people who.... As the critic for the opposition

said, sometimes we forget about those who were dealing in environmental

things years and years ago. We haven't forgotten. In this instance, the

Recycling Council of B.C. is operating the hotline for us and doing an

excellent job. I think it is money well spent.

MR. CASHORE :

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Environment just

attributed words to me that I did not say. I did not suggest that his

ministry had forgotten people who contributed to the environment years

and years ago. What I did say was actually affirming the recognition on

both sides of the House that there has been that contribution. Whether

the minister wants to withdraw or not is immaterial to me, but I just

wanted to get my statement on the record.

MR. CHAIRMAN : I don't think it's a point of order, hon. member. However, you've made your point, and it's on the record.

MR. PERRY :

I can only approve of the recycling hotline. But what I was more

concerned about is what assurance we have in the Legislature that funds

from the sustainable environment fund will not be used for political

advertising. Can the minister tell us if there are any guidelines in

place or regulations proposed for the bill which will prevent the

expenditure of funds under

section 3 for purposes that might be

construed as political advertising?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

I think it's quite Interesting that a doctor would stand up and talk

about political advertising right at this time. Nevertheless, I can

assure the hon. member that this government and this ministry does not

spend money for political advertising. I say it again, as he wasn't

here earlier when we were questioned about certain things in that area:

if the member ever wants to stand up and say something is political

advertising, please do it. Please make the accusations.

[4:15]

[ Page

10263 ]

MR. PERRY : Maybe I can take advantage of the committee format

and the informality of the occasion to ask the minister where he would

see a document like this — so-called "Environment B.C.," a special

edition of B.C. News , B.C. government — which features on the second

page, for example, large....

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

Point of order, Mr. Chairman. The publication the member is talking

about comes under the public affairs bureau of this government, not my

ministry. If he wants to ask questions about it, he can ask the

Provincial Secretary anytime. That publication is not paid for with

money out of my ministry, and it has nothing to do with this bill.

MR. CHAIRMAN : The point of order is well taken, and I think the member should take it into consideration.

MR. CASHORE :

Point of order. Mr. Chairman, while understanding your point that it's

well taken, I would point out that in this instance the hon. member was

responding to the words of the minister, who had made a statement about

the government not being involved in political advertising.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I'm not trying to stop the member

from asking questions about that brochure. I'll be happy to have him

ask questions about it in detail, page by page, paragraph by paragraph.

But he could do that during the estimates of the Provincial Secretary

or even during my estimates, if he wants to get into comments on that

brochure.

We're on

section 3 of the Sustainable Environment

Fund Act, and that paper has nothing to do with it. I don't make the

rules of this House; all members do. And the Speaker and the Chairman

uphold them. We should stick to questions to do with this bill.

We'll

be into my estimates tomorrow, the next day or the next day. Whenever

you want to finish with my two bills, we'll go right into my estimates.

We're not trying to hide anything. But you have to deal with the issue

that's before the House, not one that you want to use yourself or that

you have some special idea about.

MR. PERRY : I think

the minister answered my question. I note that he conceded that this

publication is political advertising. But he answered what I was about

to ask him, which was whether any of the funding had come from his

ministry. It strikes me that in a publication like this it would be

difficult to distinguish the contribution of his ministry from that of

the public affairs bureau. I note that the minister did concede that

"Environment B.C.," a special edition of B.C. News , is political

advertising but that it wasn't funded directly by his ministry.

I guess what I am asking is what assurance we in the opposition have that funds

from the sustainable environment fund will not be used, for example, in the

preparation of political documents like this that are circulated by the public

affairs bureau. Let me clarify that. I have no objection — and I am sure the

taxpayer doesn't — to a legitimate information content in advertising, or

to the role of the Ministry of Environment or even the sustainable environment

fund in the distribution of solid information for its own sake. My concern is

purely with the possibility that a fund which admittedly now will come under

the direct control of a cabinet committee — as I argued in debate on second

reading — as opposed to under the control of government public servants may

fall into ill-use.

am looking for some reassurance from the minister as to what guidelines

or regulations, if any, are contemplated that would prevent the

potential misuse of money in the fund being applied to partisan

political efforts.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : I want to

start off by saying that I did not say that something in that member's

hands was a political document. In fact, I would tell him that it is

not a political document. The public affairs bureau of this government

is the government of British Columbia, elected democratically by the

people of British Columbia. It puts out information to people on a

regular basis, just like his party did when it was in government.

you want to really get picky about this sort of thing — I know you

don't like it that you're not in government — when I was up in the

Interior and in the Kootenays a few weeks ago, I saw a brochure put out

by your party under the name of the Leader of the Opposition. I'm

saying that it was put out by the party; I don't know who put it out.

MR. PERRY :

Point of order, Mr. Chairman. I listened carefully to your instruction

to me a few minutes ago about the appropriateness of the debate. I am

having difficulty seeing the relevance of the minister's comments to

the clause.

Interjection.

MR. PERRY : No, I'm enjoying his comments. I just find them of dubious relevance.

MR. CHAIRMAN :

I recognize the point of order. As I previously stated, we are dealing

with

section 3 of this bill, and I would ask all members to comply with

the regulations of this House, which are fairly broad.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I agree with you. As you know, it is

always very difficult when you are in the chair when statements are

made on the other side and sometimes you need an explanation before you

can get to the answer. That's what I'm getting at now, and I know

that's why it hurts the member from the other side. The brochure put

out by your party under the name of the Leader of the Opposition is

full of absolute lies. It's partially paid for by the taxpayers of this

province, because all the donations you receive as a political party

are tax-deductible. I would think you

[ Page 10264 ]

would want to look at that brochure very carefully. It's absolutely full of lies and deceit, and I ask you to read it.

You

take statements that you make in this House and try and turn them into

facts. I can assure the member on the other side that anything this

ministry puts out in its advertising....

MR. CASHORE : Mr. Chairman, I would ask that you make the appropriate ruling based on the words just uttered by the minister.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

On the same point of order, I would suggest to the member that I did

not accuse any of them. I said that their party put the brochure out,

and I would hope that they would correct it. I know that, as honourable

members, they would not want that brochure going around this province

without factual information in it. I would not want any member on that

side to think I said they would condone anything like that, and I am

sure they wouldn't. If they think I said that, I would withdraw it.

MR. PERRY :

On the same point of order, I asked a pretty simple question and I have

yet to hear an answer. Were there any guidelines or proposed

regulations dealing with the concerns that I raised? I really fail to

understand the relevance of any of the last five minutes of debate to

the question I asked.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Before I

recognize the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam on an additional point

of order, perhaps we could as a committee get back to

section 3 of Bill

16, keeping in mind that the attributes of parliamentary language are

essential in this House and that we should try to adhere to them as

much as possible.

MR. CASHORE : On a point of order,

Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Environment used the term "deceit" with

reference, by implication, to members of this House. It's

unparliamentary language; it should not have been used. With his

experience, the minister knows full well that it's not appropriate, and

I would ask now that he withdraw the offensive language.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Hon. members, I think it's time that we get back to

section 3 of this bill.

MR. PERRY :

Mr. Chairman, the minister referred to funding of a chair in acid mine

drainage at the University of British Columbia, if I heard him

accurately.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : Dr. George Poling.

MR. PERRY :

I wasn't aware of that, or if I was, I'd forgotten. But I agree that it

sounds like an excellent idea. I wonder whether the minister has

considered the possibility, then, of providing funds from the

sustainable environment fund to other university institutions, such as

the Institute of Animal Resource Ecology. As you may know, Mr.

Chairman, that was the original institute to study the relationship

among organisms in the environment, which began its work in the 1960s

at UBC and a couple of years ago lost its world-famous director, Buzz

Hollings, due to the cutback in funding. I don't think it has ever

quite regained the glory it once had in the last great environmental

consciousness epoch of 1969, '70 and '71.

Another area that

strikes me as propitious is the faculty of forestry. As I listened to

the minister a moment ago, I thought it encouraging to know that the

university might have additional funds for a chair in acid mine

drainage, so that the faculty of engineering would not be potentially

exclusively dependent on the industry itself to fund a chair in an area

like that. It's very much in the public interest to give public funding

for chairs of that kind, and a substantial criticism has been made of

the faculty of forestry by at least some members of the public for its

dependence on industry funding. I wonder whether the minister will tell

us whether he has considered the possibility of showing some of the

same generosity towards the faculty of forestry or the Institute of

Animal Resource Ecology or, for that matter, the integrated resource

management group at Simon Fraser or Murray Rankin's law group at the

University of Victoria.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : Mr.

Chairman, I'm amazed that the member didn't know about our chair on

acid rain. I couldn't help but think that maybe I should take a

half-page out in the Vancouver Sun tomorrow, because if you don't know,

hardly anybody must know. It's a tremendous program.

would also advise the member that yes, we are looking at other programs

with the various universities. We do have programs right now — chairs at

the universities — on waste water and also on forestry and pulp mills,

and we're looking at others. We think it's an excellent way to go.

We're also getting cooperation from industry in helping to fund these

projects. I agree with you that it's the way to go, and I hope that we

in this province, through the talent that we have, will discover things

that can benefit not only British Columbians but people all over the

world.

MR. PERRY : By extension of the same point, I

think we're in a position to have learned a very important lesson that

we might have learned from Rachel Carson and others in 1962, but didn't

really learn, even in that great consciousness-raising of the first

Earth Day in 1970 and the years about that time. But we've now got

another opportunity to learn that lesson from the extremely costly

experience that we're continuing to suffer and undergo with the dioxin

issue.

There is an issue where I have some sympathy for the

forest industry, particularly the pulp mills, who learned — through the

development of a technology which could measure compounds such as

dioxins and furans in very low concentrations — that it had

[ Page

10265 ]

created a substantial monster in pollution, after the fact. And so did the government and the public.

[4:30]

In careful retrospect, we might not be so surprised that this

monster evolved right under our noses, so to speak, because Rachel

Carson and others — Barry Commoner, working at Washington University in

St. Louis; many others in Sweden with the experience with organic

mercury in the pulp mill industry in the 1960s; the Manitoba research

group in the early 1970s with the liberation of organic mercury from

the sediments of reservoir impoundments in northern Manitoba; and a

similar experience in northern Quebec with the James Bay project — all

should have told us that we could expect some problem in an industry

using complex chemical processes like the pulp and paper industry do.

Yet, I am told, it was almost by serendipity that the discovery was

made by the United States Environmental Protection Agency that pulp

mills were a source of dioxin emissions. It was in the attempt to

reconfirm old observations and compare a river thought to be clean in

northern Maine that they found high concentrations of dioxins, which

they ultimately traced to the effluent of a pulp mill.

think there is an important lesson from that experience, Mr. Chairman,

which is that we must look in advance for such problems and detect them

before they become mammoth and almost uncorrectable problems in some

sense. The minister should be very sensitive to this because his own

riding is so affected and his own brief experience as minister has been

so affected by this issue. Dare I say that he sometimes feels impotent

at the difficulty in cleaning up Howe Sound and other areas of the

coast contaminated by these complex chemicals?

I felt for a

long time that a more conservative approach to such chemicals was

warranted — more similar to the approach taken in the pharmaceutical

industry after the thalidomide incident. This has been that, in

general, chemicals must be proven safe before they are assumed to be

safe.

Interjection.

MR. PERRY : I hear

the government House Leader asking what the relevance of this is. Let

me assure you that I am leading up to a point, which is my concern that

the record of this government recently has been to denigrate and

downsize governmental attempts to monitor the environment — for

example, the government environmental laboratory — and I think we are

now paying some of the price for that weakness that we've engendered in

our ability to monitor, regulate and protect the environment.

My question to the minister now is: what proposals does he have under

section

3(a), programs to protect and enhance the environment, for reinstitution of

a comprehensive, scientifically credible, expert system of monitoring programs

that will allow us early warning of incipient environmental problems rather

than late detection when the problems already exist?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments made by the other member.

Things do change. I can remember when I first watched television back

in Montreal as a young child — 13 or 14 years of age — when the major ad

on TV was for Camel cigarettes, and it was a doctor saying: "These will

relax you." Things change.

MR. MILLER : Do you believe him?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

Some of us in this House still believe him. But things do change, and I

think the programs that we're operating under this fund and with the

universities will see that nothing is ever perfect. But we're trying

very hard to be leaders in a lot of fields.

MR. PERRY :

The minister slipped out of that one remarkably easily. I wonder if he

would elaborate even slightly on his intentions. The question I was

attempting to phrase clearly was: does he see in the future a role

under this fund for a comprehensive provincial scientific establishment

to monitor environmental change? Does he recognize at all the mistake

that was made in public policy in privatizing the Environmental Lab?

Does he concede an advantage, for example, to provincial agencies which

cannot only monitor chlorinated organic compounds other than dioxins

and furans, but perhaps some of the hundreds or even thousands or

conceivably tens of thousands or more compounds that are probably

present in the effluents of pulp mills, factories, proposed steel mills

or ferrochromium smelters or other industrial establishments in B.C.

or, for that matter, in air pollutants from cars?

I'm

looking for some insight into whether we can expect an improvement in

environmental monitoring in B.C. from the application of this fund, or

will we simply continue to have to fight day by day to get something

more than the political response to these issues?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

I must say I tend to agree with some of the comments made by the member

on the other side. With regard to monitoring, we have the GVRD

monitoring, we have the provincial government monitoring, we've got

cities monitoring, and we have the federal government monitoring. One

of the things I'm trying to do in the ministry — and this is coming out

of our base funding right now, not the fund — is to try and coordinate

these. As you know, we're coordinating with the GVRD in the emissions

testing in Vancouver. But I would like to see all of this done at one

level so we don't have a bunch of government departments at whatever

level doing the monitoring. I think we've got some overlapping right

now in various jurisdictions. Yes, we are looking at that in a serious

manner.

MR. G. JANSSEN : Not to belabour the point,

but to get back to Bill 16,

section 3, the object of the fund. As the

minister has indicated, many ministries will be involved in the

operation of the fund, and the

[ Page 10266 ]

cabinet

committee will meet to discuss which ministry will benefit. When the

Minister of Advanced Education (Hon. Mr. Strachan) entered the debate,

he said that many ministries will benefit, not just the Ministry of

Environment, even though the bill falls under his purview and he's

marshalling it through the House.

When

those particular

ministries come forward with their various proposals — be it Forests

or be it Advanced Education or whatever ministry it might happen to be

— and they attempt to access funds for their particular ministry out of

the sustainable environment fund, will advertising dollars to promote

those funds also come out of the sustainable environment fund, or will

those advertising dollars come out of the line ministries which have

contacted and come before the cabinet committee for the appropriation

of those funds?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : As I mentioned

earlier, we are using funds to advertise the hotline in the province.

That's coming out of the fund. Every minister, when he makes his

presentation, states what his objectives are. They get approved or not

approved.

MR. G. JANSSEN : I appreciate the answer

from the minister. Will the committee consider not only the funding for

the particular program that the ministry is after but also the

advertising dollars to promote that particular program? Will we have to

discuss that under estimates? Will it be part of the program of the

ministry itself to advertise through its general advertising budget?

don't want to get into the estimates at this point in time, but I think

it's important to establish this. If a particular ministry comes

forward to the fund and says they have this wonderful program and would

like to access the fund, and the cabinet committee agrees, do we end up

with 20 percent, 30 percent or 10 percent of that particular amount of

dollars being spent on advertising that program and still have the

various funding in the ministries in their advertising budget as well?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

Every program that comes before us is a wonderful one. That's where the

decision has to be made. Every minister is responsible for his or her

budget. If you've got a question, you could relate it to their

estimates.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Before I recognize the

member, I would just like to say that I know it's not possible for

every member to be in the House at all times, but this debate is

getting repetitious, and I would like members to keep that in mind as

they make further comments.

MR. G. JANSSEN : The

debate only gets repetitious when the answers aren't forthcoming, Mr.

Chairman. Not to reiterate my previous question, but simply: will

advertising dollars be included in the programs when the various

ministries apply to the fund?