1987 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, JUNE 25, 1987

Morning Sitting

[ Page

2019 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Pension (Teachers) Amendment Act, 1987 (Bill 24). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. Veitch) –– 2019

Mr. Jones

Third reading

School Support (Independent) Amendment Act, 1987 (Bill 33). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. Brummet) –– 2020

Mr. Jones

Mr. Rose

Mr. Blencoe

Third reading

Legislative Assembly Board of Internal Economy Act (Bill 35). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. Strachan) –– 2025

Mr. Rose

Mr. S.D. Smith

Third reading

Vital Statistics Amendment Act, 1987 (Bill 27). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr.

Dueck) –– 2026

Mr. Cashore

Hon. B.R. Smith

Hon. Mr. Strachan

Third reading

Accountants (Chartered) Amendment Act, 1987 (Bill 15). Committee stage.

(Hon. B.R. Smith) –– 2028

Mr. G. Hanson

Third reading

Waste Management Amendment Act, 1987 (Bill 38). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Strachan –– 2029

Mr. G. Hanson –– 2029

Appendix –– 2030

The House met at 10:06 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, in the precincts today

visiting us from Prince George and representing the Central Interior

Logging Association are: Roland St. Amand, Lawrence Couiyk, Burke

Purdon and Frank Drougel. Would the House please welcome these four

constituents.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I call committee on Bill 24, Mr. Speaker

PENSION (TEACHERS) AMENDMENT ACT, 1987

The House in committee on Bill 24; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I would like to introduce this extremely

good-looking, debonair gentleman sitting beside me: this is the

superannuation commissioner for the province, Mr. John Cook.

section 1.

MR. JONES: I have a question for the Provincial Secretary.

I'm not exactly sure where to ask it so I thought I'd try on

section 1

and see if it was appropriate. I'm sure it's a question that the

Provincial Secretary has an answer for — a technical point. Because of

the changes to

definitions in Bill 20, in particular the definition of

"teacher" being narrowed so that now principals and vice-principals are

excluded from that section, I'm sure that those members of the teaching

profession still want to carry on under the superannuation branch.

There is some legislative mechanism to do this but I don't see it here.

I'm sure the Provincial Secretary has an answer for that.

HON. MR. VEITCH: To the hon. member for Burnaby North, yes,

that's covered in consequential amendments, hon. member, which will be

coming before the House. We've taken that into consideration. It's not

covered here but it is covered.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

section 3.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing

in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]. I'll speak briefly to

the amendment.

On the amendment.

HON. MR. VEITCH: The amendment will declare that a teacher is ineligible

to receive a pension calculated on the 55-and-out option if, prior to April 1,

1987, they'd already agreed with the school district to resign at the end

of the school year as a result of receiving a cash initiative.

If the teacher elects to rescind the cash initiative agreement, then

the teacher is eligible to retire on the 55-and-out option, as they

would be under the legislation.

Amendment approved.

section 3 as amended.

MR. JONES: I don't have a copy of the amendment, Mr. Chairman.

Interjection.

MR. JONES: Okay, the amendment has passed. I just wondered if

the Provincial Secretary could clarify that just a little bit, and I

would like to comment on this

section a bit more.

HON. MR. VEITCH: If an agreement had been reached between a

teacher and a school board prior to April 1, 1987 — if they'd already

agreed with the school board to resign and had received some sort of

initiative for it — then the 55-and-out option would not apply.

However, if the teacher elects to rescind the cash initiative, then

they could follow through under this section.

MR. JONES: Another small question, and maybe this would be

more appropriate to the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet). In

the previous act, as I understand it, there has been a small change

under

section 3 (2.2) (b). Maybe I'm not correct that this is a change,

but I see the words,"or an official trustee," and I wonder if that has

been a change, and if either the Provincial Secretary or the Minister

of Education can clarify why that has been put in.

HON. MR. VEITCH: No, I believe that that's always been provided for. The two descriptions have always been in the act, hon. member.

Section 3 as amended approved.

Sections 4 to 7 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. VEITCH: 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 24, Pension (Teachers) Amendment Act, 1987, reported complete with amendment.

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

HON. MR. VEITCH: By leave now.

Leave granted.

Bill 24, Pension (Teachers) Amendment Act, 1987, read a third time and passed.

[ Page 2020 ]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Committee on Bill 33, Mr. Speaker.

SCHOOL SUPPORT (INDEPENDENT)

AMENDMENT ACT, 1987

The House in committee on Bill 33; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

MR. JONES: A small question of the minister, Mr. Chairman. The existing act, I understand, in this

new section, will be....

Are we on 2 or 1?

MR. CHAIRMAN: We're on 2, hon. member.

[10:15]

MR. JONES: On 2 already? I missed my question on 1.

On 2, Mr. Chairman, I would like to reiterate some of the concerns

that I expressed yesterday, particularly as they relate to this

section. There was a wide latitude in discussion yesterday, and I think

we got off the major thrust of this particular bill: that is, to reduce

the time of a waiting-period in order to establish an independent

school. I see that as a goal on the part of the government, of

proliferation of the formation of independent schools in this province.

That is unnecessary, and it's tipping the balance, as we've seen at

other times in this session. In the sense that the independent school

movement is growing at a relatively healthy rate, the moves taken by

this government are unnecessary in terms of encouraging the development

of that sector of our school system.

We have objections to this particular

section on the basis that it's

unnecessary. The independent schools are increasing in number in this

province at a healthy rate. It's unnecessary because it's promoting the

proliferation of these schools, and I think it can be argued that it's

of detriment to the public school system.

I asked the minister yesterday and didn't get a response. Two

provinces were quoted as precedents for this kind of move: Quebec,

which I think is quite a different situation, has no waiting-period;

and Alberta has a one-year waiting period, as is being proposed here.

The minister, to my recollection, did not respond to that, because I

suggested that there are provinces other than those two and this one in

Canada, and there was no report on the waiting-periods in those three.

So I assume that the waiting-periods in those other provinces did not

support the minister's contention that the waiting-period should be

reduced. The waiting-period has been reduced once already in the last

ten years. It went from five years in 1977 to three years. The

three-year waiting-period is not an unreasonable one to create

something that I think is vitally important to our province and is

becoming part of the school system.

I don't think we want schools formed in this province that do not

prove themselves to be the kind of operations we can be proud of as

part of the school system that reflects the beliefs we have in terms of

education in British Columbia.

I suggested yesterday that the reason for this move on the part of

the government to proliferate the number of independent schools in this

province was the bottom-line mentality that the proliferation is going

to save the government $81 million in this school year, and if they are

proliferated, more moneys in future.

Because the argument in debate yesterday got so freewheeling, I

think we really got off the point. I did too. I want to clarify that

this member and members on this side have concerns about a small number

of independent schools in this province, and we don't want to see those

proliferated by this section. Members on this side categorized that

small number as elitist schools, and I don't think those dozen schools

in this province would even object to that label.

But I think the debate got free-wheeling, and the press clearly did

not pick up on the small group of schools that we were talking about.

In talking to reporters afterwards, they clearly do not have a picture

of the tremendous diversity of independent schools in this province. So

we raised concerns about schools that don't need the money, that are

rolling in money, that already charge $4,500 to $5,000 in fees, and the

government is carrying coals to Newcastle by continuing to fund them.

Those are the schools we are talking about, not the broad range of

independent schools, the vast majority of which do not operate at that

level, at twice the operational cost of the public school system. It is

that small group of schools that we think the government should take a

look at.

This

section of the bill is going to increase proliferation of the

schools in general and those kinds of schools in particular. We're

opposed to that. The government has been funding independent schools in

this province for ten years; that's there, that's the status quo that

exists. We challenge the government to stop funding that small number

of schools that clearly don't need the money, and are in fact proud of

the fact that the vast majority of students in those schools are there

because they want to be different on economic grounds or on class

grounds.

It is this section, which is, I think, probably the major

section of

the bill, that we take objection to. I think there is debate on the

other sections, but this is primarily the concern that we have, I don't

think it got clarified yesterday, so I did want to take the opportunity

section 2 to clarify the concerns of this side in terms of

proliferation of independent schools in this province. I think reducing

again the waiting time to establish these schools is going to result in

proliferation. That's already happening without this change in

legislation. We cannot support

section 2, Mr. Chairman.

MR. ROSE: Before we leave this clause, I'd just like to

support what my hon. friend, the spokesperson on education, has just

said. I felt that I made it quite clear on behalf of our party

yesterday — but apparently it was misinterpreted either deliberately or

because it didn't come out that way or because I used pretty strong and

pejorative words sometimes — that we felt the independent school

movement answered a real need and did give people a choice to pass on

their values.

If any of you have any doubt about whether or not I said that, I

think you should look at the Blues, and I would advise the press to do

the same. We are concerned, though, as my friend has already said,

about those people who are going to schools that are lavishly funded in

terms of what the costs are and what the fees are, and we question very

seriously, if people can afford to do that, whether they need public

funds to operate that way.

[ Page 2021 ]

There is a counterargument to that one and I'm well aware of it, and

that is that they are entitled to the public's money as much as anyone

else regardless of income. I don't buy that argument. I think certain

schools such as exist in the Fraser Valley and Richmond and elsewhere

which are really denominational schools are there because of the

parents' right in a free society to pass their values on to their

children. I don't quarrel with that at all, nor does my party.

I want to make that very clear, because I think at some of the later

stages of debate it came across as if it was an attack on the

independent schools, period, as far as we're concerned. We are

concerned that if these schools proliferate at the public schools'

expense, then we have to flag that. That's the point we're trying to

make on this whole thing, not that we don't feel that independent

schools have a right to exist. They do have a right to exist; they're

part of our traditions, and we don't quarrel with that at all.

MR. BLENCOE: I just want to get into this discussion this

morning because unfortunately yesterday I missed the interesting debate

that was on this floor. I want to certainly voice my views and the

changing views, to some degree, of the New Democratic Party.

This issue of independent schools is one that has been with us for a

long time. Like any organization, Mr. Chairman, institutions and

parties look at the times and the issues and at such education

approaches.

I think the critical issue for us, and certainly for me, is that

what we have to do is distinguish or differentiate between types of

independent schools, and particularly take a look at their fee

structures. That's critical. There are, clearly, different types of

independent school.

MR. RABBITT: Good point.

MR. BLENCOE: Right? I know in my riding there are a number of

independent schools that are supported by certain communities, and I

refer to the Catholic public board system in my riding which has six or

seven schools. Thousands of children are educated in that system here

in greater Victoria. The fees for those institutions and those schools

are extremely reasonable, are very reasonable.

Therefore I think that when you're making policy you have to

distinguish that you don't give public funds on the same basis to those

institutions or those schools that charge $5,000 to $6,000 a year

compared to the Catholic system, for example, that only charges maybe

$1,000 a year. The community itself supports those schools through a

collective approach that is shared by everybody, ensuring that those

schools are supported and flourish, but the fees are reasonable and

open to everybody, whether Catholic or non-Catholic. Therefore I think

your policies must differentiate between the types of school.

In my riding, for example, we have a number of Montessori schools

which are exciting, dynamic, do all sorts of interesting things and

have, I think, a novel approach to education. I think we should

differentiate between those types of schools and our independent policy.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members. The second member for Victoria has the floor.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, let me share with this House the

work of our education subcommittee and the policy recommendations it

has made. The recommendation is that we should indeed differentiate

between various types of independent schools, and that a formula should

be in place for public funding based upon the fees charged. If the fees

are at a certain level, then funding would kick in, but if those fees —

as in certain schools in my riding; some are and some are not — are

extremely high and therefore only select groups of individuals based on

economic positions and their financial capability can afford to send

their children there, then those schools would receive minimal or no

public dollars. But those schools, like the Catholic system I referred

to, would receive some support because their fees are low and the

formula would kick in to make it fair. That's what our education

subcommittee has been looking at. I think it's a reasonable policy for

the eighties, and I think we should make it quite clear, given some of

the discussions and reporting yesterday, that that's where we're going.

It seems to me that the flaw in your policies, in terms of this

issue, is that you have a universal funding formula that applies public

dollars to all independent schools, whether they're rich independent

schools charging exorbitant fees, or whether they are, for instance,

the Catholic public board system supported by the members, collectively

keeping the fees down. Those are critical issues and we should

differentiate, and I think your policy should reflect some of the

things I've been talking about.

[10:30]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, we have to go to the basic

principle for the funding. The purpose of any school that gets any

public funding in British Columbia is to provide education according to

the British Columbia curriculum. It must be evaluated to make sure —

the assessment program and that sort of thing. These schools, whatever

fees they charge, are providing that British Columbia curriculum to

taxpayers' children before they get funded. Secondly, they must be

registered under the Society Act. Thirdly, they must be non-profit. So

whatever extra fees parents voluntarily pay — and parents have no

obligation to send their children there — is for a higher level of

service, or a specialized service that they want to pay for. Free,

public, quality education is available in British Columbia to anyone

who wants it.

The argument I hear from the other side seems strange to me. If you

choose to educate your children in an independent school, and you are a

taxpayer as well, somehow the opposition would say that since the

government feels that 35 percent of the cost.... We're willing to pay

it because these students are getting an equivalent education. That's

what we're paying for, the 35 percent, and we say the rest of the money

is your choice and you must contribute. It would seem that some of you

are saying that if we're willing to pay the 35 percent for the

equivalent education that we're paying 100 percent for in the public

school system, we should pass a rule to say no one may voluntarily

contribute any more money for the education of their children than what

the act requires. That's what you're saying, by interpolation, are you

not? Because if they're getting the education, according to the B.C.

curriculum, and if they charge higher fees — not obligatory but

voluntarily paid — we should then withdraw the funding for the

education that they're getting. That's what I don't understand.

[ Page 2022 ]

The other thing is that the member for Burnaby North (Mr. Jones)

seemed to be quite concerned about the proliferation. What I had said

yesterday was that there was no evidence from other parts of Canada

that funding in one year, or a shorter waiting-period, creates a

proliferation of these schools, because again they must be non-profit

operations and they must be incorporated under the Society Act.

What has happened under the three-year waiting-period, and with the

payments schedule, is that with schools providing the B.C. curriculum

education to students, those parents had to pay 100 percent of the cost

virtually into the fourth year, because it was only after the end of

the year that they got some of the money in August. So they had to

operate three full years before they ever got any money. Right now they

will be getting the money in the second year.

We looked at that. Can you in one year of operation establish

whether or not they are running a proper operation? It was felt that

yes, it can be established. If there is any doubt, then we don't have

to provide the funding in the second year. If, for instance, the

inspector of independent schools says,"I am not satisfied that they are

providing a proper education," then they are not a qualifying school.

So they must meet those standards that are set in order to get that.

I am trying to determine how the member for Coquitlam Moody (Mr.

Rose) keeps saying that these schools are being funded at the expense

of the public school system. In no way are they being funded at the

expense of the public school system, because for every student that is

there the cost goes down from a dollar to thirty-five cents to the

public system. So they are not at the expense of the public school

system; they are basically at the expense of the parents who choose to

pay more.

MR. BLENCOE: The minister really misses the point that I

think is being made this morning. We obviously have no trouble in a

democratic society if parents wish to contribute a lot of money for a

certain specific school out of their own pockets. That's fine. So be

it. It is their democratic right to choose that school and pay $5,000

or $6,000 fees, or whatever they are. Some are even higher.

But it seems to me, Mr. Minister, that there is a difference. Let me

use some examples. St. Michael's University School here in Victoria,

with fees of $5,000, $6,000, $7,000 a year, is financially capable and

wealthy enough to buy a private racquet club that went bankrupt. It is

very well off. It goes into the social recreation business, and on the

side those kids at that school get to use that facility. That school is

very well off and buys a racquet club, a multi-million dollar facility.

Then down the road we have a parochial Catholic school that

struggles to survive. It can hardly keep the gymnasium — never mind a

racquet club — open and have enough facilities for those kids. But that

community, in my estimation, based on a formula.... We should take a

look at a policy that recognizes that St. Michael's University School,

which is far better off than this Catholic parochial school which is

struggling.... Should there not be some difference is terms of public

funding?

I think the public wants fairness within the system. It wants

equality within the system. What you have right now is racquet club St.

Michael's University School receiving substantial public dollars, an

institution that is very rich,

whereas the same kind of formula applies

to the small, parochial Catholic school with a Catholic public school

board struggling for funds and low fees. There's got to be some

difference in the system.

That's the point I'm making. Mr. Minister. I have no disagreement:

if a parent wishes to choose to pay more money for their schooling, so

be it. But your policy should recognize that public dollars should flow

to institutions whereby that institution allows greater participation

by those who don't necessarily have the financial capability to afford

the $5,000- or $6,000-a-year school.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I think I do need to respond to that

because while the member is saying one thing, he seems to be talking

about another. Public funds can only be used for the operating expenses

of the school. They cannot be used for capital expansion.

I guess the member is saying that I should concern myself, and say

that if we're paying a third of what it costs to educate the students

because they are being educated in the B.C. curriculum.... As Minister

of Education, I should step out there and say: "You and your parents,

or your group, may not do anything else financially." Now if I take

your argument, would you say...? I'm trying to find an analogy that

might get through to that member. We are paying from public funds 35

percent of what it costs to educate a B.C. student according to the

British Columbia curriculum.

Let's pose this analogy: you're saying that we should be paying,

say, so much in health for a visit to a doctor for an appendix

operation. However, what the Minister of Health should do is go out

there and find out if the doctor is rich; then he should get a lot less

in fees than if he happened to be just starting out. Is that not the

point you're making, that if the doctor happens to be well off, the

fees should be according to that? I guess, from a socialist point of

view, that seems to be it: that if people want to do something more for

themselves or for their students, they should not have the right to do

so without losing their funding. We are paying operating expenses for

the education of those students, and I think that we should not go

beyond that in trying to control what moneys people are willing to pay

voluntarily.

Sections 2 to 7 inclusive approved.

section 8.

MR. JONES: I have a couple of comments and questions for the

minister on

section 8. This

section deals with accreditation, a new

program of certifying certain schools in the province that are not

receiving funding but want to advertise abroad, want the stamp of

government approval. It's hard to argue against that concept, except in

the sense of our objections to this section, which are about

proliferation. Really, there's that alone, in terms of this bill.

Let me ask a couple of questions of the minister. First of all,

certain standards are going to be looked at in terms of these schools.

I'd like to ask the minister: is there going to be any sort of relative

standards, any sort of comparison to the public school system or other

funded parts of the independent school system? Is this going to be

standards in isolation that are dealt with? Is anybody ever going to

see the criteria on which these schools are judged, to have the stamp

of the province of British Columbia on them so that they can advertise

abroad? I would like to know if there is going to be any sort of

freedom of information, in terms of how the independent schools

division looks at these things.

[ Page

2023 ]

The second question to the minister.... I don't see much point, if

the minister is not listening. I'd like to ask a series of questions

and then sit down and have the minister answer. Or would it be more

convenient to do them seriatim?

Interjection.

MR. JONES: I was asking a question with respect to standards.

I would like the minister to answer, but I was going to ask a series of

three or four questions and sit down and have the minister answer. Or

would you like to deal with them one at a time?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: One at a time, but I couldn't hear. I missed the question.

MR. JONES: I haven't asked the second question yet, because you were conferring with your adviser.

[10:45]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please ask the series, hon. member.

MR. JONES: The second question to the minister would be with

respect to schools that are in the planning stage. It's my

understanding that schools in the planning stage can receive interim

accreditation so that they too can advertise abroad. A school that's a

school on paper — that hasn't even been established yet — is going to

be able to go abroad and advertise, with the approval of the people of

British Columbia, on behalf of the government, and say to wealthy

Pacific Rim individuals from Japan or Hong Kong: "This is a school that

we've studied, inspected and accredited. We think it is a good thing

that you spend up to $10,000 per year to send your child here. We

realize that you have a shortage of educational facilities in your

country. We have them in abundance and we think you should come here."

It's in the planning stage that these schools can advertise abroad.

I have a concern, Mr. Chairman, because what would be the motive for

doing that? I can't see any motive other than trying to privatize

education in this province. If we as a province are advertising schools

that aren't even set up yet, the only motive could be proliferation and

privatization.

I would like to ask another question to the minister. It's also my

understanding that schools with programs such as international

baccalaureate or language immersion are going to be eligible for

accreditation. Is the minister aware if there are any international

baccalaureate schools or language immersion schools, either funded or

unfunded, in the independent system? If there are not, then again I go

back to the motives for this kind of thing. Why would we be

indicating.... ? It's not specifically spelled out in this

section of

the legislation, but my understanding is that this is the intention of

the government. What other motive could the minister and the government

have for suggesting that international baccalaureate and

French-language immersion schools be eligible for accreditation, unless

the goal is to proliferate these kinds of situations which can attract

individuals to pay very high fees to private entrepreneurs to make

profits out of education and to remove students from the public or

private school system under this accreditation plan?

The minister said yesterday, in response to my suggestion of how we might deal

with these visa schools in particular, that there is a market there; it's

a valuable service; it's good for British Columbia; it's good for Pacific

Rim countries if these schools mix and mingle in our public school system. The

minister's response to that was encouraging in the sense that he pointed

out, quite correctly, that a couple of school districts are doing that already.

I believe West Vancouver is one of them; I'm not sure of the other one.

The minister responded to me with not a bad suggestion: "We would encourage

that. In fact, it's done in a few schools. We certainly say to these schools:

'If you have the space, please do so.' It is possible for them to do

that now, and I would encourage any of them to do that for a fee."

I would like to ask the minister what steps he has taken to

encourage school districts in this province to do that. He points out

that there are immigration problems; what steps has he taken to assist

school districts in overcoming some of these immigration problems. The

encouragement is not to the public school system. In fact, in this case

it's not even to the independent school system; it's to the unfunded

independent school system. Again, the bottom-line mentality of the

government is that these schools don't cost the government anything. We

have a program where the public school system, which drastically needs

the money, is really not encouraged to do these things. I'm not aware

of any encouragement on the part of the minister to attract these

foreign students who are well able to pay for the educational resources

we have in this province. There's no encouragement there, but I see

encouragement in this legislation for private entrepreneurial schools

to do that.

There are four questions to the minister that I would very much appreciate a response to.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, I'll try to answer the questions as best I can.

First of all, I think we have to remember that this is a voluntary

accreditation process, so any comparison to the funded independent

schools or the public schools is really invalid. There have been some

groups indicating they are operating for profit that say: "We have a

service to provide, and for a certain fee we'll provide that service."

Make no bones about it, it's a business, and they're doing the

education as a business. So some of these exist, and we have no right,

nor intention, to say: "You may not do that."

What some of the schools requested is that they wanted to be

distinguished from schools that do not do a proper job. They say: "How

can we determine this?" Well, we certainly weren't going to spend any

money on them; we weren't going to put any of our staff on that. The

answer is, as in some other jurisdictions, voluntary accreditation.

Voluntary accreditation means you want to be able to say: "We offer the

B.C. curriculum; we are subject to the British Columbia assessment

program and we'd be measured by that, and we will give some assurance

that the service will be rendered as advertised." That can be

established through a process.

Now the legislation itself says: "...the authority complies with the

prescribed bonding requirements." In other words, they've got to have

some bonding, even if they're interim. They also have to satisfy the

inspector of independent schools that the educational standards as

established by the minister, and any other requirements, are met. As I

tried to indicate yesterday, there will be a checklist to say: "What

are you doing? How are you doing it? How are you going to evaluate it?

How are you going to assure people that if you pass somebody out of

grade 11 into grade 12 it in effect is comparable to any other system?"

That, of course, is by examination and assessment. That, I think, looks

after the

[ Page 2024 ]

interim accreditation, because before they get the

interim accreditation, they have to do the bonding and they have to

give their program outline and what they're going to do, and times

allotted, and those things that are standard in any school system.

They have to pay for that service, or pay for that accreditation

process and the inspection. They pay the fee, but we pick the people

who do it. They can't just go out and find somebody else who gives them

a rubber stamp. In other words, they have to come through the inspector

of independent schools, and if they want an accreditation process,

we'll have to.... Most likely a retired superintendent or someone who

is knowledgeable and who can do that job and who can do it to our

satisfaction.... In other words, it must satisfy the inspector of

schools. And the year after they get their interim accreditation there

must be a follow-up process to see if they are actually living up to

it, and then the inspector can cancel accreditation if they can't, and

it is illegal for them to continue advertising their accreditation if

they don't meet the requirements.

In answer to the question about schools with international

baccalaureate and language schools, we know of none — funded or

unfunded — that exist in the province. I guess about the closest thing

is several funded independent schools that offer French immersion, but

certainly we don't know of any of that.

As far as the question about what we have done to encourage school

districts to enroll students, we did send out a bulletin — at least one

that I know of, perhaps others — to say to school districts that it is

quite acceptable to encourage visa students to come into your school

for the fee. What you should realize, of course, is that since they

don't pay any taxes in British Columbia, you should charge the fee or

better — and some of them are doing that. So we have made it clear to

them that it's quite possible, as I indicated yesterday in second

reading, that the problem is not in getting the students accepted into

this school, or not that it can't be done; it's the fact that you have

to have people who want to, and they have to meet the visa immigration

requirements. That is the only concern.

So I think what this will do is give some assurance to people who do

pay these higher fees to a profit school that they will be getting the

education that is being advertised. Also it will avoid the reflection

on the province or on our educational system, when one of these, say,

happens to break down, by trying to prevent that. Our credibility is in

question, and with our Pacific Rim partners we certainly don't want

them to have a bad experience and go to Ontario. If they're going to

come to Canada, if they're going to pay the fees and come to British

Columbia, then we want them to be satisfied with the service. Our

credibility is important — the assurance to those people that they are

getting what is being advertised.

I want to make it clear that we're not imposing this on any school

that is trying to offer an education, but by making known to all

consuls and all international offices where the accreditation is

allowed and where the accreditation is withdrawn — that will be

immediately — people can check with their consuls or their departments

to see if it's an accredited school or not, so they can make their

choice accordingly.

MR. JONES: The minister emphasizes that this accreditation is a voluntary

process. Of course it's a voluntary process. These schools are not governed

by the Ministry of Education, because they're not funded. But if I'm

a private entrepreneur and want to achieve the goal of large profits, and I

have a vehicle to do that by getting the stamp of the province of British Columbia,

I'm going to make damned sure I'm going to do that.

As members of this Legislature, we're given certain privileges. One

of those privileges is that on our letterhead we're allowed to put the

crest of this province. That's the seal of approval that, as a member,

we've gone through certain stages, we've passed certain tests and we've

been through certain rigours. To do that same kind of thing.... In

England, large sums are paid to have "By appointment to Her Majesty"

attached to certain companies. With that crest on my letterhead, I

cannot use that in any particular way for my own profit motive. In

England, I believe large sums are paid to the Crown in order to achieve

that seal of approval. So who wouldn't want that voluntary stamp? And

if that voluntary stamp in given to on-paper schools, schools that are

not yet even established, whether they're bonded or not, and that have

not proven themselves in any particular way in terms of an operational

sense, to me that cheapens that crest, that stamp of approval.

[11:00]

Again, the only reason we can be doing that is to proliferate these

schools to create large profits for private entrepreneurs, and I know

the minister will take exception when I say it's at the expense of the

public school system. I don't think his encouragement — of suggesting

to school districts that this is a way of achieving educational ends

for Pacific Rim students and having them mix and mingle with our

culture, at the same time assisting with their economic woes, their

underfunding; a circular suggesting that — is the same kind of

encouragement as we see in a bill before the Legislature. It's not

receiving the time or attention that even on-paper schools are getting.

I'd like to reiterate the first question. We're still sending

messages. You know, I think if I was a wealthy Japanese who had a child

who was having difficulty getting into an educational situation, and I

decided to send my child abroad — to British Columbia, hopefully, as

the minister indicated, and I agree — and that school had the stamp of

the province of British Columbia on it that said this was a good

school, I'd probably assume it was good relative to something; good, I

would hope, relative to the public school system. There is no such

indication. The minister's requirements for bonding and that kind of

thing have nothing to do with the kind of standards that I think a

family in Japan or Hong Kong is really expecting when they're spending

thousands and thousands of dollars to send their children overseas to

British Columbia to get an education.

I think they would be far better served in the public school system

of this province. They would be, I think, meeting the expectations of

those foreign — actually — investors in this country because they will

be sending dollars to assist the economy of this province when they

send their children to be educated here. We'd be sending the proper

message if we had those students come into the public school system.

The profits that are being generated there could be shared by the

people of this province and not particular individual entrepreneurs.

I think if there are no international baccalaureate programs that

are currently in existence — and I meant at the beginning of discussion

on this bill to thank the minister for

[ Page

2025 ]

the information that he had provided me prior to

this discussion.... I think it's very important and very symbolic of

the kind of relationship that should exist between government and

opposition, I see in this information that it is encouraging

international baccalaureate programs. Special purpose schools such as

those offering international baccalaureate programs may also be

eligible for accreditation. Well, there is not one single such school,

so we're encouraging these things. We're encouraging the proliferation

of these schools, and that's the kind of thing.... It's one thing to

accept the status quo, but it's another thing to be encouraging the

development of these kinds of schools which I do not think are

necessarily in the best interests of the province.

Perhaps it is true that international baccalaureate programs may

serve foreign students as well as the kinds of visa schools that are

operating now, but because there is none in existence, I think it's

important to register our concern about this kind of thing. Again I

encourage the minister, if he has sent out circulars in the past to

encourage the public school system to attract foreign students in this

way that can benefit everybody, I would encourage him to do more in

this direction to encourage the public school system.

Members opposite have said competition is good. Let's not just

encourage the entrepreneurial sector to attract these students. Let's

make a real effort in encouraging the public school system to also get

involved and assist them in overcoming the immigration problems that

are barriers to attracting these students.

Sections 8 to 10 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Bill 33, School Support (Independent) Amendment Act, 1987, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Committee on Bill 35, Mr. Speaker.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

BOARD OF INTERNAL ECONOMY ACT

The House in committee on Bill 35; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Sections 1 to 7 inclusive approved.

section 8.

MR. ROSE: I just want to comment on

section 8, because it was

something I was going to talk about yesterday and didn't.

Section 8 is

quite important because of the dissolution of parliament, and lots of

people are disillusioned by parliaments.

Interjections.

MR. ROSE: I'm sorry. I won't do that any more.

What has happened in the past is that parliament has functioned

without a Speaker upon dissolution. This now bridges that gap and

allows for this incumbent Speaker, or his designate, to look after the

administrative responsibilities of the House during that period, which,

in the past, was an area that was almost a vacuum. I understand that

the Clerk was the 2-I-C and remains that, but I think it's very

important that we have this continuity. What we were forced to do this

time, until Mr. Speaker was elected by this House, was have a

Speaker-designate. That worked out in a kind of way. This clause 8,

which calls for the continuation and the functioning of the incumbent

until a new Speaker is elected, is a good thing. In my comments

yesterday I didn't cover that point, so that's why I wanted to do so

today.

section 9.

MR. S.D. SMITH: I note that

section 9 appears to give primacy

to this board and minutes of the board in relation to the Financial

Administration Act, which is the public's assurance of access to

financial information of boards and commissions in British Columbia.

I'm wondering if it could be explained to me a little more clearly

what specific measures there are in this bill generally to ensure that

the public will have an opportunity to have access to information

relating to financial matters and matters of the board which may be

recorded by a minute of the board?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I thank the member for his question. First

of all, the concept and the principle in this

section is to clearly set

aside the Legislative Assembly and its members and the operation of its

precincts from the Financial Administration Act and to indicate that we

are an independent body and can internally run our own affairs. That's

the principle of the bill.

However, the member will note that at any time any Member of the

Legislative Assembly may examine the minutes and the procedures of the

Board of Internal Economy, and therefore the public, through their

MLAs, do have access to this board. Also, a previous section, Mr.

Member and Mr. Chairman, identifies that the Board of Internal Economy

may report through the Legislative Assembly. That is permissive.

MR. S.D. SMITH: I appreciate that there is provision that

members of this assembly have access to that information. My concern is

simply that it is the public's money that will be spent by this board,

and I want to be confident that the public will have the capacity to

directly be provided with information to ensure that its money is

indeed being well spent and spent with some sense of thrift.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Chairman, that was a concern of the board as

well. All the members designated as members of the board, once this

passes, had previous meetings to discuss all these things, and we were

concerned about accountability. However, as the government House Leader

has already stated, the idea of independence from the government was a

very large step, and this was really proclaimed — and not in the sense

of royal proclamation — in this bill. We felt that it was important to

have increased the arm's-length distance between the government and the

Legislature. That was the

[ Page 2026 ]

point of my hon. friend's reply to you, relative to

the Financial Administration Act. This is not another arm of

government. This is the Legislature, and it has independence from the

Crown — and that was important.

But if you remove the restraints of the Financial Administration

Act, what do you substitute in their place? That is your concern, and I

think it is a worthy one. It was concern to us as well as to how to do

that. What we decided — and it's in the legislation — is that there

will be reports by the board from time to time to the Legislature. The

board is also subject to audit by the auditor-general and to

investigation by the ombudsman. We felt that that was a reasonable kind

of accountability.

MR. S.D. SMITH: I appreciate all of those positions. I

applaud the notion of separating the operation of this House, this

institution of the people, from that of the executive. My concern is

very simply this: I see no way in which a citizen of the province can

initiate that opportunity for accountability. As I understand the act,

the only one who can initiate that is a member of the board, or indeed

a member of this House. I would caution the board that would be created

by this act that there ought to be — if there aren't — some very early

provisions in the act to ensure that the public can indeed have access

to that information, and to assure that kind of accountability. Because

it isn't there.

[11:15]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The member errs, with the greatest respect. Vote 1 can be adjudicated and investigated by the Public Accounts Committee.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Because we got a little bit out of sync, hon. members, I'm going to call sections 7, 8 and 9 again. Shall they pass?

Sections 7 to 9 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 35, Legislative Assembly Board of Internal Economy Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 27.

VITAL STATISTICS AMENDMENT ACT, 1987

Sections 1 to 6 inclusive approved.

section 7.

MR. CASHORE: I haven't had an opportunity to go over this as thoroughly

as I would like. I've just had some notes handed to me, and I haven't

even had time to read them. But with regard to registration of adoption, 9 (2),

the last three lines read: ".... shall delete the original birth registration

from the registration files and substitute a birth registration in accordance

with the facts contained in the order of adoption." Then I go on a bit

further. Under 9 (3) we read: ".... on production of evidence satisfactory

to him of the identity of the person, shall, if there is in his office a registration

of the birth of that person, register the adoption in the manner referred to

in subsection (1) and substitute...." — the word I'm emphasizing

is substitute — "...the birth registration in the manner referred to in

subsection (2)."

I'm very concerned about this, and I wish I had another hour to

spend on it so that I could tell you exactly why. The part about which

I really have a sense of inner dread is this: is this not the

falsification of documents? This legislation is coming forward in a

context, and the context is that the adoption laws were written in the

1920s relating to those times. Now we're experiencing times when it's

becoming abundantly clear that very many people in our society who have

been adopted and those unborn who are yet to be adopted are people who

have a natural, legitimate and responsible curiosity. It's not only

curiosity; it goes beyond that. It's a need to know information about

themselves and about their roots.

I know that we'll be getting into this issue later when we get into

the Adoption Amendment Act, but I would like this minister.... I am

concerned that we don't have deputies present at this time, because I

know that this is such a vast field that I cannot expect the minister

to have all the information at this fingertips with regard to his

particular concern.

Is this not falsification? What is the benefit going to be, and how

do we resolve the very legitimate concern for the rights of a person

who cannot defend himself or herself — documents about that person

being altered when the adoption process is taking place?

HON. MR. DUECK: The intent, of course, is to keep this

confidential at the time of adoption. The records will show the adopted

parents as the parents of that child. Later, when that individual

wishes, through the adoption agency or through the ministry, when the

new passive adoption laws have been passed, this does not preclude that

if the child and the parent agree, they may then get together.

The procedure in registering the adoption has been amended to

provide the substitution of a new birth registration rather than

annotating the original birth registration, as was previously the case.

This would provide the same procedure for securing the original records

for adoptions as for legitimizing the birth. A special register will be

maintained for the original birth registration. Thus there will be no

possibility that a clerical error could reveal a person's natural

parentage, or that a person could illegally obtain that information.

The original birth registration would only be available by order of the

court. The amendment does not prevent the establishment of a passive

adoption registry, which in fact has received approval in principle and

is in the process of being established. I believe it will come this

afternoon. Further details will be provided once the administrative

procedures have been finalized, but what you're saying, in fact, is

that that may be falsifying that document. I don't think it's

falsifying that document; it's just saying that the parents have

adopted this child and now they are in fact the parents of that child.

But at a later date they can find out who their natural parents are.

[ Page 2027 ]

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, I realize that there is what is

known as the age of majority, and I certainly do realize that there are

some concerns that this legislation is attempting to address in terms

of trying to maintain a wholesome developmental relationship in the

family context into which a child is adopted. I do know, however, that

there are organizations, such as Adoptees in Motion, who have expressed

to the government some real concern about this kind of measure being

taken in this way. I don't think I need, at this time, to reiterate the

points that I made before, but there are a lot of British Columbians

who feel that their rights are being violated because of a document

that has to do with the facts of their birth being altered. There is

also the issue that there are persons who are perhaps not of the age of

majority, who, through a sensitive process that would involve

counselling, could well — and perhaps even beneficially to all

concerned — have the opportunity to make a connection prior to reaching

that age.

I would just like to say that the information that I have from

organizations working with adoptees is that while they have issued many

submissions in the form of briefs to government, they have a feeling

they haven't really been heard. Whether that's by intent or by

happenstance, I don't know, but I flag that as a serious concern,

because the people who experience this in their daily lives, who have

put thousands of dollars into it and a great deal of emotional and

intellectual energy into trying to resolve the concerns that they are

dealing with, have a feeling that they haven't been adequately

consulted, and that their feedback is not reflected in this legislation.

HON. B.R. SMITH: I'm going to speak, because for 14 years I

was solicitor for the superintendent of child welfare and adoptions and

I did all the tough adoption cases that went to court. They were cases,

mostly, that involved consent extinguishment. I dealt with young adult

adoptees, adopting parents and natural parents.

There is really no area of social policy that is more sensitive than

this one. For many years the province was reluctant to move in this

direction. It was a recommendation of the Berger commission that there

be some movement in this. It was a fairly modest recommendation, but

that recommendation came, I think, in 1974. There has been a caution in

this field, and you have to balance.... I know I'm not telling the

member anything he doesn't know. He has heard from adoptees; so have I,

and I've met with many of them in the last few years on this issue —

groups that represent them. You also have to balance the rights of

adoptees with the rights of adopting parents. Just as some adoptee

representations that we've had have been for an active registry and not

a passive one, we've had equally sincere representations from adopting

parents that we have no registry whatsoever.

[11:30]

We have made a major move on this now, and I think it's a fair one

because it requires that the rights of two people are respected — the

adoptee who wants reunion, and the natural parent, who at some stage

gave the child up and has to also be willing and looking. We haven't

taken the approach that they have in some provinces to have bureaucrats

go out and try to find these natural parents many years later and hound

them into agreeing to a reunion. I think that's a dreadful approach; I

honestly do, because many of those — particularly the adoptions that

were done right after the war — wouldn't have been adoptions today.

People would have kept their children. They gave up their children in

an era in which it was thought to be the right thing to do. They did so

with tremendous guilt feelings which they carry with them 20 and 30

years later.

Then suddenly some bureaucrat arrives from a registry and says: "I

want to know whether you would be willing to meet your child." The

whole agony and guilt of 25 and 30 years ago comes back. I have seen

some of these reunions. I have seen the results of them, and they are

not all healthy and therapeutic and open; they are not all good

counselling either. Some of them are a disaster. Some of them, on the

other hand, are very good.

The needs of adopted children have to be taken into account; there's

no question about it. Sometimes adoptees don't want to meet the birth

parent, but they want information. They should be able to get that kind

of information. Sometimes when they get information, they are as

content as they would be with the reunion. In some cases, they want the

whole bag. But the principle of this bill is that the rights of both

sides are respected. Both have to want it.

I think it is a good start, and I think we can have some experience

with this kind of registry. Maybe after that, there will be enough

experience to move a little further. I agree with the member when he

says that it may be difficult for an underage but mature adoptee —

somebody who is 16, 17 or 18 and who is having problems — but that

person should be able to get some information out of the

superintendent, some non-identifying information which may assist them.

There may be things that can be done from this ministry, but I commend

the Health minister for being prepared to take this step. I think it is

a good first step.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, I am not sure if the Minister of

Health wanted to comment on the point I made previously about the

delegations that have come from groups such as Parent Finders and

Adoptees in Motion, and their perception that their concerns haven't

really been taken into consideration. Did the minister wish to comment

on that?

HON. MR. DUECK: I am not sure that we met with every group,

or with the one you are referring to. But this whole issue of adoption

and the registry has been discussed over many months — as a matter of

fact, years — as to whether they have a right, and at what time and at

what age. We felt that this was the best we could do at this time: a

passive registry, so that after majority they can in fact get together.

I have known a number of adopted children; I haven't got any of my

own. But I believe much damage could be done if it showed on the birth

certificate. When there is any kind of problem in the family, and they

know who their rightful parents are, it could cause many problems. So

we feel that this is certainly a better direction to go in at this

time, and it can probably be refined in future years.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, I don't intend to respond to the

comments made by the Attorney-General (Hon. B.R. Smith). I appreciate

his standing up and making those comments, but I believe that he was

getting into a debate on the principle of the Adoption Amendment Act,

which I understand will be coming up later. So I won't be getting into

that at this time.

I would like to say, however, that I've been trying to read over some of these notes that were just handed to me while

[ Page 2028 ]

our discussion has been going on, and I do have

some comment that has been received from Parent Finders. What they say

is that they would like to see the following changes. In

section 9 (2):

"Completely delete the amendment and leave this unaltered as in the

present act. The facts contained in the order of adoption regarding

parentage — specifically, 'adoptive parents' cannot be substituted for

'biological parents.' The original birth registration of an adopted

person should not be replaced by a birth registration giving the

adoptive parents as the biological birth parents." That's where they're

saying there's falsification. "This is an intentional misstatement. No

piece of original information should ever be deleted from an original

birth registration. Valid corrections to the original birth information

should be noted."

As I understand the point they're making — and I reiterate that it's

an extremely important point — this legislation seems to be moving in

an opposite direction from that which would be expected, given the

public support there is for the whole movement toward it being more

possible for people to keep track of information about themselves with

regard to their roots. I see it as extremely serious that there are

people in British Columbia — and there are a lot of them — who might

grow up feeling that they have been further victimized by the

information of their birth having been altered in its original form, or

in the only form available.

The more I think about this, Mr. Chairman, the more serious it seems

to me. It really is, and I really would hope, if the government intends

to push through with this, that it really consider setting it aside.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: With the greatest respect to the member —

and I appreciate his comments — I do think we're anticipating a bit

here. The Ministry of Health, and particularly the vital stats

division, is mentioned here in

section 7, and you'll note that it says

in 9 (l): "On receipt of a copy...." So they are the receiving

organization for the information. But with the greatest respect to the

member — and as I said earlier, I sincerely appreciate his genuine

concern with respect to the passive registry — it would be better

covered when we deal with the Adoption Act, which is on the order paper

and will be coming to the House and committee in short order.

MR. CASHORE: I would just like to ask the hon. government

House Leader about the point that he's making, which I think is a good

point; I think that's where we should be having the main discussion, on

principle, and then on a clause-by-clause.

It seems to me that we have three bills. We have the Adoption

Amendment Act; we have the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No.

1), and we have the Vital Statistics Amendment Act. Given the length of

time that we've had these three pieces of legislation before us and the

very extensive area requiring research, it really is difficult to put

all of that together. With all due respect to the point that the House

Leader is making, if we go ahead at this time and pass

section 7, it

means that we have decided to alter the process of adoption

registration in this province, to the extent that a birth document

would be, at least in the opinion of Parent Finders, falsified.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That's a good point, I guess, but 7 (

l) says: "On receipt of a copy of an order of adoption transmitted under

the Adoption Act, the director shall register the adoption." Then it

gives those conditions. But I really think that when we get to

section

1 of Miscellaneous Statutes, Bill 31, that would be a more appropriate

time for your debate; it would be totally in order there. That was the

only point I was trying to make, Mr. Member.

Sections 7 to 22 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. DUECK: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 27, Vital Statistics Amendment Act, 1987, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: On behalf of the Attorney-General (Hon. B.R. Smith), I call committee on Bill 15.

ACCOUNTANTS (CHARTERED)

AMENDMENT ACT, 1987

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Maillardville-Coquitlam would like to make an introduction. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

MR. CASHORE: Sitting in the gallery today we have Ms. Susan

Barr, who will be present for much of the debate today. Susan Barr has

written to all MLAs with regard to her own personal pilgrimage of

seeking her sibling. I do very much appreciate, as I know all members

do, her having shared her personal experience. I ask the House to join

me in welcoming her.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Let me have leave to make an introduction, too, Mr. Chairman.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'd also like to welcome Susan Barr to the

assembly this morning. I discussed these items with her on the

telephone this morning, Welcome, Susan.

Mr. Chairman, in calling the questions on Bill 15 in committee, I

will advise the committee that responding for the government will be

the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Mr. Mercier).

Sections 1 to 5 inclusive approved.

section 6.

MR. G. HANSON: On sections 6 and 7, I just want to indicate

to the House that our debate leader, the member for Nanaimo, has

indicated to us that he has no serious concerns

[ Page 2029 ]

at all with respect to this legislation — just so that the Chair is aware.

Sections 6 to 13 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 15, Accountants (Chartered) Amendment Act, 1987, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Second reading of Bill 38, Mr. Speaker.

[11:45]

WASTE MANAGEMENT AMENDMENT ACT, 1987

HON. MR. STRACHAN: In principle, this bill varies the Waste

Management Act and allows for the proper process to be put in place

with respect to handling dangerous and toxic wastes. In its totality it

includes legislation with respect to the transportation of dangerous

goods. The act requires that any waste discharges that would arise from

the combustion of fossil fuels would require permits, and there are

simply too many discharges that it would be a better means to have

individual permits to accomplish control if such became necessary. It

allows for exemptions for permits for minor operations, such as

canneries, package plants and large commercial bakeries. If any

specific operation exempted by this provision were causing pollution, a

pollution order could be issued to deal with the problem.

It empowers the government to regulate special wastes. At present

there is no offence committed by the accidental release or spill of

wastes to the environment except that the person may be charged with

causing pollution if such can be proven. This bill will emphasize the

need for greater care and control of special wastes, and the spill or

escape of special wastes from such care and control could be subject to

penalty even if pollution was not determined to have occurred.

Currently, the act does not prohibit the construction or use of

works for handling, treatment, recycling or storage of wastes. It only

applies to activities where there are discharges to the environment.

The new bill is to prevent any of these activities from occurring

without permission, where special wastes are involved. This is, of

course, due to the greater risks involved with special wastes. The act

would establish types of qualities of some special wastes which may be

managed in accordance with specific requirements, thus eliminating the

need for additional permits.

This act also has a provision where we recognize that occasionally there are

situations where permits are sought for waste discharges where the implications

are public-interest-oriented rather than technical. We have allowed for provision

for the L-G-in-C — all the powers of his designated officials under this act

— thus allowing the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to act in the public interest

where this is considered necessary.

The act also includes amendments to facilities for special wastes,

and we have wording to allow for such wastes to be transported. We also

have provision to allow a municipality to receive special wastes if

facilities are covered by a waste management plan and to allow persons

who have been ordered under an emergency to make facilities available

for the storage of special waste to accept it without fear of breaking

the law.

The bill further extends the power of the ministry to inspect

property and provides a new form of warrant. It also allows a greater

responsibility for the inspection of vehicles where we suspect that

they would be carrying hazardous wastes. It allows for the appointment

of special peace officers or police constables to do that type of

investigation.

It allows for us to put in place a fund. I think this is one of the

critical and very necessary points of the legislation: that is, that we

have a fund that is intended to be used for dealing with the clean-up

of an adequately closed facility. There have been examples in other

areas where the special waste facility has been put in place, filled up

and subsequently closed, and then it begins leaking, or in some other

form discharging to the environment. That, of course, is unacceptable,

because the government, wherever the jurisdiction is, has a

responsibility to contain that special waste and must do so from its

own funding.

What we are putting in this bill, Mr. Speaker, is the right for

government and the ministry to have a fund put in place to have

special-waste facility operators have a surcharge to contribute to the

fund. If at such time in the future we find the facility is leaking or

other-wise endangering the public, we can use money from that fund to

clean up the facility. I think that's necessary, and I think that's

probably one of the more significant aspects of this legislation.

This bill is quite broad in scope. There will be a lot more debate,

as we get into specific sections, because although this bill has

principle, it has a very, very wide principle and the sections have a

variety of applications. So I'm not going to spend too much more time

on second reading. I can advise the House that we can spend extensive

time in committee, because there are various parts of this amendment

that are worthy of comment. With that said, Mr. Speaker, I move second

reading.

MR. G. HANSON: Now that the minister has concluded his

introductory remarks on the bill, I would move adjournment of this

debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Strachan moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:51 a.m.

[ Page

2030 ]

Appendix

AMENDMENTS TO BILLS

24 The Hon. E. N. Veitch to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 24) intituled Pension (Teachers) Amendment Act, 1987 to amend as follows:

SECTION 3, in the proposed

section 11 (2.2) by deleting "or"

at the end of paragraph (a), by adding "or" at the end of paragraph (

b) and by adding the following paragraph:

(

c) a teacher who, before April 1, 1987, entered into an agreement

with a board of school trustees under which the teacher agreed to

resign on or after April 1, 1987 in consideration of payment of an

amount agreed to between the parties, unless the teacher elects to

rescind the agreement and apply under subsection (2.1).

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright 1987, 2001, 2008: Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada