1992 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 35th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, MAY 26, 1992

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 3, Number 16

[ Page 1829 ]

The House met at 6:06 p.m.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Hon. Speaker, I call Committee of Supply, Committee B only.

The House in Committee of Supply B; E. Barnes in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF MUNICIPAL

AFFAIRS, RECREATION AND HOUSING

On vote 55: municipal revenue sharing, $363,700,000

A. Cowie: It's our pleasure to again continue with these estimates. Having completed votes 53 and 54, we're now on 55. It's to deal with the physical fitness and amateur sports fund. I have a question of the minister. Basically your allowance in your estimates of $1,942,000 is the same as last year's budget, yet there are more people. I'm wondering if you could perhaps justify the fact that you have not increased the budget at least slightly.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Could the member just quote the figure that he's citing again?

A. Cowie: The figure that I have is $1,942,000.

Hon. R. Blencoe: For what -- physical fitness?

A. Cowie: For physical fitness, yes.

Hon. R. Blencoe: The revenue being generated out of the physical endowment fund -- a $20 million fund; am I correct? -- which was set up some years ago.... That fund is in perpetuity, and from that we derive the revenue that drives the physical fitness and amateur sport fund. If we so desire, we obviously could hit the actual principal that is there; i.e., the $20 million. The decision has been made this year, and was made in past years, to utilize only the interest from the $20 million endowment fund.

Unless staff have any alterations to that, I think that's how it basically works.

A. Cowie: I may have actually misled the member. I gave a figure that is on the bottom line of page 89 for the University Endowment Lands administration. That's what put him off.

Interjections.

A. Cowie: Misled again.

An Hon. Member: It was an interesting response though.

A. Cowie: Yes, the response was all right.

The figure should have been the one on the upper line, $1,550,000. My question was basically about the fact that it hasn't increased. The people who I talked to from physical recreation and amateur sports felt this would mean that there would be a crunch on the budget and not enough money for clinics and coaches. As a result, most of the seminars, workshops and that sort of thing will have to take place in the lower mainland, and the many small communities of this province will therefore not be serviced properly.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I'm glad the member is now citing the right figure. I must admit, we couldn't figure out how he was getting $1.9 million when our books show $1.55 million. Let me add, though, that this year we're utilizing $30,000 more than is actually being created by interest. Interest is mounting, but the balance shown in the amateur sports fund as of the time we prepared estimates is $20,696,404. We use that money, of course. In subsequent years we'll be using it to create physical fitness and amateur sport.... The staff tell me that we have not eroded the capital.

A. Cowie: Thank you for clarifying that. I would like you then to answer the other part of my question regarding the concern of the recreation, sports and fitness people that the budget really hasn't gone up to meet the population increase in the province. There's also increased expectation of their programs. It means that some of the coaching programs, seminars and that sort of thing will have to be held in the lower mainland; the communities of the north and some of the smaller areas in the province will not be adequately serviced.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I know what the member is referring to. I have to say -- and I think we all have to say -- that if the funding and finances were available, we would very much like to enhance and support physical fitness, amateur sport, the various sport organizations and coaching programs to which you refer. We all know the benefits that British Columbians derive from them.

[6:15]

Not wishing to say the things we've already said, the difficulty we've had this year, of course, is trying to maintain levels for various sport organizations in keeping with the difficult financial constraints that we face as government. We will try to address the concerns in deliberation with various organizations, but there's no question that tough decisions are having to be made and will continue to be made.

There's no question that many of the sport organizations realize that there are some reductions coming this year. I have to let the member know that. I cannot say otherwise. The budget has been reduced under the financial constraints of government. Our ministry and staff have been dealing with that issue for the last few weeks. It's very difficult trying to figure out where we apply the reductions, what we maintain, how we can keep our programs healthy and ensure that the value of the programs that we have in sport and recreation are maintained.

I'm not hiding the fact that there will be some shifts, there will be some cuts and, I'm sure, there will be complaints. There will be people who feel that we are hurting the programs. That will happen.

[ Page 1830 ]

One of the difficulties is that we continue inherited multisport games: Commonwealth Games, Kamloops games, Matsqui-Abbotsford coming up in '95. This government is committed to in excess of $50 million for various multisport games. I have to say in here today that that is having an impact on the various programs that you're talking about: those organizations of amateur sport, baseball, hockey, all those various groups, all the various administrative organizations that help us with sport. We support multisport games, but there's a substantial cost.

Government has to assess priorities. We are in a deficit situation. We're trying to handle it. I guess all organizations that we support are taking some of the burden this year.

A. Cowie: Mr. Minister, along the same line of questioning regarding budgets, having to do with travel subsidies, the amateur sports organizations feel that the individual members participating will have to in fact pay more and more of their costs to go to activities, where in the past they've been at least partly subsidized.

When times are difficult, such as right now with the recession, families tend to use community facilities more than they would in good times. So it's even more important that children and teenagers have the opportunity to participate in organized programs. I guess it's a matter of setting priorities; but I would say that in times like this it's very important for the priorities to be for children and for teenagers so that they have an opportunity to participate in these programs.

I don't like to use the same old words, "get them off the street," that sort of thing, but it is true that if they are given options, there will be less costs in policing and less costs in dealing with problems if we in fact give the children and teenagers a challenge.

This is one area in your ministry where we on this side think priority should be given.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I agree with the member, and indeed I've just asked my staff how we've been approaching this issue. I fundamentally come from the school of thought that sport and recreation not only challenge our young people -- all people -- to excel, and obviously to reach the pinnacle of their particular sport.... That's very important. That's the role model. That's the achievement that we want to encourage. But also there's another very important component of sport and recreation, and this is what we will certainly be emphasizing a great deal more in the years ahead: participation. There is a social return.

Young people, given the opportunity to play or to get involved in recreation facilities, or all ages to get involved.... Recreation is not just swimming pools, but it's all endeavours of life. When you look at the definition in the dictionary, it's re-creating your life.

We're looking at lifestyles in this ministry, in this division. How can we help British Columbians maintain a healthy lifestyle? How can we ensure that sport helps young people be off the street, for instance, and have viable alternatives? That's why we're high on coaching and funding for good coaching: so that young people -- not just young people, but those who want to participate in an organized sport -- have people there who can help them. If they have good coaches, it encourages them to participate and not get into other activities which the member is obviously referring to.

Let me say that there will be some discussion in the years ahead, some policy shifts in terms of where we.... The federal government has just put out a major document on sport. I think it emphasizes the participation side of it and how we can get people to have healthy lifestyles.

One of the things that I think is very important is that sport and recreation should be seen as part of the health enterprise. I think we've tended to see them in isolation, perhaps because we always see it in terms of athletes who do well, who get the gold medal. But now I think we're emphasizing sport and recreation as part of a healthy lifestyle, a healthy approach to life -- health values and social values. I think this division in my ministry should apply itself to addressing the issue of how our budget can be seen as part of the Health budget for citizens of British Columbia.

I share the member's views and concerns, and I hope that in the years ahead we can enhance our opportunities to support that kind of approach.

A. Cowie: We on this side certainly agree with that. We would have fewer problems on the medical side if we had more children -- and more adults, for that matter -- participating in a good, healthy sports or amateur sports program, so that they continue to do that throughout their life. Even though I've given up skiing for the last couple of years, I intend to get back to it. I think it's a very healthy thing to do.

Interjection.

A. Cowie: Jogging, yes. That's another. Maybe we can go jogging together in the morning.

Anyway, that gets me to another concern that some of the organizations have expressed to me over the last while. Those special populations -- perhaps due to having lost a leg or whatever -- feel that unless this budget is increased at least by the population growth, they will suffer. I'd like some assurance that their programs will not be shelved, and that they will not suffer from this budget.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I want to say again that this ministry and this minister support the notion or the concept that there are those who have been sort of outsiders in terms of the traditional sport and recreation opportunities: aboriginal people, the disabled and women. I think the member can rest assured that, within the difficult constraints we have, we will be doing our utmost to protect those special-interest organizations that have been put aside because we've tendered into society....

My intention is not to downplay those who are healthy and are good enough to get to the Olympics or the Commonwealth Games and become first, second or third. Everyone needs those role models to achieve. But

[ Page 1831 ]

I think we have overemphasized that, and we have left out many components of our society.

I think you will find that this ministry and the staff here believe that we have a responsibility to all citizens no matter how good they are -- whether they have no disabilities or come from a minority group or are women. Women today are still underrepresented in sports, and there are a lot of equity issues to be dealt with. I can let the member know that I am very aware of those things, and we will be doing our utmost to make changes.

A. Cowie: I would just like to put the budget into some kind of perspective. The Vancouver Parks Board this year will have a budget of close to $54 million for Vancouver citizens. Eighty percent of that goes to staffing.

Interjections.

A. Cowie: I can't help but respond to the side comment from the third party. In fact, the Vancouver Parks Board is extremely proud of its program, and we have not increased staffing on the planning side for ten years. It's an extremely frugal organization, and I don't think three planners is too much at all for that sort of budget. That is approximately 25 times what your budget is for this particular program. It just doesn't seem to be in perspective at all when you figure we have three million people in the province. I wonder if the minister would like to comment.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I'm obviously part of government. All of us reflect the priorities of the day, and we have difficult decisions to make. I think I am permitted to make a personal observation. Hopefully staff will agree that I have taken a bit of personal -- obviously not just administrative -- interest, but I happen to believe this division in the ministry can be far more important to the citizens of British Columbia.

A. Cowie: Designed by the last administration.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I think that may reflect, if I may, the lack of support that's given in some areas. Obviously my statement for tonight is that we cannot change everything overnight or in one budget year or maybe even two budget years. I can assure the member that I, and I think all my colleagues, recognize the importance of sport and recreation to the citizens of British Columbia. We will do our utmost in the years ahead to enhance it.

I think much of that will come by us in a perceptive way, not only in our minds in the Legislature but in the citizens', that sport and recreation should be seen as part of the health enterprise. When you look at the prevention and health budget, and the millions and millions of dollars that is put into health to deal with the results of lifestyles that perhaps could have been healthier, then I think we can put this into perspective. If we can allocate greater resources to this kind of endeavor, we can have a far greater impact in the long term on that health budget.

That takes attitude changes and shifts and, yes, it takes money.

I would suggest that someone who plays soccer as a child, continues to play throughout their life, and goes out once or twice a week and remains healthy, won't need that hospital bed as often as those who don't do that sort of activity. Certainly my attitude is to bring that kind of philosophy to this division and try to share that with my colleagues in the years ahead.

[6:30]

A. Cowie: I have one more question, and then I'm going to turn it over to another member to ask some questions regarding grants. Then perhaps we can turn to the third party, and then back again for a

summary. We might be able to close, hopefully, by 7 o'clock. My final question has to do with volunteers. On the Vancouver Parks Board system -- and I know in many parks board systems throughout this province -- you cannot possibly operate without volunteers. It's impossible. We literally have thousands of volunteers who work, and it's necessary to reward them in some fashion for their effort. That reward is usually nothing more than a dinner or a plaque in recognition of many years of volunteering. It's something that we have to encourage throughout the whole province, or the system will simply not operate.

For instance, if the municipalities can provide the programmers and those people who basically look after the business of recreation, and then through the soccer organizations and other amateur sports organizations throughout the province, those people are almost entirely volunteer. So the whole province essentially works on a volunteer system. I'm wondering if the minister has any funding in the budget for the kind of rewards that I'm talking about -- special accolades. Has he any comments on this particular topic?

Hon. R. Blencoe: There's no question that volunteers in sport and recreation are the foundation of the program. That's why we put a considerable amount of money into coaching for volunteer coaches last year. I don't remember exactly how much it was, but a considerable amount of money was given in grant assistance -- one of the highest portions of the program. In terms of recognition specifically for volunteers, I think the organizations themselves do that. In terms of what the province is doing, we have recognitions like the Premier's awards and the athletes' awards for those who excel.

We give financial rewards to athletes who want to stay in school and go to college or university, to help them with their training. But I think there is some merit in taking a look at the province recognizing those who have excelled as volunteers. I think it has great merit. I have already asked staff to take a look at the awards we do give currently. We need to recognize those behind the scenes a little more.

Having been involved in amateur sport myself -- and my children are heavily involved too -- I know the hundreds of hours that volunteers put in. At the baseball park where my kids play, there are a couple of elderly gentlemen who have been associated with that park for 40 years. Prior to the game on Saturday or Sunday, they're out there at 5 or 6 o'clock in the morning clearing it up for the kids, getting it ready and

[ Page 1832 ]

doing the lines. They don't ask for recognition, but there should be something special, because without them.... We spend $26 million in our programs here, but that's compounded hundreds of times by the hours that people put in. Of course, we can never finance that. It's obviously love of the sport and of young people and people participating. A heavy portion of this division goes to coaching. I believe that last year's figure was $400,000 directly to coaching, which is a considerable amount of money. But the member makes some good points.

K. Jones: I'd like to explore the areas of your grant programs, and also the areas of funding that would be extended to your ministry from the B. C. Lottery Corporation via the general revenue process and that you would have allocated to your ministry now -- funds which would normally in past years have been paid out of the GO B.C. and various other grants. I just want to go through a few of these grants first of all and see whether they would fall within your ministry's responsibility, for people inquiring about who to apply to.

Going down the list, there are many that I can identify fairly readily in the municipal area among the GO B.C. grants: a multi-servicebuilding, Abbotsford-Matsqui Community Services; construction of a field house; indoor swimming pool, fire halls and things like that. Would that responsibility be under your ministry now?

Hon. R. Blencoe: All the various capital programs to which you refer came out of GO B.C. and the Lottery Corporation. We don't do capital programs out of this ministry. You're quite correct that the money for sport and the programs and everything came from GO B.C. It's no longer identified as such; it is now a line item, a vote. As minister responsible, I have to make the case to the Treasury Board and my colleagues to get general revenue funds for sport and recreation in the province. But the capital projects to which you refer were from GO B.C. As you know, that whole process is under review.

There will be announcements -- I'm not sure when -- in terms of trying to carry on, when we can, with those kinds of capital allocations.

I want to add, if I may, to somewhat of a perception that we don't do as much as we should for sport. I would be one of the first to say we could always do more, but in the last four or five years GO B.C. has allocated in excess of $40 million to various capital projects for sport and recreation, a considerable amount of money. When you're looking at this budget, you have to look at the money that has gone into new facilities and new capital projects; you also, as I said just a minute ago, have to look at the multisport games we're putting on, and the millions of dollars we're spending there as well.

Despite what some might say in terms of Sport B.C., or the 2 percent solution that you hear about all the time, a considerable amount of money -- taxpayers' money -- is going into sport and recreation. We could do more. If I may editorialize, though, I think we have to take a look at where we're putting our money in sport and recreation. Many organizations have been funded; it's been an ongoing process. We need to look at what return we're getting for those dollars. There are many organizations that down the line may be encouraged not to count totally on government support.

We want to move on to areas where there's not very much support for organizations that have been outside the system. We want to put more money in there, which means that some of the more traditional organizations may be asked not to count so much on government support.

K. Jones: You indicated that you had a desire to support amateur sport and physical fitness. I notice that in vote 55 you have an allocation of moneys for that purpose: $1.5 million, I believe.

I want to look at STOB 80: $1,025,000. Where is that money coming from? Is that allocated from general revenues and would have been supplied by lottery funds?

Hon. R. Blencoe: Are you referring to vote 55 or special accounts?

K. Jones: Vote 55, special accounts, the first line....

Hon. R. Blencoe: I'm going by the book, and I presume that you have the same book as I do, hon. member.

K. Jones: I'm looking at the supplement.

Hon. R. Blencoe: You are referring to the supplement. Vote 55, hon. member, is municipal revenue sharing at $363 million. Subsequent pages break down the various allocations into the various programs.

K. Jones: I'm specifically talking about the first line of special accounts, the physical fitness and amateur sports fund. The total allocation for this year is $1.5 million, plus $50,000. Under STOB 80 -- I believe that is grants -- there's $1,025,000. Could you tell us if that was money coming into general revenue from the Lottery Fund?

Hon. R. Blencoe: My understanding is that it's not from the Lottery Fund; it is grants that we provide to various sports organizations, including money this year for the Canada Games in Kamloops. My understanding is that it's predominantly for next year's Canada Games in Kamloops.

K. Jones: Going back to the lottery programs, the grants programs that were done in previous years -- $25 million under GO B.C. -- I grant that not all of those are related to municipalities, but about half of them would have been supplied for municipal development projects. There is over $7 million going in direct grants, made up of substantial items, to municipalities, such as Metrotown civic square for the corporation of Burnaby and library building construction at Burnaby Public Library.

There are quite a few other projects, including the 911 emergency system installation for the Greater Vancouver Regional District. Right now these sources of funding don't appear to be available any longer. Is your

[ Page 1833 ]

budget now telling us that these people will not have opportunities, that the municipalities will not be able to apply for capital grant or project grant funding?

Hon. R. Blencoe: I will indulge the member for about ten seconds. He's referring to another ministry. The municipalities are the recipients of the programs you're talking about, but that program and future programs are administered by my colleague the Minister of Government Services. Any questions you have about past, this year's or future policy -- you can't ask about future policy obviously, but you can explore it if you like -- you should take up with her.

[6:45]

K. Jones: We're trying to identify what areas would be under Government Services and what would be under your ministry. There were also areas that were under community archives assistance. Where will people who previously received funds under that be turning to?

To complete that, I can offer a couple more here, then you could answer them all at once. Communications -- the PEETS grants, which I believe are grants for community television for small communities.... Agricultural fairs grants. We asked about that with the Ministry of Agriculture, and the Minister of Agriculture said that there was no funding under his ministry. We're trying to identify where that funding would be coming through, and yours seems to be the only likely place.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I know the member is new, and I don't want to put down his enthusiasm, but if you're on a fishing expedition, you're fishing with the wrong minister. We never administered those programs. We won't in the future, and your questions should be addressed to the Minister of Government Services.

The Chair: I would point out that the Chair has heard the concerns by the minister with respect to the ministerial authority for the questions. However the Chair has no knowledge of those responsibilities, so I would ask that the questioner consider the jurisdiction for the questions prior to raising them. If he does have a legitimate problem, of course, I think it's in order to ask the minister as you have been doing.

K. Jones: The reason for the questioning is that we've been having some difficulty in identifying for the public -- the people in our constituencies -- who to apply to for grants that were previously provided by government. These are questions that are coming from the municipalities, from the community groups that would normally have come under this jurisdiction. I have excluded those that I can identify as Tourism and Multiculturalism. They have been selected specifically because they potentially relate to this ministry. We are attempting to try to find out whether this ministry....

Obviously this minister has said that there is no opportunity in this area for the people to apply to his ministry. I can also say that there's no opportunity in the Government Services area either, because there's only around $2 million available under Government Services for anything that's left in the way of community funding. Obviously there's no money there either.

L. Fox: I was pleased to hear some of the statements by the minister earlier with respect to his vision of what sport does to build character and add to the strength of the province. I heard him talk about sports for the more elite athlete as well as for the average athlete and the handicapped. I understand that your ministry doesn't provide any capital, because I asked that question some time back. I share the previous member's concerns. There are many communities out there that haven't got the facilities to accommodate the specific programs that you stood up and said you're so proud to be able to offer.

I'm concerned that while this government says it really supports the development of sport, by the removal of the GO B.C. program it does not recognize the contribution it made to sport in previous years. However, I was pleased to hear you talk about the $40 million that has been spent in that area in the last few years. I want to get down to the actual budget for sport.

My life, by the way, has been built primarily around sport. I really do know sport from a lot of different perspectives, from a coaching-volunteering perspective as well as by being like the Chairman and having the opportunity to participate in provincial play-offs, Canadian play-offs and other high levels of achievement in sport. I also recognize the importance sports can play in everyone's life, not just those who are fortunate enough to be blessed with the natural talents that go with being a successful athlete. I also recognize the contribution, the mental contribution specifically, of individuals at all levels.

Some of the major achievements in this province in the past few years in promoting sport have been the B.C. Summer Games and the B.C. Winter Games. One that I'm extremely proud of.... I really do understand its goals and objectives. It's not for the elite; it's for the program, for students, for athletes of all ages who haven't got all the talent to make it in either professional sport or high-level organized sport. Of course, that is -- and I see everybody nodding over there -- the Northern B.C. Winter Games. I want to know what contribution this budget makes to the Northern B.C.

Winter Games in 1992 versus 1991. I would also really like to know the contribution that this budget will make to the Special Olympics, the B.C. Summer Games and the B.C. Winter Games, and Sport B.C. As well, I'd like to know whether or not there's anything in this budget for the YW-YMCA.

Hon. R. Blencoe: In terms of the details, we support and fund all the programs you mentioned. The actual levels for '92-93 will be announced very shortly. We will be funding and continuing to support the Northern B.C. Winter Games. I attended the last one. I cannot give you the definitive, exact amount, because we are still going through the allocations -- where we're going to put the dollars. But there will be support for the Northern B.C. Winter Games.

The B.C. Summer Games and the B.C. Winter Games. I couldn't agree more; they are great events. The government of the day has supported $3 million, I

[ Page 1834 ]

think, on an annual basis. I can assure the member that support for the B.C. Summer Games and the B.C. Winter Games will continue.

Sport B.C. If I recall, it was $190,000 for their basic grant and $615,000 for their administrative centre. Sport B.C. will continue to receive funding from the province. The levels of funding are yet to be announced.

L. Fox: Perhaps I'm misreading the budget. I'm looking at STOB 80, and I'm looking at the physical fitness and amateur sports fund. Is there another area in your budget where those dollars come forward? Will you identify what you're going to put into all of these particular programs?

Hon. R. Blencoe: Actually, we're on the wrong vote, but I'll indulge the member. The question he's referring to in terms of funds for sports organizations is under vote 54; local government and community services is under 80, which says $36 million, of which we apply $26.3 million for sport and recreation in British Columbia -- that's $26 million in addition to the amounts from the fund.

L. Fox: One of the real limitations to putting on the games -- I now speak particularly of the Northern B.C. Winter Games -- is travel, as I'm sure you can appreciate the enormous mass of land and the enormous distances people have to travel in order to participate in those games. Last year, for instance, I know that there was a submission before your ministry to help out with some air assistance in terms of those who had to travel extremely long distances.

Individuals last year had to take school buses, which are not all that comfortable to travel in, right from the Queen Charlottes all the way up to Fort Nelson, because it was the only way they could afford to send their participants. So my question is: in considering the funding of the Northern B.C. Winter Games, Mr. Minister, will you be giving consideration, particularly in those areas where people have to travel such great distances, to providing some assistance to modes of travel other than school bus?

Hon. R. Blencoe: The actual figure for the Northern B.C. Winter Games last year, '91-92, was $85,000, and I know there was a request -- I forget exactly how much it was -- for specifically the issue you raised in terms of travel. This is a very difficult issue. I have been amazed at the number of sports organizations that travel, that want to participate not only in British Columbia but all over the world. In the past there has been limited support for travel, but the difficulty we face is that there are requests for travel in the millions and millions of dollars, hon. member.

Although I do know the issues you raised for the Northern Winter Games and, indeed, have had discussions with those who are involved in this organization, the answer thus far has been that we did provide $85,000 and that that's the limit of our grant to the B.C. northern games. Therefore they have to allocate subsidies for travel from that, if they can. I cannot in good conscience indicate to you today that there will be any more money for travel for the Northern B.C. Winter Games.

L. Fox: I'll just put the Northern Winter Games into perspective, and then we'll get onto the B.C. Summer and Winter Games. Routinely the Northern B.C. Winter Games has three times the participants of either the B.C. Summer Games or the B.C. Winter Games, in terms of the number of athletes. That is primarily because you don't have to be an elite athlete in order to qualify for those games. There are all kinds of things, and the venues and the types of activities change from community to community. I see a couple of northern MLAs here not even bothering to take

part in discussions. But anyway, the Northern Winter Games routinely takes on about 3,500 athletes, as I said earlier. It may not have been that last year, because for everybody to get to Fort Nelson was a real hardship, and they may not have had the same number of athletes that they've had previously.

[7:00]

I, as mayor, and my community had the privilege of hosting the first -- what did we call it? -- Tri-Community Games, with the three communities of Fort St. James, Fraser Lake and Vanderhoof. My understanding is that they're going to make application again in the very near future.

But I just want to say that your elite athlete -- in order to get to the B.C. Summer Games or the B.C. Winter Games -- very often is the top pick: he can find the support, he can find the sponsorship. But those who are not blessed with the same talents, yet want the opportunity to participate in a competitive way -- and many of them.... It may very well just be that in some cases.... They've had crib tournaments as part of the games, which have been well attended.

I just want to say that given the different makeup, I would really like to see your ministry, if it really believes that recreation is a valuable part of building life skills, skills in terms of being a successful individual, as well as learning team skills, and so on....

If you really believe that that should be as available to those who are less talented as it is to those who do have the ability and the natural talents to become the pick in terms of our athletes, perhaps we could put more emphasis on funding the Northern Winter Games, and give it the same kind of image so that we can really say: "Hey, all athletes are valuable, in terms of the provincial government."

Hon. R. Blencoe: I won't spend a long time responding. I have sympathy for the member's viewpoint. We have the B.C. Summer and Winter Games, to which we provide considerable moneys for the travel involved with that. I don't think the member would like me to take away from that, because that's.... You see, what you're doing, in terms of these difficult times -- because we don't have the money right now -- is putting us in a position of choosing winners and losers. A huge portion of the budget for the B.C. Summer and Winter Games is for travel, so the young -- all age groups, for all sports activities -- can get to the games.

Obviously, I know the importance of the Northern B.C. Winter Games to the north. I know travel is a

[ Page 1835 ]

problem. I met many of the athletes the day I was there, and they told me their story. Many of them travelled hours and hours in a bus to get to participate. All I can say to you, hon. member, is that I'm aware of it; I know the importance of participating. But I would also remind the member that we give a considerable amount of money to the various sports that those participants participate in in terms of helping their sports develop. But in terms of the travel, I realize we could do more, but unfortunately it's not in the budget this year.

L. Fox: I don't want to belabour the point. I know it's the intent to try to bring this discussion to a close, but I should point out to the minister that the participants in the Northern B.C. Winter Games are not beneficiaries of any of your other programs. The participants at the B.C. Summer Games and the B.C. Winter Games benefit. One of the prerequisites of being in the Northern B.C. Winter Games is that you can't be a provincially based team, you can't be a local rep team, and you can't even have the ability to win a position in one of the other levels of games.

You have to be in the second or lower level of recreation. So many of these participants that you think are benefiting from your other programs in terms of your instructions and coaching and so on are not really receiving the same benefits, if any, that those attending the B.C. Summer and B.C. Winter Games are.

However, I did not suggest in my earlier discussion that one should detract from the other games. I believe I placed significant emphasis on the importance of those games. I asked only that the Northern B.C. Winter Games should receive similar emphasis from the ministry. I recognize that we're in difficult times, and I have yet to ever ask for more money for any program. I'm not doing that now, but I'm asking that....

Hon. R. Blencoe: You're getting close.

L. Fox: Yes, we're getting close. I'm asking that we consider the importance of those games in the same light as we look at the other two levels. I really believe that with the success of the Northern B.C. Winter Games, somewhere down the road we'll see them expand. They will expand to a similar type of games as in the southern part of the province -- and I hope they do.

I want to get back to one final question about the Special Olympics. You didn't answer that one specifically, but I assume that you're also going to make an announcement in the near future with respect to what your contribution will be to that program. Perhaps you might inform me as to what you spent on that in 1991.

Hon. R. Blencoe: It was $26,000 last year, and it's under consideration for this year.

Vote 55 approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported resolution, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. A. Edwards: I call second reading of Bill 39.

PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

AMENDMENT ACT, 1992

Hon. A. Edwards: Hon. Speaker, the proposed amendments to the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act deal with the following issues: tax exemption for petroleum development roads; industry reporting standards for royalty purposes, including the types of information to be reported and the types of books and records to be maintained by the industry; administration of interest owing to and payable by the Crown for royalty purposes; authority to determine the types of books and records industry must maintain; and the proper abandonment of oil or gas wells and well-site restoration.

With respect to the petroleum development roads, their exemption from property taxation is consistent with past taxation practice and with the treatment of similar roads in other resource sectors and other jurisdictions.

The authority for determining industry reporting standards for royalty purposes currently resides with the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. But with the passage of this bill, the authority will be transferred to the minister. This amendment will reduce the administration required to change either reporting standards or forms.

In addition, the royalty administrator will be given the authority for determining the types of books and records to be maintained by industry for royalty purposes. That administrator, of course, is responsible to the minister.

The passage of this bill will also consolidate under one statute -- which is not currently the case -- the administration of interest incurred through overpayment or underpayment of royalties. This will simplify royalty calculation procedures for both government and industry and has the support of both government and industry.

Finally, this bill will enable the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to order the proper abandonment and restoration of an oil or gas well. That is important, because currently the ministry is not able to make that kind of order and, in certain circumstances, it leaves the Crown with greater liability than it should have. It serves as one of our first steps in the implementation of a policy to manage so-called "orphan wells," which are oil and gas wells that have no owners.

D. Jarvis: Since coming into office, this government has repeatedly passed legislation at the expense and to the detriment of the natural resource sectors of this country. It has reached the point where every time a new NDP bill comes up on their order paper, the entire resource sector starts to hold its breath. Through a combination of new and more taxes, regulations and studies, the government has induced a bona fide bill chill in the resource industry. For that reason, it is a pleasant change to be able to discuss a bill that if not particularly inspiring, is at least innocuous. In essence, there is nothing in this bill to suggest that it should not pass quickly through debate.

[ Page 1836 ]

I was actually somewhat surprised to see that one of the measures enacted in the bill is the clarification that designated development roads are not to be subjected to assessment or taxation under

section 79 of the Assessment Act. Given the recent history of this government, any decision that actually reduces taxation is more than welcome. I am certain that the individuals involved in the industry will welcome this particular measure, small though it is.

[7:15]

The inclusion of the interest royalty fees and payments appears to be a mostly neutral decision that will have little impact on the industry overall. In all, the bill will have little impact on the petroleum and natural gas industry, but it does succeed in clarifying one or two inconsistencies. For this reason I'm prepared to support this bill, and I recommend my colleagues support it as well.

L. Fox: Unexpectedly I get to speak on this bill. I guess I have a few observations. I'm a bit concerned that this bill will give the minister the opportunity directly to increase the rates unilaterally without coming forward. And given the history of this government in the past few months and the hits that it's taken at industry, I have to suspect that the rationale here would be the same rationale used in other bills, and that is that it provides the opportunity for this government to increase the rates rather than lowering them.

With respect to the roads, I have to wonder whether those same roads are capitalized in the industry and what the impact is going to be from the corporation capital tax. Obviously if those roads are capitalized -- and I presume, like the lumber industry, that they will be -- they will be hit. So I don't know that there is a significant reduction with respect to taxation on the industry. In fact, I would presume that there isn't.

I understand with respect to some of the other aspects of cleaning up the house, so to speak -- allowing you to close abandoned wells and that kind of issue.... But with that, I am concerned, and I look forward to the committee stage to ask the appropriate questions.

Hon. A. Edwards: I move second reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Bill 39, Petroleum and Natural Gas Amendment Act, 1992, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 34.

ENVIRONMENT, LANDS AND PARKS

STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1992

Hon. J. Cashore: This bill contains two separate legislative initiatives. Firstly, it repeals the Hazardous Waste Management Corporation Act; secondly, it amends the Wildlife Act.

The Hazardous Waste Management Corporation was created in 1990 to ensure the development, implementation and maintenance of a comprehensive hazardous waste management system for the province. The corporation has failed to achieve these results, in spite of a significant financial investment on the part of government. As a result, the dissolution of the corporation was recommended in an independent report to the government and was announced in the budget speech on March 26, 1992. This bill will accomplish that objective.

The government can now embark on an aggressive new program to reduce toxics and handle hazardous waste. We will take the lead in finding safe ways to deal with toxic and biomedical wastes, pesticides, highly contaminated soils and dangerous chemicals. This will be accomplished through the appointment of a toxic reduction commissioner to consult with the public and advise the government on the best approach to deal with these sensitive issues. In addition, I have established a toxics reduction branch within my ministry.

The funding for the work of the commissioner will come out of the remaining funds in the dissolved corporation's bank account. The result will be to provide British Columbians with a credible, fiscally responsible and effective program for the treatment of hazardous waste and the reduction of toxics.

The amendment to the Wildlife Act is also included in this bill and is the result of consultation and discussion with different agencies and ministries. The amendment has to do with the administration of wildlife management areas. These areas have been set up for the management and protection of very special wildlife or fish populations. The amendment will allow compatible activity to be carried out inside these areas. At present only those activities administered by the wildlife and fisheries branches of my ministry can be carried out in these areas. This has precluded the use of these areas to their full capability for integrated management purposes.

The proposed change will allow other government agencies to regulate activities within wildlife management areas where the wildlife and fisheries branches are satisfied that the activity is a compatible one. For example, this would allow the lands division of my ministry to administer grazing areas inside the wildlife management area. I am satisfied that this will result in both the better use and administration of our wildlife management areas, and ultimately in the creation of more of these areas.

In conclusion, this bill reflects the commitment of this government to creating a modern and responsible framework for the management and protection of the environment. This will be accomplished through improved management and reduction of toxic and hazardous wastes, and improved regulation and management of wildlife management areas. Hon. Speaker, I move second reading.

W. Hurd: The opposition understands that the intent of this bill is housekeeping in nature. I would like

[ Page 1837 ]

to address a few specific remarks to the termination of the old Hazardous Waste Management Corporation. The opposition understands that that has to take place before any new legislation can be brought forward. I guess it's important for us, however, to remind this House, the government and the people of the province of some of the reasons why the original Hazardous Waste Management Corporation foundered and was not able to deliver the service and vision for the future in the handling of hazardous waste that was anticipated when it was brought forward.

I think we can suggest with some certainty that the original Hazardous Waste Management Corporation was the subject of a great deal of political interference. Proposals for siting facilities in British Columbia were understandably not greeted with enthusiasm by the proposed communities. Some of the ideas of the commission foundered when they came before cabinet and the communities in which they were proposed. I hope that in any new legislation the government brings forward, some of these real difficulties are addressed, particularly as they pertain to siting a facility that we all know is critically needed.

It's important to recognize the seriousness of the hazardous waste management issue that we're dealing with. We generate some 110,000 tonnes of hazardous waste per year, in addition to 400,000 tonnes that are believed to be in existing storage facilities in the province. As I say, we'll certainly be debating many of these issues when the legislation comes forward to the House regarding a replacement for this particular corporation and strategies that the government may have to deal with this critical environmental problem.

With respect to the other issues in the bill, namely the wildlife management areas, the opposition understands that the amendments will provide the ministry with broader opportunities to designate areas for wildlife habitat. We recognize the housekeeping nature of the amendment and support in general the intent of this particular bill, with the hope that the minister will bring forward some very tough but fair guidelines on hazardous waste management in the province.

With that, we offer the opposition's support of the bill. Certainly we'd invite other members of the House to address the essential nature of it.

L. Reid: I need to speak briefly this evening on the hazardous waste management program underway in this province. As most of you are aware, toxic soil has been a significant issue in my riding of Richmond East. Certainly the contaminated soil issue from the Expo lands is ongoing to this day. Oftentimes we continue to see ads in local papers that address ocean dumping. I do not believe that that is something we want to see continue. I'm concerned that we're not going to have concise implementation or an action plan for dealing with hazardous waste.

My response when toxic soil was a significant issue in Richmond East and my response today is that we need to see a world-class research facility on hazardous waste. I would like to see British Columbia become an industry leader in environmental management, if you will, and address this pressing issue in innovative ways. The riding of Richmond, sitting on the Fraser River delta, cannot afford further delay in this area. We have waste that needs to be handled in an efficient and progressive manner.

I welcome the commitment from this government to take this issue on, because environmental protection is a huge issue. Hazardous waste management must be addressed without delay.

J. Tyabji: Very briefly, I'd like to commend the minister on eliminating the Hazardous Waste Management Corporation. Basically, all of us agreed that it wasn't doing the job it was supposed to do. However, we're concerned that there hasn't been anything put in place to replace it.

The issue of hazardous waste is a very critical one in British Columbia. We have a lot of current hazardous waste storage facilities, and there is no way of eliminating the waste. The waste is continuing to accumulate. We have Crown corporations in violation of some of the impending legislation on waste disposal and elimination. We don't have a method of dealing with hazardous waste, whether it's through the ministry or through amending the corporation that has just been eliminated.

It does cause us some degree of unease that we don't see a plan to replace the corporation. We agree that it wasn't effective and wasn't doing the job that it was supposed to do. However, we're very concerned, because we haven't seen any direction from the ministry in terms of what it plans to do. I would like to take this time to encourage the minister by saying that we need more facilities to eliminate hazardous waste, and that we actually have to have some kind of capital investment to set up these facilities so that we don't face the kind of disaster that could be facing us if we just allow hazardous waste to continue to accumulate without a plan of action.

With that, I'd like to conclude my comments on the bill. We do support the bill in terms of intention; however, we don't like the idea that there is no replacement.

C. Serwa: It's a pleasure to rise to speak on the philosophy and principles of Bill 34, which is initially the repeal of the Hazardous Waste Management Corporation Act. I agree wholeheartedly with the minister that this is a most important area of environmental concern. There are approximately 2,000 different types of chemicals in common usage in British Columbia, many of which do not degrade and are hazardous to the environment and the health of humans, as well as of many other forms of plant and animal life.

The challenge is very great indeed. It is not a simple challenge, and I would hope that the initiative the minister and the ministry is taking will in fact be totally successful. It must be successful for the ability to collect household and industrial or business waste, and to find a suitable site -- in British Columbia, for example. I believe one of the real reasons for developing the Hazardous Waste Management Corporation was perhaps to remove the responsibility from government for locating a disposal site in British Columbia, which, as we all know, is often confronted with the NIMBY

[ Page 1838 ]

syndrome -- not in my back yard -- which makes it very difficult to find an appropriate site. There are other options available. I'm confident that the minister and the ministry are well aware of the options that are available to this work, perhaps in concert with other jurisdictions, such as Alberta -- perhaps some sort of reciprocal arrangement with the state of Washington, where they may dispose of tires through our facilities, or used batteries; and perhaps some of the other hazardous wastes can be incinerated at Swan Hills or in other types of facilities. There are a variety of options.

[7:30]

There is no question in anyone's mind that the greatest challenge confronting us is the safe collection and disposal of these hazardous wastes. It is abundantly clear, as well, that there must be close cooperation between the ministry and the commissioner. There should not be a competitive environment, but a consultive and cooperative environment to ensure that this particular hazard is well attended to. I'm certainly in support and speak in support of the philosophy and principles with respect to hazardous waste.

Turning to the amendments to the Wildlife Act, I am a proponent of ensuring that the Ministry of Environment has the opportunity to communicate and to participate in wildlife management areas. There's no question that in some areas the inability to communicate directly with the Ministry of Forests with respect to intensively utilized Crown grazing lands, has resulted in a loss of browse that in critical areas, whether they're summer or winter areas, is critical to wildlife habitat.

This particular amendment will give the Ministry of Environment a greater opportunity to have an influence in these particular areas, not to the exclusion, I believe, of other uses, but to ensure that the needs and concerns of those interested in wildlife...and that the ungulates and other species have that opportunity to have adequate forage in areas that they inhabit.

In both cases I speak in support of the philosophy and principles of this bill, and will be interested in debating the various sections at committee stage.

A. Cowie: I also wish to speak very briefly on this particular bill. I am in support of the elimination of the Hazardous Waste Management Corporation. I think that under the direction of the last head of that particular corporation, the whole situation was quite disastrous, and it's good to start again.

The government has tried a number of times to get a hazardous waste disposal site -- twice, I believe, in Cache Creek. The real problem is dealing with the public participation part of it and the assurances that there will be no hazard to the local community. I am sure that the next time, in going around to try to find an adequate site, a better public participation program will be designed, one that will involve the local people as part of the process right from the very beginning.

We need a world-class facility in B.C. I personally believe we should not be exporting our hazardous waste outside our own jurisdiction. If we are forced to deal with the situation in our own jurisdiction, then we will come to a conclusion a lot faster. If we can ship hazardous wastes across the seas to poorer countries, that's no answer; eventually that will lead to great problems in other countries. Even if we ship hazardous wastes south of the border, it is not the solution. We should be dealing with our own problems within our own borders.

Hon. J. Cashore: I move second reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Bill 34, Environment, Lands and Parks Statutes Amendment Act, 1992, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 24.

WATER AMENDMENT ACT, 1992

Hon. J. Cashore: This bill contains urgently needed measures to improve the operation of water management activities throughout the province. It will provide better protection of the water resources of this province and will ensure that staff in the ministry's regional offices have the appropriate decision-making authority.

The highlights of the Water Amendment Act, 1992, are as follows. First, it clarifies the approval process associated with stream management activities under

section 7 of the Water Act. As you know, hon. Speaker, development activities on the beds and banks of our rivers, streams and lakes have the potential to damage ecosystems and can result in downstream flooding. The existing approval system is intended to prevent such damage. At present, actual diversion or use of water is required before an approval is necessary. The amendment will give the ministry powers to regulate changes in and about a stream, even though there is no diversion or use. Examples of such changes include the placing of culverts, bridge construction and pipeline crossings.

The proposed amendments provide this authority and the ability to make regulations regarding stream changes. The amendments will confirm the ministry's integrated management approach to stream protection, ensure that persons making routine changes to a stream are aware of the ministry's expectations, and provide a firm basis for enforcement. Regulations will be developed in consultation with all interested persons to ensure that necessary protection is provided.

Second, the Water Amendment Act confirms the roles, responsibilities and method of appointment of officials under the Water Act. In this way, decision-making will be delegated to the most appropriate individuals in the ministry's regional offices.

Third, the appeal process relating to the cancellation of licences and approvals is standardized so that an appeal can now be heard by the Environmental Appeal Board rather than by the B.C. Supreme Court.

Finally, the penalty

section of the Water Act is strengthened to make it consistent with modern environmental legislation. The changes proposed in the

[ Page 1839 ]

Water Amendment Act are essential to support current activities of the water management program and its vision of a sustained and healthy water resource. The amendments reflect the continued commitment of this government to provide British Columbians with an effective regulatory framework for management of our important water resources.

Hon. Speaker, I move second reading.

J. Tyabji: Hon. Speaker, in general, I think the Liberals stand in support of this bill. I'd like to take this time to congratulate the minister for identifying that we have to change the definition of "stream" to involve the riparian definition, so that we actually take into account things other than the water flowing through the stream and the fact that a stream is more than just the water. I congratulate him for recognizing that and for expanding the definition.

Where we're concerned is with regard to the expansion of the powers of the regional manager and the fact that the regional manager is now, by definition within this bill, on equal footing with the engineers and the officers -- and that causes us great concern. The definition within the bill refers to the regional manager as someone who has the exact same powers as the engineers or officers, and those are technical positions, hon. Speaker. An engineer is someone with technical expertise. The regional manager, as we read the bill, can be appointed by the minister.

So how is it that someone who can be appointed by the minister is on the same level as someone with technical expertise in their field -- an engineer?

In reality, what we see throughout the province are regional managers with a great deal of influence and power in their jurisdictions. We have a lot of concern with allowing the regional managers to stand on equal footing with the engineers and officers who may have years and years of technical training. We don't know what the background of the regional manager might be or what the qualifications for regional manager are. We certainly know that if it's a technical position such as an engineer, we know what the basic qualifications are.

But we're very concerned that the definition of "regional water manager" has been expanded to put them basically on equal footing in all parts of the bill with all the top administrative people within the ministry. We're very concerned with that. We don't understand what the justification was for that, and we also don't understand where that could possibly lead us.

It seems to me that often we're seeing legislation come forward from the government side of the House in which no allowance is being made for the fact that there may be a government in the future that may come along which is philosophically opposed to the existing government's views and which may then make an abuse of the powers as they're outlined in the bill that we see here.

Even though this minister, for example, may not be planning to appoint regional managers who would build up fiefdoms, I would say that with the way the bill is laid out right now it definitely needs some kind of tightening up and restructuring so that you don't have engineers with technical expertise being on the same footing as regional mangers who could be appointed by the minister.

[7:45]

Hon. Speaker, I would like to point out that we haven't had a lot of confidence in the past with some of the appointments coming forward from the government side of the House, or the basis on which those appointments were made. So we are quite concerned that some of these appointments to regional manager may be made on the same basis, which is not with regard to their expertise or personal experience but for some other reason. How can that person, then, be on an equal footing with an engineer or an officer?

For those reasons, hon. Speaker, we would flash an alarm to the minister that this bill should be tightened up so that we can't have someone with years and years education and expertise being on an equal footing with a regional manager, who is an appointment, who may have a very important administrative role, but should not be allowed to have the kinds of powers that are outlined in this bill.

Some of the things that he's allowed to do -- "inspect, regulate, close or lock any works...determine what constitutes beneficial use of water...." I can understand an engineer, an officer, having those powers, but I don't know how a regional water manager can do that. "Order the restoration or remediation of any changes in and about a stream" -- well, what kind of background do they have to have in order to be able to do this? "Regulate, in person or through an officer or a water bailiff, and make orders with respect to the diversion, rate of diversion, storage, carriage, distribution and use of water...." Hon.

Speaker, this is a very technical mandate, and it requires a very technical background, a background that an engineer would have but a regional manager may not.

Hon. J. Cashore: Trust me.

J. Tyabji: Hon. Speaker, the minister says, "Trust me." I would say to this minister that based on the record of his government so far, in terms of their appointments, how can we possibly trust him? Perhaps he will be bringing in regional managers from Manitoba, and we will have regional water managers running around the province who come from Manitoba, who will be overruling....

Interjection.

J. Tyabji: And perhaps former NDP candidates who've been unsuccessful in elections and who are now regional managers in the Kootenays.

Interjection.

J. Tyabji: Or, as the minister points out, perhaps it will be former NDPers who sought nominations unsuccessfully, and perhaps then they will be able to "order a person to cease putting or not to put any sawdust, timber, tailings, gravel, refuse, carcass or other thing or substance into a stream." That seems to be a pretty heavy, very technical, mandate.

[ Page 1840 ]

I understand there's still a large list of people who may be coming up for appointment. In that case, what I would say to the minister -- as I said initially -- is that, in effect, we do support the intent of the bill, but we think the bill is a bit loosely worded in that it doesn't allow for the fact that there could be an abuse of power. This minister says: "Trust me." What about the next minister?

So, hon. Speaker, although we support this bill, we would urge the minister to make some kind of amendment so that we don't see regional managers having access to the power to make technical decisions when they don't have the expertise. I think that we will be talking in our estimates about some of the regional managers but as things stand right now, although a lot of the regional managers may be very well qualified to be regional managers and to do an administrative role, they do not necessarily have the ability to make technical decisions.

It's a very simple point, and one that we Liberals, with our careful housekeeping, are pointing out to you so that we can support the bill. But if we are to be 100 percent comfortable with it, we have to point to the regional manager and say there's too much power; there's no reason to put him on an equal footing with someone who has expertise in a technical area.

Other than that, we like the clearer definition of a stream. We encourage the minister in trying to keep our water clean. The housekeeping parts of the bill are fine, but we still have to make this one further step. We will probably address it in more detail at the committee stage, where we can go clause by clause and ask why there are all these amendments that say "and the regional manager," or "the regional manager." Throughout the bill there's this emphasis on the regional manager. Why the increase in powers?

Why the discretion of the minister in appointing him to a position where there obviously needs to be a lot more educational background for some of the decisions that are within the mandate of the regional manager?

That more or less sums up the environment critic's perspective on the bill.

V. Anderson: Just one brief comment. Like the others, we support the general direction. Of course we trust the hon. minister, as long as we can continue to see what he's doing.

Hon. J. Cashore: Well, trust the regional manager too.

V. Anderson: Yes.

There's one question that might be answered further; the minister has already referred to it. I note that the fines can go as high as $200,000. On the other hand, the appeal process has been taken out to the Supreme Court. Somewhere in the bill he's mentioned the other environmental appeals board that's available, but perhaps there should be some reference in the bill itself to that fact.

C. Serwa: I'm very pleased to speak again to the philosophy and principles of Bill 24, the Water Amendment Act. Generally I concur that the amendments are necessary. It's part of the ongoing policy of the minister and the ministry to continue to update the legislation. It has been some time, I believe, since the Water Act was amended, and this is felt as urgent and as a prelude to a more extensive application of legislation at some later date.

As a former minister of environment, I can say quite clearly that often there is a very competitive environment between regional managers and the Victoria end of things. I'm actually in favour of delegating clear and established authority to the regions.

Interjections.

C. Serwa: Whoops, I said something wrong. Applause from the opposite side of the House, and I know right away I'm in trouble.

We have very competent people in the various regions in all government ministries, people who are much closer to the real nature of the challenge. It may be a specific stream or watercourse in a sensitive area. The impact may be from construction or logging, or from some type of a development proposal. I'm very comfortable with the fact that regional managers have the competence, knowledge and experience to tender solid, sound decisions. The ministry and the minister are responsible for ensuring that policy is applied uniformly throughout the province. That is certainly a concern.

Again, it has to be handled in a realistic way. Remote areas must be treated with perhaps a bit more latitude than our densely populated urban areas.

The reality is that the regional managers have the experience and the competence and familiarity to do this. The other thing, while we're discussing this particular bill in the broad scope, is that I would urge the minister to look at a program that would rotate regional managers from one area to another -- and perhaps rotate regional managers so that they could spend a year or two in Victoria, and so that people from Victoria could spend perhaps a year or two out in the field.

I've often said of Victoria that it's a walled city full of ivory towers. What happens is that while we bring the best from the field into Victoria, very soon the atmosphere in Victoria becomes an artificial reality and they lose touch with everything that they've known. In order to make a standard policy application so that it's consistent throughout the province and so that it is practical, reasonable, sensible and balanced, I think we have to look at the movement of some of our managers in various areas around the province.

All in all, I'm in strong support of the direction that the Water Amendment Act is going at the present time, and I will be pleased to enter into debate on the specific sections in Committee of the Whole.

A. Cowie: I'll be very brief. I'm very much in favour of this bill. At least I can give it general support at this stage. My only concern would be regarding general regional managers. I take it that these would be management people, not union. They would be professionals and would be appointed on the basis of their

[ Page 1841 ]

qualifications. I take it that they in fact would be non-union management staff.

W. Hurd: I'd also like to speak in favour of the bill and in particular praise the efforts of the minister to adequately define the classification of a stream in British Columbia. I know that particularly in areas where active logging takes place, very often the leave strips that are left along creeks are, as the minister is aware, not sufficient to protect the stream. Very often, long after the company has departed the scene, considerable damage can occur to streams.

I certainly hope that the minister will use the expanded powers in this bill, when it eventually does pass the House, to scrutinize this particular activity in logging areas in the province to ensure that damage to streambeds, and to salmon spawning streams particularly, does not occur, particularly after logging has taken place and where there may be evidence that the leave strips were not sufficient in the first place to protect the habitat.

R. Neufeld: In regard to Bill 24, I also don't have any real problems with it. I think it's an ongoing process to update the bill at different times. Of course, the environment is very important to all of us, and I think we all realize that more and more.

I have just a couple of concerns. I come from Peace River North; and specifically north of Fort St. John and east and north of Fort Nelson is a tremendous amount of what we call muskeg, which is traversed only in the wintertime for oil fields and specifically logging. It's done through about three months, so the problems are usually very cold weather and a real close time constraint. I hope that the regional managers, as they have been before, will be instructed to be cognizant of the time that these companies have to perform their work, because three months isn't very long to do an awful lot of work.

In Fort Nelson they haul enough logs in three months to run a sawmill for 12 months. An awful lot of work goes on out in the bush for 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

Large parts of northern Alberta have much the same terrain as what I'm accustomed to. Has the ministry contacted the Ministry of Environment in Alberta to see what rules they fall under? Although there's a border there, companies in the oilfield business cross back and forth across that border constantly. I know there have been some differences between Alberta and British Columbia in the past. I would like to see if we could coordinate that a little more with Alberta and British Columbia -- not that Alberta has better rules than we do. It's just so that the companies have more or less the same rules to fall under.

The other thing that has always been perplexing to me is that in the oilfield industry, when you cross a major river, you have to build an ice bridge with straight ice. When the logging industry crosses that same major river -- it can be within five miles of where the oilfield goes across -- they use logs. They pull the logs out across the river and then freeze water in among the logs to make their bridge. It makes a bridge much stronger. I have never been able to understand why one part of the industry -- the oilfield -- is treated differently from the logging industry. Maybe that's something we could look into.

Basically I have no problem with the bill. If the minister would be so kind as to look into a couple of those things, I would appreciate it.

D. Symons: I, too, support the bill in intent. I have just two main concerns with it. The first one is the removal of appeals from the Supreme Court and the placing of them to the Environmental Appeal Board. We have seen over the last few months how these various boards are appointed by the government and how they're somewhat loaded with people who might have a particular political bias or background. I'm concerned that we might have an Environmental Appeal Board with that same approach, rather than a more balanced approach. I hate to see something taken away from the courts, where a real true, fair trial could be given to the case brought before them. That's one area of concern.

The second area was mentioned earlier by the lead critic on this; that was the problem with the regional managers. I share that concern, and I have a suggestion. Rather than being appointed by the minister, these regional managers could be chosen by an open competition so that we would have a well-qualified person in the position, rather than somebody who might be appointed for reasons other than their qualifications to carry out the job.

Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Speaker, we will be getting into a number of these points in third reading later on. I would just point out that regional managers are already in place now. They have a job and a job description. I don't think this bill sets up a process whereby there would be a further process for selecting regional managers. There's already an appropriate process within the public service for doing so.

Hon. Speaker, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 24, Water Amendment Act, 1992, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. J. Cashore: I call second reading of Bill 29, hon. Speaker.

WASTE MANAGEMENT

AMENDMENT ACT, 1992

Hon. J. Cashore: The Waste Management Act has since 1982 been the primary legislation used for the protection of the environment in this province. It has now become necessary to amend the act to respond to growing environmental concerns that impact on all British Columbians.

The principal thrust of the existing Waste Management Act is controlling waste discharges in order to prevent pollution of our environment. While many of the many amendments contained in the bill are

de-

[ Page 1842 ]

signed to improve our ability to control waste discharges, these amendments also bring changes to the act which reflect this government's desire to reduce our waste production, rather than simply to manage it.

The bill is a result of discussions with many different segments of the community, including industry and municipal, regional, provincial and federal government agencies. This bill reflects the results of those consultations and this government's commitment to improved and strengthened environmental standards. The amendments provide better legislation to prevent air pollution, particularly in the Greater Vancouver Regional District; improved provisions for local government waste management planning; and new provisions to encourage reduction, reuse and recycling of waste.

[8:00]

The air pollution provisions clarify the air management powers delegated to the Greater Vancouver Regional District. The GVRD has set an excellent example for the whole country in the responsible attitude they have taken over the years to control air pollution. At present they are the California of Canada, with their air quality management plan focusing on achieving 50 percent reduction of pollutants by the year 2000, and their approach to ensuring that the polluter pays for the costs.

By giving the GVRD more authority and better tools to control air pollution within its boundaries, the government is living up to its commitment to crack down on the pollution of our air. Another initiative is the improved control over burning of waste from land-clearing operations. The change will prevent the accumulation of large quantities of land-clearing debris for burning in unacceptable locations, and in unacceptable ways where it can impact on nearby residences. The use of tires to start fires will also be prohibited by this change.

The bill will provide new authority in the act to control the use and sale of packaging, product containers and disposable products. The impact will be to reduce waste and encourage the use of recyclable materials in the packaging of products. Our landfills can no longer accommodate the unnecessary waste produced through excessive packaging and non-reusable containers. These packaging amendments are as a result of the national packaging protocol agreement, in which all provinces and the federal government are jointly developing a strategy to reduce packaging by 50 percent by the year 2000.

The amendments include improved waste management planning for municipal solid waste, municipal liquid waste and recyclable materials to support our 50 percent municipal solid waste reduction targets. The bill maintains regional districts' responsibility for ensuring that municipal solid waste management plans are developed, but also requires recyclable materials such as glass, newspapers and tires to be addressed in these plans. The public must be consulted during the preparation of all waste management plans to ensure that government is both responsible and open, and the existing consultation provisions have been strengthened.

In addition, regional districts will be given new authority to specify operating requirements, and to collect fees for municipal and private facilities storing recyclable material or managing municipal solid waste. If necessary, regional districts will be able to control or restrict the disposal of certain types of waste at particular facilities, and specify that certain recyclable materials must be handled at facilities where they can be recycled. This will give regional districts the ability to implement their solid waste management plans, and will further assist us to reach our waste reduction targets.

Other amendments to the Waste Management Act will improve its enforceability and ensure that the legislative requirements are lived up to by all of us. The innovations, refinements and corrections contained in these amendments reflect the commitment of this government to provide a modern and progressive regulatory framework for the management and protection of the environment. This bill will further enhance that cause.

The Speaker: Hon. member for Richmond East.

J. Tyabji: Okanagan East.

The Speaker: Yes, Okanagan East.

J. Tyabji: Thank you, hon. Speaker, I'll have to get you to come to my house some time so you won't get those two areas confused in the future.

I stand here today to speak to this bill, and I'd like to start by saying that we Liberals believe that we must reduce the amount of pollution that we're producing. We believe that we shouldn't even set a 50 percent reduction; we should look to eliminate any unnecessary waste in our society. I would actually commend the initiative that was taken in the dining room. It was a very good one and a very good model from which we can all learn.

We Liberals believe that in moving towards zero pollution we should also have an environmental bill of rights, and that the environmental bill of rights should talk about our right to clean air and our right to clean water -- all of this tied into this bill and the intent of the bill. As I say, we Liberals very much support the intent of this bill.

We also believe that in our society we must make great allowances for the needs of our environment. We have to have representative ecosystem preservation; in addition to having our right to clean water and our right to clean air, we do have a right to maintain representative ecosystems.

I would say that the philosophy of liberalism with regard to the environment recognizes, as fundamental to a healthy environment, that you must have a healthy economy. We have seen many countries in the world where their political system has fallen into decay, their economy has gone into decline and the environment has been atrocious. The environment has been not only neglected; it has been mismanaged and it has been the first victim of a lack of funds, the first victim of a bad economy.

[ Page 1843 ]

While we Liberals support the intent of this bill toward zero pollution, and as we fundamentally support that we must have clean air and clean water and that we must move toward a healthy environment in conjunction with a healthy economy, I would say that there are a number of problems with this bill.

The problems that we have break down into two main categories. The first category is with regard to municipal and regional governments, the responsibilities transferred to municipal and regional governments, and the increase in power that is given to the minister with the transfer of those responsibilities.

The second area in which it breaks down is with regard to the impact on industry. We see this as an enabling bill that is only just slightly ahead of some papers that were done by, of course, the firm that gets the most mention in the House these days, Peat Marwick. In the Peat Marwick papers that have come forward have been the specifics -- the teeth, if you will -- of the regulations that have been introduced in this bill. Those recommendations in the Peat Marwick report spell out a very grave message to industry. That's where we have a lot of concerns.

I'd like to take some time to go through many of the things in this bill, and I'd like to be as thorough as possible. Before getting to the specific clauses, I'd like to point out to the minister that two things have been overlooked in the bill. The first is that in the original waste management act, there's a reverse onus clause to the effect that in the event of someone polluting, if a spill or contamination occurs, it is automatically assumed that it was done intentionally. Reverse onus clauses have been ruled unconstitutional since the Waste Management Act was originally passed.

So now we have a clause in the original act that is currently ultra vires; it's in contravention of the Charter, which assumes that everyone is innocent until proven guilty. So we have, in effect, something in the original act that must be taken out and that should be addressed in this amendment. I would urge the minister, before we get into the committee stage....

I'd be happy to supply him with an amendment that would take that into account, or perhaps his ministry should then set up an amendment so that we have something that is not in contravention of the Charter but is still to the effect that there can be some causal link to a person who's causing contamination or a spill.

The second thing that's been overlooked is in the definition of recyclable material. The word "drywall" has been overlooked. Drywall, as this minister well knows, is recyclable. He should be commended for his initiatives with regard to drywall, but for some reason it's been overlooked in this bill. I think an amendment can be introduced later, perhaps at the committee stage. I would propose that we amend it to include the word "drywall."

Having said that, I would like to talk

section by

section on what the different segments of the bill address.

Interjection.

J. Tyabji: It's second reading. I'm talking about the intent.

With regard to the waste management plans, we're talking about divisions of powers in municipalities and regional districts. I find it disheartening that we have a transmission of responsibilities to the municipalities and the regional districts and an increase in the powers of the minister. So the minister has -- as it's put in his discussion papers -- both the carrot and the stick. He can give a mandate to municipalities and regional districts without consultation and can use a very heavy-handed approach with regard to a waste management plan that they must come up with. And they don't have any recourse.

I find that very discouraging, because we have seen through the previous legislation in this House a tendency to download to the municipalities and regional districts. Here again we have a recognition in the House that we must have environmental parameters; yet rather than the minister taking the responsibility, it has been given to the municipalities and regional districts, and the minister has a lot of power.

What I find to be a contradiction in terms is that the minister has to be satisfied that there's been adequate public review and consultation before approving a waste management plan that is presented to him by a municipality or regional district. However, the minister may, by order, amend or cancel a waste management plan; and if cancelled, the waste management plan ceases to have force and effect.

If the only way a waste management plan can be passed by the minister in the first place is in the event of there being adequate public consultation, how is it that the same minister can then cancel the plan, and the day he cancels it it ceases to be in effect? Those are very far-reaching powers for the minister to have, and I don't think there's a mayor or a councillor in the province today who would feel comfortable working on a waste management plan that has gone through due public process that can then be cancelled by the minister.

We have another one. The minister may, with or without conditions -- quite a few powers for the minister -- approve all or any part of a waste management plan or an amendment to a waste management plan. There's a lot of power for the minister there.

The minister has also allowed two very serious loopholes in this bill. I would draw his attention to 16.1(3)(c). We have waste management plans affecting everyone except: "...a site or facility owned and operated by a person other than a regional district unless the minister has approved a waste management plan which covers the site or facility." Unless this minister has been doing some homework late at night and happens to draw up a separate waste management plan for that private site, the site is not covered by the municipality or regional district in which a waste management plan comes out.

I would like to discuss some of the implications of this loophole. I'm sure the minister will understand it, because he has a very large waste management company in his riding. I believe it is one on which there may be some impact.

[ Page 1844 ]

The implications of having private facilities not covered by their municipal or regional district waste management plan are obviously that any company that feels it's too expensive or time-consuming to conform to the waste management plan has the option of going to a privately owned site that is not covered -- it says very clearly, "a site or facility owned and operated by a person other than a regional district" -- and not recycling, and dumping everything. When you say that time is money, sorting garbage costs time to a business, and that time translates into more expense. It's a lot cheaper for them to just go to the private site down the block and dump everything there.

[8:15]

That does not speak to the intent of the bill, because the intent, as we understand it -- and as we support it -- is zero pollution. This flies in the face of zero pollution. In fact, this would encourage them not to recycle, because it's a very large loophole. Any private facility doesn't fall into that waste management plan. I don't understand why that loophole exists, and I would urge the minister to remove it and make sure that there is a waste management plan that would cover private sites. I can't believe that this minister is going to draw up a separate waste management plan for every privately owned landfill in the province. Maybe he is. If he is, I'd like to see it.

I would say that the municipalities and regional districts are not going to be very happy with the fact that they now are facing stiff fines if they don't conform to the minister's time limit, or do not produce a plan that is to his satisfaction. Many municipalities and many regional districts have been working for years on waste management plans. In my area we have a regional district that has spent a lot of time and effort. They are faced with the same problems that politicians around the province are faced with in trying to find composting facilities: the not-in-my-backyard syndrome. They have tried to find alternatives to the landfill, and they come up against public resistance.

I would submit to the minister that rather than holding a big stick over the heads of the municipalities and regional districts, it would be much more productive to work through public education, and to try to have some kind of campaign within the existing infrastructure. We saw in 1990, when environmentalism came to the forefront again, that the schools participated, and that children learned to recycle. In fact, it became part of their terminology -- which I find very encouraging. You had children saying: "Oh, I'm finished with this paper; it goes into the recycling bin." That's a different mind-set. It's a very necessary mind-set.

I would put to the minister that rather than holding a stick over the heads of many of these municipalities and regional districts, who already are fully committed to zero pollution, he would work with them on a public education campaign within the existing infrastructure, the school system, where you teach the children about composting. You teach them about waste. You teach them so that they don't even think of landfill. You make sure that the schools take them for tours of their landfills.

There is nothing more mind-boggling to a young child than actually to go to the landfill and realize that their running shoes that they may not have given away to the Salvation Army -- or wherever they might have given them away -- are in the landfill, and that they're not going to break down; that they're going to sit there until more garbage is put on top of them.

I would say that if you work in conjunction with these levels of government in bringing about a public education campaign, you will get much farther than you will by downloading through legislation all this responsibility without allowing them to have any more resources -- because there is no mention here of any resources.

They are already committed in large part to elimination of pollution, just as we all are here. I would say that they would be very upset with the fact that they are getting more and more regulations, and that this minister has received so much power under this bill, in terms of what he can or cannot do, and the fact that he can actually cancel a plan that could have gone through a public process. In my area we have spent a couple of years of public consultation on a solid waste management plan. For me to think that once this bill passes, all it takes is a wave of the pen from the minister and that plan is gone -- I find that very disturbing.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

This minister has asked us to "trust me." I would point out to him a famous American president.... Take your pick of famous American presidents who said: "Trust me." There are those who said: "Read my lips." There are those who said: "I am not a liar." Hon. Speaker, we on this side of the House are very cynical. We don't believe that we can trust the minister with this kind of power. I put to this minister that given the record of the previous administration, notwithstanding some of the members in the House....

Given the record of the previous administration, how does this minister feel about that administration having this kind of power to cancel a public process waste management plan without justification; that on the day it's cancelled, it's finished?

There are so many other things that I know our critic for Municipal Affairs will be addressing with regard to this bill, because this bill, as I say, breaks down into two very big, very critical categories. Our critic for Municipal Affairs will be addressing more of the impacts it has with regard to waste management plans. But those are certainly very important.

Now I would like to move to something that, to me, is fundamental to our own understanding of what it means to be environmentally responsible. That is

section 15, where we start talking about industries. This is where we get to the part where it becomes an enabling bill for legislation that we know is coming down. We have the Peat Marwick papers and have talked to people in the industry. We know what to expect, and we know what the ministry is planning to do. I would like to direct the rest of my comments to all the different sections that basically tie a very large band of red tape around industry.

I would like to go back to my original comments. Our Liberal philosophy with regard to the environment

[ Page 1845 ]

is that you cannot have a healthy environment unless you have a healthy economy. It just doesn't happen.

An Hon. Member: The two go hand in hand.

J. Tyabji: As another hon. member just said, the two go hand in hand.

Just in the drafting of this bill.... One of the first comments I got from a constituent following the election was: "What's going on with waste management? We really want to know." They were already nervous six months ago. Now I'll tell you that they're not just nervous; they're making contingency plans. That's where it gets scary. Then we go back to some of the comments we've had earlier today in the House.

With regard to these sections that are part of the enabling bill, we're finding that industry is so nervous that first of all you're having.... As we've said about so much of the legislation coming forward, there is absolutely no way we will see any investment money coming into the province given these regulations. We all know that this enabling bill is leading to the Peat Marwick recommendations for the expanded deposit system, not an expanded blue box, which the industry requested. The industry urged the minister to meet with them on that. But we're going into an expanded deposit system that has several flaws.

One of the flaws is that if we eliminate the Tetra-Pak in B.C., which they seem to have every intention of doing, we can still bring it in from Washington State. There is nothing to stop a company in B.C. that is currently producing juice, for example, from moving across the border into Washington, producing a Tetra-Pak there and bringing it in. There is nothing in this bill that makes allowance for that. There's nothing in these regulations that limit that.

The Peat Marwick papers that are following, which we know this is an enabling bill for, are definitely going to draw a big circle around industry. They will push them to the middle and say: "This is the content, shape, weight, nature and volume of packaging that you will be allowed to use." It's in the papers. The industry knows it's coming, and they're not happy about it.

There's no question, there will be job losses. In fact, the current estimates are 500 job losses in the B.C. dairy industry alone following this enabling bill and the Peat Marwick papers. This enabling bill will bring in legislation that will have a negative impact on our economy. Yet another bill being brought in by this government where we see a disregard for the environment and the economy going hand in hand. We cannot have a healthy environment if we don't have a healthy economy.

It results in a backlash. This enabling bill is going to lead to more cross-border shopping. It will not only lead to cross-border shopping; it's going to lead to more investment in Washington State, with the products then being brought to B.C. We see it coming.

We also know that with the expanded deposit, we will see an increased tax grab. We as Liberals see that the levy, deposit or handling fee -- whatever you call it -- is going to be passed on to the consumer. We know that this is the enabling bill. We know that the beverage industry is very upset about it. We can't support the enabling bill for another tax grab.

We can't support the fact that this government doesn't realize that with this regulation, they're going in the opposite direction than what they intended. They intend to reduce packaging. The beverage industry alone is willing to finance the cost of an expanded blue box recycling program that would take into account every area of the province. They know that if they don't finance that and we get an expanded deposit system, we're going to see their industry suffer greatly. The consumers, the industry and British Columbians as a whole will suffer, because we will see dollars flying south of the border.

An expanded deposit system doesn't take into account most of the waste going into the landfill. If we're trying to close the loop, recycling is the way to go, and recycling that's financed by industry is the best way to go. This enabling bill is going to put us in the other direction. We're going to have an expanded deposit system.

We will see maybe 2 to 3 percent of the waste now going to the landfill redirected because of these deposits. Instead, we could have had 40 percent of the recyclable waste redirected if this minister had met with the beverage industry, rather than going in this direction with this enabling bill. If he had met with them and expanded the recycling system, we would have seen 40 percent diverted; now we're going to see maybe 2 to 3 percent. We're going to see a loss of jobs and money flying south of the border.

We're going to see poor and middle-income families being hit the hardest, because all of a sudden.... We know that this minister plans to bring in a deposit on juice and milk -- things that we would think poor people don't have to pay taxes on. But sure enough, with this deposit system, we're going to see taxation being applied to juice and milk. This government should be the advocates of the poor and the middle class.

You can talk to people in the industry, and they will tell you that there is no way they can possibly have an expanded deposit system without a substantial increase in price. Any time that we have a deposit system come in, it hits the consumer. You'll never get 100 percent return on your deposit.

The volume of waste going to the landfill will be at least the same as it is now, because they will have to change the packaging. That is what is at the core of this last section, where the minister can describe the minimum content of material derived from recyclable material in types or classes of packaging. This is an interesting point. We had some meetings with people involved with the sale of products containing recyclable material.

One thing they pointed out to us was that in order to meet the demands of the export market, they have to provide X amount of tonnage that includes recycled waste, because that's legislated in the other jurisdiction. So on the receiving end they need so much recyclable waste. They pointed out that currently there is not enough recyclable fibre to meet the demands of that market. If we bring in legislation in the manner in

[ Page 1846 ]

which we've brought it in so far in the House, which is without consultation...

An Hon. Member: That's not true.

J. Tyabji: According to the industry, it is.

...we will see that we won't be able to meet the demands of the export market, because we will have to keep all our recycled materials here -- which is fine. We want to create a market for recycled material, but they can't currently meet the demands of the existing market. If they can't meet the demands of the existing market, how on earth are they going to be able to meet the domestic demands? They won't be able to export.

There again, we're going to have a negative impact on the economy. The objective is good; the objective is great. The objective is to provide a market for recycled products. Well, there is a market, and if we start bringing further legislation that makes that product then stay domestic, they cannot meet the needs of the export market. It's a catch-22. Unless we do it in consultation, unless we phase it in.... But I have great reservations with the minister being able to say to an industry, "I'm sorry, this is what you're going to be able to sell," because to that extent that's where public education comes in.

That's going to the industries and saying that we will work with you toward the goal of zero pollution. That message certainly has not gotten across. This minister may think, as he says, that he has consulted with them, and he may think the message has gotten across that he's willing to work with industry. If that is his message, I can assure you that he has not been successful communicating it, because the industry is saying very differently.

[8:30]

I'd like to get to the beverage industry. I'll just give you some of the points that have been brought up in some of our research we've been doing with regard to this bill, and this being the enabling bill for the following legislation. What it says generally is that consumers of milk and juice will pay most heavily for the system that is proposed on the papers following this enabling bill due to their current forms of packaging, and therefore it will hit middle-and lower-income families hardest. They will have the hardest time being able to afford milk and juice.

The report that Peat Marwick prepared for this minister, which will be following this enabling bill, assumes a hierarchy of environmentally friendly containers without the research to back it up. That goes back to my point. If you go to an expanded deposit system rather than blue box.... When you compare volume going to landfill, if this minister is proposing going to glass rather than Tetra-Pak, we have to look at the volume of glass even at 85 percent recovery, which would be very optimistic. With 15 percent of those glass containers going to the landfill, you would have the same volume.

I don't think the minister has done the research to support an expanded deposit system for the beverage industry. It doesn't make sense that you'd go that route rather than an expanded blue box, which will be fully financed by the industry, when there is an option where you can eliminate 40 percent of the recyclables from the waste stream by recycling, and by the industry financing it. The only motivation I can find for choosing an expanded deposit system over a blue box, which would be financed by the industry, is the revenue it would generate to the government.

According to the papers that follow this enabling bill, that would be to the tune of $75 million of revenue to the government in the first year. You take into account the money that comes in, subtract the cost of running the program, it's a net increase of $75 million. That is on the backs of those poor and middle-income families who will be least able to afford it.

It will also be at the cost of the industry. As I say, the dairy industry alone.... We know that one of the main attractions in cross-border shopping is milk. What do you think is going to happen when the price of milk goes up? When we have 35 cents deposit on a carton of milk, what's going to happen when they go across the border? Well, according to the dairy industry, 500 people will lose their jobs. Does this government care? Or does this government only care about the $75 million of revenue that will be netted through an expanded deposit system? I challenge the minister to tell me why he would not have supported expanded recycling, financed by the industry, over an expanded deposit.

The last page of this bill causes me great concern, because it fundamentally redefines some of the powers of the minister.

Deputy Speaker: I regret to advise the hon. member that her time has expired under the standing orders.

J. Tyabji: I'm the designated speaker.

Deputy Speaker: You're the designated speaker? Please continue, hon. member.

J. Tyabji: The last page of this is the one that causes me the greatest concern from an industry perspective, because of the powers that it gives the minister. I don't know if the minister went into this portfolio hoping for the kind of powers that he's been getting with these bills, but I'll tell you that this minister has seen a dramatic increase in the amount of regulatory power he has. He has, in effect, the ability to grind the economy to a halt if he chooses.

Interjection.

J. Tyabji: The minister asks if he should go into analysis, and I would say yes, please do. This enabling bill, the papers that follow it and the kind of recommendations that come forward are definitely in drastic need of analysis. Our economy can ill afford the lack of investor confidence that it's getting from this kind of bill. I'll tell you that when I read this, it was unbelievable to me that the minister can require manufacturers, distributors or users of packaging -- basically anybody in business who has to do with packaging -- to conduct environmental life-cycle profiles using a model

ap-

[ Page 1847 ]

proved by a manager. A manager is defined as someone appointed by the minister. We can name all kinds of people we think might be eligible for that position. I wonder about an estate winery in the Okanagan, which may be asked by the minister to produce an environmental life-cycle profile on a wine bottle. I wonder how they would possibly manage.

These powers are unbelievable. As I said right from the beginning, the underlying premise has to be that we recognize the need for an economy. You can be the environment critic and say: "Yes, we must have a clean environment. Let's do it sensibly." We have a minister here who can now require any industrial, commercial or institutional operation -- or class of operation -- to develop an infrastructure for reuse or recycling of packaging. I don't know how a small-or medium-size business could possibly manage.

Just by reading this bill, I think that you couldn't possibly have talked to the people who would be affected by it and asked them what they thought about the minister having these powers.

I know that in the last few years every business in this province has been working toward eliminating pollution. If you don't believe it, then you're out of touch with business. As I say, we very much support the principle of this bill, but it seems to have been drafted by somebody who doesn't understand business, who really doesn't understand what business people would think after reading this and realizing that the minister has the ability to tell them what shape of package they can use, how they can recycle it internally and whether or not they can produce an environmental life-cycle profile.

I don't know how the minister thought that people in this province could read this and feel comfortable in terms of continued investment in the province. That is of great concern to me.

If we see this economy grind to a halt, we won't be able to afford any environmental initiatives. We need environmental clean-up, pollution controls and creek revitalization, and we need to clean up the Fraser River. How are we going to be able to afford anything, with the bills that are coming forward which are going to more or less tie up industry in red tape if this minister so chooses?

I don't know how any business or municipality -- any lower level of government -- can feel confident with the way this bill is drafted. I don't know how any of them can possibly feel confident about this kind of legislation without some direction from the minister as to what he plans to do with this all-encompassing power that he has. How can we feel comfortable when we have a public process in place that the minister can bypass? How we can have a comfortable economy when all of a sudden the minister has incredible powers and when they don't feel comfortable with the consultation that has gone into the preparation of the bill?

Hon. Speaker, I'd like to close by saying that I think we must have great caution with this bill, and that in committee stage we should make the amendments I proposed. I think we have to introduce drywall to the definition of recyclable material, address the reverse-onus clause in the original act and close the loopholes, as I outlined earlier.

Beyond that, we have to convince industry that this isn't an enabling bill for a tax grab, and that this is in line with having an economy that functions in the province. We should convince municipalities and regional districts that, if they go to the trouble of going through public process to develop a waste management plan, that will not then be overruled arbitrarily by the minister.

L. Reid: Hon. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on the Waste Management Amendment Act, 1992. Zero pollution, as stated, is the goal for the year 2000. We certainly need to take a look at that, because right now we have 50 percent reduction as outlined in this bill and by very shortly after the year 2000, we will need to have a handle on 100 percent reduction of municipal waste.

I disagree with the sweeping powers contained in this bill, because I believe it's a somewhat heavy-handed approach to managing and communicating with the municipalities and the regional districts. We need to take a look at how we develop process in this government, and this is certainly not the way to continue, in my view.

We need to give regional districts the authority to implement waste management plans; this bill does not allow for that. However, there should be broader consultation before introducing legislation that gives the minister and regional districts such extensive powers over municipalities. We need to share power. This government has said they are about facilitating power and decision-making.

Several loopholes in the bill provide for excessive ministerial interference in drawing up waste management plans. Again, that is a concern for us. We believe everyone in this government and in this province -- whether they be a councillor or a person who sits on a regional district board -- has an opportunity to participate, to set some guidelines and hopefully to implement their plans once they have conversed extensively about what they wish to do in their particular area of the province. We do not see that reflected here.

We see excessive discretionary powers in the hands of the minister, and this has led to great problems in other governments. We're not convinced that the NDP wishes to take this on. I think it will end up being more of a problem than a solution. We were looking for a cooperative and consultative approach; we certainly do not find that reflected here.

The UBCM -- an agency that is much talked about in this government in terms of having something to say on the issues of municipal government -- would like to have seen broader discussions take place. It was certainly not their wish to see a top-down approach to government in this manner.

The control over packaging and beverage container recovery is an issue, and my colleague from Okanagan East has touched on it. If you do not give agencies, industries and corporations the ability to decide how they are going to do their packaging, you take away incentives to participate in our economy. My colleague talked about the cost of juice and milk and of travelling to the United States to purchase them for far less than it is in Canada.

[ Page 1848 ]

As the Health critic, I can speak very clearly to the social determinants of health, and people not being able to acquire juice and milk at a reasonable cost is going to have a significant impact on their health. This bill does not address that. The May 22 issue of the Globe and Mail says: "British Columbia plans to introduce a sweeping, provincewide deposit and collection system for all beverage containers, angering beverage producers, who say the plan would cost consumers $140 million a year...."

That's one aspect of this bill. The other aspect is that half the province's population lives within 40 kilometres of the Canada-U.S. border, and B.C. dairies have already lost about 15 percent of their total business to U.S. competitors. That's an issue for us. This bill has economic ramifications as well as social ones. You take the social determinants of health, coupled with the economic disaster when people are trucking across the border to purchase things at a reduced cost. We're not doing anything in this province about creating or sustaining jobs. That's an issue for the Liberal Party.

It's been suggested that the government will receive $75 million in revenues in the first year alone. It's an interesting idea, and I could only support this initiative if those dollars were going to be put back into the system in terms of closing the loophole and hopefully generating some jobs.

I spoke earlier this evening on the need to create a world-class, first-rate facility within the province for waste management and reduction. If we're going to do that and if this is going to fund some of those initiatives, I think that's an interesting idea to explore. The way the legislation is currently written, it does not allow for that.

[8:45]

Again, increases on essential food products are going to hurt the lower-income families. I completely support the words of my colleague from Okanagan East when she says that is an issue for us. It is not addressed in this legislation. I believe there needs to be an exemption for milk and juice in this packaging proposal, until we come up with some cleaner guidelines, a finer way to approach what I believe is a very significant issue.

Cross-border shopping has already accounted for a 15 to 20 percent decline in packaging and in job creation on our side of the border. We need to take a look at that. We're losing jobs daily to folks moving across the border. People are voting with their feet; they're taking their dollars and spending them in the United States. We cannot afford that. This government can't afford it.

In November 1991, in terms of process and consultation, the beverage industry reached a consensus in proposing to the minister an alternative to the deposit system. Under their proposed system, industry would have implemented a voluntary levy -- actually asking people to cooperate, to be conciliatory and to mediate some resolution rather than laying it on at the top. They would have implemented a voluntary levy of 1 to 2 cents per container. They were prepared to do that.

They were prepared to be involved in how best to suit not only the needs of their industry -- and they have an interest in that, absolutely -- but also the needs of the province and of the consumer. At the end of the day, all these initiatives impact directly on our consumers. This would have raised, they suggest, between $10 million and $12 million to enhance the blue box recycling program, a tremendous and very expensive initiative. We've started it and have it in place everywhere in this province; and recently we extended it to townhouses.

We have a system in place that's working and has cost us many start-up dollars. Let's continue to use that service. They would like to see that, and certainly it makes fiscal sense to continue with a project that is working. It's estimated that this type of comprehensive recycling program, covering the entire province, would cost between $15 million and $20 million. I believe that's a useful exercise. Because we've already expended those dollars, it makes sense to continue with something that's already in place.

Industry received no response from the ministry for six months. The government that was elected on a mandate of open government, saying they would communicate, consult and interact, did not even have the courtesy to respond to the industry for six months. I have limited patience with that.

The feeling out there, which this government is going to have to counter, is that they are indeed paying lip-service to public consultation and are interested only in raising money through this additional tax grab. That's a concern for us. On the surface, environmentalism is a saleable commodity; you can sell it to people. But you have to be willing to have some integrity in the process. This bill does not contain tremendous integrity. It simply cloaks that kind of tax grab in the clothing of environmentalism.

The bill has social and economic ramifications. I commit strongly that the Liberal opposition in this province knows about job creation and knows that we need to put some dollars into it. To do it with this bill would be dubious at best. To create something that says we're interested in a world-class facility for municipal wastes, and then not put an added burden on consumers in terms of milk and juice products at this time, only makes fiscal sense.

If indeed we're in a downturn in the economy and if indeed people are needing every single cent they have, we cannot afford to have this kind of legislation encourage them to make the trek across the border. We need to ensure that they spend their dollars in Canada and that we continue to provide employment opportunities within Canada. I would like to see this bill amended to reflect both of those concer