1991 Legislative Session: 5th Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 26, 1991

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

13181 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Tabling Documents –– 13181

Oral Questions

Salaries of hospital administrators. Mr. Perry –– 13181

Mr. Clark

Education funding. Mr. Loenen –– 13182

Salary increases for Crown corporation employees. Mr. Clark –– 13182

Mr. Sihota

Education funding. Mr. Peterson –– 13182

Ministerial Statement

Additional funds for post-secondary system. Hon. Mr. Dueck –– 13183

Mr. Jones

Pension Benefits Standards Act (Bill 6). Third reading. (Hon. Mr. Rabbitt) –– 13185

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1991 (Bill 15).

Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Fraser) –– 13185

Ms. Cull

Mr. Jones

Mr. Sihota

Supply Act (No. 2), 1991 (Bill 16). Second reading (Hon. J. Jansen)

Hon. Mr. Richmond –– 13187

Mr. Miller –– 13188

Mr. Cashore –– 13192

Hon. Mr. Mercier –– 13195

Mr. D'Arcy –– 13197

Ms. Cull –– 13197

Ms. Marzari –– 13201

Mr. Perry –– 13205

Hon. Mrs. Gran –– 13209

Mr. Zirnhelt –– 13211

Mr. Serwa –– 13213

Mr. G. Janssen –– 13215

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 26, 1991

The House met at 2:04 p.m.

HON. MR. PARKER: I'd like to introduce and ask the House to

make welcome family friends of our chamber supervisor Gerry Lindner —

Dr. Hans Straniak and his wife Trudy.

HON. MR. RABBITT: I'm very pleased today to have on the floor

of the House from the Yukon the Minister of Education, Government

Services, the Public Service Commission and the Workers' Compensation

Board, the Hon. Piers McDonald. With him is his assistant, Miss Pam

Boyde. I would ask the House to give them a very warm British Columbia

welcome.

MR. DE JONG: It's my pleasure to introduce a very

distinguished lady from the central Fraser Valley to the House today —

Mrs. Katherine Berg. On behalf of the first member for Central Fraser

Valley and myself, I would ask the House to give her a cordial welcome.

HON. MR. BRUCE: On the floor sitting behind me is Mr. James

Clarko, a representative from Western Australia. He is the House Leader

for his party there, and he also happens to be the critic of municipal

affairs. Would you please give him a warm British Columbia welcome.

MR. COUVELIER: I'm asking the House to join me in welcoming

two political followers, young Socreds who have an active interest in

our discussions today: Mr. Howard Jampolsky and Mr. John Florio.

HON. MR. CHALMERS: Visiting in the gallery today are my

administrative assistant Beverly Hogan and Agnes Vollmeier, secretary

to my deputy minister. I'd ask that everyone make them most welcome.

MR. REID: In the precincts today is Mr. Hugh Coulson from Vancouver, and would this House give him a special welcome.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, there have been no introductions from

our side. I'd like you to know that there have been a few introduced

from the Social Credit side of the government. But everybody else in

the gallery is a friend of ours, and I'd like everybody to make them

welcome.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, in the world of chartered

accountants, the highest recognition you can get in Canada is that of a

fellow chartered accountant — FCA is the designation. I'm pleased to

point out that yesterday our colleague the Minister of Environment

received such a designation. I'd like the House to give him a nice

salute in response for that.

MR. REYNOLDS: I would like, I'm sure on behalf of all members, to

welcome back among us the second member for Vancouver–Little Mountain. After

a very serious illness, it's nice to see him back and looking so healthy.

It's also nice to see that the Leader of the Opposition got wound up, and

he's back here today too.

MR. PERRY: I'd like to second the welcome to the member for

Little Mountain. It's too bad that his seatmate, the other member,

isn't here to join us in these exhilarating debates today, but we'll

see her again, I'm sure. I'd like also to welcome Mr. Rick McGuire of

Seattle, a prominent American conservationist who's with us today

MR. SIHOTA: I've just been advised that representatives of

Executive Secretarial College of Victoria are in the gallery. Would all

members please join me in giving them a warm welcome.

Hon. Mr. Bruce tabled the British Columbia Heritage Trust report for March 31, 1991.

Oral Questions

SALARIES OF HOSPITAL ADMINISTRATORS

MR. PERRY: My question is to the Minister of Health. A recent

report indicates that the taxpayers have been providing salary

increases of up to 54 percent over two years for hospital

administrators. Meanwhile, hospital morale and services have been

suffering as a result of cutbacks, closed wards and a

government-imposed cap on hospital workers' wages. Can the minister

explain and justify his government's policy, which puts nurses out on

the street while administrators receive handsome salary increases which

are far in excess of the cost of living?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That's a convoluted question, but I think the member is referring to a story in yesterday's Province newspaper, which may or may not be accurate — at least I think that's what he's referring to.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'll get to that. As the House is aware, our government put a freeze on that type of salary. The story in the Vancouver Province

deals with salary increases and benefits to certain CEOs of hospitals

over the period from 1988 to 1990, and is the result of a report issued

by the Hospital Employees' Union. As I said at the outset, the report

may or may not be accurate. Some comments I've had from my staff this

morning with respect to the story indicate to me that the story is not

totally accurate, and we are doing an investigation.

What I have told the press to date and what I will tell you in this

assembly is this: I have asked my staff to totally review all salary

and benefit packages for CEOs in hospitals. I'm going to expect that

report as quickly as possible. If I sense any further concerns, I will

ask Mr. Ed Lien to look at it from his point of view. Although he does

not have statute authority over this type of salary or benefit package,

I think it may be

[ Page 13182 ]

appropriate to engage him and his expertise in terms of providing an opinion to government.

Finally, I want to share with this assembly that I have a concern

over the alleged salary and benefit packages as reported in the Province

yesterday. I see it as being extremely high, and if those stories are

justified or in any way accurate, I will assure this assembly and the

people of British Columbia that this government will not stand for that

type of spending of the taxpayers' money.

MR. PERRY: Supplementary to the Minister of Health. With all respect to the Vancouver Province ,

the report in question was a study based on documents submitted under

the requirements of the Financial Information Act to the Ministry of

Health. The Hospital Employees' Union demonstrated exemplary enterprise

in conducting the research to bring this information to public light.

It brings out information which the minister and the Minister of

Finance refused to reveal during questions in the interim supply debate

and their estimates debate.

Given the devastating impact of this report on the morale of

hospital workers, has the minister decided to reveal to this

Legislature the salaries of CEOs, their travel expenses and their other

expenses as soon as he gets that report?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: First of all, the critic opposite

characterized the HEU report as one that used some considerable

enterprise. That's the concern I have. I'm just wondering how

enterprising it was. That's why I'm asking staff to investigate their

report.

With respect to questions posed to me about administrative salaries, I can't

recall any. I can recall a lot of other debate on health issues — 22 hours,

as a matter of fact — but no questions with respect to that.

In terms of the larger question — will I reveal what the benefit

packages are upon receiving a submission — I will take that as notice.

The answer, I think, would be generally yes, I would be favourably

disposed to doing that, because it is an issue that the public should

be aware of. I think I implied that in my earlier answer.

[2:15]

MR. CLARK: Supplementary to the Minister of Health. In his

answer the Minister of Health stated that the salaries documented in

the newspaper are for 1989 and 1990, and that there is now in place a

freeze on salaries by this administration. Given that, will the

minister give the House an assurance that the 1991 salaries for the

chief executive officer of VGH is no more than what is listed in the

Vancouver Province ? In other words, will he assure us that

there has not been an increase in 1991 with respect to that chief

executive officer at VGH?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That's asking me to confirm a conjecture

in the mind of the member. There's no way I'll respond to that, Mr.

Speaker. It's an allegation. I don't think it would lead us anywhere.

It's certainly not something I'm going to respond to at this point.

MR. CLARK: Supplementary to the minister. Will the minister

then give an assurance that the salary for the chief executive officer

for VGH is no higher in 1991 than it was in 1990?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Absolutely not, Mr. Speaker. I'm just as

interested as the member is in that particular salary and other

salaries, but there is no way I can give assurance that the salary was

higher, lower or in any way different from what it was, without having

detailed information. The member is aware of that. I'm not a

mind-reader. I'd like to be. I can't give that assurance.

EDUCATION FUNDING

MR. LOENEN: A question for the Minister of Education. I'm sure that the minister is aware of a newsletter called B.C. Today

that has recently been distributed to every home in the province by the

BCTF and CUPE. This publication falsely states that no matter how you

measure it, B.C. doesn't spend much on education. I'm concerned, Mr.

Speaker, that the taxpayers are being deliberately misled as to the

real level of education funding in B.C. My question is: will the

minister set the record straight and tell us whether he has received

any concrete proposals from the BCTF or CUPE or the NDP as to how much

more they would like to spend on education on behalf of the taxpayers

of B.C.?

MR. SPEAKER: I'll allow a brief response.

HON. S. HAGEN: Certainly, Mr. Speaker, and as you know, my responses are always brief and succinct.

MR. SPEAKER: No, they're not.

HON. S. HAGEN: Let me answer the question very quickly. This

piece of propaganda that has been put out by CUPE and the BCTF is very

inaccurate, and let me tell you why. This government spends a higher

percentage on education than any other province in this country. We

spend over 27 percent of our total budget on education — not to mention

the $650 million committed this year to capital.

SALARY INCREASES FOR

CROWN CORPORATION EMPLOYEES

MR. CLARK: A question to the Minister of Labour. Mr. Tom

Holmes received a 27 percent pay increase last year as chief executive

officer of ICBC. Mr. Graham Reid, vice-president of claims, received a

34 percent pay increase. How can the minister justify a labour policy

that caps wages of public employees at the same time as we are seeing

30 and 40 percent pay increases for senior executives of Crown

corporations in British Columbia?

HON. MR. RABBITT: Mr. Speaker, the member has directed a question to me regarding Crown corpora-

[ Page

13183 ]

tions that I have no jurisdiction over, and I suggest that he direct his question to the appropriate minister.

MR. CLARK: To the Minister of Labour responsible for labour

policy. How can you justify a labour policy with respect to your own

public employees that limits wage increases for teachers, nurses and

other public employees at the same time as we're seeing 20 and 30

percent pay increases for Crown corporations like ICBC?

HON. MR. RABBITT: Mr. Speaker, obviously the member does not

understand the role I have as Minister of Labour. My job is to foster

harmonious relations within the bargaining climate and to look after

the public interest, where necessary. I would suggest that the member

direct his question to the minister responsible for whichever Crown

corporation he wishes information from.

MR. CLARK: To the Minister of Labour. How can the minister

foster harmonious labour relations in the public service when they have

a wage control program for public employees while they're giving pay

increases of 20 percent and 30 percent to senior executives in Crown

corporations? That's the question, Mr. Minister. In the minister's own

words, how can he foster harmonious labour relations? That's your

policy area; that's what you just stood up in this House and said. How

can you do that while you're undermining your own policy by giving

significant pay increases to Crown corporations?

HON. MR. RABBITT: If the member refers to the Blues this

afternoon and looks at the answer I just delivered, he will find the

answer. I would like to clarify for this House that this ministry has

not, has not — let me repeat it for the third time, has not — approved

wage increases of 20 percent to 30 percent.

MR. CLARK: Mr. Frank Klassen, vice-president of B.C. Hydro,

received a $31,627 pay increase last year, or 24 percent. How can the

minister justify...? How can he say that he's fostering harmonious

labour relations in the public service while giving a wage increase of

24 percent to a senior executive at B.C. Hydro?

HON. MR. RABBITT: I'd suggest that in the member's four and a

half years here, he has had difficulty determining which ministry is

responsible for which Crown corporation. I'd suggest that his research

should either refer to the Blues or to the telephone book to try and

determine which minister in this cabinet is responsible for the Crown

corporation of B.C. Hydro.

MR. SIHOTA: Just a quick question to the Minister of Labour.

Could he explain why the provisions of Bill 82 do not apply to these

people who are getting 30 percent and 40 percent wage increases?

HON. MR. RABBITT: I'm very pleased that after six and a half months

in this portfolio the critic for Labour has finally got to his feet to ask me

a question. I'd like to add that again the critic has directed the question

to the wrong minister.

EDUCATION FUNDING

MR. PETERSON: To the Minister of Education. To follow up on

your earlier question with regard to the election propaganda sent out

by CUPE and the BCTF and according to the Dominion Bond Rating Service

Ltd., B.C. had the highest education-expenditure growth rate in Canada

between 1987 and 1991. As a matter of fact, it was about 40 percent

higher than Ontario. Would the minister confirm that the 1989...?

MR. MILLER: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. With an eye on

the clock, this is a gross abuse. This government is bringing in

closure, and we're having set-up questions from the Socred back bench.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The rules on who is identified

and who is chosen to ask questions in the House are long established in

this chamber. I have noticed, if I were to be judgmental on the issue,

long rambling

preambles on both sides. I have tried diligently — and

all members and Hansard will witness this — to restrict question periods to questions and answers. I've failed miserably in that task.

They're your rules. I could shorten question period if I had the

opportunity. I advise the member for Prince Rupert that there are times

when the clock tends to be a little slower through its 15-minute period

than others. That depends on how often question period gets ragged. We

are in the process of seeing that happen today. I'd ask the member for

Langley, who I chastised earlier, to be brief and actually ask a

question.

MR. PETERSON: I will be brief, Mr. Speaker. The question is

simply this: would the minister confirm that the 1989 figures cited in

the union newsletter distort the true picture of British Columbia's

education spending relative to other provinces today, even using their

own criteria?

HON. S. HAGEN: Let me say categorically that, in fact, the

information is incorrect. This province stands out in Canada for its

investment in education. Let's just talk about the increase in the

budget this year. Out of the total increase in our budget, the

investment in education has been in the order of 28 percent, while in

Ontario it's 8 percent. The commitment is there, Mr. Speaker.

Ministerial Statement

ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

HON. MR. DUECK: Before I make my statement, I noticed my

critic got his copy of my statement just a few minutes ago. I

apologize; it was meant to get to your desk much sooner than that.

[ Page 13184 ]

Mr. Speaker, this morning I announced that my ministry is spending

$7.8 million to provide an additional 1,076 full-time student spaces in

the post-secondary system. These funds are in addition to the

allocation requested in the 1991-92 main estimates of my ministry.

This funding comes at a time of increasing demand for post-secondary

services in our province. Among other things, this demand is due to the

great success of the Access for All strategy announced two years ago.

Access for All was established for several reasons: to expand

institutional capacity; to make post-secondary education available in a

larger number of locations across British Columbia; to provide more

alternatives for technical and vocational training; to open new doors

for under-represented groups; to focus renewed attention to literacy

and adult education and to develop a more flexible system to adapt to

the needs of the future.

I am happy to report that we have made great strides in this area.

Thanks to this program, more British Columbians than ever before have

enjoyed access to post-secondary education opportunities that could

change the course of their lives, with lasting benefits for our

province. In the last two years alone, 5,600 full-time-equivalent

academic student spaces have been added to university and college

budgets, and 7,000 FTEs have been accommodated. Today we are providing

funds in addition — and I want to point out it's in addition — to the

money already allocated for the enrolment growth in 1991-92.

As I said earlier, this funding will accommodate 1,076 additional

full-time-equivalent student spaces This will be provided as follows:

371 at the University of British Columbia; 100 at Simon Fraser

University; and 50 at the University of Victoria. At our successful

university colleges: 60 at Cariboo College; 60 at Malaspina College;

and 80 at Okanagan College. At the colleges: 30 at the Capilano

College; 30 at Douglas College; 60 at Fraser Valley College; 80 at

Kwantlen College — in B.C.'s fastest growing region, where we are

building at the fastest pace in the history of the province, but where

we are providing funds to fill student spaces as soon as those

buildings are open; 100 at Vancouver Community College — and this is in

addition to the full program announced last week; 20 at Camosun

College; 25 at the College of New Caledonia, where enrolment is

swelling in anticipation of the opening in two years of the University

of Northern British Columbia; and 10 at Selkirk College.

[2:30]

We are proud to be able to provide funding to offer post-secondary

educational opportunities that will give our citizens and our province

the competitive edge. This funding reinforces my ministry's commitment

to giving British Columbians every possible opportunity to participate

in the province's post-secondary education system.

MR. JONES: We on this side of the House always welcome

announcements that increase the opportunity for young people in this

province to participate in post-secondary education, even if those

funds have not been debated in estimates in this Legislature. I would

be embarrassed, if I were that minister, to stand up after years of

devastating cutbacks in the province, which produced the lowest

participation rates in post-secondary education in Canada

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Chair was not amused by the

abuse by the minister of the scope of this ministerial statement.

Ministerial statements have developed into something that is not

covered in our standing orders. While the information that the minister

brought to the House was new, and while it is somewhat of an abuse of

the House to have brought it in that fashion, I must ask you in your

remarks to at least stick within the confines of the remarks he made,

and not to spread into other areas. I have repeatedly expressed this

point to members of the executive council, and it's repeatedly ignored.

I must also ask you to stay within the confines of the remarks he made.

MR. JONES: Very clearly, this is not new money, Mr. Speaker.

This is from the $163 million in the budget for access and enrolment.

I've been after that minister for weeks to say where that money is

going to be spent. Even though we don't have an opportunity in

estimates debates to ask those questions, it's very clear what that

money is to be used for. It's to be used in the pre-election period for

good-news announcements that are going to be trotted out after cutbacks.

For example, the minister talked about 100 spaces at Vancouver

Community College. As of a week and a half ago we were threatened with

a cutback of 1,700 spaces at Vancouver Community College, which have

been restored out of other parts of their budget: administration,

maintenance, equipment, class size. Very clearly this is a very modest

announcement.

The minister mentioned an improvement in the literacy situation.

Last year, funding for literacy in British Columbia increased

opportunities for 22 full-time-equivalent students — 22 new spaces in

1990, the International Year of Literacy.

We have seen cutback after cutback. This minister — though he's new

to the job — is trying, I think, as he tried in his other ministries.

But the Access for All announcement that this minister talks about, in

its attempt to improve participation rates for post-secondary

opportunities in B.C., does what other provinces are doing anyway.

There is a natural demand. There are 10,000 students turned away in the

fall every year in this province. Every province in Canada is

increasing access, and our very modest goal in this province to try and

get up to the national average is not being achieved. Other provinces

in Canada are moving ahead; the national average is moving ahead.

Granted, we're moving ahead too, but we started at the very bottom of

the barrel, and we've got a long way to go.

There is nothing in this announcement for the regions of the

province: the Kootenays, the north.... Those areas are being ignored in

this good-news announcement from the minister. But I'm sure this isn't

the last one. We are into a pre-election period. The minister is going

to have more good-news announcements, and as I say, we always welcome

increased

[ Page

13185 ]

opportunity for students. But we expect that these

announcements will not impress anybody, because the record of the

government is clear: it is not to support the opportunity for the young

people of this province to enrich this province. They will remember

those years of cutbacks. The record of this government is clear, and

it's time for a change.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I call third reading of Bill 6.

PENSION BENEFITS STANDARDS ACT

Bill 6, Pension Benefits Standards Act, read a third time and passed.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1991

The House in committee on Bill 15; Mr. De Jong in the chair.

MR. LOENEN: Mr. Chairman, I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. LOENEN: In the members' gallery I note a constituent who

has made a wonderful contribution in terms of employing people, has

meant much to the business climate in our community and has also

distinguished himself as a philanthropist. Would the House please make

welcome Mr. Milan Ilich.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just to refresh the committee on where we left

off before lunch, we were dealing with the amendment to the amendment

section 17 of the act that we were dealing with.

section 17.

Amendment to the amendment negatived.

MS. CULL: I have a number of questions about subsection 2(

a) of the

amendment. I'd like to know whether the amount budgeted for students enrolled

in special education includes only the portion of dollars that the ministry

provides for special education or whether it also includes the rest of the dollars

that a special-education student would have allocated to her or him, as the

case may be, for the rest of their program. As we know, many of these students

are integrated or are going to be integrated, that being the long-range goal

of what we're trying to do with most of these students in our system. So

a portion of their budget is in the regular education program. Could the minister

clarify whether the amount that is to be controlled by this

section is simply

the special-education portion, or is it the entire portion that is used to educate

that student?

HON. MR. FRASER: All of it.

MS. CULL: I believe the minister said all of it. So that

means that for one class of special-education students in our system,

they will have not only their special-education funding, which is

provided by the ministry, guaranteed but also the regular education

component that applied to them in the previous year guaranteed. Is that

what is in fact happening?

HON. MR. FRASER: The funding is partly in the regular class

and partly in the special class, and we provide all the funding. Mr.

Chairman, I suspect this is more like estimates than amendments to the

act — to make sure that we don't reduce the budget to special education.

Interjection.

HON. MR. FRASER: Yes, it is.

MS. CULL: This is not at all like estimates. In fact, what

I'm trying to do is to clarify exactly what the

section of the act is

going to mean to school boards and children.

If the minister is correct and the budget amount that is basically

being frozen by this

section is guaranteed to those students, it means

that the funds to provide not only for special teachers and special

assistants — perhaps for them to be pulled out to resource rooms to

provide any kind of additional assistance that is necessary for those

children because of their special needs — but also for all of the rest

of their educational needs, which are shared not only by

special-education students but by every student in a school district,

are going to be frozen. I would submit that that is going to impact

unfairly on the rest of the students in the system.

For example, if the minister is correct in saying that the total

education budget for students who are designated special education is

to be frozen, does that mean that their music, art, physical education

and regular education programs are also to be guaranteed under this

budget? If so and if that amount is going to be guaranteed and

districts are not allowed to make any cuts to either the

special-education or the regular-education program, where else do they

cut but from the rest of the students in the system? Is that what is

implied in this section?

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this particular

section is to ensure that school boards cannot reduce the funding

allocated for special-needs students, regardless of how the money is

spent for the students. What has happened is that the ministry has

allocated something in excess of $580 million, and what has been spent

is something in the order of $500 million. In other words, somewhere in

the school board system, out in the field, $80 million allocated to

special-needs students has not been spent on those students. This

amendment ensures that without the permission of the minister, that

funding cannot be reduced. That's what the amendment says: it cannot be

[ Page 13186 ]

reduced without the permission of the minister

responsible. As you heard this morning, there is an extensive binder

filled with what special-needs education comprises — it's all in there.

The designation has always been the responsibility of the minister,

regardless of who the government happened to be.

[2:45]

If you are interested in special-needs students and want to protect

their education, as I suspect you do, or at least I hope you do — we do

— then you want to make sure school boards can't arbitrarily shift

money from special-education accounts to something other than that.

This amendment prevents that from occurring and closes that

opportunity, to protect the education of special-needs students.

MS. CULL: I simply ask these questions because, as we have

heard throughout the debate on this bill and also through the education

estimates, the problem we have is not one of school districts

underspending their funds on special education. In fact, we could cite

district after district which is spending more on special education

services, hiring more counsellors than they are funded for and serving

far more students, particularly in the high-incidence categories, than

they are funded for, because there is a cap.

Over the last number of weeks, we have found ourselves in a debate

about the numbers and the way the accounting is done. I think the

minister's answers to my questions show quite clearly that this

government still hasn't resolved how they're going to count up those

dollars. They are unable to distinguish between the amount of money

spent on the special-education budget for a particular student as

opposed to the entire budget that is applied to that student. If this

minister is correct and that's the way his Education minister is going

to apply it, I think we're going to have some really serious

repercussions throughout our school system as the children who are not

designated as special education find.... With the reduced budgets many

districts have had to face this year — less than inflation rates — they

will have to take those cuts from the regular program.

This clearly shows that this government hasn't figured out what it's

doing. It's continuing to add instability into the system. Over the

coming months, while the districts struggle to get this sorted out by

September, we will have nothing but continuing chaos.

My final question to the minister is: could he tell me when this is going to take effect?

HON. MR. FRASER: I think you're going to understand in a

minute why this amendment was brought in. For example, the Greater

Victoria School Board has stated that they've signed a contract to pay

salaries to teachers that they can't meet. They've indicated they're

going to take the money out of special education to pay the teachers.

We're not going to permit that. We're going into the school board right

now to audit that account so that special-ed money can't be taken out

without the permission of the minister. We want those special-ed

students to get every dime of that money. That's the purpose of this

amendment.

I just told you a minute ago, which you conveniently overlooked,

that $80 million directed to special education needs was not spent on

special-education needs.

Interjection.

HON. MR. FRASER: Now, in this school year.

MR. JONES: When the minister talks about every dime that's

provided, does the minister mean every dime that's provided within the

cap of 3.6 percent — I believe it is — of the enrolment that the

ministry recognizes as special-needs students? Or does he mean every

dime that the school board spends — not only the money that the

ministry recognizes, but also the additional money, in the case of the

Burnaby School District, for several hundred students who are not

recognized by the ministry as special-needs students? When the minister

talks about every dime that's going to be spent on special-needs

students, is he talking about money that the ministry recognizes or the

additional money that the school board spends on top of that?

HON. MR. FRASER: Let's see if we can put some of this stuff

away, Mr. Chairman. The increase the member spoke of is incorrect. The

increase is over 8 percent.

MR. JONES: I thought the Attorney-General, with the

assistance of the Deputy Minister of Education, would be able to

understand this question. The 3.6 percent that I talked about....

Listen up, because I think there's some information here that you need.

The Ministry of Education defines special-needs students not on

criteria but on an arbitrary figure — 3.6 percent are special needs. I

believe it's 3.6 percent. School districts, such as the Burnaby School

District, recognize that many more students than 3.6 percent of their

population have special needs. So what do they do? Do they provide

special programs just for 3.6 percent of the Burnaby school student

population? No, they provide special-needs programs for an additional

several hundred students on top of that. The minister clearly

identified that the purpose of this amendment is to prevent duly

elected school boards from spending money as they wish.

The minister said that every dime will be spent on special-needs

students. Does the minister mean every dime that the ministry

recognizes within that 3.6 percent cap? Or does the ministry mean every

dime including that 3.6 percent cap or what the board provides on top

of that? It's a simple question.

HON. MR. FRASER: I just want to say again for the benefit of

members opposite, for the people in the galleries and for those who may

be watching that the Greater Victoria School Board has signed a

contract to pay their teachers a sum of money they know they can't

meet. They have also said that they're going to take the money out of

special-education needs in order to meet the salary demands that they

have agreed to. The ministry does not agree with that position. We're

going

[ Page

13187 ]

to audit the Greater Victoria School Board because of that problem.

I have just said at least three times and maybe four:

special-education needs in the province are funded in excess of $583

million annually. The school boards who receive the $583 million have

spent just over $500 million. In other words, they have diverted $80

million from funds directed to special education to some other use. The

government says that it's not going to be permitted, and that every

dime allocated to special-education needs is going to be spent there.

That's what the amendment is for.

I can repeat about the Greater Victoria School Board endlessly if

you wish. I can talk about the lack of spending by school boards of

money for special-education needs if you wish. The purpose of the

amendment is simply to ensure that the money given for those special

education needs is spent on those needs and nowhere else.

Amendment to

section 17 approved.

Section 17 as amended approved.

MR. CHAIRMAN: By mutual agreement earlier we have stood down sections 14 and 15. We will go back to

section 14.

Sections 14 and 15 approved.

section 18.

MR. SIHOTA: I'll deal very quickly with

section 18. I just

want to advise the House with respect to sections 18, 19 and 20, which

deal with matters concerning the Workers Compensation Act and

amendments thereto, that the provisions here under the Miscellaneous

Statutes Amendment Act are welcomed by this side of the House and

certainly, in terms of my capacity as labour critic, have endorsement.

So there is no need for extensive debate on this matter. I just wanted

to say that some of the changes have been a long time coming. I know

that they have the full support of the Workers' Compensation Board and

that they look forward to the quick implementation of these provisions.

With that said, Mr. Chairman, I have nothing further to add.

Sections 18 to 21 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 15, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No 2), 1991, reported complete

with amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the bill be considered as reported?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: With leave now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave not granted.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 16.

SUPPLY ACT (No. 2), 1991

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I wish just to make a few

comments to introduce second reading of this Supply Act. This supply

bill is the second for the fiscal year 1991-92, the first having been

passed on June 1, 1991, when the Legislative Assembly authorized supply

of $5,406,000,000.

The first

section of this bill requests the total supply of

$10,669,971,000 for voted expenditures as outlined in the

schedule to

this bill and includes $2,668,000,000 for voted expenditures of these

ministries included under Supply Act (No. 1), 1991.

The second

section specifies that the remaining balance in that bill continues to provide supply for the remaining ministries.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I point out that traditionally in this House,

as I pointed out yesterday, the supply bill is moved through all three

stages at one time. However, we seem to have waived that requirement. I

wish to make just a few more comments before I take my place.

We now have an accurate total from Hansard of the hours spent in

debate on the ministries referred to in this bill. On the Ministry of

Health we spent 24 hours and 10 minutes, the most time ever.

MR. GABELMANN: It's the most money, too.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: That is correct. Health care costs have

escalated. I forget the percentage this year, but the increase is

considerable. I point out again that it's the most time ever spent on

Health ministry estimates.

We spent 15 hours and 59 minutes on Education, the third-longest time ever.

The final figure for Social Services and Housing is 24 hours and 31

minutes, up considerably from our estimate. That's the most time ever

spent in this House on Social Services and Housing estimates.

Plus, Mr. Speaker, in excess of 14 hours was spent in debate on Supply Act (No. 1), pertaining to

section 2.

Traditionally in this House and in the British parliament and other

parliaments there is no debate on the supply bill. It is an

administrative function to ratify motions that have been approved by

the Whole House.

Section 2 contains nothing new and was debated for 14

hours during Supply Act (No. 1).

I refer to the opposition House Leader's quotes in the daily

newspaper. I would hope that they aren't accurate, but unfortunately,

if they are, they set the tone for the debate on this supply bill. He

is quoted as

[ Page 13188 ]

saying: "As long as we're talking, we can keep them

accountable. The minute we come to a vote, they have the majority and

we'll lose. So we'll keep talking, and the only way they'll get what

they want is to move closure." I sincerely regret that that is the

attitude taken by the opposition House Leader, but I can only assume

that the quotation is correct and that later today, under practice

recommendation 3, we will be calling the question on second reading of

Supply Act (No. 2), 1991.

MR. MILLER: Despite what the government House Leader had to

say, I have not had an opportunity in this House to canvass one of the

most — if not the most — important ministries in government, and

certainly the most important area for the citizens of this province:

the Forest minister's estimates. We have seen a plethora of reports

that have been a shocking condemnation of the administration of the

Forests ministry in this province, starting with the auditor-general's

report, which concluded that the ministry is incapable of carrying out

even the basic functions of monitoring and auditing in several key

areas.

[3:00]

When we turn to the auditor-general's report, I would also add that

the report of the auditor-general of 1989 clearly showed as well that

the ministry was deficient and unable even to do the simple process of

ensuring....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I'm sorry, I must interrupt the member. I have to call on the House Leader to deal with an in-house formality.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I apologize. I neglected to move second reading of the supply bill, so I now move second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: Before the member for Prince Rupert continues,

the Chair has to take a moment or two, because all of us are on new

ground here — at least, those of us who have been here for 15 years or

more. Perhaps someone who has been here longer.... I don't think there

are many left who will recall ever being in a debate on a supply act.

The scope of the debate is all new territory for everyone here. It's

not the opportunity to discuss items which were discussed in the first

supply act, there being no

schedule attached to this particular bill.

So I am going to allow the member for Prince Rupert to continue, but I

would caution members that the scope of the debate has to be strictly

relevant.

MR. MILLER: As I was pointing out, some of the significant

reports that we have seen in this province with respect to this most

important ministry in British Columbia.... Certainly in economic terms,

with export values in the $13 billion range, it is economically the

single most important ministry to the province. Yet the auditor-general

in four separate reports has condemned the ability of this government

to manage in that area, going back to 1989 — its inability to do the

simple function of collecting revenue stumpage from Crown timber. The

auditor-general was scathing in his condemnation of this government's

inability to have in place a revenue collection system, and to ensure

that the citizens of this province were receiving all of the revenue

that they were entitled to from the sale of Crown timber.

The most recent auditor-general's report canvasses three areas. It

evaluated three areas within the ministry, in terms of their ability to

do their job. It concluded that in the area of silviculture the

ministry's practices are not adequate to ensure that reforestation

responsibilities are met. They go on to say that in the field of

monitoring, the field staff are uncertain about whether the purpose of

the auditing is to determine if the licences complied with the

prescribed silviculture treatments, or if the crop is likely to reach

free-growing status.

Continuing, when it comes to the question of....

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I apologize for interrupting you,

but, as I said, we're breaking new ground on this bill and this type of

bill. This bill traditionally has gone through the House without any

debate on all previous occasions.

Nowhere in this bill is there reference to the ministry that you're

now discussing. There is reference to the Ministries of Education,

Health, and Social Services and Housing, despite the fact that their

estimates have already passed. The essence of the Supply Act is that

you confirm what was passed in committee. Those are the only ministries

with which we can deal. In subsection (2) of

section 1 of this there is

an omnibus amount of money which has already been passed in Supply Act

(No. 1), 1991. I have to ask you to keep the limited scope of the

debate within the

schedule that's included in the bill.

MR. CLARK: Point of order. I would like to make the case to

you that this is in fact an interim supply bill disguised as a supply

act. It's quite clear, if you look at subsection (2), that what has

happened is that we passed in this House an interim supply bill for

some $5.4 billion. And 64 percent of that would have been approved for

those three major ministries, which we are now debating. That 64

percent is $3.46 billion.

What this bill does is say that they have already spent $2.668

billion, and what subsection (2) wants to do is move $792 million of

approved expenditure from Social Services and Housing, Health and

Education to 17 other ministries for which we have not had a debate.

Some of the money in subsection (2) is for purposes that the House has

yet to debate, and that is the critical point.

There is money here — $792 million — which has not been debated in

this House. This is a parliamentary obscenity in terms of the

deviousness with which they are trying to stifle debate on 17

ministries' estimates, which we have not had. I submit to you that

subsection (2) and the $792 million they want to expend in additional

moneys on 17 ministries allows us to debate those 17 ministries at

length, because it is money which has not been approved in this House

for those purposes. The financial administration addresses that very

[ Page

13189 ]

point in a different fashion, but it is germane to this debate.

MR. SPEAKER: Almost the opposite is the case. The difficulty

is that what we in subsection (2) is moneys for which debate has

already taken place in Supply Act (No. 1), 1991, and we have voted on

it. If there was scope for even broader debate.... Supply Act (No. 2),

1991, is on those three estimates that have already passed. There's a

narrow scope of debate, and I will allow a narrow scope of debate — a

limited scope of debate on those items that are in No. 2. But in

essence, the House never discusses matters which have already been

passed.

The Chair is powerless to have anything to do with whatever

legislative process the government is going through. The trouble is I

have this rule book, all of which you have had input into. No matter

what my particular feelings are on the matter, I have to follow the

rules.

I'll listen some more from the member for Vancouver East.

MR. CLARK: When we passed the $5.4 billion, we debated four

months of interim supply. The effect of this

section is to give six

months of interim supply for 17 other ministries. What is being asked

of us today is to approve additional interim supply for 17 ministries.

It is an interim supply bill disguised as a supply act.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, what in fact happened was that you

voted for a dollar amount. The dollar amount may have coincided with a

specific time-frame, but the bill was advanced as a dollar amount of

funds, and that's what was passed in the interim supply.

MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, with respect, if that was the case

then there is absolutely no need for this

section whatsoever. If they

have given approval for $5.4 billion, then there is absolutely no need

to then reaffirm that approval here today. The reason they need to

reaffirm it is because the approval was given for something other than

what this bill does.

The approval was given for four months of interim supply, and they

are stretching it to six months by moving money that was approved for

three ministries — Social Services, Health and Education — to the other

17 ministries. That's what makes subsection (2) essentially an interim

supply debate. I submit to you that we should have a full debate on all

17 ministry estimates that have not been debated in this House.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: On the same point of order and in an attempt to assist

the Chair, first of all, the Chair's

interpretation of subsection (2) is

absolutely correct. There are absolutely no additional funds added to Supply

Act (No. 1). It is merely reconfirming what was passed in this House in Supply

Act (No. 1) in June of this year. You are correct. There is no allocation of

the money, and there is no time-limit. It is specifically an amount of $5,406,000,000.

Now what subsection (2) does.... I point this out to the members

opposite. The reason we put subsection (2) in there is that it spells

out that those moneys expended on the three ministries we're talking

about in this Supply Act will have to come out of the appropriation in

Supply Act (No. 1). We can use the balance of what was appropriated by

the House and that which is not spent in July. Had we not put

subsection (2) in there, we would probably have incurred the wrath of

the opposition, because then we would have been able to take out the

amount already spent in these ministries and to protract the supply

bill even longer. I know that that's convoluted and very complicated.

We wanted, with this subsection (2), to be as fair and explicit as

possible. We had several meetings with the legal people, with the

Clerks, to determine how to do it. We got parliamentary advice and

legal advice so that we could do it correctly and in as fair a way as

possible, Mr. Speaker. I submit that to maybe help in your decision.

MR. GABELMANN: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. I want to approach the issue from a different perspective.

Earlier this year the House voted approval for expenditures in all

ministries through to the end of July. We understood what we were

doing, and it was passed. More recently, we have concluded debate — in

one way or another — on three ministries, which theoretically provides

funding for the whole year. We are being asked by way of this bill to

approve spending for August and September — probably most of September,

but certainly August and at least three weeks of September — for

expenditures in 17 additional ministries. We have never had a debate in

this House about spending on those 17 ministries in August and

September. Our debate earlier this year was for — in two parts — April

and May, and then June and July. That was the clear indication of the

interim Supply Act (No. 1). The debate was about the first third of the

year, and that's how this side of the House debated the bill.

We acknowledge that the House has now passed the spending for three

ministries for the whole year, and the government has authority to do

that. But this House has never debated the August and September

expenditures for the remaining 17 ministries. The government is

attempting, by way of this so-called supply bill, to force us to not

will be accomplished by this bill. That is taxation and expenditure

without debate.

This House has not only the right but an obligation and a

responsibility to debate government spending prior to that expenditure

if it's sitting — and it is sitting. The government has the right for

the rest of July in all ministries; the government has the right for

the rest of the year in three ministries. It does not have the right,

while the House is sitting, for any expenditure beyond that, and this

bill gives that expenditure right in August and September without a

debate. Mr. Speaker, we have the right to debate that expenditure.

[3:15]

[ Page 13190 ]

MR. SPEAKER: The member makes an interesting point. He stated

that in the three ministries — Education, Health and Social Services

and Housing — the government has, in fact, passed these estimates and

has the right to spend the money. But it hasn't the right to spend the

money unless the Supply Act (No. 2) passes. That's the first point.

The second point is that an interim supply bill is amount-specific

and is not time-specific. There may be all sorts of discussion around

time-frames, but interim supply bills are amount-specific.

The one thing this bill does that is very clear is that it gives the

government the authority to spend the money on a year-round basis for

the rest of the year on those three ministries, which were previously

debated in Committee of Supply. When you said to me that's not the

case, well, that's certainly one aspect of the bill. The other aspect

of the bill is to deal with this interim supply

section which, as I

said, was amount-specific and not time-specific.

I appreciate that this is very poor guidance for the members, but the Chair is going through new territory as well.

MR. MILLER: I was elected to debate on behalf of my

constituents and was appointed by my leader to debate forestry issues,

and I came prepared to debate. Despite the best efforts of the

opposition, I'm going to continue to debate.

MR. SPEAKER: Just so the members and others are clear, the

Chair will allow limited debate on the specific 19 ministries that

aren't involved.

MR. ROSE: I would like clarification of the last remarks of

the Speaker, because it seems to me that the last two lines of

subsection (2) say, "...expenses of the public service of the province

other than those of the ministries referred to in the schedule." That

seems to me to permit at least some debate on the various ministries

that are not referred in the schedule, so I would applaud the efforts

of my colleague to proceed on the advice you have given him.

MR. MILLER: I was starting to outline the report of the

auditor-general with respect to the operation of the ministry. It's

significant, Mr. Speaker. I had outlined already the condemnation the

auditor-general threw down to the ministry in terms of the reports he

issued. There are a number of issues I want to canvass, but taken in

total, they are fundamentally important in this province.

Over the last short while, we have witnessed massive unemployment

created in the forest industry and the consequent uncertainty and

destabilization of small forest-dependent communities right around this

province. Over 8,000 people — almost 10,000 — who used to work in

forestry in this province have been thrown out of work, and it appears

there are more to come There are fundamental questions that have not

been answered, and it appears that there are absolutely no plans afoot

to deal with these fundamental issues.

There is a pall of uncertainty hanging over this province when it

comes to dealing with forestry. I think there has been a cosmetic

approach by the government in an attempt to say through various

committees that they're dealing with this and with that. But in fact, I

don't believe they are.

The Forest Resources Commission was put together by this government

because they didn't want to have a royal commission. They created the

Forest Resources Commission instead. I suspect the only reason they

didn't appoint a royal commission was because the suggestion — and I

quote the former Minister of Forests in this regard — "came from native

Indians and the opposition," and he wasn't prepared to listen to it. So

they chose another path; they chose the path of the Forest Resources

Commission.

That commission ultimately reported this year a significant report

that this government said would be pivotal in terms of developing new

forest policy in this province. We have seen no activity at all in

terms of that report. The minister first of all said that he would

allow input on that report up until June, and later revised that until

July. One of the few opportunities I had to debate that issue — and the

Minister of Forests wasn't in the House at the time — was during the

period on Friday, about three weeks ago, when we managed to canvass

very briefly some of the estimates of various ministries.

The report contained a statement, or a conclusion, reached by the

commission with respect to the value of the resource in this province.

I was careful at the time I debated that not to embrace those numbers,

but rather to query the government on how they viewed them. I think it

is fundamental, if people are now expected to make submissions on this

report, that this matter be clarified.

Hopefully when we get into committee on this bill we can ask some

more specific questions and get some answers from the minister on these

questions. I would like to know what they were doing on that specific

point. Does this government accept the numbers that were supplied by

the Forest Resources Commission? Are those numbers accurate, in the

government's estimation? Has the government undertaken any other

evaluation work on this question? Have there been other studies

commissioned in the last little while that the government can point to

on this question? Are they now conducting any further evaluations on

this question? Have they commissioned independent studies to see

whether the numbers supplied by Western Capital are, in fact, correct?

Finally on that point, will all of those studies that have been done,

and all of them that might be undertaken, be made public so that there

will be a public opportunity for review on this point?

As I said, I think that it will be impossible for the public to

respond to that Forest Resources Commission, which presumably

represents the opportunity for change in this province when it comes to

forest policy. It will be impossible for people in small communities

and for those who are employed and unemployed in the forest industry to

have any sense of direction in this province. They don't know where

they're going.

[ Page

13191 ]

People in Port Alberni — to quote one recent example where we've

seen almost 1,000 people laid off — have no idea what the future

direction is. The government hasn't offered any planning or solutions.

It has gotten so bad that the union involved that represents the

workers in Port Alberni has said that MacMillan Bloedel should lose

their tree-farm licence, and it should be allocated to someone who's

prepared to take those valuable resources, to apply capital and labour,

to make products, to maintain some kind of security and to give some

kind of security to the workforce in the Alberni Valley. That's how bad

it's become.

Up in the north part where the member for Omineca and I come from,

we know the problems that exist there with timber supply. We know the

mills that have been shut down. We know the uncertainty that exists in

those communities. We know that the government has not offered any type

of planning to those people. They haven neither involved them in

planning nor undertaken that kind of planning themselves.

The Forest Resources Commission goes on to say — and this is

shocking in itself, if nothing else that they've said — that the state

of the inventory of our forest resources is "a disgrace." This

commission, which was made up of members of industry, distinguished

members of the public and representatives of workers in this province

said that the state of our inventory is "a disgrace." What does that

say about this government's management of the forest resources during

their too-long term in office?

Interjection.

MR. MILLER: "What management indeed," says my leader. Given

that this report says inventories are a disgrace, how do people in

those communities plan for their future? How do they know when those

timber supplies will start to run out and another mill will be shut

down?

Up in the Cariboo — I see the first member for Cariboo sitting there

— he made a rather foolish statement. I understand he's been appointed

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Forests. They've tossed you

a little plum before they have to call an election — and you won't come

back. But he made an absolutely silly statement in the 100 Mile House

paper. He said he knew what was needed in forestry in this province. He

said every mill, large or small, should be guaranteed 70 percent of

their timber requirements.

That's the kind of forestry knowledge we see coming out of the Parliamentary

Secretary to the Minister of Forests. What's wrong with that, Mr. Member?

What's wrong is that there's not enough timber to do this. Did you not

realize, Mr. Member? Do you not understand, Mr. Member, that if you add up the

capacity of all of the wood-processing plants in this province — the pulp mills,

the sawmills, all of the plants — it's 100 million cubic metres. Mr. Member,

do you know what the annual cut is that we set on Crown lands? It's 72 million

cubic metres. The difference, I believe, is about 28. We're looking at about

a 30 percent gap between available supplies and mill capacity.

Maybe it's Socred flim-flam; maybe it's the A plus B theorem. I

don't know. I can't figure it out; the public can't figure it out. But

that member over there has figured it out. Out of that impossible

scenario, he's going to supply every single mill with 70 percent of

their capacity. I suspect he was speaking to an audience that he

thought would want to hear what he had to say, regardless of whether it

made sense.

When I move to the question of inventory and the ability to plan for

the small communities in this province — and really, the large

communities too, because wealth flows to the centre — I note that the

Minister of Forests in a June 21 news release said that there are some

problems with our inventory and hence, I would assume, problems with

our establishing the AAC, the annual allowable cut. The minister said

in his news release of June 21 that a study had been carried out by the

B.C. Forest Service, which prompted an immediate freeze on any increase

in timber harvesting levels across the province for at least six

months. He went on to say in this release that the chief forester is

concerned. If we do not allow those harvest levels to be reduced and

freeze them, as the Forest Resources Commission recommended, at their

current levels — no increase, no decrease — the chief forester is

concerned that we would be harvesting at unsustainably high levels. If

it's two TSAs, fine, I'd like to see the study, and hopefully we'll get

into that when we get into committee on this bill.

The news release of June 21 goes on to talk about an exception only

being made in extremely unusual circumstances. The Forest Service study

of timber-supply review procedures over the past year has resulted in a

move toward more frequent analysis, but essentially the report seemed

to me to shore up, to back up, what the Forest Resources Commission

report said — that the state of our inventories is a disgrace.

Mr. Speaker, there are many more topics I want to canvass, and I

will do that in committee. Just to highlight some of them, the need....

If we want to move to value-added in this province, we have to deal

with the internal mechanisms in terms of supplying wood to the

value-added mills. I have been in touch with some of those mills in the

last weeks, mills that take low-quality timber and that are labour

intensive. Some have 75 employees; some over 300 employees — labour

intensive. They add significant value to the timber, and do you know

what? They can't get wood supplies because of the network or

infrastructure that has been built up essentially to meet the needs of

the very large corporations. The small companies have been ignored —

and how are we going to move to value-added?

[3:30]

There's the whole question of regional development and the very good

ideas of the new dean of forestry at UBC in terms of how, through

research and development, we might be able to maintain some of our

competitive advantage in forestry, which is going to be important if we

want to maintain forestry as a significant part of the economy of this

province.

There's the whole question of reforestation — not just planting trees, but intensive reforestation. We

[ Page 13192 ]

haven't done our homework. We don't have the data

that would advise us where we can best direct expenditures. We don't

have the mechanisms in place to allow us to make more expenditures on

intensive silviculture to get more yields that might be useful in

heading off some of the problems that those small communities are going

to be facing.

There's the whole question of the inability of the Ministry of Forests: first of all, the historic lack of staff....

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, your time has expired.

MR. CASHORE: I am pleased to be able to stand and speak on

second reading of this bill. There are some issues to do with the

environment that I think are tremendously important and that need to be

canvassed if we are to deal appropriately and in a realistic way with

this government's fiscal responsibility.

Mr. Speaker, there are many questions that we are going to want to

put to the Minister of Environment during committee stage, and I am

going to comment on some of those areas now so that he will be prepared

and will know some of the issues that we want him to come into this

House and be prepared to deal with effectively. The reason for this is

that, first of all, when we look at the total administration of the

Ministry of Environment in this province by the political aspect of

this government, we find that the disarray of this government is

reflected in the disarray of the administration of the Ministry of

Environment by the politicians — not by the civil servants, not by the

people who work within the ministry, but by the politicians. The

disarray that has been present in this government, which has visited

itself in a most unfortunate way on the people of British Columbia, is

nowhere more evident than the disarray that we find in the Ministry of

Environment.

Count them. We have had six Ministers of Environment in the term of

this government. We've had three Deputy Ministers of Environment. Where

are we able to find the continuity when we've had four Ministers of

Environment in the last two years? Mr. Speaker, you know, the members

of this House know and the public know that the disarray was caused by

incompetence on the part of those people in political office who were

more interested in their own interests than in protecting, preserving

and enhancing the environment of this province.

The second concern we find is a very real issue that must be

canvassed by this House. It is the situation with the morale of the

excellent people who work within the ministry; people who have been

battered, bruised and caught between a rock and a hard place as they

try to do their jobs. People who went into their profession with a

certain amount of idealism so they could work in the Ministry of

Environment have found that day after day their excellent efforts have

been subverted, because the things they planned have been trashed with

the stroke of a pen. Often it has been the agenda of this government to

allow what they were working on to go the way of the dodo without any

announcement being made; issues would be announced with a great deal of

fanfare when this government's public relations management of the

environment was taking place.

We only have to look at Vision 2001, which was to be this

government's answer to the federal Green Plan. Vision 2001 was trotted

out with a great deal of fanfare; indeed it was a major plank in the

previous throne speech, but never has that issue been addressed in

terms of budgetary responsibility. I have found out — and I definitely

want to ask the minister about this — that staff in the ministry have

put a great many hours into developing the Vision 2001 plan, and it's

my information that that plan has been tossed out. Why have they tossed

out the plan to develop a provincial program that would state the

ethical and philosophical principles that would guide this government

in its environmental initiatives? Why have they tossed that out? The

reason is very simple. The reason they have tossed it out is because

they believe the environment is no longer at the top of the list in the

public interest. What a crass reason for this government to decide they

would lower the importance of the environment in terms of their

approach.

Only one year ago the environment was the lead item in the budget;

this year it was the last item to be addressed in the budget. It was an

asterisk; it was an afterthought. Clearly the concept of this

government when it comes to dealing with the environment is that you

manage the environment: somehow you protect trees, save rivers and

enhance the supply of fish by issuing news releases. All style, no

substance, and that's tragic.

We see the toll that that takes on excellent people who work within

the ministry — people who have seen their numbers decimated by the

so-called restraint program of the previous government — and now this

legacy continues with this government, which has done nothing over its

time in office to ensure the people who work in that ministry are given

the resources to do their job.

The people who have hung in there deserve a great deal of credit for

doing their work on behalf of the environment so that we, in British

Columbia, can have some semblance of continuity that would bridge the

gap between the failure of this government to address environmental

issues and the reality that the New Democratic Party is very soon to

form government. We are going to give those people the opportunity to

do the job they were trained to do, which they are ready to do, which

they are prepared to do, and which they must do if we are going to do

the right thing for the environment in this province.

I have mentioned two issues: the disarray of the government being

reflected at the highest echelons in the six ministers that we've had,

and the morale problem that exists among those people who work within

the ministry throughout the length and breadth of this province.

But there's an even more crucial issue than that, and that's the

issue of public trust. It has got to the point where members of the

public can no longer trust this government to do what it says it will

do with regard to

[ Page

13193 ]

the environment. They can no longer trust this

government. The body politic is perplexed, disappointed and

dissatisfied with the way in which this government has mismanaged

environmental issues.

There are a number of issues that we are going to be debating in

great detail. We want this minister, who so far has not distinguished

himself in his role.... As a matter of fact, we've had six ministers,

and the present Minister of Environment stands head and shoulders below

all the rest. What we're going to have to do is give this minister an

opportunity to show what he knows. He came into this House the last

time there was an interim supply bill all by himself. The more

experienced ministers came into this House with people who could help

them answer the questions. But this Minister of Environment doesn't

even believe he needs the help of his staff. He's been at it so long

and understands it so well that he can come into this House and be

asked questions on the environment when he hasn't even got the staff

there to support him. Obviously, Mr. Speaker, he is not attending to

his task in the way the task deserves. If I could, Mr. Speaker, I would

be moving that his salary be lowered to $1, because he does not deserve

to have a salary for the kind of a job he's doing.

Let's take a look at some of the issues we're going to be

canvassing. The one issue that has been in the news a lot lately has to

do with the dumping of Expo soils in Richmond. Whenever this issue has

come up, that minister has tried to pay me a compliment and give me

credit for all the problems he's having in dealing with the horrible

deal his government made on the Expo contract. He's trying to blame me

for the fact that this government fast-tracked in such a way that they

didn't really care about what happened to the health of the workers

working in contaminated and toxic soils. They wanted to fast-track Expo

at all costs. You'll remember, Mr. Speaker, that workers were

expendable at that time, because working people in this province were

having a very difficult time. So it was okay to fast-track, and that's

how they approached it at that time. In so doing, they never had a

soils classification system in this province.

What happened then? Shortly after the 1986 election, this government

decided that in marketing the Expo lands — and we're not just talking

about the lands at the Expo site but other lands — they would sell them

carte blanche to one developer instead of using an approach that would

use several developers and several British Columbia working people in a

coordinated community effort. They sold it to one developer. We're not

blaming Concord Pacific for that; you can't blame business people for

trying to work out a good deal from their point of view. But the fact

is that they worked this deal, and it turned out to be a deal in which

this government lost taxpayers' money at a time when there was the

biggest building boom in the history of North America. It was the most

valuable commercial property in all of North America, and this

government, which can't manage a peanut stand, lost money on the deal.

Not only did they lose money on the deal, but two days later they said: "Oh,

by the way, we'll make the taxpayers pay for the cost of the cleanup."

That was an afterthought, Mr. Speaker. What was the reason for that? They said

this is the way you do it nowadays. If you have property that is contaminated,

it is the responsibility of the owner to make sure the cost of the cleanup is

paid for. The only thing is they forgot to apply that to the CPR, the previous

owner of much of the property — the CPR that's done so well in the history

of Canada by the lands they have had dedicated to them. They forgot to ask the

CPR to pay its share of the cost of the cleanup. Why? They felt the taxpayers

of British Columbia would be the ones able to foot that bill.

[3:45]

Irresponsible mismanagement has earned this government the contempt

of the body politic. Then we have this situation today where, under

some kind of contractual arrangement with Concord Pacific, we find that

the government is trying again, without having their soil testing

system completely worked out — and they don't have it completely worked

out, no matter what that minister might say. They're trying to

fast-track something when they haven't got their homework done and at

the expense of what could be serious health and environmental

considerations in the community of Richmond. And they want to blame me

for that. They don't even want to take responsibility for the bed which

they themselves have made. That's incredible, and it's simply

inappropriate.

This government feels not only that it can run this province by

public relations; it also believes it can run this province by benign

neglect. Benign neglect is the approach that is being applied to deal,

with this question of soil classification.

Let's take a look at what's happening there in Richmond. A soil

classification system was developed where there would be soils below

level A, then there would be levels A, B and C and then there would be

soils above level C, which are considered to be special waste — meaning

highly toxic and requiring very special consideration. But there was

recognition that the soils at levels A, B and C also had some

contaminants in them — some heavy metals — and the need for

classification that would say: "You can't use that soil for a

residential area, but it can go on an industrial site."

So why should the people of Richmond be condemned for asking the

innocent question: "Why should that soil go on our land if it's not

good enough to go on that residential land where the Expo site

presently exists?" All we get out of this minister — and I'm glad he

has come back into the House — is that he's concerned that the people

of British Columbia, the mayor and council of Richmond and yours truly

don't accept his definition of toxicity, which he doesn't even

understand.

So that minister is earning the contempt of people in Richmond. He

has earned the contempt of his colleague the second member for

Richmond, because he is finding himself getting boxed into a corner

where he is not able to logically make a point that would in any way

justify the approach he has taken.

[ Page 13194 ]

Why doesn't he admit that his soils classification system is not

complete, that it was developed as a site-specific classification

system to Expo and that there aren't any farms on Expo? Therefore, Mr.

Minister, when you do that soils classification system, you have to

take into consideration that even if a piece of property is zoned

industrial, if it's surrounded by farmland and if it's very close to

the Fraser River, which we depend on for our livelihood and our

enjoyment....

Just think for a moment, Mr. Minister, that recently the federal

government announced $100 million to help clean up the Fraser River.

What response did we get from this minister? It was the sound of one

hand clapping — the deadening silence. There was nothing from this

minister about what British Columbia was going to do to participate in

that cleanup or to have some say in what the standards would be. We got

a mealy-mouthed, wimpy kind of effort from this minister. He said he

would double the amount of money going into the Fraser River estuary

management funding. How much was that going to be? He was going to

increase B.C.'s share from $50,000 to $100,000. That's this minister's

contribution to the Fraser River: $50,000 to $100,000 for FREMP.

Getting back to Richmond, this minister might as well realize that

if he doesn't get busy and address the soil classification system with

regard to placing those soils in such areas as Richmond, adjacent to

farmland and near the Fraser River, he's going to find himself more and

more boxed in, more and more between a rock and a hard place. He's

going to find that he has not only visited soil — dug out of the Expo

site and dumped in Richmond — but he's going to be digging an ever

deeper hole with his teeth, because he simply can't dig his way out of

that one.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

What is clearly needed is for this minister to recognize that when

he tries to comment on this issue and pretend that it's only a matter

of industrial soils being put on that site as a preloading process, not

only is it that, but it's also.... I'm just pausing so the minister can

hear me, because he's getting some coaching.

AN HON. MEMBER: He needs it.

MR. CASHORE: Yes, I know he needs the coaching. But what this

minister is going to have to do, if he's going to begin to address this

issue and win the confidence of the people in Richmond, is recognize

and answer the question: who plans to put what on that site? That's

what the people in Richmond want to know. What comes next on this site,

Mr. Minister? In case the minister doesn't have somebody in the House

to coach him on the answer, I'll coach him on the answer: the plans for

the company that's preloading that site — and this is no criticism of

the company — are to treat the most hazardous of waste from the Pacific

Northwest on that site, as is stated in their management plan.

There's some question about whether they'd be importing that from

across the border, and we'll accept that when the minister is ready to

answer some questions, he can answer that one. But still the plan is

that during the life of that enterprise, that site in Richmond — next

to farmland where we grow our food — we'll be dealing with the most

hazardous of soils from the Pacific Northwest. The minister has

carefully avoided dealing with that issue and has resorted to bafflegab

— and he's not very good at that, either.

I just want to run through some of the other issues we are going to

be canvassing during this debate and expecting to have very thorough

answers on. I'm glad to see that the minister is taking notes. We're

also going to be reviewing the issue of the letter I wrote to the

minister about the people who worked on the Expo site, who did not have

the health protection that workers are now required to have in dealing

with some of those levels of soils. We'll want the minister to deal

with that question, since he hasn't answered my letter, and he's had

plenty of time to do so.

We're also going to be wanting to find out about the Hazardous Waste

Management Corporation and what has been going on there. We want to

find out the details of the contract that one of the former Ministers

of Environment apparently negotiated with the former chairperson of

that corporation.

We're also going to want this minister to answer for the fact that

this corporation has very little to show for the time it has been in

existence, and we're going to want him to be able to say to the public

very specifically what it has been costing to operate that corporation.

We're going to want that minister to answer how he can justify giving a

reward of $1 a tire so that they can be taken and burned in cement

plants, adding to air pollution.

Mr. Speaker, we're also going to want to ask that minister to answer

this question: why is it that people who have retail outlets which sell

tires and who have to have to charge a $3 levy on each tire, don't get

any help from the government when it comes to the disposing of those

tires? We want that minister to be able to answer that, because right

now those outlets are having to pay to have those tires hauled away.

We want this minister to address the issue of what's happening with

waste reduction in this province and the fact that there doesn't seem

to be any procedures that would coordinate economies of scale to enable

communities involved in recycling to get their recycled goods to the

lower mainland, so that the province can fulfil some role in assisting

with that process.

We're going to be asking this minister questions about the lack of

commitment to regional enforcement of fish and wildlife issues and

conservation issues. We just heard on the news today that a member of

the wildlife association in Terrace has pointed out that in an area

covering 24,000 hectares, there are.... Well, can anybody guess in that

area? Are there eight conservation officers?

Interjection.

[ Page

13195 ]

MR. CASHORE: Our House Leader informs me that there are two

conservation officers protecting the environment, protecting the

wildlife from poachers and protecting the habitat for fish and wildlife

in an area of 24,000 hectares in the northwest portion of this

province. That is absolutely unconscionable; that is shameful. That

means that the resources which exist within this ministry are not being

deployed in a way that is going to in any way enhance, protect and care

for the environment, as our environment in British Columbia deserves.

Mr. Speaker, we're also going to be dealing with the issue of pulp

pollution. You'll remember that the third-last Minister of Environment

resigned after he had brought in a set of...

AN HON. MEMBER: Third-last?

MR. CASHORE: Yes.

...watered-down regulations for dealing with the organochlorine

content in pulp effluent. He had brought that to the cabinet table,

apparently having made — according to an

article written by Vaughn

Palmer — a commitment to the Council of Forest Industries that went

something like this: "Oh well, we'll get through the election, and if

it's not working very well, we can always change it after the

election." That comment in Vaughn Palmer's column was never refuted, to

my knowledge.

But even those watered-down regulations, which were agreed upon by

the cabinet of that day — granted a much different set of players than

we see today in some ways.... But after that group had stated that they

agreed with that, the former Premier, on the basis of a phone call from

the high and the mighty, decided to change it. Why? Because he was

afraid that it might cut into the Socred election coffers and the money

that they would expect to receive from that industry.

Each and every minister who has been appointed since that minister

has had an opportunity to demonstrate that he would stand up and be an

advocate for the environment and that he would not back down when it

comes to environmental issues, and each one has wimped out. They have

gone, tail between the legs, back to the cabinet table. They are

yes-men, doing what they were told to do, but not working on behalf of

protecting the environment or as advocates for the environment within

that cabinet. They are working according to the program that has only

one bottom line, and that's power. But it's not power for the people of

British Columbia; it's power for these politicians who are concerned

about their political futures. That's what power is all about for this

group. That's what power means to them, and that's what this minister

was up to.

Mr. Speaker, there are other things that we are going to want to

visit during the debate on this bill. We're going to want some answers

on the question of Vision 2001. We want to know what happened there. We

want to know why the time of excellent employees within that ministry

was wasted.

Also, my colleague for Oak Bay–Gordon Head is going to be raising some questions

with regard to the Georgia basin area and the kind of news release coming out

from this government that is backed up by absolutely no substance whatsoever.

We're going to be following some questions that have to do with the

inadequacy of the protection of this coast when it comes to oil spills.

We want to know about that, Mr. Minister. We want to know why very

little has been accomplished since the time of the Nestucca oil spill.

The people of British Columbia have a right to know about that, and we

want some answers on that.

[4:00]

Another issue that is of very significant importance is water

exports. This will be an opportunity for the minister to stand up in

this House and outline a process for the review, which he has now put

off for another six months, that will include intervener funding,

public hearings and a full public process — not controlled by the

Environment ministry process, but a full and real public process. This

minister will stand up and use that opportunity to demonstrate to the

public that, at least in the dying days prior to an election, he has

some sense of the importance of the issue of water exports, and that he

recognizes that there needs to be a full and thorough public debate not

only on the environment issues but also on the issues that have to do

with trade, which is a tremendously important part of that issue. This

minister will be asked to comment on such questions as value-added and

if it is the best thing for British Columbia to be sending water down

to California, when we could be using that water as an export commodity

in the form of bottled water. We want that minister to bring people

into the House who can advise him, so he will have some answers on

questions like that.

Mr. Speaker, there are other issues that we will want this minister

to comment on. We have noticed some interesting figures in the budget

with regard to the advertising budget for this ministry. We will want

this minister to explain why there has been such a fundamental change

in philosophy with regard to the advertising budget for the Minister of

Environment. Obviously there is not enough money there for this

minister to act in his own commercials, as was the case with the

third-last Minister of Environment. We would like to know why one year

it is such an important thing to put millions of dollars into, and why

another year it seems not to have the importance it had in the past.

Mr. Speaker, we're going to be asking this minister to give an

account in this House with regard to the issue of stewardship when it

comes to land use conflicts.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Maillardville Coquitlam's time has expired under standing orders.

HON. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, I was busy in my office when I

heard this droning voice, and I wondered how best to address the matter

that was being presented to the House. So I thought back to the most

troublesome problem I have had in the past few weeks, and it was the

matter of the soil being transported to Richmond from the Expo site. I

thought back

[ Page 13196 ]

to why this has been a troublesome problem, and it

came to me that it was because the whole position taken that was

causing me the problem was based on a lie. So I thought about the way

that I should approach the matter of explaining to the House and

describing the Expo site and the content of the soil that is being

transported. Before I comment on some of the other matters that have

been talked about in the preceding 20 minutes or so by the previous

speaker, I want you to think about all the things he said in the

context of how the matter of the soil to Richmond was being handled.

The Expo site is comprised of 95 percent normal everyday type of

soil, sand and gravel, and 5 percent troublesome soil. The troublesome

soil has on it oil, gas, lubricants and things from normal industry. At

a point in April or early May, someone made the statement that we were

transporting toxic soil to Richmond. I can't imagine why anyone would

do that, but it followed a certain pattern of innuendo, mischief,

misstatement and misinformation. In the four and a half years that

we've been sitting here, it fit the pattern of a party that really has

nothing more to say than misinformation and lack of research.

It really upsets me that the research effort by the member who

addressed the matter of the soil going to Richmond.... It really upsets

me that by not making the extra effort to do the research and really

understand a problem, no constructive criticism was offered. The

tactics there are quite simple: tell the lie first, and then leave

everybody else to try and bail out. Unfortunately, it puts a lot of

people to a lot of extra work for no obvious purpose. For someone to

tell that lie and then expect that nothing would happen but bad things

is really remarkable.

Talking about soil....

MR. CASHORE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would like

to ask you call on this member to withdraw that unparliamentary

language. He's using the term "lie" in reference to me. That's

unparliamentary and offensive. He's using it with regard to a

disagreement about a definition. It's unparliamentary and should be

withdrawn. I would hope that he would do the appropriate thing and

withdraw that remark.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would just mention to the hon. minister

that he's skating fairly close to the line. I didn't actually hear him

accuse anybody of being a liar, but he was skating very close to the

line. I know the minister well, and I'm sure that he would be quite

prepared to withdraw the remark, or to at least assure the hon. member

that there was no intention on his part.

HON. MR. MERCIER: You're right, Mr. Speaker, that I was

probably treading fairly close to the line. It's very interesting that

the member would stand up in recognition. I did not cross the line. I

said there was a lie that was told, and a lie that got quoted in the

press, and a lie that got handled by the council in Richmond. I can't

tell you....

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think, hon. minister, that the....

HON. MR. MERCIER: If I did offend the member by treading too

far over the line, I would withdraw on that specific point. But the

problem is that as minister, I wouldn't have had any problems with that

soil if there had been a proper description in the matter of dealing

with the soil on the Expo land.

I must tell the House that there is a well-accepted standard which

says that what we're moving there is at the exact opposite end of the

scale to toxic soil. When you're trying to deal with criticism, it's

really helpful if the criticism is well researched and relevant to the

circumstances. At the moment the Richmond council has a problem because

they have soil coming from all sorts of locations. The soil from the

Expo site is exactly the same as what they're receiving from other

sites.

The matter of the hazardous waste site is really interesting, and it

shows you the competence of the critic. Every municipality in this

province generates hazardous waste. I wouldn't call that misinformation

or a lack of forthrightness, but if the member opposite would think of

his statement, his proposition means hazardous waste vanishes into thin

air. There's no possible way that happens. Hazardous waste will be a

problem until we have a site that can handle it that is environmentally

sound.

I don't feel compelled to address some of the other comments,

because they weren't researched; they aren't factual; they aren't

accurate. I'm quite satisfied that the staff in this ministry are doing

an excellent job. Some comments were made by one of the other members —

I think it was the member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head. My staff is

responding fully to the lack of information that was indicated in the

comments that were made. Our ministry is geared to provide information

and knowledge. It really does a disservice to the public to have

members in this House, even if they are trying to follow their own

political agenda, go out and spread misinformation. There is a way to

win; and there is a way not to. To win on the environmental issues you

have to first know the facts. The facts are available in the ministry.

Our staff is ready to tell you. If you want to make a grandstand play

then pick something else, but don't do it with misinformation, because

you know you're protected in this House from your misstatements.

I wish that we had the chance to go into more detail. I'd be happy to meet with the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam.

MR. MICHAEL: He's so embarrassed, he left the House.

HON. MR. MERCIER: It is interesting that the member for

Maillardville-Coquitlam left. He had all these questions. I came from

my other duties to specifically help inform and enlighten him and help

spread some oil on the troubled waters that were caused by some of the

statements he made. He's no longer here. It's obvious he doesn't want

to hear the

[ Page

13197 ]

facts. He doesn't want to deal with these things in a positive fashion.

I'll conclude by commenting on pulp mills. In the next couple of

weeks I expect to have a statement that gives the position of our

ministry with respect to all the pulp mills: how much they've spent in

the past five to ten years on meeting the environmental standards, and

how much they've done to lead the way in the world with those

improvements. I defy anyone here to deny the amounts they've spent and

deny that we're the world leaders in treating the effluent. There are

some problems. Within a short time those problems will be attended to.

I can assure you that the position taken by the people in this

ministry has moved us to head the world in environmental issues. It's

really surprising that the critic for the opposition doesn't understand

or know that. He's got a long way to go before he can stand in this

House. If he wants to continue to build on misinformation, that's his

option. If he continues to do that, I will have to rise and object to

some of the misinformation that he's put forward.

MR. D'ARCY: I have some comments to make on Environment. I

know this is second reading debate. I have some concerns that I have

already discussed with environment people in my region as well as with

the ministry here.

The concern I have is fundamentally that, within my own region, we

have some pollution control problems relating to the forest industry,

particularly as it has to do with waste wood disposal. I would hope

that at some point in this debate — or this discussion; I do not like

to characterize it as a debate all the time — we would hear some

information as to initiatives the government will be taking in concert

with the private sector and major utilities in the province to move

towards utilizing the overwhelmingly massive amount of wood waste

generated by the forest industry and converting at least some of it

into electrical power, through its use in thermal steam plants.

We know that incineration is not really the solution to this

problem, Mr Speaker; we also know that landfilling is not particularly

the solution to the problem, either. I would hope that the roughly 20

percent — it varies, plus or minus — of all solid wood processed that

ends up as wood waste, such as bark, shavings and sawdust, throughout

the province, but particularly in my part of the West Kootenay...that

some resolution will be found for that ongoing problem.

I would also hope that the minister or some person on the other side

will make some comment — we've already heard the minister refer to

pollution problems and the hopeful resolution of them as they relate to

the pulp industry in British Columbia — on the matter of the continuing

operation of the pulp mill in the West Kootenay being approved by the

minister, as well as release details as to the fine points of the

operation of the most modern mill in the world, which is currently

being constructed in my riding.

Both of these issues are very important. The minister is well aware that a

guillotine of June 30 is faced on the continued construction and, to some degree,

operation of pulp manufacturing within the West Kootenay. With those comments

and questions, I think we should allow this discussion on second reading to

proceed, Mr. Speaker.

[4:15]

MS. CULL: I hope the Minister of Environment is going to

remain in the House a bit longer. I'm glad he came in to hear my

colleague from Maillardville-Coquitlam speak. I think he's got the

story wrong. He says we can win on the environment. You win by doing

something — by taking action — not by giving ministerial statements and

talking about what you're going to do. If talk could save the

environment, then I could agree with the minister that we have the best

environment in the world here in British Columbia.

But talk is simply not enough. The minister has it backwards, I

think, when he talks about what happened with the Expo land soil. He

said he actually had a problem once the issue was brought to his

attention. That's the typical way this government has dealt with

environmental issues: trying to hide them, ignoring them, hoping

they'll go away before they're discovered, or hoping that whatever

they're planning to do with them will be carried out before the public

finds out what's really going on. That's the traditional and common

pattern of this government, and that's why people are getting excited

about what's happening with the toxic soils in the Expo lands, and

about almost every other environmental issue in this province.

The minister has left the House now. But just let me give an example

of why people in Richmond are concerned about the soil, and about this

government saying that there is no problem: "Trust us. We've tested the

soils; they're safe. There's no problem. You're making a lot of fuss

for nothing." The medical health officer with Richmond has now said

that the soil testing protocol of the Ministry of Environment is

probably going to be inadequate to determine certain contaminants in

those soils. Dr. John Garry says that testing procedures haven't even

been developed for some toxic contaminants that may be in these soils,

like cyanide, chlorinated phenols, and pesticides such as DDT. So what

we're getting from this Minister of Environment and this government is

the same old line: "Trust us. We know what we're doing, and we'll look

after you." But the evidence in the province is that the environment is

being neglected; it's not being looked after. Maybe that's partly the

problem of having had six Environment ministers in five short years;

the minister hardly has a chance to get to know what's going on in his

portfolio before he's rotated through the revolving door of cabinet and

has to learn to do something else.

Mr. Speaker, I want to shift the discussion a little bit. I was

looking forward in the estimates today to talking about the proposal

that this government announced in its throne speech about something to

do with the Georgia basin. It's a little difficult, because it doesn't

necessarily fall within one ministry. After the sentence-or-two

announcement in the throne speech, we've heard absolutely nothing more

from the government as to what they're doing with this initiative.

[ Page 13198 ]

I want to talk a little bit about what we would see as the

initiative for the Georgia basin, and to canvass some of the issues

that we will be going into in much greater detail when we get into the

committee stage of this bill. My critic responsibility is for urban

development. I think that having that critic responsibility, which

doesn't have a strict ministry counterpart on the other side of the

House, is the recognition on our part that urban issues span a number

of ministries, primarily the Ministry of Environment, the Ministry of

Municipal Affairs and the Ministry of Transportation and Highways.

People in the urban areas of this province are very concerned about

their specific urban environment. We are witnessing here in British

Columbia tremendous growth in greater Vancouver and greater Victoria,

and the people who are moving into these communities, on a daily basis,

are adding stresses to our environment. They are adding to the

transportation bottleneck. They are putting pressure on our transit

systems, on parks and on housing. They are adding to the air quality

problems, solid waste, liquid waste, hazardous waste — a whole variety

of environmental issues, which really cannot be separated and pulled

out, piece by piece, and plugged into one ministry.

In trying to address these very important urban issues, which really

come down to the question of the quality of life in our urban areas, we

introduced the Georgia Basin Commission Act. I guess I should be

pleased to see that in the throne speech this year the government

decided to take that idea and announce it as if it was their own. The

problem is that we don't know what they intend to do. We don't know

what minister is responsible or what kinds of initiatives will come

under it. As a result of the way this government has managed the

estimates so far, we're not going to have an opportunity to discuss it

with whatever minister has taken the lead responsibility on it.

It seems that the province has persisted in viewing our urban areas

as if they're just a collection of small towns. There really hasn't

been any vision on the part of this government when it comes to dealing

with these major metropolitan problems that I've been talking about.

I've been looking forward to having the debate with whatever minister

ultimately turns out to be responsible, to see how he is going to put

these things together under the Georgia basin initiative. Because we

haven't seen or heard anything yet, there is nothing in the actual

lines of the estimates that can tell us exactly where this program is

located, that there really is a program or that there is anything more

than just the shell of an announcement. That's true to form when it

comes to environmental issues in this province. It's true to form when

it comes to metropolitan issues. There are a lot of pronouncements and

statements but not very much happening.

I want to talk a little bit about the area we're dealing with and

provide some context for the questions that I will ask the various

ministers when we get into the details of the committee. If you stand

back and look at the metropolitan area of this province, you see what

we're really talking about is an inland waterway of the Strait of

Georgia, the strait of Juan de Fuca and Puget Sound — if we move across

the border, because, as we all know, borders are an artificial line

drawn on a map. What is arranged around this water is about 5 million

people living in Vancouver, Victoria, Seattle and all through the

communities up the coast to Powell River and Comox. That is a very

significant concentration of people living around a very fragile

waterway and a very beautiful but fragile urban environment.

By the turn of the century we're going to have another 50,000 people

in greater Victoria, and Vancouver's population will be pushing two

million. In the next 20 or 30 years we could see as many as ten million

people living around this fragile, inland waterway. Los Angeles has

about ten million people. When you really think about this area

geographically and physically, it isn't very different from the Los

Angeles area. We have water, lowlands and mountains that hem in the

areas where people live so that the pollution is contained within a

physical area that is extremely fragile and significant environmentally.

What has happened in this area over the last decade or more is that

this government, in neglecting the serious issues facing our

metropolitan areas, has caused a significant deterioration of our urban

environment. For example, in Victoria we've seen 1,500 hectares of land

removed from the agricultural land reserve since 1974. The result has

been more paved-over areas, more traffic, more sewage and more waste,

which have compounded the problems that I'm talking about. The people

moving into those paved-over areas taken out of the agricultural land

reserve and turned into housing have been contributing to the traffic

problems.

In spite of development in these communities, we have some of the

worst housing problems in Canada. In Victoria, perhaps the saddest

thing we can point to that has happened as a result of growth in this

community and the lack of planning on the part of the government....

I'm speaking about the provincial government, because the local

governments can only do so much, particularly with the system that this

government has foisted upon them that I'm going to talk about in a few

minutes. One of the saddest things we have here in Victoria is that

we've come to the point where we've been faced with draining a lake to

fill it with garbage.

In Vancouver the problems are magnified because of the larger

population. That means we have a million tons of solid waste produced

annually, a billion cubic metres of toxic sewage going into the Strait

of Georgia, gridlock, air pollution — and the list goes on.

The problem is that we know what is going on in the urban areas. We

can witness these problems. Particularly when you go to Vancouver now,

you can see the air pollution. It's there every day — a brown haze. If

you drive in any of these communities, you can see the traffic problems

and the eating up of the agricultural land reserve. But why isn't

anything happening?

Those are the kinds of questions that I would like to have the

opportunity to canvass with the Ministers of Environment, Municipal

Affairs, Recreation and Culture, and Transportation and Highways, to

find out

[ Page

13199 ]

what they had in mind in their throne speech when

they announced the Georgia basin initiative. Did they have the same

thing in mind as we had a year ago when we introduced our legislation,

or is this just an acknowledgment: "Oh yeah, there's a couple of

million people living in metropolitan areas; we'd better say something

nice about what we're going to do to preserve their quality of life,

because we need their votes too"?

I think it's very clear that we have to set an agenda for our

metropolitan areas and that the province has got to take a role in

setting that agenda. I don't think there's any doubt about the kinds of

initiatives we need to pursue, and I would point out to these various

ministers that some excellent work has already been done on what we

should be doing to address the problems in our metropolitan areas.

Last year Michael Seelig and Alan Artibise of the University of

British Columbia produced a book that was published in a number of

series in the Vancouver Sun , but they ultimately put it into a book called From Desolation to Hope .

This particular book deals in great detail with all kinds of issues of

the nature that I've been talking about here today, through

environment, transportation and land use issues — the whole range. But

it comes up with some ideas about what we might actually do. What they

conclude when they deal with government jurisdictions is that the

province just hasn't been a player. The title for the provincial

government in the

section under "Who's Doing What to Whom," which

relates to the government structure in this area, is "Provincial Benign

Neglect." It goes on and says that the province has the ability to do

something about these problems, but has no political will to do so, and

I think the evidence is abundantly clear.

When you look at the history of this government, when it comes to

the major issues of concern to the people in our metropolitan areas,

the government has failed to act. Look at housing. There's been no

comprehensive housing policy produced in this province since the 1970s.

In discussing housing in the estimate debates with the Minister of

Social Services and Housing — and I'm not going to stray into debating

that ministry, which has already been debated — I want to point out

that he directed many of the questions asked by my colleague, the

spokesperson for housing, to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. He said

that many of the issues he wanted to raise — good recommendations

coming out of the UBCM report on how to attack our housing problems in

this province — were really not problems he could address, that they

had to be addressed by his colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs,

Recreation and Culture because the Minister of Municipal Affairs is

responsible for zoning, land use issues and for what municipalities are

actually able to do.

This government, when it comes to those kinds of issues, is always very quick

to jump on municipalities and say: "They're not helping out; they're

not doing their share; look at those terrible municipal governments which are

failing to help us address these problems." But the municipalities can't

assist the province in dealing with some of these major issues, for two reasons.

First, they're not given the tools to do so — the kind of planning laws,

financial laws and assistance that they need to actually be able to address

these problems. Second, the province hasn't got a clue or any vision about

what they want to see happen in the urban areas. They just kind of shove it

off and say to the communities in the lower mainland and in greater Victoria

that are grappling with these very complicated, interrelated problems of the

environment, of housing, of land use and of transportation: "Well, you

guys sort it out and add it all up together. We'll hope that this will somehow

be a plan and that it will work when it all comes together in the end."

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Well, Mr. Speaker, it doesn't work. We have a responsibility at the

provincial level to make it work. We have a responsibility to look at

the Georgian basin scenario and our metropolitan communities, to look

into the future, and to help the citizens of those communities and

their duly elected local governments put together a vision of where we

want to be in the next 20 or 30 years and how we're going to deal with

questions like air pollution.

[4:30]

Let's look at some of the issues I would like to canvass under this

topic when we get into committee stage. We'll start with transportation

and air pollution, because they are very linked. We know that when it

comes to air quality in greater Vancouver — and it's soon going to be a

problem here in Victoria — one of the most significant contributors to

it are automobiles. So what do we have in the way of transportation

policy in our metropolitan areas that deals with these air quality

issues?

What we have right now, unfortunately, is the three most significant

parts of our transportation framework — public transit, highways and

ferries — totally separated from one another. They're not even in the

same ministry. You have one group that's busy deciding how many buses

we need or how we're going to move people around on transit, while

another group of engineers — probably a good, solid bunch, but their

job is to build highways — is trying to figure out where the roads

should go, without any discussion between the two groups that

recognizes that maybe if we put the transit links in the right places,

we could start to reduce the dependency on the roads.

My colleague from Point Grey is looking kind of confused. I realize

that this is probably one of those situations where the Social Credit

government is very confused. I know that's what you're trying to convey

to me through your facial expressions — that they simply don't

understand that these issues have to be linked together.

Ferries are similarly linked. If you look at my community here in

greater Victoria, and the way we handle the intercity transportation of

people between Seattle, Victoria and Vancouver, whether we rely more

and more on large car ferries, or look at higher-speed ferries that

contain only passengers or some combina-

[ Page 13200 ]

tion of cars and passengers.... Whatever we do in

that area is obviously going to have an impact on what we're going to

need in terms of the Pat Bay Highway. We can't do planning for the Pat

Bay Highway unless we know what the ferry links are going to be, where

the traffic's going to come in and in what form, and the frequency —

what load it will put onto that highway.

Equally linked to that is the whole question of public transit.

There are, fortunately, within Victoria a number of corridors available

to reserve for transit in the future. We could take action now if this

government had the vision, the foresight, and was linking these

transportation issues together. We could take the opportunity now to

reserve those to plan for the future. But that doesn't happen, because

our transportation policy is totally separated into three groups.

None of this is taken back to the larger question of the

environment, the larger question of the quality-of-life issues that

people in the community are really concerned about, such as air

quality. Nowhere in the planning for highways, transit or the ferry

service do we see any evidence of goals or a vision addressed to

improving air quality in the lower mainland or in the Victoria area. I

would like, in committee stage of this bill, to ask the Minister of

Transportation and Highways a number of questions about what he intends

to do in this very important area.

Let's go back to the issue of waste — particularly hazardous waste —

because that is certainly one of the most difficult issues facing all

communities in British Columbia today and particularly those in the

built-up urban areas.

The Minister of Environment said we all produce hazardous waste in

our communities, and there is no doubt about it. It's true. It's there,

and it's being produced on a regular basis. There are 400,000 tonnes of

hazardous waste in storage in British Columbia today and 100,000 tonnes

being produced every year.

Mr. Speaker, what has this government done to deal with this very

important issue? What have they done to deal with the whole question of

hazardous waste? Well, a year ago they created the Hazardous Waste

Management Corporation with a lot of fanfare, fancy new offices and the

whole bit. What do we have today — a year later? We have no more than

the offices and the staff. There has been no plan produced. There have

been no studies undertaken or results announced. There has been no

initiative in any communities we can point to that show this

corporation is in fact doing anything.

A year ago when it was announced, I suggested that the government

had another agenda in mind, other than dealing with the hazardous waste

in the province. I suggested that they were creating the corporation so

that the problem would be shunted off to the side and not be there in

the full view of the Minister of Environment, so that he would not have

to answer for the fact that the hazardous waste depots around the

province are all closed, full or otherwise out of service for some

reason. I was told at the time that I was being cynical and that I

should wait and see what this corporation was going to do, because I

was going to be surprised.

I would like to remind the members of this House that when that

corporation was created, it was created in a rather unusual way. It has

what is called a "sunset clause," which means it's only in existence

for five years. Last year when that was announced and we looked at the

bill, I suggested that having a sunset clause of five years was an

awfully short time-frame. But the minister said: "Trust us. We know

what we are doing. We're in charge here." Here we are one year later,

one-fifth of the lifetime of this organization has gone, and nothing is

happening in the area of hazardous waste. In fact, the Expo soils,

which one would have thought the Hazardous Waste Management Corporation

would be dealing with, are not even in the picture there.

Where's the Hazardous Waste Management Corporation when it comes to

dealing with this problem in Richmond? If the Hazardous Waste

Management Corporation had been doing some of the things that we asked

about last year — which I was hoping to get an update on this year —

which is to prepare a provincial strategy in consultation with the

citizens of this province.... Perhaps if there had been a strategy

prepared, and if people had been consulted before the decision was made

to move the soils from the Expo lands to Richmond, the Minister of

Environment wouldn't be having such difficulties today over this issue.

Mr. Speaker, where is the Hazardous Waste Management Corporation? We

don't know what it's doing or what it's up to.

Besides hazardous waste, the other major problem with waste that the

metropolitan areas have is solid waste. It's a continuing problem both

in Victoria and Vancouver. We have been waiting again for this Ministry

of Environment to come out with a strategy that will assist the

communities in the Victoria and Vancouver areas to deal with the very

serious problems that they have with solid waste.

A week ago the former Minister of Environment — that's two back now;

it's hard to keep track of the six ministers, but one of the former

Ministers of Environment — stood up and said that he wanted to announce

the failure of one of his government's plans. He was talking about

dealing with solid waste in the Vancouver region — the GVRD. He pointed

to the fact that the GVRD had not moved into the waste recovery program

that his government had been promoting.

Mr. Speaker, what happened was that the people in that community had

not been consulted before the government announced its solution. People

in greater Vancouver and Victoria are not looking for quick fixes to

their garbage problems; they're looking for a well-thought-out strategy

that will start focusing on the first two of the three Rs — the reduce

and reuse categories — and then move on to recycling, with waste

recovery being one of the last on the list. But we don't see that

approach coming from this government, and we have not had a chance to

ask the government what, in fact, it is doing on these matters.

Let's move on to water quality. A few minutes ago I heard members on

the other side say: "Let's talk about sewage." Mr. Speaker, let's talk

about sewage in this community, because members on the other side always

[ Page

13201 ]

want to get up and start harping about the sewage

problem in greater Victoria. Victorians know there is a problem with