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)

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 13, 1990

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

10279 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Conflict of Interest Act (Bill M223). Mr. Sihota

Introduction and first reading –– 10279

Oral Questions

Alcohol and drug programs. Mrs. Boone –– 10279

Hospital purchasing policy~ Mr. Clark –– 10280

Pharmacare coverage. Mr. Perry –– 10280

Government air logs. Mr. Long –– 10280

Lottery advisory committee. Mr. Jones –– 10281

Committee on women's services. Ms. Pullinger –– 10281

Emergency flood response. Mr. Rabbitt –– 10281

Ministerial Statement

Flooding in interior. Hon. Mr. Reynolds –– 10281

Mrs. Boone

Tabling Documents –– 10282

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

(Hon. Mr. Reynolds) –– 10282

Mr. Cashore

Ms. Edwards

Mr. Miller

Mr. Zirnhelt

Third reading

Hazardous Waste Management Corporation Act (Bill 38). Second reading.

(Hon. Mr. Reynolds)

Hon. Mr. Reynolds –– 10296

Ms. Cull –– 10296

Hon. Mr. Strachan –– 10300

Ms. Edwards –– 10301

Mr. Perry –– 10303

Mr. Zirnhelt –– 10305

Mr. Cashore –– 10306

Hon. Mr. Reynolds –– 10308

The House met at 2:04 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER : An introduction is probably not necessary, but will be made by the opposition House Leader.

MR. ROSE :

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Sitting behind me in the House today on the

floor is someone who, as Mr. Speaker said, probably doesn't need any

introduction. He's a former Premier of our province, a distinguished

British Columbian, a distinguished Canadian. Please welcome back to the

cockpit Dave Barrett, MP.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : At the

outset, Mr. Speaker, I would also like to welcome Dave Barrett to our

House. As you know, sir, you and I both sat as Deputy Speakers when Mr.

Barrett was Leader of the Opposition, and we probably learned more from

that gentleman than from anybody else. We certainly learned a lot about

the business, at least about the rules.

I would like to ask

the House to welcome today two distinguished visitors in the precincts

from Prince George. Would the House please welcome His Worship John

Backhouse, the mayor of the city of Prince George, and our city

manager, George Paul.

MR. SIHOTA : Mr. Speaker, in

the gallery today is a good friend from the riding of Esquimalt–Port

Renfrew, Buddy Devito. Would all members please join me in giving a

warm welcome to Mr. Devito.

HON. MRS. GRAN : Mr. Speaker, I would ask the House to welcome a group of students and teachers from Simonds Elementary School in Langley.

Introduction of Bills

CONFLICT OF INTEREST ACT

Mr. Sihota presented a bill intituled Conflict of Interest Act.

MR. SIHOTA : This is legislation which would allow for conflict-of-interest laws to be established in British Columbia.

The

conflict-of-interest provisions we have put forward set a legally

enforceable code of ethical behaviour that all cabinet ministers and

MLAs must follow. With that code, there is set out a number of

mandatory orientation seminars that will be required for all cabinet

ministers.

The law would require a thorough public financial disclosure by all MLAs, both

direct and indirect interests. It would demand public disclosure when an MLA

sees a conflict and withdraws from further discussion or voting on a particular

matter.

creates a process through which the public can initiate an

investigation into the conduct of a cabinet minister that could result

in fines, restitution or suspension.

Mr. Speaker, this is

legislation that, as a I said yesterday, ensures that British

Columbians will have open, fair and honest government and that

politicians who are attracted to public office will have to attend to

the public good and not look after their own personal interests.

Bill

M223 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.

Oral Questions

ALCOHOL AND DRUG PROGRAMS

MRS. BOONE :

My question is to the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services. The

minister had an internal report commissioned by his ministry on the

hospital costs of treating alcohol- and drug-dependent patients. Can

the minister explain why he has not made this report public?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN : I'll look into that matter and bring it forward, Mr. Speaker.

MRS. BOONE :

A new question to the minister. I have a copy of this report, and it

identifies $72 million of potentially avoidable hospital costs

resulting from the treatment of patients and identifies an urgent need

for reinvestment in preventive strategies and more appropriate

treatment systems. Can the minister explain why this report has not

been made available to doctors and hospitals, so that they can treat

alcohol-related illnesses in an effective manner?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN :

Mr. Speaker, I've already said that I would look into the matter, but I

don't think that the content of the report the member is talking about

prevents any treatment by doctors. As a matter of fact, as the member

begins to explain more of what she is referring to, I think the report

is an effort on the part of the ministry to identify those within the

hospital system who may be there mainly because of addiction or

alcohol-related problems. The project has been carried out on an

experimental basis through some hospitals, by special teams, to make an

evaluation of to what extent the problem exists and what we need to do

about it.

MRS. BOONE : It's amazing. The minister seems to know a lot about a question he took on notice.

New

question to the minister. Can he explain why his ministry has

eliminated the position of medical adviser from his ministry's alcohol

and drug service program, especially in light of the report we just

heard about?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN : Mr. Speaker, the

question is wrong in that we have not eliminated it. We do have a

responsibility, though, within government to

[ Page 10280 ]

see

that the money we spend on behalf of the taxpayers is spent properly

and frugally, and that we put it to best value. That position Is not

eliminated. It's still very much a part of the ministry's effort.

HOSPITAL PURCHASING POLICY

MR. CLARK :

A question to the Minister of Health. Will the minister confirm that

the CT scanner purchased by Kelowna General Hospital was a Siemens

machine, and will he confirm that the purchase of this particular model

was against the hospital's own recommendation and came about only after

the Ministry of Health ordered the hospital to purchase the most

expensive Siemens machine?

HON. J. JANSEN : Mr.

Speaker, I don't know what kind of equipment the Kelowna hospital

bought, just as I don't know what all the other hospitals buy. But If

the member wants me to look into determining what brand was on the CT

scanner in Kelowna, I'd be pleased to take that question on notice and

do that for him.

MR. CLARK : A new question. Will the

minister confirm that the Siemens CT scanner installed at Royal Jubilee

Hospital was in fact the fourth choice of the hospital committee, and

that it was purchased only after the direction of the Ministry of

Health?

HON. J. JANSEN : Again, the purchase of the

Siemens MRI machine.... Is it the MRI machine he's talking about? Oh,

the CT scanner. My understanding is that the CT scanner was a decision

made by the board. It was not a piece of equipment that the ministry

interfered with. It's a normal purchase that the board would make a

recommendation for. As far as I can tell, everything was satisfactory

in that regard.

PHARMACARE COVERAGE

MR. PERRY :

Another question for the Minister of Health. Parents of children born

with congenital dysplasia of the hip are now being forced to spend $300

to $400 for the neonatal braces required to treat that condition, but

they are not eligible for full Pharmacare coverage. Given that these

braces are crucial to prevent such children from growing up with

serious hip problems, has the minister now decided to change the

policy — as he did for the diabetics recently — and have Pharmacare pay

100 percent of the cost?

[2:15]

HON. J. JANSEN : It's

unfortunate that the member is relying on editorials or newspaper

coverage in terms of determining what ministry policy is. In fact,

those appliances are covered by Pharmacare, and they have been covered

by Pharmacare for some time. In 1989 we paid in excess of $2 million

for this type of benefit for people in the province of British

Columbia. We also recently announced the at-home program, which covers

those patients who are unable to pay under normal Pharmacare coverage,

and 100 percent of that is covered under the Social Services ministry.

MR. PERRY :

A new question for the minister. Last year I raised with the ministry

the situation of families with children who are suffering from

thalassemia major, which is normally a fatal disease affecting young

children. At that time, I pointed out that the families might incur

bills as high as $5,000 per year to enable them to undergo home

treatment, which is potentially life-saving for those children. Will

the minister inform us whether he has reviewed that question and

whether his ministry has decided that those children and their families

are equally as eligible for benefits under our universal health care

system as any other British Columbian?

HON. J. JANSEN :

I'm trying to find out, first of all, if there is a question. I'll

certainly take the information on notice, and I'll report back to the

member opposite if he has some genuine concern about this problem.

Everyone

in British Columbia is covered under Pharmacare. Those who qualify

under certain conditions come under Social Services and Housing. I'm

not really sure what question the member has. I'll certainly look at

the problem. If he has a specific problem that he wishes to refer to

me, I'll be pleased to look at it.

MR. PERRY : A new question. I did raise that matter earlier in detail, and I'll pursue it

MR. SPEAKER : If you have a new question.... I have another member, the member for Mackenzie.

GOVERNMENT AIR LOGS

MR. LONG :

Mr. Speaker, the question is to the Minister of Finance. The Ministry

of Government Management Services has announced that you will release

the flight logs pertaining to the government air services. In the

interests of open government, will you request that the

comptroller-general release the air travel expenses of the Leader of

the Opposition?

HON. MR. COUVELIER : This issue was

peripherally commented upon in the last few days, during earlier

debates in this Legislature. So I made an inquiry. I learned, to my

surprise, that I am impotent to provide that information without the

written approval of the Leader of the Opposition. As a consequence of

your legitimate request today, and in view of the earlier, oft-repeated

comments by the Leader of the Opposition that he believes in open and

free government, I will ask the comptroller-general to convey the

request in writing to the Leader of the Opposition.

[ Page

10281 ]

LOTTERY ADVISORY COMMITTEE

MR. JONES :

Mr. Speaker, we have recently learned that the auditor-general's review

of lottery grants has found irregularities in some 25 percent of grants

examined last year — one out of four. Has the Provincial Secretary

finally decided to establish an arm's-length lottery advisory

committee, as provided for in the Lottery Act?

HON. MR. DIRKS :

Mr. Speaker, I see that not only does the member for Esquimalt–Port

Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) not know what is going on, but the member who just

asked the question also doesn't know. If he refers back to February,

he'll see the very effective guidelines that were put in place for the

control of lottery grants.

MR. JONES : The public

wants assurance of a non-political process in terms of lottery grants.

The institution of four unnamed cabinet ministers does not put it at

arm's-length, as the public requires. Has the minister decided to

replace that four-member cabinet committee with an arm's-length,

non-political advisory committee?

HON. MR. DIRKS :

Mr. Speaker, I would disagree. I believe that what the public really

wants is honesty in the questioning and the innuendo that comes from

across the floor. They certainly would like some honesty in the

questions that are asked. In that regard I believe we have honourable

gentlemen sitting on that committee and honourable decisions.

COMMITTEE ON WOMEN'S SERVICES

MS. PULLINGER :

I have a question to the Minister Responsible for Women's Programs. On

June 4 the minister received the report of her committee on women's

services. Can the minister tell the House when this report will be made

public?

HON. MRS. GRAN : I would advise the member

that I do not have the report yet myself. As soon as I do, and have

shared the recommendations with my colleagues, it will be made

available to the public.

EMERGENCY FLOOD RESPONSE

MR. RABBITT :

To the Minister of Environment, as the minister responsible for water

management. In light of the major flood conditions which are developing

in the southern interior of British Columbia, what specific action is

the government undertaking to monitor this flooding and to meet the

immediate needs of the people affected by this emergency?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : I thank the member for that question and would advise

him that the provincial emergency program has people on site not only in the

Okanagan but up around the Prince George area in the north. They are working

with people sandbagging in the Okanagan, assisting people and working with them.

As you know, the....

Interjections.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

Unfortunately, this matter isn't a joke. It's a very serious matter. I

would advise the House that the ministries involved are taking it very

seriously — not the typical joke that comes from the member for

Esquimalt–Port Renfrew.

There are some serious problems in

this province. There are people working with the highway maintenance

crews, assisting people putting sandbags around their homes and helping

people who are in deep trouble. I can also advise the House that right

at this moment the Premier of this province and the minister in charge

of the provincial emergency program

Interjections.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : We've got the flood up there and the ship of fools sitting over there.

The

Premier of this province is there right now with the minister in charge

of the provincial emergency program to talk to the people and advise

them that there will be assistance from this government — whatever is

needed to solve the problem.

Ministerial Statement

FLOODING IN INTERIOR

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a ministerial statement. I'm sure that all

members of the chamber are now aware of the devastation caused by

flooding throughout the interior of our province. The flooding has

caused massive damage in parts of the Okanagan and Prince George

region. Far more tragically, the flooding has also displaced many

families and cost the lives of several people. Mr. Speaker, on behalf

of our government, I would like to express our deepest sympathy to

those families who have suffered loss of life.

Our

government, through the provincial emergency program, the Ministry of

Environment, including volunteers from the Environment Youth Corps, and

other agencies, is deploying every available resource to assist the

residents in need.

Mr. Speaker, right now our Premier,

together with the Solicitor-General (Hon. Mr. Fraser), is flying to the

flood scene in order to assess the damage firsthand and to speak

directly with those affected. We are confident that by working together

we will overcome this disastrous impact on our province with the

greatest efficiency and care for the people.

MRS. BOONE :

On behalf of the New Democratic Party, I would like to join the

government in expressing sympathy to those families who are suffering

as a result of the floods in both my community — in Prince George — and

in the Okanagan. The extensive damage to property is of concern;

however, property

[ Page 10282 ]

can

be repaired or replaced. Those who have lost family members or friends

will face a far greater loss. That loss cannot be replaced.

appreciate the efforts of the government to assist those families

affected in both the Okanagan and the Prince George region, and I can

only hope that the worst is behind us.

Mr. Speaker, the New

Democratic Party pledges its support to work with the government to

assist all those affected by the flood conditions.

MRS. McCARTHY : I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MRS. McCARTHY :

We are privileged to have as a guest in the House today Carol Lee, who

is from the California State Legislature In Sacramento. I'd ask the

House to give her a very warm welcome.

Hon. Mr. Couvelier

tabled a statement of unclaimed money deposits held in trust accounts

for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1990, in accordance with

section 3

of the Unclaimed Money Act.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. RICHMOND : Mr. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 16.

SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENT FUND ACT

(continued)

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

MR. CHAIRMAN : When we adjourned yesterday we were dealing with

section 4 of Bill 16, Sustainable Environment Fund Act. Shall

section 4 pass?

Section 4 approved.

section 5.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : I move the amendment to

section 5 standing under my name on the order paper.

[Section 5, by deleting the proposed

section 5 and substituting

the following:

Expenditures

(1) On the recommendation of the committee, the Minister of

Environment may pay money out of the fund for any of the following:

(

a) initiatives to reduce solid, liquid, hazardous and atmospheric

wastes;

(

b) land acquisition costs for park, fish conservation and wildlife

conservation purposes;

(

c) integrated resource management and environmental protection

initiatives;

(

d) operation of the Round Table on Environment and Economy.

(2) On the recommendation of the committee, the Minister of Forests

may pay money out of the fund for any of the following:

(

a) the provision of tree seeds and seedlings required for Provincial

reforestation projects and basic silviculture associated with areas harvested

before October 1, 1987 and areas denuded by major fire and pest outbreaks;

(

b) programs delivered by the government under the cost-shared

$300 million Forest Resources Development Subsidiary Agreement;

(

c) programs delivered by the government under other

(

i) cost-shared federal-provincial forest resource development

agreements that may be entered into from time to time, or

(ii) new forest renewal programs of the government that the committee

considers to be consistent with the aims and intent of the agreement mentioned

in paragraph (b);

(

d) operation of the Forest Resources Commission.]

On the amendment.

MR. CASHORE :

It's just a small point, but assuming that when the information in this

bill is consolidated into the statutes, some of the explanatory notes

go with them. The explanatory note here refers only to the Minister of

Environment and not to the Minister of Forests, so I'm just asking the

minister to comment on how that would be dealt with, given that it's

not referred to or there isn't a new explanatory note that accompanies

the amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN : I might mention for the edification of the hon. member that explanatory notes will not go into the revised statute.

[2:30]

MR. CASHORE : I was under the impression that in some situations explanatory notes do show up, Mr. Chairman.

think we're getting here into the part of the bill that deals with how

these funds are going to be used. We've canvassed the serious questions

that we have about the basis of this fund and the real need for it in

view of the lack of additional support to the line ministries. We have

expressed our concerns about the opportunity it provides for cabinet

members to be making decisions on this funding without an arm's-length

approach. just as in the point made a few moments ago, there should be

an arm's-length approach when dealing with lottery funds. Indeed,

lottery funds constitute some of the funds being dealt with here, and

it would be far better if there were an arm's-length approach in

dealing with any distribution of funds that come from the public purse,

especially in such an important area of protecting the environment and

reforestation.

Notwithstanding the comments made by the

minister yesterday, we still see this fund as vulnerable to political

people rewarding friends and insiders. We really question the comments

that we have to trust the process and accept it in good faith when

there's

[ Page

10283 ]

really no increase whatsoever for the budget of this hard-pressed line ministry.

Nowhere

could that point be more appropriately identified than in 5(1)(a) —

"initiatives to reduce solid, liquid, hazardous and atmospheric

wastes." Again, if the ministry is going to be effective in that, it's

going to have to enable its own conservation officer staff to carry out

the investigations and programs that are in place, which the government

is fond of bragging about, in order to improve the government's record

in dealing with solid, liquid, hazardous and atmospheric wastes. But we

know that the minister sees this as an opportunity to make funding

available to some private corporations, as though that is going to

solve the problem. Yet it fails to recognize that this is a far more

wide-reaching problem than that.

Sub-subsection (1)(

b) goes

on to talk about "land acquisition costs for parks, fish conservation

and wildlife conservation purposes." I would have to remind the

minister that it was in 1987 that the Minister of Finance removed close

to $200 million, I think, from the Crown land fund, and those funds

were to acquire land for two purposes: parkland and housing. But

insofar as a fund existed which had a substantial amount of money in it

for acquiring parkland, I would like the minister to comment on what he

sees this fiscal year in the way of funding made available for

acquiring parkland.

In particular, when we think of the

changes in the boundaries of Strathcona Park, does the minister see

this fund as being used to compensate the companies that had mineral

claims in the park prior to the OIC change to the park boundaries? Does

the minister see money from the sustainable environment fund being used

to pay compensation to mining companies that have lost their right to

proceed in areas that have been declared as parks?

I've raised a few points there, so I'll just give the minister a chance to respond.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

Mr. Chairman, I think the member is right. There will be some money

available in these programs for private corporations. I know we have a

disagreement in those areas, and I'll just leave it at that.

I'm

not exactly sure about the actual amount of money for parkland. I'm

waiting for one of my officials, who can give us those figures

immediately. If you want to go on with some other questions, I can get

you those figures as soon as he arrives, which I hope will be

momentarily.

MR. CASHORE : Mr. Chairman, I would like

to ask the minister to make note of a couple of other questions that I

have and that he may have to send out for information on.

The issue of the Expo lands, of course, remains very serious in the province.

The issue has been canvassed many times with regard to the impact of the cost

of the cleanup on the profitability of that sale. I am sure the minister and

I will agree that there's a great variety of opinion between the government

and the opposition as to what that really amounts to. I would be interested

in the minister's comments with regard to the potential cost of the Expo

land cleanup and what portion of this fund, if any, would be targeted for that.

For those who have just come in, I'm asking about the fund being used for

Expo land cleanup.

Further

to that question, I also wanted to raise a couple of questions about

the Provincial Round Table on Environment and Economy. Before we get

into too many questions, though, I would like to hear some answers.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : I am advised that the money available in the fund for parkland purchase will be in the area of $2 million.

could talk and debate forever about the Expo lands. I'm sure when we

get into my estimates we'll do more than that, so I won't go into great

detail. I'll just say that we probably will disagree about

profitability. I agree that there's a great profit for the citizens of

British Columbia in the sale of that land.

It doesn't

matter who it was sold to; the Expo land cleanup would have to take

place. Experts gave us predictions as to what it would cost. I'm not

prepared at this time to talk about what that final cost will be,

because we are down to the final half-dozen or so companies that have

been on the Expo land.

We're looking at new technology. I

can assure the member and the citizens of British Columbia that the

technology we use to clean up the Expo land in Vancouver will be the

best available. It will be technology that we can use around this

province.

There's a lot of publicity attached to the Expo

land because of Expo and what happened, but we all must remember that

no one government is to blame for it; nor is any individual or any

single group of companies. There were things happening over the past

hundred years in this country that everybody thought was fine years

ago. Much land must be cleaned up. I hope we'll be able to use the

process we find for the Expo land in other situations around British

Columbia.

I can also assure the member that there is no

money for the Expo cleanup in this fund. It is in a contingency fund

under the Ministry of Finance.

MR. CASHORE : Mr.

Chairman, I take it from the minister's answer with regard to the Expo

land that the sustainable environment fund would not be seen in any way

as a fund that would be addressed to orphan sites throughout the

province when it comes to matters of contamination. We may hear of

other initiatives to deal with that, but we won't be hearing about that

in the context of this fund; none of these funds would be appropriated

for that.

With regard to the $2 million for parkland

purchase, it's my understanding that that's been a standard for many

years. I believe — I don't have the ability to look it up right now —

that either within the parks budget or within some kind of fund under

the Minister of Finance, there's almost $2 million as a standard, going

back for quite a few years, listed as

[ Page 10284 ]

money

for park acquisition. Perhaps the minister can clarify whether or not

this means that in fact we would have $4 million available for park

acquisition this year. Or does it simply mean that the money that

already existed for park acquisition has been consolidated into this

fund?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : I would advise the member

that the Parks ministry will have $3.7 million in total for the

acquisition of private land and parks.

MR. CASHORE : Would the minister advise me whether that $3.7 million includes the $2 million out of the sustainable environment fund?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : It's all in the sustainable development fund.

MR. CASHORE :

The minister just said that it's all in the sustainable development

fund. I believe he meant the sustainable environment fund. But in

answer to a question a moment ago, I thought the minister said that

there was $2 million for parks. So now I'm wanting clarification as to

whether it's $2 million or $3.7 million.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : We have $2 million for habitat and $3.7 million for park acquisition, for a total of $5.7 million.

MR. CASHORE :

This is great; it keeps getting larger. I think if I just keep asking

these short questions, the minister will oblige me by possibly

increasing the amount.

The minister is saying that there's

$5.7 million which has to do with various aspects of parkland

acquisition, and that all of that comes out of the sustainable

environment fund. Is that correct, that all $5.7 million comes out of

the sustainable environment fund? Do I see by the minister nodding that

he is confirming this?

I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. Did the

minister say that $5.7 million for park acquisition comes out of the

sustainable environment fund?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : If

the member would take his blue book out he could see, under the heading

of "Environmental Protection and Preservation of Natural Areas," the

total of $2 million for fish and wildlife habitat and $3.7 million for

park acquisition, which add up to $5.7 million.

MR. CASHORE :

The minister moved beyond the scope of my question when he got into

acquisition of fish and wildlife habitat, but I see what he's saying.

don't think the minister has satisfactorily answered the question about

the funds for compensation to the companies that had mineral claims in

Strathcona Park prior to the boundary changes. If the minister could

advise us if the sustainable environment fund is....

The

minister is shaking his head and saying that does not come out of the

sustainable environment fund, in the same vein, I would take it, as his

answer about the contaminated lands.

We get into the area

of the operation of the Round Table on Environment and Economy. I want

to ask the minister to comment on the Round Table, in view of the fact

that it was appointed approximately 18 months after the Canadian

Council of Resource and Environment Ministers — of which our then

Minister of Environment was a part — had recommended it. The federal

government actually got tired of waiting for B.C. to appoint its Round

Table, so it went ahead and appointed the Round Table prior to the B.C.

one being appointed.

I believe that the Strangway committee

was still in the process of meeting to advise the Minister of

Environment at that time as to whether or not there should be a round

table and on what terms. The lateness of this whole process certainly

belies the government's stated concern about the environment, because

it took so long to get up speed.

I noted that when the

federal Round Table on the environment was appointed, there was one

appointee from British Columbia — a woman who works for Forintek on the

UBC campus. To the best of my knowledge, that individual is not on the

B.C. Round Table, and I'm just wondering if the minister could advise

the House if he has decided to take any steps to arrange for a person

on the B.C. Round Table to also be a member of the federal Round Table.

[2:45]

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

To answer the last question first, the best possible person in this

province is on the federal Round Table, and it's me this year. To go

back to the Round Table itself, I would suggest to him that there are

still provinces which don't have round tables. I think the steps that

we took in this province guaranteed us the quality that we have on the

Round Table.

As you know, we had the Strangway task force,

which made recommendations to this government. I was at a meeting not

too long ago where Mr. Strangway stood up and praised this government

for implementing the recommendations of his task force. I think we have

been doing it. We didn't move quickly. No, we moved very slowly. But

you will know that the 31 people on the Round Table are people of

quality and dedication, and I am sure they will make some great

recommendations to this government and to this Legislature. The

chairman, Chuck Connaghan, has a reputation in the province of British

Columbia for getting things done and for being a great negotiator. I

understand that not this past weekend but the weekend before, they had

their meeting in Penticton. They had public hearings, and I understand

they were very successful.

As an opposition you always

could — and I am sure we could on our own side — find some criticism

that maybe one group isn't represented or there aren't enough women on

the Round Table. But those things will take care of themselves over

time. There will be changes every couple of years. There will be

[ Page

10285 ]

resignations, whatever. We will fit some of the recommendations in.

know my staff did a very thorough job and talked to literally probably

three or four times the number of people on this list. Also, some

people just weren't prepared to give up the time that was necessary.

It's a very dedicated job that anybody's taken who sits on the Round

Table, because they're going to be involved in very serious issues in

this province. I want to go on record as saying I congratulate all of

the people who have taken time out of their very busy lives to serve on

this very important body.

MR. CASHORE : I, too,

congratulate the people on the Round Table. I think they are a good

group of people, and I am glad the minister has put on the record his

commitment that he will work toward the goal of gender parity. He

didn't put it in those terms, but from what he said I understand that

he is going to be working toward that as the membership on that Round

Table evolves over a period of time. I think that's worthwhile.

With

regard to the minister's comment about President Strangway praising the

government for the Round Table, it does have a bit of a sound of a

symbiotic relationship there. But I'll take that in good faith. I'm

sure Dr. Strangway is pleased with the Round Table. It's unfortunate,

though, that it's going to be quite some time before we really have the

opportunity to see the result and to see some of the value of it. I

really do think there are some very good people there.

I go

back to a meeting in January when the minister spoke in the Fishermen's

hall down on Victoria Drive with regard to pulp pollution and the loss

of people's livelihood in the crab-fishing industry. He was being

pushed by some very angry people. I give the minister credit for coming

and facing those people in person at that time; I think the minister

gave a very credible performance. But we all know that it was a very

tense room we were in, and it was even, in some ways, volatile. There

was question after question coming to the minister: "What are you

going to do about this now?" People were saying: "You don't have to

study this. What are you going to do about it now?" And the escape

hatch was the Round Table. The minister said — and it's on the record

of that meeting — several times in answer to the questions of those

people that he would be referring the question of pulp pollution in

Howe Sound to the Round Table.

They will understand that when the Round Table began to function — the people

there being people of their own mind — that it wasn't long before they made

it very clear to the minister that they did not see themselves as being in

that kind of role. I understand that the Round Table is intent on addressing

issues that are more appropriate for the Round Table to be addressing. Quite

clearly — I am sure the minister agrees now — on the issue of addressing pulp

pollution there are some things that are urgent and pressing and the minister

has, in his own way and from his own political philosophy, been coming forward

with measures. I just want to emphasize the point that the function of the Round

Table is limited. There is only so much it can do. It's a tremendously important

part of a much larger process, and as I said before, it's late and it's

long overdue.

That's all I will be raising for the moment. I think some of my colleagues have some other questions.

MS. EDWARDS :

I have some concerns in this

section about duplication of effort, if

you want to put it that way. There are some issues that could come up

because of the way the funds are expended. There is a time postponement

— an extension of time period in order to get some functions achieved —

and certainly in the rural areas of the province and I believe in all

areas there are some questions about whether there is duplication of

effort, whether there is an increased bureaucratic load and this sort

of thing.

I bring the minister's attention, first of all,

to subsection (1)(a), where it talks about initiatives to reduce solid

wastes and also liquid, hazardous and atmospheric wastes. More

specifically, the idea is that the Minister of Environment may, after

he receives a recommendation from the committee, spend some money on

initiatives in reducing solid waste and that kind of thing. These

issues have been a matter of some urgency in various regions of the

province and certainly in the constituency I represent. My question to

the minister is: what is the value of this committee now having to

recommend?

Is this going to cause a time extension, when

the people in the Elk Valley are trying to solve their solid-waste

problem anyway? Is this now going to mean that they have an extended

length of time — if they see they may have some increased funding —

that they're going to want to wait to see whether they have increased

funding? It could be something as simple as that which extends what is

done in the Elk Valley, or it may be a matter of waiting because

another program is put up, and therefore having to wait to make a

different approach and a different application.

I would

suggest that that same sort of thing could apply when you are talking

about — and I refer to the same docket page which I believe came out of

the estimates booklet, the blue book — what describes some of these

expenditures. We're talking about pilot projects under innovative

waste-management programs. It suggests that that may be one of the

things that's happening.

Is there, in fact, going to be

some money in there for sparsely populated areas? If this is the case,

the people in the Elk Valley, for example, need to know promptly. Why

is it we are going through another whole fund? Why is it that we move

this function out of the line ministry and into a situation where a

whole committee of cabinet ministers has to make recommendations on it?

Is this going to delay what's happening? Is it going to, in fact,

achieve what the minister would lead us to suppose he wants to achieve

— an increased level of attack, if you like, at the solid-waste

management problem? That is a matter of some considerable concern.

[ Page 10286 ]

also would like to ask the minister again about land-acquisition costs.

In particular, I bring to mind the example I brought up in both second

reading and under

section 4. It seems to me that there could be a major

increase in the bureaucracy of this if the function of purchasing land

for fish and wildlife habitat is now going through another ministry in

order to increase the amount.

If you want to increase the

amount, presumably the cabinet can do that. Then why do we have to have

a fund? Why do we have to move it back and forth? To be assured — and

again, the minister did assure yesterday — that it would go through the

normal processes that are set up as guidelines for the habitat

conservation fund? Why is that there? Is that not simply something that

will take longer to do and that will make it much more difficult for

things to happen?

I find it interesting that subsection

(1)(

c) talks about integrated resource management initiatives. Again,

the management itself is to be done by the ministries. Certainly it has

to be coordinated when you are doing it for integrated use. But it

doesn't assure me that the initiative will help very much at all in the

continuing attempt on the part of governments to deal in various ways

with integrating resource management.

I have some concerns

that this is not going to be particularly effective. I think I will

leave that there. I have a few other questions on the same sort of line

but I'll wait for the minister to answer.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

I can assure the member that there will be no increase in the

bureaucratic system that people have to go through to help solve their

problems in this area. I would also suggest to the member that if she

wishes, I would be more than happy to have her sit down with somebody

in my staff to explain exactly what we're doing in her region with the

regional districts, the municipalities, the villages and those who have

replied to our letters offering assistance.

You talk about bureaucracy. I just read in the British Columbia Report of

June 11 that your party is in favour of a recycling agency to promote

better recycling in the province. If you are concerned about a

bureaucracy, why would your party be promoting a recycling agency

separate from government?

I can assure you that we are

working as quickly as we can and offering assistance wherever we can in

every region of the province, and it doesn't matter if it's one of the

smallest regions. In fact, I know my staff is meeting at 3 o'clock

today with people who are interested in assisting us in putting depots

around the province to help recycling and to help get that material

back to the source where it can be recycled.

MS. EDWARDS :

But my experience in talking with the municipalities in the Elk Valley

is not that they have had a whole lot of help from the provincial

government when they have talked about initiatives to reduce the amount

of solid waste. They certainly haven't had any response except: "Wait

to see what we're going to do with the Rabbitt report." It is the only

answer they've had when they've said: "We don't want to make plans and

spend money on a solid waste system until such time as we know we can

put the recycling component into it."

The whole thing has

been nothing but a stalling process. I bring it straight to the

minister: we had the Rabbitt report, then we had nothing happening with

it. We've had "We'll wait" and "We'll wait." And now we get $5,000 for

another study that was required on top of the previous study that was

required. Now we have a new fund with a new committee, which will be

distributing money.

I have some major concerns about

whether this is going to address a serious issue in the Elk Valley. The

question is: is it simply going to be another promise that creates

another bunch of time and another situation where...? We're talking

about finding ways to deal with a very expensive solid-waste problem in

a sparsely populated area like the Elk Valley. Instead of that we get

pilot projects in Delta. They're probably very much needed, but are

there going to be pilot projects to deal with the extremely difficult

and typical problems we're dealing with in the Elk Valley? They're

typical for places where there aren't many people. That is a continuing

concern, and I don't see that this part of the legislation addresses

it; I don't see that it's there.

[3:00]

I would move on to another question. It comes mainly through the

description of the bill in the blue book, which mentions in several

places that energy conservation will be an issue and will be addressed

under funds — both under waste management and sustainable development

initiatives. My question, Mr. Minister, is: how would this happen?

There's

certainly a need for legislation for energy efficiency standards for

appliances and for Building Code requirements if the ministry wants to

work with it, but there is a huge initiative — not huge enough, but

large — going on in B.C. Hydro to promote energy conservation right

now. That is strictly electricity, I grant you, and the minister may

tell me that the energy conservation plans and initiatives described

here will go far beyond B.C. Hydro. That may be so, but are you talking

about adding money to what is going on in the promotion of conservation

of electrical energy? Or are you really talking about some of the

serious work that has to go into getting some legislation drafted and

doing the public work that should go on around that legislation?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

I would suggest to the member with regard to the first

section she

talked about that we met with the people from her constituency — the

elected officials — on May 1 here in Victoria and agreed that we would

assist in funding the plan itself. I understand from my staff that all

that is taking place. There are no delays — certainly not on our part,

and I don't think on the other side either. I think both sides are

working very closely together.

[ Page

10287 ]

With regard to the amount of money for energy conservation, in the

sustainable development fund there is an additional $450,000 for energy

conservation programs. I understand that the Minister of Energy (Hon.

Mr. Davis) will be presenting those plans to the committee very shortly.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

MS. EDWARDS :

I presume that's under a

section described as sustainable development

initiatives, for which there is a total amount of $18.6 million. I

don't have my blue book with me, just one page out of it, Mr. Minister,

so excuse me. But I notice that under the waste management section,

which is $27.3 million, you have another mention of energy

conservation. It says: "Other initiatives, including energy

conservation, agricultural soil and water protection programs, etc...."

I'm not sure whether that $450,000 you just mentioned.... Where is it

going to be directed? Is that the money that will go to the project or

which might go towards laying out for public input the suggestions you

have for the adoption of energy efficient standards for appliances?

Surely that wouldn't happen, so what is it?

As far as I can

see, the government, as opposed to B.C. Hydro, must do a number of

things if we're just talking about electrical conservation at the

moment. One of the things the government must do is bring in

legislation which will require certain standards for electrical

appliances and industrial motors, and for building codes and so on. Is

that the kind of thing the minister foresees happening, or is it

something different?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : I can give

you the figures that were allocated, but if you want to go into details

as to what the Minister of Energy is going to do, you should wait until

his estimates to go through them item by item.

We can tell

you that in the book it says, "Energy conservation initiatives,

including the adoption of energy efficiency standards for appliances

and public information to raise consumer awareness in energy

conservation," and we can give you the amount. But as for what the

minister is going to bring to the committee.... He hasn't done that

yet, but I'm sure that during his estimates you can have all the time

you want to go through in detail all of the programs he's proposing and

why he's proposing them.

MS. EDWARDS : Presumably

that's all caught in the legislation under "environmental protection

initiatives," which are not clearly defined. It leaves one with some

questions about how the funds will be expended and where they will go.

My next question.... I presume the minister may answer in the same way, but

I am going to lay the question out anyway: is there some indication that some

of this funding might go to the area of petroleum energy conservation and measures

that may be needed there such as emission standards for vehicles, testing stations

and those kinds of things that have to do with petroleum resources and the conservation

of those?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

If the member is to go through the details of material we've put out in

the past, she would notice — but under a different minister, the

Solicitor-General — that we're doing emission testing standards. That's

one item that's in with a specific figure on it of $2.5 million. I'm

sure the Minister of Energy will be expounding on all the other areas

that he will be going into when he does his own estimates.

MS. EDWARDS :

The minister's answers indicate to me that the problem I'm having has

not yet been answered, and that is: why in the world are we having to

go through this process when, in fact, it's all being handled and being

planned and put forward to the line ministries? It's an interesting

question. It gives a pretty clear indication of the answer, too.

want to ask one more question. If there is an implementation of a

provincial wildlife inventory, again that's a function that would be

within this minister's line ministry responsibilities. Is there

considerably more money to be put to that, and how would that go in

line with what has been hoped and what has been put into....? I know

the minister has made promises about increased funding for wildlife

inventory for this year. How did that work? Does that go right back

into the Ministry of Environment to be done again?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

It does go back into the fund. I can tell the member that we'll be

having 21 additional staff in that area, which I think will be very

positive in the area that you live in and in other areas of the

province. No, that's 21 on the staff, not all in the Kootenays. I don't

know if we know how many right now. We're still working with staff to

outline the program.

The member asks why it is being done

this way. It's because there's integration, and the other ministers now

must come to this committee and go through with the Minister of the

Environment's input on these environmental matters, which I think are

very important to all British Columbians. That's why it's being done

this way.

It's the first of its kind in North America, and

I can guarantee you that it's going to be copied by other provinces and

other states. I had a meeting last week with the federal government in

Ottawa just on this topic of the sustainable environment fund. They

think it's an excellent idea to separate it from general revenue so the

public knows exactly what the government is doing on the environment.

They know that if the program isn't completed at the end of the year,

the money stays there. The Minister of Finance can't move it over for

some other reason. I think you'll see other governments across Canada

and the U.S. copying what we're doing.

[ Page 10288 ]

MS. EDWARDS : I have just one more question. Is that new money that's in here, or does that come from somewhere else?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : Yes, it's $5 million in new money, Mr. Chairman.

MR. MILLER :

Mr. Chairman, I wanted to deal with the Integrated resource management

section of the amendment, and that hasn't changed. First of all, I'll

give a very quick review in terms of the issue of integrated resource

management. As most people are aware, it has been the mandate of the

Minister of Forests for a considerable time. If you review any of the

forest and range resource analysis documents over a period of time, you

will see that they have always devoted a little

section to integrated

resource management. Sometimes it is a very simple, two paragraph

section outlining the mandate, and sometimes it's a bit more revealing,

as it was in the 1987-92 report, which admitted that the lack of an

integrated approach to resource management is a serious deficiency.

a result of that, I think there has been general acknowledgement that

the ministry has not really fulfilled their mandate in any kind of

meaningful way. That has become more and more topical as the province

encounters these very divisive issues in terms of these land-use

questions.

Quoting from the 1987-92 report, there is a list

of issues which the ministry says is their mandate: "Forage which

supports the livestock industry, recreational opportunities, water,

visitors and industries, fisheries, wildlife" — all of those issues

which you would expect to be covered under an integrated resource

management approach. I would also note that the Ministry of Forests has

$18.5 million budgeted in this fiscal year to carry out that mandate.

became fairly obvious that there was a lack of really good work in this

area. I think, too, a lot of people in British Columbia, when the

government was embarking on their policy of expanding the tree-farm

licence system.... That, as everyone is aware, ran up against a stone

wall of opposition.

It was quite intriguing back in

November of '88 when the government was preparing to have their first

public hearing on an application to roll over a couple of forest

licences into a tree-farm licence. In fact, it was an application from

Fletcher Challenge Canada to take over the entire Mackenzie timber

supply area — timber supply areas being those geographic regions which

the Ministry of Forests has identified for their planning purposes. The

proposal from the company was to take over this area, which is some six

million hectares, and to manage it on behalf of the Crown. Prior to the

public hearing — just prior, in fact about a week — the chief TFL

forester put out a little statement saying: "There's going to be a

little bit of delay. We're having some trouble pulling together some of

our figures, our information, which we need for the hearing."

MR. CHAIRMAN :

Order, please. Mr. Member, are you being relevant with respect to the

use of the funds collected under this legislation? It sounds as if it's

the general forestry program you're talking about. If you'd be relevant

section 5 amendments....

MR. MILLER : I think I

am, Mr. Chairman. I'll naturally take any advice you have to offer, but

I am talking about integrated resource management. The

section 5 that

I'm referring to, specifically 5(l)(c), says "integrated resource

management and environmental protection initiatives." I would think

it's within the scope of the bill.

MR. CHAIRMAN : The member will be relevant to

section 5, as amended, please.

[3:15]

MR. MILLER :

So here we are a week before a public hearing, and finally the public

hearing was cancelled and the admission was made by the ministry that

they simply didn't have those other values quantified, those non-timber

values. That was quite a revelation, in my opinion.

We move

on down the road, and we come to the appeal commission, the Forest

Resources Commission, which again falls under the purview of this bill.

I think there should be some discussion here, unlike the discussion I

tried to have yesterday on silviculture, which kept being referred back

to the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Richmond). This clearly allocates

some money.

The appeal commission, in their meetings in

Victoria, in their interviews with senior civil servants, again dealt

with this question of integrated resource management. To quote the

chairman at the hearing on May 17, in discussions with senior Ministry

of Forests officials: "But the commission has constantly heard that the

process" — that is, integrated resource management — "isn't working.

We've constantly heard that the Ministry of Forests is managing

primarily for timber values and that all these other values come in

second place."

In subsequent testimony before the

commission, a senior official in the Ministry of Forests backed that

up, confirmed that, by saying that their

interpretation of managing on

a multiple-use basis, or integrated resource management basis, was that

timber was part of the equation and that it would be impossible to

remove timber. Although they would concede that they would allow

pockets of areas in a planning area to be allocated to other uses,

timber was the primary use.

Clearly that was unacceptable

to some within the ministry, because it was not that long afterwards

that that same official, Mr. Cheston, came back to the commission and

clarified the official position of the ministry in terms of integrated

resource use. Again quoting the chairman from that particular hearing,

in response to Mr. Cheston's statement Mr. Peel said: "You're saying

that there are designations of the forest that would have integrated

resource use exclusive of timber-harvesting, and that would be consis-

[ Page

10289 ]

tent with your act." Mr. Cheston's words were: "Exactly."

There

was, at least, and I think there still is, some confusion in regard to

just how integrated resource management is carried out in this

province, just who's doing it and just what they think their mandate is.

go back again. Some other documents saw the light of day last year, in

terms of the operation of the Ministry of Environment. I specifically

recall a memo that said, in effect, that you only had 14 people right

around the province to vet some 4,000 logging plans — and I think my

numbers are correct — and it expressed a great deal of frustration on

behalf of the Ministry of the Environment in terms of the role that

they should play in this process.

Additionally, Mr.

Chairman, there was a recent letter from the British Columbia

Cattlemen's Association to the Minister of Forests and to the Minister

of Environment. The minister made a statement on May 23 in this House,

which I responded to, announcing the establishment of a new integrated

resource management division within the Ministry of the Environment. He

also made some statements that apparently raised the ire of the

Cattlemen's Association, specifically with regard to the conflict

between wildlife management areas and areas that are used for range for

livestock.

The cattlemen wrote the minister making the

point that public discussion papers had been issued by the Ministry of

Forests on the question. There had been a great deal of discussion on

the question and people were supposed to respond to the paper that was

put out, and yet the Minister of Environment was making statements in

terms of his mandate, which was basically to manage for wildlife.

There's some difficulty in terms of process.

Finally, Mr.

Chairman, we look at an interview that was conducted with Mr. Peel, the

head of the Forest Resources Commission, on May 19. He confirms that

there is some difficulty with the implementation of an integrated

resource-use plan, whether it's from the Ministry of the Environment or

from this fund or the Ministry of Forests. He is basically saying that

the inventories are not there upon which to base an integrated

resource-use approach, that they simply haven't quantified some of

those values.

Quoting from the Sun

newspaper of May 19, Mr. Peel says: "Inventories that were set up to

deal with structures four or five years ago are not designed for

integrated resource management. They're all over the lot." With respect

to what the ministries have said, quite clearly you have to question

whether they're up to the task when their inventories are to be used

for integrated resource management on a relatively small land area.

So if we recommend an approach to integrated resource. management

and the government accepts that as a policy direction, then clearly

inventories are not up to the task and will have to be addressed. I

think I've laid out a reasonable case to say that the approach to

integrated resource management has been, by and large, in name only;

that the fundamental work that needs to be done has not been done.

The final

point is that following the establishment of the Forest Resources

Commission — which was initially set up, as I understood it, to deal

with the very contentious issue of the tree-farm licence expansion

policy — several additional mandates were handed to the commission. One

of those was to, I believe the words were, "try and quantify those

other values, those non-timber values," and I don't know how the

commission is proceeding with that.

Finally we come to the

current day. I stated yesterday — and I don't think there's any

disputing it — that the fund is essentially a shell game; it's to

circulate money through.... The minister admitted yesterday that he

doesn't know anything about forestry; he doesn't want to know anything

about forestry; all those decisions are made with the Minister of

Forests; and presumably they'll send a little memo over and somebody

will say okay on it, and the Minister of Forests can get on with doing

his job, which is what he should be doing.

I am wondering,

in regard to this aspect of the fund, if the minister has a different

view. Under the budget documents, this integrated resource management

is specifically listed under the heading "Resource Management

Initiatives," at $11.3 million. Under that are two points: funding to

support the operations of the Forest Resources Commission and increased

funding for a variety of integrated resource management initiatives.

Included

in those initiatives are the monitoring and assessing of the impact of

industrial and urban development on fish and wildlife — presumably that

ties in with the minister's announcement of May 23 — and the

implementation of a provincial wildlife inventory. So once again the

government is saying that they want to do an inventory of resources

that are non-timber values that exist in our forests. That, as I

pointed out, was previously handed to the commission to do.

may be no coincidence that under the heading of resource management

initiatives, the fact that the two points there are the forest

resources commission and integrated resource management may mean that

the commission still has that mandate. We don't know, and I would hope

that this debate would allow a little more open discussion than the one

we had yesterday, which substantially, on the part of the government,

was: "Don't ask me; go ask the Minister of Forests. I don't know."

want to explore this a little more. I think it's an important area in

the province that has not been properly managed — even by the admission

of the people who wrote that 1987 forests and range resource analysis.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Mr. Member, your time is up.

MS. CULL : Mr. Chairman, I am very interested in the comments being made by my colleague, and I hope to hear some more of his discussion.

[ Page 10290 ]

MR. MILLER :

Mr. Chairman, I think I've painted a pattern of deficiency in the

operation of the Ministry of Forests. I think I've painted a pattern of

confusion in terms of these latest moves. Whose mandate is it? I worry

that we still have — as I pointed out — the Minister of Forests with an

$18.5 million budget to conduct integrated resource management.

appear to have a new integrated resource management initiative —

presumably the one that was announced by the minister in May — and now

we have the initiative put forward under the sustainable development

fund.

There are a number of questions that flow from that.

What purpose is there to have these multi-layered approaches? If your

ministry is going to have an integrated branch and Forests is going to

have one, would it not be preferable to have a more cohesive approach

involving those ministries which obviously must work together to

practise integrated resource use — the Ministry of Environment, the

people responsible for fish and wildlife, Parks, the Ministry of

Forests — rather than to have these separate operations being

conducted? Who knows what kind of integration there is among at least

three integrated resource approaches?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : I thank the member for his short speech.

said at the very start that the ministry has not fulfilled its mandate

in any meaningful way. I would suggest to him that that's not an

accurate statement. If you look at what has been done.... Nobody's

perfect — not even the member for Prince Rupert. It might come as a

shock to him. I would think that our people have worked extremely hard.

He says there's not enough money. There's $5 million more than ever before. Five million is a lot of money.

asks about the mandate. Well, I would suggest to him it's everybody's

mandate to get these things done. I would also suggest to him that the

cabinet committee on sustainable development is a way of bringing about

integrated resource management at the highest levels of government.

Maybe that's why we've had some problems in the past, and I would agree

with him there have been some problems. As I said, nobody's perfect.

But we've now brought integrated resource management to the highest

levels of government. Next year after the next election when we're back

here, and he's questioning me again on the same issue, he will probably

congratulate me on some of the great moves we have made.

MR. MILLER : The minister didn't really respond in any way to the issue, and I don't know why. It's pretty straightforward.

Nobody

thinks anybody's perfect. But when the government in their own

publication in 1987.... Maybe that was a reflection of the Minister of

Forests of the day who was actually starting to do something before he

was fired. But quoting from the report — and I think it's worthy of

being quoted — under the heading of "integrated resource management" on

page 3 of the 1987-92 five-year forest and range resource program: "Two

reviews during the past year — the internal mission review and the

forest management review — noted the lack of an integrated approach to

resource management as a serious deficiency."

That's

serious stuff. I'm not trying to cast stones at anybody, but had there

been some work done.... For example, had the secretariat approach to

the Environment and Land Use Committee been continued instead of being

scrapped for political reasons, perhaps we might be a little more

advanced in this province. Perhaps we wouldn't have the conflicts — at

least at the serious level — that we see taking place in the province

today. Perhaps we wouldn't have senior officials from the Ministry of

Forests going to the Forest Resources Commission and saying, "Our

mandate is to manage for timber and timber only, " despite the fine

words in the reports put out by the Ministry of Forests.

[3:30]

My question was fairly simple. The $11.3 million allocated: is it

allocated directly to the Forest Resources Commission to carry out that

work? Perhaps the minister has page 83 of the budget documents.

the $11.3 million going to the Forest Resources Commission? What's the

breakdown then, if it's not all going there? How much is going to

integrated resource management? Is the integrated resource management

spoken of in this bill going to be done by the Ministry of Forests, the

Ministry of Environment or the Forest Resources Commission? Is It going

to be done by some separate new body?

These are very fundamental — and very simple and obvious — questions that I think demand an answer.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

Now that you've asked me a specific question.... In the resource

management initiatives, the Ministry of Forests gets $2 million for the

Forest Resources Commission; integrated resources are $5 million; the

fish hatchery, the Ministry of Environment, $2.75 million; and fish

hatchery education, Ministry of Environment, $1.5 million. That adds up

to $11.25 million.

MR. CHAIRMAN : The member for Kootenay — or Prince Rupert.

MR. MILLER :

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know you keep making that mistake because

it's been so sunny and warm in Prince Rupert, unlike the rest of the

province, that we may now be mistaken for the Kootenays.

MR. CHAIRMAN : I've been there a few times and I haven't seen any.

MR. MILLER :

You should have been up to Prince Rupert with your colleague the

Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Michael) last weekend, Mr. Chairman,

because it was nice and hot and sunny.

[ Page

10291 ]

So $5 million is going to integrated resource management. Will that be under the purview of the Minister of Environment?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : Yes.

MR. MILLER :

With respect to the wildlife inventory question, will the commission

continue to try to assemble that information, or is that information

now being assembled by someone else — either a line ministry or some

other source?

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : It's being assembled by my ministry.

MR. MILLER :

So wildlife, which I presume is still the responsibility of Forests, is

going to be done by the Ministry of Environment. Could the minister

tell me how the two ministries are going to link? How do they work

together on the topic of integrated resource management? Normally, as

it's practised in British Columbia, there's a referral process. Again,

we had some problems with that, because the government essentially

handed over the referral to the applicants, the forest companies. They

became the lead agency rather than the Ministry of Forests.

How

are the two going to interact in terms of making sure there is linkage

between the ministries? Is that going to be done at the committee

level? I think I asked yesterday whether there is going to be

staff-level communication with regard to this fund. Or is the fund

simply, as I referred to it yesterday, a shell game, where the money

comes in to the committee and they say: "Okay, let's spend it." How is

it going to be linked together?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

It should be fairly obvious, I would hope, that our deputies will be

working together with staff to make sure that integrated resource

management is working at that level. Those recommendations are then put

through their ministries, and they come to the cabinet committee, where

the decisions are made. But there would be great integration at the

working level. It's not unusual to have the deputies meet. That will be

all set up through all departments meeting with each other and making

recommendations.

MR. CHAIRMAN : The member for Columbia River seeks leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. CRANDALL : Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the House to welcome

the grade 7 class from J. Alfred Laird Elementary School in Invermere. The class

left Invermere on Monday afternoon and made a long journey. I would appreciate

it if the House would make the students, their teachers and their parents welcome.

MR. MILLER :

I'm pleased to hear it's not unusual for deputies to work together, Mr.

Minister; we sometimes get stories to the contrary. There has been a

bit of a revolving door when it comes to those deputies as well.

Has

the minister, in looking at this question of integrated resource

management, given any consideration to the secretariat approach — in

other words, formalizing some structure? Deputies working together

doesn't mean anything; I would hope they work together. But a

formalized staff-level structure that tries to start to integrate these

issues and put them into practice, so that we look at the whole....

We're not looking at who's the toughest guy on the block.

can tell you — and you probably are well aware of this — that although

there may have been some changes, the Ministry of Forests was the big

guy on the block when it came to a lot of these things. When I look

back on a lot of decisions that have been nude in this province,

sometimes you could get six or seven ministries saying, "No, we think

this should be done." But along came the Ministry of Forests, which

said, "This shall be done," and it was done. So to there some attempt

not to subjugate anybody but to bring about that kind of

interministerial approach with a formalized staff structure to deal

with the questions of integrated resource management?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

I have no concerns about what the member is talking about, because I

know my deputy could beat up on the deputy from Forests anytime.

Interjection,

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : Just look at his past record; I don't think you'd say that.

can assure you that each deputy under him has an integrated resource

management system reporting to him or her. They meet, then they come to

the cabinet level, and that's where it's decided. In this government

we're all equals in cabinet and have equal say. It has always been that

way; it always will be.

MR. MILLER : It reminds me of an ultraconservative book I read, First Among Equals .

know my colleague from the Cariboo wants to canvass the issue, and I

just have two very quick questions about the FRDA II. I take it from

yesterday's discussion.... This also falls under this, Mr. Chairman.

The minister's response was that the Minister of Forests is responsible

for negotiating a new FRDA program. That's ongoing. The funds —

whatever — are achieved through that negotiated process. They come

under the

sustainable environment fund, but the decisions on spending will be

made solely by the Minister of Forests. Perhaps the minister could

confirm that.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : The answer is yes.

[ Page 10292 ]

MR. MILLER :

I think I've got an idea of how much has been allocated in this fund

for FRDA II but perhaps the minister could advise me precisely how much

has been allocated in the fund for a second FRDA program.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : There's $7,230,000.

MR. MILLER :

I don't think that's correct, Mr. Chairman. The $7 million is a

carry-over from FRDA. What I asked was: how much has been allocated for

a renewed FRDA program?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : If the member would just go on with his other questions, I'll. get that answer for him. They're just looking for it now.

MS. EDWARDS :

I have a question that comes out of what the minister told me just a

short while ago. You said that the amount that comes in for the

provincial wildlife inventory will be brand-new money. I would be

pleased if the minister would refresh my memory as to exactly how much

that is. What you did say was that there would be 21 additional staff

hired to do that inventory. You can often track it. For example, to go

back to my favourite, the habitat conservation fund, the spending is

estimated to be the same this year, so it was simply a matter of

putting the $2 million over and putting it back. I had originally

thought it was more, but it doesn't look that way.

However,

here I can't track it, and I'm curious. There is no increase in the

amount for the ministry. My question: if there are 21 additional staff

hired for a project directed under the sustainable environment fund, do

they become permanent staff of the ministry, or are they hired on

contract? I don't know the extent of the funding money.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : They are permanent staff.

MS. EDWARDS :

They are permanent staff within the Ministry of Environment, hired with

the allocation of money out of this fund by the committee from year to

year? They are permanent, then, as long as the ministry can find

funding. The fund itself is of limited duration, but they are hired as

permanent staff without limitation? That's the question. Is that

correct?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : We would assume that if $5 million went into the program, next year that would be in our base budget.

MR. ZIRNHELT : I have a number of specific questions relating to the

integrated resource management provisions of the bill. Mr. Minister, you and

I have had some correspondence on the issue of regional planning, mainly on

resource planning on the Chilcotin Plateau. It's interesting that there

have been some changes out there in light of the fact that some of the people

who represent the economic interests based on areas within your mandate — guides,

trappers, fishing lodge owners and so on — have done a certain amount of technical

work on their own in their own self-interest. But they have pushed the debate

to something like where the Forests ministry comes into a provincial forest

and says: "You show us" — that is, all the other resources — "where

your high values are." Then they have turned around and said to the Forest

ministry, "You show us where your high values are," and they can't

do it, because they are areas of admitted low timber values.

question is: would the fund set up under this act provide some funding

to deal with the hot spots where we have environmental conflicts, like

the one in the Chilcotin between the obviously high other resource

values and timber values? Would funding be provided for studies of that

sort?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : Yes, it could.

MR. ZIRNHELT :

I take it that the details of whether or not it will be is a matter for

estimates. Fine. But as a matter of principle, I think that's good to

know. Also, I realize that I've been dealing with specific studies that

are necessary there.

[3:45]

The other thing is that your colleague the Minister of Forests has

established a local advisory council in the Cariboo which is

coterminous with the timber supply area, and it has suspended the

timber supply area planning process there to allow for sustainable

development options to be developed with local input, with people

representing different interest groups In that area. That's certainly a

step in the direction that many people in the Cariboo-Chilcotin have

been calling for. A year isn't very much time In which to develop

sustainable development options, but they are suspending the normal

timber supply planning process.

With respect to integrated

resource management, do you see the full integration of the different

planning initiatives being done by your ministry under its integrated

resource management and the initiatives taken by the Forest Service on

an ongoing basis? I heard your remarks. I was listening to them all

afternoon about integration at the highest level of cabinet, but there

are a lot of things which can't be resolved except at the local level.

do you see your resource managers working together at the regional

level, and if you do, in what form would it be — under the timber

supply planning process or some kind of broader integrated resource

management planning process?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : The

answer to the question is yes, and the details obviously are being

worked on. The sooner we get this bill passed, the quicker we can do

some of the things.

MR. ZIRNHELT : I'm sure a few

more minutes won't hold up the process seriously. I just wanted to get

the minister's comments on how it relates again. I know this is a

general thing but I couldn't think of anywhere else to focus on

this question.

[ Page

10293 ]

Relating to the Chilcotin, there was considerable money spent by

your ministry studying for five years the movement of three caribou

herds along the Blackwater and in the Tweedsmuir area and the Rainbow,

Itcha and Ilgachuz ranges. It was well known among the local people

that these reindeer would use certain areas in severe winters. But

during the five years of study, I don't believe there was a severe

winter, so it was concluded that they didn't use some of this habitat.

use this to illustrate the fact that sometimes broad consultation among

the people in the area can give pretty good inventory information. I'm

thinking in particular about some of the native people who have

observed for hundreds of years the movements in that area. In fact, the

results of the study were partially overturned by the findings of your

own ministry when they followed some of the caribou in the area. I am

asking here if you will provide under this

section of the act the

public involvement process for your ministry.

I think it's

fair to say that it's even a little weaker than the Forest Service and

needs to be enhanced. I'm talking about local knowledge — where people

have hunted, guided, trapped or lived in an area for centuries, or

generations in the case of non-native families. They have a wealth of

inventory information that needs to be drawn on, and doesn't always

require technical studies. In other words, if you have $100,000, it

might be better spent on public consultation to get the existing

inventory knowledge to be able to make land use decisions, rather than

waiting for what might be extensive, long and expensive technical

studies.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : The answer is yes. We do

that now, but we can always do a better job of having public input. I

think we've been doing that around the province; I have been going

around having public meetings. But with regard to the issues you're

talking about, public meetings never hurt any process.

MR. ZIRNHELT :

I'm speaking, of course, about extensive public consultation, not just

public meetings. Sometimes these people have to come some distance at

some expense, and I'm suggesting that it could be cost-effective.

My other question has to do with pulpwood agreements. It's somewhat related to the questions I had before.

Some

areas that have been marginal areas for timber production we have seen

covered by pulpwood agreements — with minimal planning, I think it's

fair to say. These are in what have been considered poor timber stands

but which possibly and probably have high other values. Can you tell us

what you see for planning of pulpwood harvesting areas, and how that

fits into your ministry's planning for habitat preservation?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : That's all part of this integrated management

program that we're working on. Hopefully, as I say, when we get this legislation

through and we get a little further down the road, we'll have some major

announcements in those areas.

MR. MILLER :

Mr. Chairman, I don't know if the minister's in a position yet to

respond to my question about how much has been allocated to the

anticipated second FRDA program.

Interjection.

MR. MILLER :

Well, the numbers under this sustainable environment fund, from the

budget documents.... On page 238 in the estimates they have a listing

of expenditures that the fund will make. Under forest renewal, they've

got the forest resource development subsidiary agreement. As I pointed

out earlier, the minister erred in saying $7 million. That's a

carryover from the existing FRDA program. As I say, I can understand

that one.

Basic silviculture programs: I would assume that

those are the statutory obligations I referred to yesterday that the

Ministry of Forests is obliged to undertake. I would only observe that

there's a decline from the amount of money allocated in last year's

Ministry of Forests budget; it's down from $132.8 million to $125.4

million.

Under a heading "New Forest Renewal Initiatives"

is some $89 million. I'll just say what I'm going to say while I'm on

my feet, and then I'll wait for the minister's response. Eighty-nine

million dollars. The province has identified, through their own

planning process, the need to have a FRDA II in the magnitude of $700

million. Under the normal cost-sharing arrangements, that would require

a contribution from the province of some $70 million annually for five

years. The Minister of Forests has already indicated publicly that we

will not get a $700 million FRDA II program, although I have some

difficulty — in fact, I have a great deal of difficulty — deciphering

the public utterances of various ministers on this topic.

addition to that, both the Minister of Forests and the Premier have

indicated that British Columbia, faced with a possibility of not

achieving this $700 million program, would have to reconsider their

contribution to a forest renewal program. Despite the fact that we were

perfectly willing to spend $70 million a year, because the federal

government might not be forthcoming with matching funds we might pull

back on ours.

So of the $89 million listed under the

sustainable environment fund, what is the breakdown, and specifically

what is earmarked for a second FRDA program?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

The answer to your question is that $89.37 million has been earmarked

for FRDA II and/or new programs intended to protect the investments and

further the aims of the original FRDA agreement.

As the

member knows, it's not clear specifically how much we'll be getting

from the federal government, so it's not specifically dedicated for

FRDA II, because this depends on the negotiations with the

[ Page 10294 ]

federal

government. But there's $89.37 million earmarked either for FRDA II or

new programs. If there was no money to come from the federal government

at all, at least that is the minimal guarantee.

MR. MILLER :

Fine. I would just confirm that the Minister of Environment is not

involved in negotiations with the federal government on this program.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

No. As the member knows, the Minister of Forests is there. When his

estimates come up, I'm sure there'll be a lot of questions for him on

that topic.

MR. CASHORE : Mr. Chairman, under the

initiatives to reduce solid, liquid, hazardous and atmospheric wastes,

I would like to ask the minister what, if any, initiatives are in place

to deal with the question of liquid waste sewage treatment for

municipalities throughout the province — such things as cost-shared

programs to deal with the upgrading of infrastructure, or dealing with

the fact that there's a great deal of concern and consternation over

the situation that has raw sewage going out into Georgia basin, the

Fraser River.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : I thank the member

for his question. Under the plan there is $1.5 million for innovative

waste management programs, implementation of new technologies and

processing for collection, treatment and disposal of municipal liquid

and solid waste.

Also, the member may want to be here when

the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. L. Hanson) has his estimates,

because there's over $30 million added to the budget this year from

that ministry for sewage treatment in the province.

MR. CASHORE :

If the minister will forgive me, I had to be out of the chamber during

some of the questions from my colleague with regard to the 21 staff for

wildlife inventory. I won't have a chance to read it in the Blues and

then come back, so I may be asking questions that he's already answered.

understanding, from what I've heard, is that there's $5 million in the

sustainable environment fund which will be used to hire 21 staff to

work on the issue of wildlife inventory. The question is: are these

staff seen as being ongoing staff as part of the ongoing infrastructure

of the Ministry of Environment? And does that mean, then, that that $5

million comes out of the sustainable environment fund and into the

Ministry of Environment to be administered through its regular line

ministry?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : I don't mind answering

the question, but I think if we're going to have this.... I have to sit

here all day; I don't even get a chance to go the washroom. That

question has been answered, and the answer is yes and yes.

Amendment approved.

Section 5 as amended approved.

section 6.

MR. CASHORE :

section 6, 1 wanted to ask the minister if he could expand on that.

Are there any particular aspects of this where he sees the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council being required to make regulations in

the foreseeable future?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : It's no

different than any other bill or piece of legislation that goes through

the House. This is put in there so that if a regulation comes up that

is required for one reason or another, the cabinet has the power to do

it, and it's done in a proper manner and made public.

Sections 6 to 10 inclusive approved.

section 11.

MR. CASHORE :

I notice in this bill — and I might as well raise this question at this

point — that hazardous products are being referred to as "hazardous."

There seems to be a tendency to interchange words that mean the same

thing. I have for quite some time raised a concern over calling

hazardous wastes "special wastes," and I was hoping that the

nomenclature of the government would return to calling a spade a spade,

calling it "hazardous" waste. I would take it from the use of the term

"hazardous" and not "special" in this bill that the ministry is now

calling a spade a spade.

I would like to go on to another

item here in

section 11, but I'll just wait for a moment and hear what

the minister has to say about the use of the term "hazardous"

describing that category of waste.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

I could go on for hours, but I think it should be very plain. In the

Hazardous Waste Corporation that's what it's called — that is the word:

"hazardous" waste. Some people prefer "special" waste, but we're using

"hazardous" in our corporation.

[4:00]

MR. CASHORE :

I hope that means that things are moving in that direction and that

we'll continue to use the word "hazardous" when we're dealing with a

hazardous substance.

I think that in this

section of the

bill, unless there's something that I'm missing, we see another example

of the hasty and somewhat sloppy drafting of the bill. It can be seen

by the fact that there's an amendment on the order paper that the....

Interjection.

MR. CASHORE : Mr. Chairman, that hon. member knows how to hit below the belt. I thought we weren't mixing religion and politics.

I'd like to raise the point that nowhere in this act that I can see, and nowhere in the

Interpretation Act,

[ Page

10295 ]

is the term "vehicle" defined in a manner that deals with some of

the questions we have to deal with in looking at this section. With it

not being defined, then, we have to ask what the minister really

intends with regard to a tax on pneumatic tires. Is it the intention of

the government to tax bicycle owners or elderly people who are

operating wheelchairs that require pneumatic tires? There's nothing in

this bill that defines that. It leaves the

interpretation open to a

very wide — and, I think, mischievous — meaning. I think that's most

unfortunate.

In view of that, I have prepared an amendment

I would like to move. I have some extra copies of it here. I move that

section 11 be amended by adding the following:

"'Vehicle'

means a device in, on or by which a person or thing is or may be

transported or drawn on a highway, but does not include (

a) a device

designed to be moved by human power, or (

b) a mechanically propelled

invalid's chair."

I have another amendment, as you can see on that sheet.

"

(4) A purchaser of one or more new pneumatic tires shall

pay to Her Majesty in right of the Province at the time of making the purchase

a levy of $3 for each new pneumatic tire purchased, multiplied by an adjustment

factor to be determined by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council

shall develop a

schedule of adjustment factors to apply to tires with a wheel

diameter greater than 16.5 inches."

On the amendment.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

I can appreciate why the critic for the opposition would want to move

his amendment, because when you read the bill and you are not a lawyer

— as he isn't, and I'm not either — you might say: "Why is it that

way?"

I, like him, asked the question and was advised by our legal people who

draft the bills that they weren't so silly after all. "Vehicle" is

defined in the Motor Vehicle Act. The Social Service Tax Act in this

province also uses the Motor Vehicle Act. A moving vehicle is defined

as something run by a motor. It doesn't include bicycles, wheelchairs

and others.

If you will remember, when we brought this

down, we stated that those items would not be subject to the tax. The

reason it's not spelled out in the bill is because we follow the Social

Service Tax Act, and it's not necessary to be in the bill.

Amendment negatived.

Sections 11 to 15 inclusive approved.

section 16.

MR. CASHORE : The very last clause in this

section says: "A regulation

under subsection (2)(

g) shall not prescribe a levy for any hazardous product,

other than an ozone-depleting one, at a rate that exceeds a rate of $20 per

tonne." I would like to ask the minister to expand on that.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : All that does is give an upper limit, with the exception of products that deplete the ozone layer.

MR. CASHORE :

I'll leave it at that. It's still of interest as to why the rate of $20

per tonne. I'm just trying to relate it to something so I can get a

better sense of exactly what that means.

With reference to

the power to prescribe hazardous products, I wonder if the minister

would just clarify which hazardous products that refers to.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

As the member will remember, in the budget it was stated that a list of

hazardous chemicals would be out around July. We're working with our

ministry, industry and the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) to

define those products.

MR. CASHORE : With reference

to the power to exempt persons, uses, hazardous products or byproducts,

who does the government envision exempting? Would it be pulp mills, for

example? Would the government use this exemption power to skirt

obligations regarding the enforcement of pollution regulations, as has

been the case in the past and to date? What does this exemption apply

to?

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

I might give you an example. If, for instance, we were to put the tax

on chlorine, we may want to exempt municipalities using it in their

water system. It gives us the power to do that.

Sections 16 to 18 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Bill 16, Sustainable Environment Fund Act, reported complete with amendment.

DEPUTY SPEAKER : When shall the bill be read a third time?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : With leave of the House now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 16, Sustainable Environment Fund Act, read a third time and passed.

[ Page 10296 ]

HON. MR. RICHMOND : I call second reading of Bill 38, Hazardous Waste Management Corporation Act.

HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT

CORPORATION ACT

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

This legislation will establish the B.C. Hazardous Waste Management

Corporation. This bill will help the government achieve the

environmental policy mandate we set out in the Speech from the Throne.

We will put in place an organization to develop a comprehensive system

to manage hazardous wastes throughout British Columbia. With this

legislation the government is demonstrating its commitment to the

reduction of hazardous waste.

Each year approximately 100,000 tonnes of hazardous waste are generated in British Columbia. This

figure is based on the regulatory statistics which measure materials

subject to the special waste regulation of the Waste Management Act.

This figure does not include the hazardous waste generated in smaller

quantities, primarily in households, where the volumes are so small

that they are not counted.

However, all hazardous waste is

a problem which must be dealt with. The special waste regulation

enables conscientious waste generators only three management options:

(

a) ship the waste at great cost to treatment outside British Columbia;

(

b) store it; and (

c) for a very small amount, treat it at the very few

small, permitted recycling plants in British Columbia.

While

storage sites are strictly regulated, storage is not a long-term

solution. Each day we run a growing risk of an accident at the storage

sites. We also know that households dispose of hazardous materials in

their garbage, and while individual dumpings may be tiny, the

cumulative effect of this material in landfills or incinerators is

hurting the environment.

also know that individuals are

knowingly or unwittingly dumping hazardous materials down sewer drains,

into rivers and into landfills. There is also a backlog of about

400,000 tonnes of hazardous material in storage, and there are

contaminated

soils, such as the Concord Pacific site and others throughout the

province, which must also be dealt with in an environmentally

acceptable way.

Environmental stewardship is an important

responsibility for this government and our firm commitment. We cannot

turn our backs to the problem of hazardous waste any longer. Two

previous attempts to site a hazardous waste treatment facility in

British Columbia have failed. We must learn from the mistakes made and

create a plan that will not fail.

We will create a

management system. The policy behind it will be to reduce hazardous

waste generation at source by encouraging industry to use nontoxic

substitutes where practical, and reuse or recycle hazardous wastes. The

remainder will be treated, but we are optimistic that the scale of

treatment facility necessary will be smaller and more publicly

acceptable. The polluter-pay principle will mean that costs of

treatment will be high, which will create the incentive for industry to

reduce waste generation.

Industry is not the only source of

hazardous waste. Each of us is also a part of the problem. Our

hazardous waste management system will include a household hazardous

waste program, supported by public information and education and

developed cooperatively with municipalities and regional districts. As

people become more aware of the household component of the problem,

they will also become more aware of and accepting of the solution,

which may involve the siting of treatment facilities in their community.

our careful analysis of solutions to the problem, we have concluded

that we must create an entity which can act as a facilitator, quite

separate from the strict regulatory responsibilities of the ministry.

This facilitator will work with the private sector to get the system

underway — reduction at source, reuse and recycling — and to help get

treatment facilities established to deal with the hazardous wastes that

remain. The corporation will be the facilitator, while the ministry

remains the regulator and the strict enforcer of the regulations.

Specifically,

the legislation spells out the objectives of the corporation. The

purpose of the corporation is to ensure the development, implementation

and maintenance of a comprehensive hazardous waste management system in

British Columbia. As an agent of the Crown, the corporation may enter

joint ventures to establish or manage the operation of facilities; make

or guarantee loans to, or invest in, a hazardous waste management

enterprise; and negotiate waste exchanges with neighbouring

jurisdictions.

The corporation will have a board of

directors appointed by cabinet. I intend to recommend to the cabinet a

diverse list of potential directors who represent municipalities,

industry, community groups, academia and government.

The

corporation will have a sunset clause: September 1, 1995. Once the

management system is put into place, the ministry will continue to

regulate its performance, but the facilitator's job will have to be

completed.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

[4:15]

MS. CULL : I might just mention at the start that I am the designated speaker for my party on this bill.

want to begin by saying that I am pleased to see the Minister of

Environment finally begin to address the issue of hazardous waste.

Since this is an issue that I have taken considerable interest in in my

short — so far — term as a politician, it's nice to know that an

opposition member can indeed have some impact on government actions.

his opening remarks the minister made some reference to the seriousness

of this problem in British Columbia, and there is no doubt that

chemical pollution and hazardous waste is a very serious problem.

[ Page

10297 ]

It is in our landfills and in our sewage. It's ending up on our

beaches, it's polluting our soil, and it's having an impact on both

human and animal life in the province.

The minister's press

release says it all, though: there are very few options for the

treatment and disposal of hazardous waste in British Columbia. We've

talked about some of those options in the debate in this session. There

are eight hazardous waste depots at this time in the province, but

they're not open. They're not open very often, anyway; they're open

once a month for a couple of hours, and they're certainly not

advertised. I guess that's part of what the minister means when he says

that there are few options for the treatment and disposal of hazardous

waste in British Columbia.

There's also very little public

information on the whole issue of hazardous waste. As I have discussed

this matter over the months with various individuals inside government

in this province and in other provinces, with community groups and with

municipalities, it seems that most of the information in the

publications we have on hazardous waste comes from other communities in

North America. I think that is another lack that the minister alluded

to in his opening remarks that certainly needs addressing. The problem

we have in British Columbia is that we have limited facilities, and to

get the information about those limited facilities in the first place

you actually have to find them.

The minister mentioned the

size of the problem: there are 400,000 tonnes of hazardous waste in

storage throughout the province, much of it in schools, in hospitals

and in places that are clearly inappropriate. Some of it is even under

the Eaton Centre here in Victoria. It is just too close to high

concentrations of people. We just don't see those kinds of substances

being stored in those kinds of facilities. We know that we're also

increasing the amount of hazardous waste that is collected every year

in this province to the tune of a 100,000 tonnes per year.

It's

not just a problem in industrialized communities, although certainly

industry is one of the major contributors to it. I'd like to add, on a

local note, that the level of PCB contamination in Victoria and

Esquimalt harbours — a community we don't think of as highly

industrialized — has been tested over the years, and between 1976 and

1983 was found to be equal to the levels in False Creek, near Woodfibre

and in the Alberni inlet.

So there's no question that

something has to be done, and that it has to be done now, about the

issue of hazardous waste in this province. But unfortunately, Mr.

Speaker, this bill is the wrong answer; it is philosophically wrong.

The bill is just another example of Socred ideology triumphing over

logic. It entrusts the health of our children and of our environment to

companies who are for the most part beyond the purview of the public.

The urgency of the problem is not an excuse for a justification that we fast-track

the solution by giving it over to private interests to resolve. I think that

the basic principle of the bill, which is to turn the whole matter of hazardous

waste over to private corporations, is unacceptable. It's a fundamental

abrogation of public responsibility and is directly counter to the kind of public

accountability and participation the citizens of this province want.

want to go over four principles that are inherent in the bill which I

believe cause it to be seriously flawed. The first is that the

corporation will be incapable of carrying out its mandate, because it's

going to die in five years. There's a sunset clause, as the minister

mentioned, and the corporation will cease to exist on September 1, 1995.

we look closely at the bill, we see that the bill authorizes the

creation of a Crown corporation to manage hazardous waste. In

section 3

of the bill the power is given to ensure the development,

implementation and maintenance of a comprehensive hazardous waste

system in British Columbia. It goes on in

section 4 to say that the

corporation will "authorize or execute the planning for, the

construction of, the modification of and the management and operation

of a hazardous waste management facility."

But the

corporation ceases to exist in five years. How can it maintain a

comprehensive hazardous waste management system if it is no longer in

existence? How can it manage or operate a hazardous waste management

facility if it is no longer in existence? These are powers which are

granted to the corporation in the bill. But quite frankly, I can't see

how it's going to do it if in fact it only has five years of existence

and will no longer be around after that period of time.

don't see how the corporation can do all of the objects that have been

set out in the five years, in any case. We're talking about 400,000

tonnes of hazardous waste in storage growing at the rate of 100,000

new tonnes per year. I expect that in five years little will be

accomplished except for providing a few grants to companies to help set

up hazardous waste incinerators. That's certainly not a comprehensive

strategy to manage hazardous waste, and if the corporation ceases to

exist in five years, who will be responsible for the waste that will

still be here in the province? Will it be the private companies, the

companies that manage the storage or disposal facilities or the

government? What will happen to hazardous waste after the corporation

has gone? I don't think private companies are going to be accepting

liability for the hazardous waste that will continue to be in this

province, as it is growing at 100,000 tonnes per year.

The

second major principle I want to address has to do with how we got to

where we are today with this bill creating a hazardous waste

corporation. Mr. Speaker, I think this is an answer without a question.

I don't believe the question has been asked in the province as to what

is needed in terms of a hazardous waste strategy, and whether this

answer — which is to create a corporation that will die within five

years - is the correct answer.

If we go back into history

we'll see that in 1984 the B.C. Medical Association called for an

independent public inquiry into hazardous waste management in

[ Page 10298 ]

B.C.

They also called for funding to concerned interest groups to ensure

that we have meaningful participation. To the best of my knowledge that

hasn't occurred.

1987 the ministry's own Special Waste

Advisory Committee developed a hazardous waste management strategy. I

talked to some of the people who were involved in developing that and

asked about the public consultation process. Their answer to me was:

"Well, it wasn't a public consultation process in the way that you or I

might think about the words 'public consultation'." In other words, a

few people were asked and consulted, but it was not a public discussion

in the province about how we should go about managing hazardous waste.

This

advisory committee in 1987 did recommend a Crown corporation. That's

interesting, because when you look at the reasons why it recommended a

Crown corporation approach, you realize that it had a very different

idea in mind than what we have before us in this bill. It recommended a

Crown corporation because it didn't support a private enterprise

solution to the management of hazardous waste. Their major concern in

this respect was the liability in case of accidents and the liability —

the long-term responsibility — for hazardous waste and hazardous waste

facilities.

The Special Waste Advisory Committee rightly

believed that the responsibility must rest with the provincial

government because that is certainly where the liability is going to

rest in any case.

Late last year, in December, the minister

announced that the cabinet had approved the implementation of a

comprehensive strategy for hazardous waste management. I found that

interesting. We've moved from the call for an inquiry to the creation

of a strategy, and now we're into the implementation of the strategy.

But what strategy, Mr. Speaker? Where is the strategy that is being

implemented?

It seems that when we read the bill, the implementation is actually to create strategy. We seem to be in a bit

of a chicken-and-egg situation here. Is the corporation to implement a

strategy that has been well thought out by the government — the

Ministry of Environment — in consultation with people in the province?

That's certainly what the minister's December 5, 1989, press release

would lead any reader to believe. Again I ask: where is the public

discussion or input into the strategy that was announced?

we move along a little bit further, we come to recent events. On May

25, 1990, the minister announced the Hazardous Waste Management

Corporation, again to implement the strategy. I ask: what strategy?

Where is the public discussion? Where is the public debate? Where is

the discussion on the kinds of technology that we might want to use to

address these problems?

The announcement goes on to say

that there's going to be full public involvement. We've got the answer,

so now we'll go out and ask the question What should the answer have

been? It should have been that there will be consultation in terms of

the location of treatment facilities, etc. But nowhere in the bill is

there any guarantee about public consultation. Are we counting on the

yet untested major projects review process perhaps? Is that the public

consultation that's intended in the bill? There certainly isn't

anything outlined in the legislation that gives us any comfort about

what the public consultation process will involve.

It seems

that public consultation in the terms of the bill means consultation

about sites. That simply isn't good enough, because I think the people

in this province want consultation about the whole question of the

strategy — how we are going to deal with hazardous waste and what the

priorities are — not just about the sites for the incinerators. I think

people want to be involved in whether incinerators are the answer. What

is the technology?

Manitoba they opted for a Crown

corporation as well, but they did so after a full public consultation,

and the consultation included the kinds of items that I'm talking

about. They talked about what the strategy should be. They talked about

what the organizational structure should be. In the end, they agreed

that a Crown corporation was the way to do it. But that was a situation

with the province having a full discussion on a very serious matter —

which has very serious environmental and health concerns to everyone —

and coming to an agreement as to what the solution should be in the

end.

In the Yukon they're doing that at this present time.

They're going around the province talking to people about what the

solutions would be. You know, Mr. Speaker, the nice thing about

consultation before the answer is that it works. In the Yukon, for

example, at the beginning of the process, the Association of Yukon

Communities said: "No way are you siting any kind of facility anywhere

within our boundaries." Now, nine months into the process, the Yukon

municipalities are working with the territorial government to come up

with solutions. They are now part of the solution because they have

been part of drafting and answering the question.

What we

get in B.C. is what we seem to get in response to all environmental

issues: a solution tossed out, and then we'll consult. That sets up a

conflict, because people are naturally going to look at the solution

that has been tossed out, and then they have to raise their objections

and try to get it changed or amended in some way that truly represents

their needs. It seems like such a backward way of going about doing it,

particularly when we're not even asking all the questions.

[4:30]

I think a government that was very serious about hazardous waste

management would have done its public homework first, instead of just

inviting another environmental battle. I don't think the minister could

have said it any better when he talked about the fact that we've

already had two previous attempts to locate a hazardous waste facility

in the province, and failed. He said: "We have to learn from past

mistakes." I wish that the government had learned from the past mistake

and decided that this

[ Page

10299 ]

time they would consult and ask the question before they posed the answer.

The

third principle that I think causes this bill to fall far short of the

needs that we have in the province is that it sidesteps — and I believe

deliberately sidesteps — the whole issue of public accountability. Who

is going to be responsible for regulating? When they struck the Crown

corporation in Manitoba, they recognized that the corporation must

assume in perpetuity the environmental stewardship for wastes and

residues.

The minister again used the word "stewardship" in

his opening remarks, but this bill sidesteps the whole question of

stewardship. The Ministry of Environment is'not going to be the

steward; it is going to turn this matter over to private corporations.

We're going to have to trust the Ministry of Environment to be able to

regulate and enforce.

The local Healthy Saanich 2000

committee — one of the very active healthy-community committees that

I'm pleased to have within my riding — has recommended the same kind of

approach that has been followed in Manitoba: an integrated public

utility. The main reason they recommend this is that they can see no

other way that there will be public accountability for hazardous wastes.

You

have to ask the question about who is going to be responsible for these

highly hazardous substances when they're stored or being treated. It's

certainly not going to be the operators if we have a problem. We only

have to look to the United States to find examples where private

companies have declared bankruptcy rather than clean up the very

expensive mistakes and accidents that have occurred. It's easier to

walk away from a clean-up bill — as we've seen in the case of the Expo

lands — than it is to try to clean up. They will walk away from this,

and the Crown will be responsible for it.

But who is going

to be responsible for it? This Crown corporation isn't going to exist

in five years, so I guess we have to look to the ministry. I wonder if

the ministry is going to be responsible for regulating these industries

and for picking up the problems that may be left behind if there are

accidents, in the same fashion that it has with the environmental lab.

The

auditor-general concluded that the ministry didn't have an adequate

system to assume standards were being met, when we were talking about

the environmental lab, and I think it's cold comfort to the people of

British Columbia to be told that we have to trust the Ministry of

Environment to regulate private sector companies. We'll let them have

this control over hazardous wastes, we'll have five years of management

and then it will be gone. Then everything will be fine; we won't have

to worry about it.

What it does is move the issue from the realm of public accountability into

private corporations. I don't think we have to look any further than

section

16 of the bill, which effectively muzzles employees of the corporation who want

to blow the whistle on environmental wrongdoing by private corporations There's

a very clear message in that section, and it runs throughout the bill. The idea

of the bill is to move the issue of hazardous waste from public responsibility

to private responsibility.

The

fourth and final principle that seems to be inherent in the bill is

inherent in much of the environmental legislation we've seen from this

government: that is, to continue to take a segmented, crisis approach

to the environment. It separates out hazardous wastes from other forms

of waste, as if they're created separately and disposed of separately.

But for the most part, these wastes are mixed in with other forms of

waste. Hazardous wastes are in the waste stream right now. They're in

the landfills; they're in the sewage system. We have to deal with them

together, because that's where they are, that's where they're found,

and that's where the solutions are going to be.

I just want

to quote from a local publication. I quote Frank Leonard, who is the

chairman of the Capital Regional District's environment committee.

"It's time the provincial government sees environment

as a single entity, instead of pieces. Surprisingly, we still operate according

to separate liquid waste and solid waste management plans, as this is a requirement

of our permits from the provincial government.

"Now, in addition, we're required to adopt a medical

waste management plan, and soon, I expect, special or hazardous waste management

plans. Surely the time has come for the province to review these segmented mandates,

and at the very least, require regional districts to prepare overall environmental

protection plans."

This comes from the Capital Regional District's newsletter, the June 1990

issue, which deals with a number of environmental issues. I commend it to the

minister as interesting reading. I think he would learn something from it.

would also take this opportunity to point out to him that if he's

reading that article, he should look at the next page, where, along

with the issue of recycling and reduction of the solid waste stream by

recycling, the CRD's goals are listed. I mention this because the

minister and I were discussing this matter earlier last week in the

House — what the CRD's goals were. The minister said I was misinformed

about this. The objectives are a 10 percent reduction by 1993, and 15

percent by 1998; not 50 percent by the year 2000, as the minister said.

here we have, again, the local communities calling for an integrated

approach. They recognize what's happening. They see how wastes are

arising in their community, and how they have to be handled. But the

ministry, as usual, persists in doing it in a segmented fashion.

Again,

we don't have to look very far. We can look to the Yukon; we can look

to Manitoba; we can look to other provinces to see where they have

recognized this fact and embarked on integrated approaches which will

have far greater success.

Mr. Speaker, what then is the

purpose of this bill? If it's not to address the issues that I've said

are greatly lacking in it, what is its purpose? I think the major

purpose of the bill is to give the appearance of action on the

environment. It's just like the last bill

[ Page 10300 ]

dealt with — the sustainable environment fund. You create a piece of

legislation so that you can say something is happening, so you can

issue press releases, so you can make TV advertisements, so you can go

on and on indicating that you're doing something about a very serious

issue without really having to do very much about it. It's a great way

of taking the issue and moving it from the Ministry of Environment,

putting it into a Crown corporation, so that the next time someone says

to the Minister of Environment, "What are you doing about hazardous

waste?" he can say: "Don't ask me. The Crown corporation's looking

after it. If you get there with your question within five years, you

can get an answer to it."

It's also a great way of keeping

the public from having any real say in what's going on in terms of

hazardous waste management in the province, because once we've been

through whatever kind of process the minister has in mind for the

siting of the hazardous waste facilities, the operation of those

facilities is not going to be in the public purview any longer. They

will be privately operated, and the public is not going to have any say

about what goes on there, what technology is used, whether they are

expanded, or what happens.

It's a great way of deflecting

criticism of the minister for failing to deal with the facilities that

he has right now, for failing to open up the toxic waste depots, for

not pr