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)

MONDAY, JUNE 29, 1987

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

2091 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Filing Reports –– 2091

Oral Questions

College board appointments. Mr. Clark –– 2091

Mr. Guno

Importation of animal products. Mr. Barnes –– 2091

B.C. Enterprise Corporation. Mr. Lovick –– 2092

Lionheart Resource Corp. Mr. Sihota –– 2092

Admission fees to provincial museums. Ms. Edwards –– 2092

Funding for Dawson Creek ethanol plant. Mr. Clark –– 2092

Provincial museum exhibit. Mr. G. Hanson –– 2093

Waste Management Amendment Act, 1987 (Bill 38). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr.

Strachan) –– 2093

Ms. Smallwood

Mr. Miller

Mr. Lovick

Mr. Vant

Mr. Rose

Third reading

Presenting Petitions –– 2107

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Education estimates. (Hon. Mr. Brummet)

On vote 20: minister's office –– 2108

Hon. Mr. Brummet

Mr. Jones

Mr. D'Arcy

Filing Reports –– 2117

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Education estimates. (Hon. Mr. Brummet)

On vote 20: minister's office –– 2117

Mr. Jones

Mr. Blencoe

Mr. Miller

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations estimates.

(Hon. Mr. Couvelier)

On vote 31: minister's office –– 2126

Hon. Mr. Couvelier

Mr. Sihota

Mr. Clark

The House met at 2:04 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. PARKER: My colleague the member for Columbia River

(Mr. Crandall) and I ask the House to give a warm welcome to our friend

Bill Stockman of Golden, who joins us in the members' gallery today.

MS. EDWARDS: Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to join me

in welcoming two people from Cranbrook in the Kootenay constitutency,

Bob and Sharon Dolce, who are here in the capital, in the gallery. I

would like you to make them welcome.

MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, sitting in your gallery are two

longtime family friends, particularly good friends of my late father. I

would like the House to please join me in giving a very warm welcome to

Marjorie and John Thompson of West Vancouver.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Speaker, visiting today in the gallery are

two of my constituents from Maillardville-Coquitlam, my wife Sharon and

my daughter Judy. I would like to ask the House to join me in welcoming

them.

MR. DE JONG: It gives me great pleasure to welcome to this

House today Mrs. Audrey Hoogendoorn, a sister-in-law of ours. She is

here visiting with us from the Netherlands.

MS. A. HAGEN: May I introduce to the House very dear friends

of mine, Merry and Ken Fowler from Coquitlam, and their friend Miss

Edna Eastwood, who is retired in Victoria after many years of church

work in northern Alberta. Would you please join me in bidding them all

welcome.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, two of my constituents are in the

gallery, Jackie Boyer and Christine Dafoe from Port Moody. I wonder if

you could make them welcome, please.

Hon. Mr. Veitch filed the eighteenth annual report of the business

done in pursuance of the Pension (College) Act for the year ended

August 31, 1986.

Hon. Mr. Dueck presented the annual report of the Ministry of Health for the year ending March 31, 1986.

Hon. Mr. Couvelier presented a report of guarantees and indemnities

as authorized under

section 56 of the Financial Administration Act; the

financial statement of the B.C. Educational Institutions Capital

Financing Authority for the fiscal period ended March 31, 1987; and the

financial statement of the B.C. Housing and Employment Development

Financing Authority for the fiscal period ended March 31, 1987.

Oral Questions

COLLEGE BOARD APPOINTMENTS

MR. CLARK: A question to the minister of continuing education. My question

concerns the 149 recent appointments to college boards. Could the minister inform

the House how many ex-Socred candidates, campaign managers or constituency riding

executive members have been appointed out of the 149?

HON. S. HAGEN: Actually there is no minister of continuing

education; it's the Minister of Advanced Education, but I'm sure you'll

update your information.

I really have no idea what the answer to your question is, hon.

member. The people who were chosen were chosen because of their concern

and interest in advanced education and job training.

MR. CLARK: Supplementary to the Minister of Advanced

Education. The answer is 19, for your information. That's my

information. But I've been advised that there are over 40 of the 149

appointments who have clear Socred connections. Could the minister

inform the House what groups he consulted with, other than the Social

Credit Party?

HON. S. HAGEN: Mr. Speaker, many community groups were

consulted. I consulted with many MLAs. We had consultation with the

school districts involved. So really, I think the consultative process

was very broad.

MR. CLARK: A supplementary. In Prince George in January, the minister said he would consider appointing

labour representatives to all boards, yet none were appointed. And the

consultations, which were very few on this side of the House.... None

of the recommendations from this side of the House were accepted. Since

the minister is using this as some form of patronage, will he now

change course and make a commitment? Has he decided to have elected

boards for college appointments in the future?

HON. S. HAGEN: The answer is no.

MR. GUNO: A supplementary to the same minister in regard to

the northwest area. In spite of the fact that the Nishgas constitute a

very distinct majority in the Nass Valley, the person appointed was a

non-native from a tiny Nass camp. This is the same in the whole

northwest area. Will the minister open up the consultation process so

that we have adequate native representation on these boards?

HON. S. HAGEN: I thank the hon. member for his question. I

think you will find that I will be looking for native representation on

that board, as I have already made appointments of natives to other

college boards in the province.

IMPORTATION OF ANIMAL PRODUCTS

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped to ask the Minister of

Intergovernmental Relations or the Minister of Agriculture a question,

and I see they're not here. Perhaps I could address my question to the

minister responsible for multiculturalism, the Minister of Tourism,

Recreation and Culture.

This concerns Agriculture Canada's recent decision to enforce the

regulations with respect to the importation of animal products such as

salted duck and century egg, which are brought into the Chinese

community from the Orient. Without any study or incidence of disease,

or any indication that the law would be changed, all of a sudden these

two

[ Page 2092 ]

products are banned. I'm wondering if the minister

responsible for multiculturalism would see this as an affront to this

long-standing tradition and means of livelihood for small businesses in

that community, and take some action: investigate and find out what's

going on.

HON. MR. REID: Boy, am I pleased to answer that question!

Mr. Speaker, in relation to the multicultural community's concern

about banning of particular foods, it seems an inappropriate time to do

that in relation to the Asia Pacific Festival, which is on right now.

Of course, there are all those cultural groups that are providing food

on an ongoing basis there for that week, of different commodities and

different styles. I'm sure that they must have had some imported

commodities to make those up.

I will take the question as notice, and talk to the Ministers of

Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Savage) and of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon.

Mr. Rogers) and get back to you with the proper answer.

B.C. ENTERPRISE CORPORATION

MR. LOVICK: My question is to the Minister of Economic

Development. It's a succinct question deserving, I am sure, a succinct

answer. I would ask the minister if she could tell us, please, whether

the B.C. Enterprise Corporation has entered into a lease arrangement

with the Unicorn Pub at B.C. Place, which included provisions for a

20-year G liquor licence.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: First of all, Mr. Speaker, the succinct

answer to that is that B.C. Enterprise Corporation would not be

entering into any lease until the Legislation passes the House for an

amalgamation of B.C. Place and BCDC. There is no actual B.C. Enterprise

Corporation entity.

Secondly, in regard to liquor licensing, the licensing would come

under the aegis of the liquor control board. The B.C. Place

corporation, who would have made the original lease, would ask the

facility, i.e. the Unicorn, to deal directly with the licensing

provisions under the Ministry of Labour and the liquor control board.

MR. LOVICK: Just a supplementary to the minister if I might,

Mr. Speaker. May I take it that the same answer would obtain for a

question concerning the 86th Street pub at B.C. Place? Is that also the

case?

[2:15]

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Yes.

LIONHEART RESOURCE CORP.

MR. SIHOTA: A question to the Minister of Finance about

Lionheart Resource, a company listed on the Vancouver Stock Exchange.

There was a cease-trading issue applied to that company back in May

1986. There were several brokerage houses involved in Lionheart,

including Canarim. Several improprieties were alleged; however, no

hearing was conducted for in excess of one year. Could the minister

explain why no hearing was conducted by the VSE with respect to

Lionheart Resources for that unprecedented time period?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I'll take the question on notice.

ADMISSION FEES TO PROVINCIAL MUSEUMS

MS. EDWARDS: My question is for the Minister of Tourism,

Recreation and Culture. Will the minister confirm that we will have in

British Columbia admission fees for the provincial museum and the two

heritage parks by the middle of July?

HON. MR. REID: The answer is yes.

MS. EDWARDS: Supplementary question to the minister. Has the

minister so informed the volunteers who work at those facilities and

the contractors that have contracts within the boundaries?

HON. MR. REID: We have been meeting as a ministry on an

ongoing basis with the volunteers and the concessionaires and all the

facilities in the province, bringing them up-to-date with the reasons

and the decisions on applying an admission fee to all the attractions

in the province.

MS. EDWARDS: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. How much are the fees to be?

HON. MR. REID: Those details are not finalized as of this morning, and as soon as they are finalized, I'll make them available to the member.

FUNDING FOR DAWSON CREEK ETHANOL PLANT

MR. CLARK: A question to the Premier. As I noted the other

day, the Agrifuels' ethanol loan has been rejected seven times by the

B.C. Development Corporation, which presumably knows something about

lending money. Despite that, the department of agriculture has

authorized a loan guarantee six times as large as the total loans made

by the department in 1984. Could the Premier tell the House what

changed in the proposal to convince the Premier that the department of

agriculture can now do what BCDC said they couldn't do?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Agrifuels is still negotiating with a

number of people because it does involve tax share sales and such, so I

don't know just exactly what the status of it is. As I mentioned last

week, the assistance to the farmer is to try to provide a project which

will make better use of grain otherwise gone to waste. It is also

hopefully to do away with the sort of subsidy programs which we and all

governments have been involved with, where we are paying for material

to be stored and perhaps be lost as opposed to being used. It's a good

program. I look forward to this project going ahead. I think it's very

positive. It has certainly been well received, and is receiving a lot

of support in the Peace River country. I don't have all the details. I

promised the member that I would bring them forth — I took the question

on notice — and I will get this material to you as quickly as possible.

MR. CLARK: Supplementary to the Minister of Finance. The

minister has created a special two-cent-a-litre subsidy for gasohol

once the plant is complete, even though all the output of the first

phase has been presold to Alaska. Can the minister assure us that this

subsidy for gasohol will

[ Page

2093 ]

not kick in until the first-phase sale to Alaska is

complete, so that we will not be subsidizing ethanol produced outside

British Columbia?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: It's pretty difficult to respond to a

question that's based on a misperception of the situation. I think your

basic assumption is false, and therefore the answers would be

misleading. I don't happen to believe that any deal has yet been

finalized with an export proposal surrounding Agrifuels's concept. I'm

willing to admit that that's one of the considerations, but that issue

is far from resolved at the moment, as far as I know. Certainly it

would be absurd for us to be talking about some sort of tax break that

we would be exporting to benefit Americans. But the details of the

Agrifuels situation, as the Premier has indicated, have yet to be all

finalized. Until you see the total package, it's very difficult to deal

with any one aspect of it in isolation. The concept behind the

Argifuels initiative was to ensure that there was a comprehensive

approach taken to all the problems surrounding industrial

diversification in the Peace River country. To the extent that the

Agrifuels proposal will assist in that endeavour, the government will

obviously support it.

PROVINCIAL MUSEUM EXHIBIT

MR. G. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the

Minister of Tourism with respect to this double taxation that the

people are going to have to pay to see their own heritage in this city

at the Provincial Museum. Would he advise the House about this new show

on the oil industry in British Columbia that the museum has been

instructed to undertake?

HON. MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, because there are so many

activities going on in the museum in Victoria.... The only one that I'm

currently conversant with is the "Birds of Prey" display, which we

opened last week.

Interjections.

HON. MR. REID: Yes, that properly describes the NDP.

But, Mr. Speaker, what's happening with the museum in Victoria is

that there are 9,000 people per day going into the museum in Victoria,

creating a problem of repair and upkeep which has created a dilemma for

us. Attendance this year will be over two million people. Last year,

with a million and a half people going through the museum, we had a

major problem with upkeep and maintenance and not having sufficient

funds to do that. We have shows — as the member asked — coming onstream

almost weekly. It's the best attended museum in Canada, but it also

requires, on an ongoing basis, some upkeep for maintenance and

operations, which is going to be assisted by.... Eighty-five percent of

the people attending are tourists — visitors to British Columbia,

visitors to Victoria — and they are happy to pay an admission fee,

MR. G. HANSON: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Is the Minister

of Tourism then advising the House that the programs coming forward are

going to be more akin to trade shows, turning the Provincial Museum

into a trade show as opposed to a repository for the heritage of the

people of this province?

HON. MR. REID: No, I didn't say that. I said that the

displays which are there on an ongoing basis and the one we've just

unveiled follow the legacy for the northwest native Indian one that was

unveiled a few months ago. Each of the displays which we bring onstream

to the museum in Victoria and which then become touring attractions for

other museums in both Canada and the United States are as a result of

having the classiest, most effective museum staff in North America

offering up museum artifacts...to do with museum artifacts. I'm not

conversant with the one to do with oil discovery, but I would hazard a

guess, if it's like any of the others we've been able to bring

forward.... They are the demand of every other museum in North America,

to have them visit there.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. STRACHAN: At the outset, I ask leave for the Select

Standing Committee on Economic Development, Transportation and

Municipal Affairs to meet this afternoon at 3 p.m. — while the House is

sitting — in the Hemlock Room for organization regarding the Islands

Trust.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I call committee on Bill 38, Mr. Speaker.

WASTE MANAGEMENT AMENDMENT ACT, 1987

The House in committee on Bill 38; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The first member for Victoria has asked leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. G. HANSON: In the gallery today is a constituent of mine,

Pauline Hemming. She is with her cousin Pat Borden, who is from

Connecticut. Could we give them a good, warm welcome to the Legislature.

section 1.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I've had a previous conversation with the

minister and asked the minister for leave to talk about the regulations

where they are relevant to the act. In

section 1, where the act is

dealing with

definitions, I'm curious as to why the minister has

excluded just about four pages of

definitions in the regulations — and

there are particular ones that I'd like to ask him about.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: This is an amendment act, Mr. Chairman.

Nothing is excluded. All we're doing is adding, as I read the

legislation. With respect to the regulations, they are at this point

draft regulations, since we do not have legislation. I can advise the

committee that these regulations have been arrived at after some long

and serious discussion with all of the other provincial ministries and

the federal government. This is not a deletion, Madam Member, but an

addition.

MS. SMALLWOOD: It would seem to me that there are specific

definitions in the special waste regulations that are not at present in

the Waste Management Act per se, and when

[ Page 2094 ]

we're dealing with special wastes and the project

that the government has underway, it would seem to me that those

definitions need to be in legislation as well, and not merely in

regulations. My concern about not having those

definitions in

legislation is that we're in a situation of not having what would be

like the engineering plans of a facility before us in the House. I'd

like to ask the minister about some of the

definitions that are in the

special waste regulations in particular.

One of the

definitions is for "impervious," and in the special waste

regulations, the definition of impervious is that it means having a

permeability not greater than — and it gives the measurement — and the

measurement is in relationship to water. When we're dealing with a

landfill situation where they are storing special wastes, the prime

ability should have the dictionary meaning that there is no escape at

all into the environment. I think that by not having that in this

legislation — by purely having it in regulations — that is a real weak

spot that we should be talking about. This is one of the reasons I

asked you about having the opportunity to talk about the regulations.

Would the minister consider amending that definition to read zero?

[2:30]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, I couldn't do that, and I'll advise

the committee once again that there is no facility for adopting the

draft regulations as regulations until such time as the legislation is

passed. That's the way it works: legislation first, and then

regulations.

With respect to your concern about the definition, I can only advise

you that technical experts from across Canada have arrived at that

definition, and as a layman in the business of discussing permeability,

or whatever, I am not going to really take any issue with those

definitions. There are certain engineering standards that have been

arrived at. It's been done, as I said, in concert with the environment

ministries across Canada and the federal government. If that's what

they say they want to have in the regulations, that's what I, as the

politician, have to accept.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just before the member for

Surrey-Guildford-Whalley continues, I would like to add that although

the Chair is determined that the hon. members shall have every possible

latitude in making and asking their questions in committee stage, it

would seem to the Chair — and you're discussing

section l(b), I assume:

"in the definition of 'permit' by adding 'or under the

regulations'...." — that this particular section, in my opinion, does

not open up the regulations to discussion. Certainly the issue of the

permit can be discussed, but the actual regulations I don't think are

really pertinent to the amendment coming forward in this case. When the

hon. member started her previous question, I found that the questioning

was dead on and there was no cause for bringing her to attention. But

we do have some difficulty. I don't think all of the regulations under

the Waste Management Act can come under discussion in committee stage

because of this particular amendment. Perhaps we could proceed on that

basis.

MS. SMALLWOOD: If I could have further clarification, clause

15, which amends

section 35, talks about the ability to lay out

regulations. Will that be an appropriate

section under which to discuss

the total special waste regulations?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The ability to lay out the regulations can

certainly come under discussion, but for the regulations that currently

exist, I think the ruling I've just mentioned would apply, hon. member.

If you'd like to proceed, I'll certainly bring it to your attention as

we go along if I feel that we're getting beyond the scope of this

particular act.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I understand the member's concern, Mr.

Chairman; I also understand your concern with respect to relevancy.

When we get to

section 15, I am prepared to discuss the draft

regulations generally as they come to us. By that time I hope I will

have one of my officials here so that we can get into some of the

technical questions you might be concerned with, but I can advise the

committee that we're putting the Chairman in a difficult position if we

get too technical. I'll be quite straightforward with you when I have

my officials here to discuss the concerns you might have with the draft

regulations, prefacing it by saying that these are draft regulations at

this point.

MS. SMALLWOOD: On

section 1, I'd just like to restate my

concern about any legislation that deals with the special waste

program, in particular the permitting process now underway in the

province. We're in a situation — ironically — where community groups

trying to deal with the permits that are let for facilities do not have

the engineering specifications in front of them — very much like this

legislation. That's one of the reasons why I cannot support it: because

in essence I don't know what I'm supporting.

The point I'm making here is that we don't have enough information

before us. The

definitions that are being added to the Waste Management

Act.... The minister has selected only two additions to the act, and

the special waste regulations, the proposals that are now with the

Boyes commission traveling around this province, have four pages of

changes. I will just lodge that concern, that complaint, for the record.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, but in response, Mr. Chairman, the

draft regulations have been public for some three months now; I

remember signing the release. So they are in the public domain for

people to examine. I give the committee my commitment, given the fact

that 11 governments went together to draft these regulations, that

there is no way we would be thinking of entertaining any change. These

are Canada standards that we're looking at in draft form at this point,

so what you see is the best evidence that we've gathered from across

the country to put the regulations in place.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

section 3.

MS. SMALLWOOD: While these particular sections don't deal

specifically with the special waste regulations, my question concerns

the reference to retail and food outlets. Does that in any way relate

to food irradiation and those proposals that have been before the

government in the past?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, it doesn't. It relates to every

hamburger stand on what appears to be every comer or every block in our

various communities. We do not see them as needing to be contained in

this for a special waste permit, bearing in mind though that our Waste

Management Act and

[ Page

2095 ]

also our Environment Management Act allow us to

apprehend and control any such violator if we feel it's necessary and

if it's not within the public interest. This has nothing to do with the

irradiation of food but simply the emissions from hamburger stands and

kitchens, essentially, and we're deleting those.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Would the minister be good enough to further explain why he found this particular change necessary?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: There are simply too many of these

operations whose emissions for the most part are of little or no

consequence. This exemption only removes the requirement for permits

for minor operations. Operations such as canneries, packing plants and

large commercial bakeries would still require permits for their

emissions. What we're doing here is exempting every small restaurant in

town unless we find it offensive; and there is still legislation for us

to go and ensure that the operation is not emitting or offending people

in the community. There are just too many of them for us to consider a

permit for every one.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall

section 3 pass?

MR. MILLER: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, I was having another

conversation here and didn't quite get the answer to the question asked

by my colleague from Surrey with respect to that.

Just a brief question, really. Should we have any concern about the

removal of air contamination from the combustion of wood, as it's

defined under (j), in that, first of all, in some areas of our province

where there has been a return to wood as a domestic fuel we found that

there have been some problems in terms of the air quality in a

particular jurisdiction. For example, in some times of the year around

Smithers that kind of contamination is quite visible, and I would think

has some effect.

Secondly, it may open the door in terms of what could be, for

example, a commercial operation. There is a proposal afoot. Whether it

comes to pass or not is another question, but there have been some

proposals in terms of generating electricity through wood waste

burning. Now I don't want to say that I'm asking this question out of

ignorance, but perhaps the minister could enlighten me on the two areas

of concern that I've touched on with respect to(

j) and any implications

that may have.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: What we do here, Mr. Member, is exempt for

the purpose of heating domestic, institutional or commercial

operations. We are not exempting industry; they would still have to

come under permit. So the industrial restrictions would still be very

high. What we don't want here is to catch every fireplace, and that's

why we have added that exemption. We see the amendments in the

legislation as being far too onerous for the very, very small people

who are burning wood or fossil fuels; and as you noted, it just says

"heating, domestic, institutional or commercial operations." But there

is nothing about industry; they still have to comply.

MR. MILLER: To deal with the first part of my question, as I

said, there have been instances. Is the minister prepared to indicate

whether or not any kind of studies have been done by his department

with respect to air contamination through using wood as a domestic

fuel? The problem may be that as this continues as an alternative form

of heating a dwelling, it could in fact give rise to a serious problem

in a particular locale, particularly because of weather inversions. I

don't know if the minister.... He comes from Prince George and he's

familiar with that word and the effect that that has in his community

with respect to pulp mill emissions. Although I'm a bit more fortunate

coming from Prince Rupert where the pulp mill is on the other side of

the mountain, nonetheless we've seen those kinds of inversions and what

can happen. At some times during the winter that could be a serious

problem.

Would the inclusion of this clause preclude his ministry from really

doing anything about what could be quite a serious problem? I don't

want to suggest that we should overregulated in this area. I think it's

probably still growing as an alternative form of domestic heating. It

could be that it's something that his ministry might want to deal with

in terms of the application of regulations. Certainly some burners are

more efficient than others. There are ways to reduce emissions from

domestic situations. Are you really just washing your hands of the

whole thing by including this, or is there another

section that would

allow you or your ministry to take some action if the situation

warranted?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, there is. There's another act, Mr.

Member, the Environment Management Act — EMA — that would permit that

type of study to go on, and also that type of remedy if it were

required.

I know the problem you're speaking of; I notice it in Prince George

around trailer courts, which are very condensed, and a lot of them do

have wood-burning fireplaces. With so many wood-burning fireplaces in

an enclosed area — far more than you'd find in a residential area where

you have bigger homes — it's a problem on some winter evenings. You can

smell it. We should probably have a look at that. That would be covered

under the Environmental Management Act, and we can do that, quite

clearly.

Section 3 approved.

section 4.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I have another question to the minister in

regard to 3.1, which says: "Every person who produces, stores,

transports, handles, treats, deals with, processes or owns a special

waste shall keep the special waste confined in accordance with the

regulations." Again the minister is asking us to approve a bill when we

don't know what those regulations are.

Perhaps the minister could give us a clue as to what the regulations

will be, dealing with all the handling of special wastes in this

province. I'm looking at the special waste regulations, and I don't see

specifics.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I wish I could he more helpful but, as I

said, without the staff being here, I can't. I don't have the draft

regulations with me, and they are extensive. Perhaps you could

describe, in looking at the regulations, where you see a deficit.

[2:45]

[ Page 2096 ]

MS. SMALLWOOD: Mr. Chairman, I don't know how we can proceed through this bill without having the kind of support that's necessary.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Let's just discuss this a little further,

because my staff are in my office listening to me. They say they don't

normally attend on second reading, and I'll advise them now through the

speakerphone that we're in committee stage, which they can attend, and

hopefully — as I speak to you — they will be walking out of the office

now to come and join me in committee.

If it's my error that they thought this was second reading as

opposed to committee stage, then I take full blame for that. However,

they are going to be here. As I speak, they are walking up the stairs,

I am sure. Anyway, phrase the question again.

MS. SMALLWOOD: The minister knows I need practice.

My question is about some guidance in regard to regulations that

will control the confinement of special wastes when they are in the

process of transportation. I'll read the section: "Every person who

produces, stores, transports, handles, treats, deals with, processes or

owns a special waste shall keep the special waste confined in

accordance with the regulations."

Now the regulations, as I see — and perhaps I'm overlooking it —

deal particularly with facilities. The only reference to off-site

facilities is under a general classification that talks about the date

and the time when they will fall under the regulations.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The draft regulations are not complete at

this point, and there are some further ones to be approved by the

Attorney-General ministry, for obvious legal reasons. If you could

specifically advise me what your concern is with the intent of the

regulations, then I can advise you where we are, whether or not we have

draft regulations in place or whether they are not yet approved for

public consumption.

Just let me know the extent and the intent of your question and the

technical question you want to ask, and I'll try to get that answer for

you.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Mr. Chairman, this particular

section is so

all-encompassing, it suggests that the intent is to have a

comprehensive special waste management program in place. I'm pleased to

hear that the intent is to elaborate on the special waste regulations

already in place, because it's quite clear, from this particular

section, that there needs to be an inventory of special wastes in the

province, giving location and use, for there to be any ability of the

ministry to regulate the storage or containment of that material.

It suggests, in addition to that, that there will be additional

enforcement capability, with the ministry being able to monitor special

waste and its movement throughout the province from the producer to the

user to the end facility. Again, Mr. Minister, this is one of the

reasons why I am unable to support the legislation. I am not confident

that the ministry has that ability.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Chairman, I'll advise the member that

what is in place now in terms of draft regulations is the definition of

toxic wastes and the treatment requirements. What is coming is storage,

transportation, clean-up and testing requirements. Those will be

further contained in the regulations. We do not have them in place yet,

although they are being drafted, and I am advised that they are with

the Attorney-General's ministry now for a legal review.

Many things nowadays, hon. members of the committee, have to be

tested with a view to the Charter, believe it or not, and I don't know

if any of these apply. But it's interesting to see how many good ideas

we will have in terms of legislation and regulations, and then we find,

for whatever reason, that they fly in the face of Charter amendments.

The Attorney-General's ministry continually vets legislative

initiatives from many ministries. I'm not saying that's the case here,

but we do have to have regulations and legislation proceed through that

ministry.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Is the minister saying that storage,

transportation and clean-up regulations are coming from your ministry

and are presently being vetted and will ultimately be your ministry's

responsibility? Can the minister give me an indication about the time

line — when we can expect to see these regulations?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: August 1. That's our guesstimate at this point, Madam Member.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Will the minister assure us that the

regulations will be made public prior to any siting of facilities, so

that communities will have access to all of that information?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: By all means. Without question, yes. The

Boyes committee will have them, the public will have them, and they

will have to be in place before we think of any siting.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Moving on to the second part of 3(l), it deals

with authorization by a permit, an approval, an order, a waste

management plan or the regulations. There has been a trend in the last

couple of years by the ministry to go towards regional plans, which, it

became clear in the estimates, are not appealable. Is there any

consideration being given to a special waste facility that would be

excluded from a regional plan and therefore would allow more public

input into siting and permitting?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Chairman, it would be approved by

permit. Given that it would have to have the cooperation of a

community, or the local authority, there would be extensive public

hearings put in place. That's the political process that would have to

follow.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Not wanting to jump ahead to other sections,

which would put some question on the minister's last comment about

public process and community consent, I will ask the minister if he has

given any consideration to more information being made part of the

permitting process. As it exists right now, the permitting process does

not in and of itself provide all the engineering statistics. It does

not include an operating plan for a facility. Given the fact that we're

dealing with a special waste facility in this province, it would seem

incumbent upon the ministry to ensure that all of that

[ Page

2097 ]

information is there prior to any public process or permit being let on a facility.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The member will note that we have included

the definition of "facility" in

section 1. The reason we have gone,

first of all, to this special, very blue-ribbon committee headed by Dr.

Boyes is to ensure that as much as possible is known by a community

about a facility — its design and the way it's going to handle storage.

There is no way that either this government or the local community

government could hide the design or the facets and process of the

design from the people in the community.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'm afraid I'm not any clearer as to what the

process will be to ensure that all that information, operations systems

and engineering specs are made available to the community prior to a

permitting process.

At this point, the Boyes commission is holding open houses dealing

primarily — and this was from the commission itself — with management

of special wastes in household garbage. Can the minister tell me the

plan for dealing with the specifics of a facility, given the fact that

many other facilities throughout North America have had problems?

Indeed, we have learned a great deal from those problems. Will there be

a full airing of all of this?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: There will be hearings in the fall in any

community that is anticipated and any community that wishes to come

forward with respect to siting a special waste facility in their

community. There will be full hearings in those communities, divulging

everything — the design, the appearance, everything the community

wishes to know.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Will this be a legal public hearing?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Not in that sense, no. It is simply a hearing for the public benefit.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I suspect very much like the open houses that the Boyes commission is doing at this point, only more site specific.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: They'd be more formal than that. They'd be far more technical, too.

MS. SMALLWOOD: When the minister says more formal, are you

talking about a public process where the community has an opportunity

to come and give special witness and deal with the technical aspects of

it?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, we are.

MR. LOVICK: During second reading debate, I posed a number of

questions and made a brief statement about 3.3 of this particular

legislation.

My concern, and indeed the focal point of my remarks, was what I

perceived to be a concentration of power within the hands of cabinet.

Before I pursue that matter further, perhaps I might begin by asking

the minister if he would like to justify this new

section 3.3, entitled

"Powers of Lieutenant Governor in Council." Why this new section?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Actually, it's not inconsistent with other sections

of environment legislation, although this quite clearly gives the L-G-in-C remarkable

control. But we took the position that there are situations where permits are

sought for waste discharges where the implications for the public interest would

be of more primacy than the technical interests, and for this reason the L-G-in-C

would take it unto themselves to act in the public interest when it was considered

necessary. I know that appears onerous, but it is a two-edged sword, Mr. Member.

I think you want us to have this right to act in the public interest, as opposed

to just the technical interest, and I think you would want subsequent governments

to have that authority as well.

[3:00]

MR. LOVICK: I'm listening carefully, Mr. Chairman, and it

strikes me there is something like a false dichotomy there. What is the

difference between the technical interest — what the experts in the

field are going to perceive to be their duty with regard to taking

measures to make sure that we are properly disposing of these materials

— and the public interest? How is it that the technical advisers would

not be mindful of the public interest? I don't see the argument behind

this.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Quite often the technical evidence is

solid and something you can stand behind, and yet the government of the

day will know that the public interest, for whatever reason — not

technical, but for other, political reasons — would agree that the

project should not proceed. An example I can think of is a body shop

and paint-spray booth on Okanagan Lake. Technically it was sound, but

it just could not proceed because of the public interest argument. So

the government set that aside, although they had no real reason in law

to do it. But there was some persuasion, I guess, in the case of the

ministry, that the paint-booth operator should locate somewhere else.

This

section does give cabinet that authority to act as a director

would.

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that answer, and I'm going to accept, at least for the moment, the argument presented.

I would now like to ask what the rationale is for the second part of

section 3.3(2), that the L-G-in-C "shall not be limited to the

considerations that would be taken into account by a director, district

director, officer or manager." What does that mean? What's the

explanation?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Under the act the director must issue a

permit if the proposal is technically correct. This would give the

L-G-in-C the right to take into account the public interest and not

just the technical arguments.

MR. LOVICK: Would it be fair then to conclude from this that

this is a way of providing a kind of reserve power in the hands of the

ministry to deal with the predicament of "not in my backyard, you

don't"? Is that the case?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes. It would be technically correct, Mr.

Member, to do something with special wastes in downtown Nanaimo — there

could be technical evidence that no one could refute — and yet neither

you nor I would be pleased with that. That's essentially what we're

getting at here.

MR. LOVICK: My colleague from Maillardville-Coquitlam...or what is it? Mission? I forget now. Where are you from now, Mark?

[ Page 2098 ]

MR. ROSE: Everywhere.

MR. LOVICK: One of my colleagues says that there is probably a flip side to that argument, and I think that's also the case.

What I wanted to touch on briefly, if I might, Mr. Chairman, is the

part that seems to me to connect directly to 3.3(2) but is a different

section of the bill, namely

section 11. That's the right of appeal, or

the absence of. Because it deals specifically with the L-G-in-C, may I

ask that question now?

Okay? Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

I would just ask the minister to explain to us why it is that

effectively we're saying that decisions made by cabinet, by the

L-G-in-C, are beyond appeal. Is that desirable? Is that necessary? Or

are we perhaps anticipating a kind of crisis where there might not be

one?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Where else could you appeal to after the L-G-in-C has made a decision? That's it.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Appeal Board.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The Appeal Board can be very difficult to appeal to, and it's not something that we would contemplate.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Mr. Chairman, this clause on its own is enough

to reject the legislation. The reason I say that is because of the

action and the history that the Ministry of Environment has

demonstrated over the last few months. They have put in place a

commission, as I've said before, of very well-meaning people who want

to do a good job — but in essence it's putting the difficult job of

siting a facility at arm's length from the government. In essence, this

picks a community somewhere in the province to locate a special waste

facility and says that regardless of what the community says, for the

good of the province — because we need to do something about special

wastes, because we have a tremendous problem and have to move forward —

you're it.

That's what this clause says; and it says that the people in that

community have nothing to say about it. They have no appeal and no

right to be heard. This clause, along with

section 11, says there is to

be a massive centralizing of power that goes around all the public

process currently in place, which, I might suggest, has been eroded

over the last several months.

I think this

section flies in the face of the work done by community

groups, by the government and by industry over the last two or three

years. Those groups came together — I've said this to the minister

before — and decided to deal with this significant problem, and they

were prepared to go through all the work necessary to outline a program

to ensure that this province could deal with special wastes in a

responsible way. The only way that it could take place was by an

extensive, open process that ensured that all communities had the

support and ability to learn and site a facility that would not meet

opposition.

By the government's going around the process in place.... By

minimizing that process, the government is ensuring that they will have

to use the power this

section gives it. Regardless of all the good

intentions in the world by a commission put in place in the last short

while, history throughout North America shows that unless you take into

consideration the recommendations of that three-party committee that

worked for two years, you're going to have a situation, in essence, of

civil disobedience. If you take the power of appeal away from

communities, the power to say what goes on in their own back yards,

that is the option you're leaving people.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Number one, I don't want to be difficult

about this, but there's nothing in this

section that takes away at all

from the hearing process. The hearing process is not mentioned here,

and it is in place and will continue in place.

I want you to think this

section through, hon. member, as I

explained to the member for Nanaimo. We could delete this right now on

the floor of the House, but I don't think you'd want it. I don't think

you nor I nor anyone in the province wants technical decisions only.

Other public-interest decisions will have to be made. So think about

your position of deleting this, because it could be done right now with

a stroke of the pen. I don't think you want that, if you think the

whole thing through.

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Chairman, the case the minister presents is

logically and in concrete terms a solid one. Ha! That's an interesting

line. Sorry about that.

The issue I'm wondering about is whether this is a bit of a

political cop-out. We decide to vest in cabinet those powers simply so

we do not have to confront publicly the concerns we as a society ought

to be confronting, namely the simple fact that we continue to have

processes that produce wastes that we are apparently incapable of

dealing with, or that we are not prepared to pay the price of dealing

with. Therefore we are going to vest in a particular body of people —

who don't have to take much public heat — the authority to do things to

communities. I suppose I'm suggesting to the minister that there ought

to be and perhaps is a better way. Perhaps what we should be doing is

having all these procedures — the L-G-in-C decision — the product of

some kind of public hearing. To be sure, the cabinet still has the

right to conclude, but with some public-hearing process built right in.

One of the reasons we ought to do that, if for no other purpose, is

that we will thereby force people to come to terms with the problem of

industrial society: namely, that we are continuing to produce these

things, to pursue a lifestyle that frankly causes us some difficulties.

I'm wondering if by using this kind of mechanism we're simply taking

the great majority of citizens' minds off the problem.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: We're getting a tad philosophical here.

Sure, I recognize the member's concern that we should be addressing

special wastes in a better manner. There's no question about that; I

totally agree with you. That's why we have this type of legislation.

But special wastes are consumer driven, Mr. Member. There are many

people in your community who work at sawmills that produce export

lumber which must use the PCPs to protect them or there is no export

sale. There's a lot of that material around.

There are many other special wastes that we have to take control of.

We have to start looking after ourselves in our own province. We're

currently storing and in some cases shipping. We may have some

shipments to Swan Hills in Alberta when it opens up. It depends on how

the transportation people deal with us. But sooner or later the other

jurisdictions are going to say,"British Columbia, you've got to look

after

[ Page

2099 ]

your own stuff," and we'll have to have this

legislation and this facility in place to do it; otherwise, we're in

big gobs of trouble. I'd much rather have a special waste facility

properly done, properly in place, than the type of storage that's

carrying on now, which in some cases is suspect. In some cases we don't

even know where it is. That's what is causing us some alarm.

It is our intent, first of all, not to negate the public hearing

process whatsoever. It is our intent to have cabinet control in terms

of the public interest. Of course, there is nothing here that prohibits

cabinet from having their own further public hearing so that they can

arrive at their own conclusions. Smaller problems could be covered

under the Environment Management Act, and that appeal board could hear

them.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'd like to take exception to a couple of the

comments that the minister made. First of all, dealing with the powers

of cabinet, I don't find them at all philosophical. They are there,

they are entrenched, and they are used. Our concern about the use is

that it is done out of the public eye; that there isn't accountability;

and that for a facility such as this, in particular with the

regulations as they exist, it is important that the public have access

to that process. It should be a public process, and the public should

be assured that they can have access to all of the information in order

to make those decisions in an informed way.

[3:15]

The point is that it's not only through this

section that the

cabinet has the power to site a facility against the wishes of a

community. The cabinet also has the power to make a decision to issue a

variance order, to issue a provision in a permit where the permit is

not being adhered to for one reason or another. The cabinet can meet in

isolation behind closed doors and say: "Okay, good old boys, it's all

right. You can continue to contaminate the environment till next year.

When we've made this deal, you will then come into compliance." There

is no opportunity for the community to know what's going on in that

facility or to influence the permit process.

So I don't believe for a moment that it is at all philosophical or,

for that matter, that we're dealing with something not of the very

essence of this waste management bill. I want to restate our position

in that we want special waste dealt with in this province. We want to

make sure it works. We're concerned that you're heading down a path of

more confrontation; indeed, that the community cannot be assured that

you will be able to deal with the problems, because the mechanisms to

deal with those problems are not in place.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That's why the legislation has to be in

place. There is every opportunity for a public hearing. As the member

knows, we have already put a special waste committee in place, more

than adequately funded, and they have been told to hear as many

concerns as they can. They will carry on with that process — full,

adequate public hearings. So I make no apologies for the hearing

process.

I reiterate: in the case of this type of special waste, this type of public

interest that has to be considered, I would rather have elected officials dealing

with the ultimate decision than a carte blanche technical approval in the hands

of the bureaucracy. It's not that I don't trust the bureaucracy, but

I can see in many cases a very good technical argument totally flying in the

face of what I would consider to be the public interest.

Sections 4 to 6 inclusive approved.

section 7.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Subsection (1.2) says:

"Where a permit or approval is subject to conditions

imposed pursuant to a decision made in an appeal under

Part 5 to the

director or to the appeal board, those conditions shall not be amended

except by the director or the appeal board, as the case may be, and

after the director or appeal board has given the parties an opportunity

to be heard on the question of whether the conditions should be

amended."

Can the minister explain the question of whether

the conditions should be amended? What's the purpose of this particular

section?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Amendments are required from time to time.

What we do here is define the manner in which permits may be amended.

If the permit was issued by the L-G-in-C, the amendment must be

discussed with the minister; if the permit was issued by the director,

the L-G-in-C must review the amendments with the director. That's the

process in place. The ability to amend must be in place.

Sections 7 and 8 approved.

section 9.

MS. SMALLWOOD: This outlines the power of an officer to

ensure compliance with the act or regulations made under the act. It

talks about an officer intervening when immediate danger has been

proven. Can the minister suggest to us how that can be done and why

instead the officer wouldn't have the power to intervene or inspect, if

indeed they suspect that there is a problem?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Here we go with the Charter again. The

officer now has to have a very good reason to search. So what we're

doing is.... Gosh, the Attorney-General is here, so I'll temper what I

was going to say. We're going, I guess, beyond reasonable search law in

saying, in this case and in compliance with this act and in compliance

with hazardous goods under this act, that we're giving that constable

just a bit more clout in our legislation. I'm sure the Attorney-General

will agree with me that sooner or later some judge is going to say:

"No, I'm sorry, you must have a warrant and a lot of other reasons to

stop a truck that's openly dripping PCB down the highway." But we're

got better search procedures in here, and we think they're necessary

because we're dealing with some pretty nasty stuff.

Sections 9 to 12 inclusive approved.

section 13.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'd like further clarification from the

minister about the management trust fund. It would seem to me, from

this legislation, that the minister is more or less hanging his hat on

this particular section, the

section that deals with liability and

protection. Can the minister explain to us where the money is coming

from? I understand from this

section that it's coming from the

operators of the facility. How do the operators get that money? What

assurance do the

[ Page 2100 ]

communities have that there will be enough money there to deal with problems?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: We're going to set up what I have been

advised will be called a tipping fee. This will be on a per-gallon or

per-tonne basis, and everyone shipping to the facility has to pay that

fee. That money is then given to the Crown. The owner of the facility

doesn't keep it; he just collects it, as one would collect sales tax,

and records it. There's an audit trail established, such as receipts,

and that type of thing. Then on a monthly basis, or whatever, the

operator of the facility would remit that money to the Crown, where it

would be kept in this waste management trust fund for purposes of

clean-up. We want it in the legislation so we have the right to charge

that and have the right to have the special fund that can't be touched

by other areas of government and can be used totally for clean-up,

should it be required at a later date, either at abandonment of a

facility or for whatever purpose. But we do want to have that money in

trust, earning interest and standing on guard for the people of British

Columbia with respect to waste facilities.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Can the minister indicate whether this is

indeed a limited liability? Is there a cap on the fund? Can the

minister suggest to us how such a fund will deal with other, older

closed facilities that already exist in the province?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It won't be used for older closed

facilities. Mind you, we know they shouldn't contain the hazardous

wastes that are contemplated here in this legislation. In terms of

liability, we're simply saying here that we want to have the fund

established for the care and maintenance of closed facilities until

such time as they would be closed.

MR. VANT: I, too, have a few comments about

section 13. I

certainly welcome this waste management trust fund. In my constituency

there's still a high level of anxiety concerning a proposed megadump at

Koster siding. I will not put the minister in a sub judice position

today either, but it just so happens that the rainfall at Koster is

between 25 and 30 inches per year, and right here in Victoria the

rainfall — from a very good source — is from 27 to 29 inches per year.

So it's kind of a similar situation.

We have the Hartland Avenue dump here in Victoria. It's a megadump

now, because for several decades it has received household and, I

presume, light industrial refuse from the greater Victoria area. Very

sadly, it is now producing leachate at the rate of 900 litres per

minute. Again, it's causing quite a problem and will now cost up to $2

million to control.

This is a statement by Mr. Warman of the Capital Regional District.

I am concerned that under

section 34 of the Waste Management Act, which

I referred to the other evening, the maximum penalty for things going

wrong is $50,000. This seems rather paltry. In the light of that, I

welcome

section 13, which we are discussing right now.

I appreciate hearing from the hon. minister the details about this

tipping fee. I must emphasize that it must be collected consistently

over a long period of time, because it is very costly to clean up these

old landfill sites, and I don't want to see us get into leachate

problems with proposed landfill sites, such as the one at Koster

siding. So I certainly welcome the minister's comments on my remarks.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: In the case of the Capital Regional

District and other municipalities, we very seldom have any problems

with them in not cleaning up, and I am sure they'll address that

problem; plus the fact that they have their own tipping fees. They

charge people now. They have a trust fund set up within their

municipalities, so they can remedy those problems when and if they

occur — which is what they should do in the case of the CRD.

MR. VANT: In our constituency, it seems to me the situation

is that the permitee is ultimately liable. I could see that a certain

firm contracting to take garbage from, say, the Greater Vancouver

Regional District may dump for several years, and then that firm could

go out of business, and the provincial government, under the present

legislation, takes no particular liability position. It's just the

permitee who is ultimately responsible, but I can see a way out of that

through this waste management trust fund, with those funds being held

by the Crown to cover any problems down the road.

I can see this as being of great benefit throughout the province, if

there are any problems, even after one of these landfill sites has been

closed for several years.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I still don't believe we have clarification.

If there is a problem with a facility, after operating for, say, a

year, that fund would only have in it the tipping fees for that year.

If this fund is the sole lever for liability, how can a community be

assured that that facility will be checked and cleaned up, and that any

damage done will be dealt with?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: This is specifically in place to cover

closed-down operations or a place where the owner leaves. In the case

of an operation that is in place, we require bonding. The

owner-operator of that facility will have to have bonding in place

while he is operating it to look after any potential problems that may

occur during the tenure of his operation.

The special waste management trust fund is for after; that would be

my impression. But we will, in our regulations, require extensive

bonding. These have to be first-class operations in terms of

containment.

[3:30]

MS. SMALLWOOD: According to the previous

section we just

passed under "waste ownership," if I can tie it into the waste

management fund, my understanding here is that once the producers of

special waste have transported the material to the facility, they are

no longer liable for that hazardous waste.

When the facility is either in a situation of going bankrupt and

walking away or closing, then the only thing in place is the waste

management trust fund. Very likely the title could convert to the

Crown. So there is nothing holding the facility owner liable once they

take those legal actions.

As I suggested before, other special waste facilities, for instance

in the United States, have held both the generator and the operator

liable for the length of time that the material is hazardous. Again,

that particular aspect of liability doesn't seem to be in this act.

I've raised this with the minister before. I am concerned that we

are setting this facility up with minimal liability, and that the

mechanisms are not in place to stop this facility from looking pretty

good for the disposal of hazardous waste from other jurisdictions. We

may very well be in a situation where

[ Page

2101 ]

it is more profitable in the long-term for the

generators of special waste to dispose of the material here in B.C.

because they no longer have that long-term liability imposed upon them.

Can the minister comment on that?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: First of all, while a facility is an operation, we have the bonds. They are held by the Crown, so we have them there.

The other thing you have to remember is that the United States

situation seems reasonably good when you look at it, but the result is

that no one is shipping their special waste any more, because the

generator or shipper of special waste, if he has this long-term

liability, which could be two to 500 years, just won't do it. He's

going to hide it. He's not going to send it anywhere.

MR. ROSE: Put it down the storm sewer.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Right. So what you're doing is compounding

the problem, and this is why we say "as soon as it goes on site" —

unless the guy has misrepresented what he's shipping. But if he has

represented properly the waste that he's putting in that facility, then

that waste becomes the responsibility of the facility owner. Through

bonding, he has to maintain it and follow our regulations with respect

to storage, which could be cement vaults or a variety of things — it

depends on the element and the concern that we have — and then we take

that tipping fee to cover off the future generations. As I said, these

things have a.... It could be two or three hundred years before we have

to be concerned about a remedy, but we would have that money gaining

interest in this fund to put a remedy in place,

MR. ROSE: Part of this, Your Honour might think, is more like

a second reading speech, but I want to say something rather general.

The minister here, in terms of his waste management trust fund, is

trying to do a rather difficult tightrope act, I think. On the one hand

you can have your fees so high in order to make certain that the public

is looked after and the facility runs profitably and the operator makes

a buck — because that's what he's in it for; he's not in it to protect

future generations. The tradition in our country and in other

countries, when you have problems of getting rid of waste — toxic or

otherwise — is to pass the social costs on to future generations,

because it's too expensive to do it while you're doing it. So that's

why we pollute our rivers and air and all the rest of it.

But the tough balancing act is to make it attractive enough so that

those people who are not completely irresponsible will dispose of their

toxic wastes in a place where we can handle them, either through

recycling, regeneration or some kind of destruction other than just

burial, which is going to leach out ultimately anyway. I think everyone

is familiar with the problems that we're having, say with the spent

nuclear fuel rods. It's just a horrendous problem, and there are

thousands of tonnes of those coming up from that high-tech turkey known

as the Candu reactor. However, the other problem is that if you don't

have it cheap enough to use, then the disposal will be done in a

bootleg way — down the storm sewer or somewhere — and that's been the

practice in the past.

So that seems to me the minister's or the government's main problem.

I've heard other people say: "Well, in 'posterity' what difference does

that make? What has posterity ever done for me?" I know that this will

sound ideological, but if the government really is responsible for down

the road, I don't know why, if they insist on a private operator, the

government doesn't organize the site — not just its location — and

develop very stringent standards for the site, and maintain ownership

and — although I know this will be heresy in the NDP — even contract

out to somebody to operate it if that's necessary, if you want one of

those hardheaded business decisions and efficiency and all that good

stuff that we talk about all the time.

The difficulty as I see it is that the public may not be well

protected. They'll think they are, but they may not be. And who

launches a complaint of leaching, or whatever? Because these things

take years — maybe 50 to 100 years — to develop. So that's the problem.

Can the minister really assure us here that the fund is a virtually

unlimited fund? I don't know what assurance the minister can give us on

that. Secondly....

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Yes, but there is a limit to everything. For

instance, in the nuclear plants there is a limitation on the damage

caused, and I think it's relatively small — something like $5 million,

and that's the limit.

But if I haven't thrown out too many non sequiturs, perhaps the

minister might screen my comments for some comments of his own, because

it is a serious problem. We know we have to deal with these things; we

know we have to have adequate and economic waste disposal, or else

we'll have the problem of dumping, as I suggested, into areas where we

can't control it. So we're not at odds with the ministry here at all,

and we recognize the problem. Our concern, entirely, is how best to

protect the public.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I don't think you've thrown out too many non sequiturs. I didn't think you threw out any at all.

Your idea with respect to a private-public facility: there is a

potential for that in this legislation. It would depend on the

recommendations of Dr. Boyes and the committee and what came out of the

hearing process. But philosophically I guess I'd look at that a little

differently than you would, given the respective differences we have

from a political perspective; nevertheless there certainly is the

opportunity for the type of arrangement you've just suggested to come

into place. You're right, we are balancing on a tightrope. We have to

make this attractive and a commercial interest, to have someone put

this very expensive facility in place, and then of course he has to

charge for what he's doing, and people have to come to him or, as you

say, they're going to bootleg. So we're in agreement on that. But no, I

don't have any problem; if the public hearing process of Dr. Boyes and

all the evidence we hear in the community indicates that maybe there is

some area for government to be involved, then I don't have any problem

with that at all.

There is no way I would at all change

section 13 with respect to the

trust fund and how it will be operated, and I can't see it being

limited. There will be a tipping fee and the money will just continue

to go in there and go in there until such time as it's needed, and

let's hope that's never. Unless some subsequent government changes the

legislation,

section 13 and the waste management trust fund would be

clearly and only for the purposes that it's designed for.

[ Page 2102 ]

MR. ROSE: The difficulty with any of these things is, it

seems to me, that it takes so long to even realize what's happening. I

can conceive of the time that, if we keep dumping waste from Vancouver

— now this is not toxic waste but just general waste — into Burns Bog,

for instance, ultimately we will pollute those wetlands, the wetlands

where life really begins.

So these things happen over a long period. It's not the case like

Chernobyl or somebody blows the roof off Three Mile Island. That

happens all at once; it's easy to find out how it happened and when it

happened. The difficulty with these things is they're insidious. You

never really know. When did it start and when did the problem arise?

That's the real problem.

It seems to me that you would have to, first of all, have stringent

standards in the construction of a facility, and you would also have to

have regular inspections by someone who is not directly involved. I

think you would have to have an external examination on a regular basis

of what's happening and what's going into these facilities. That's

really what concerns us.

Our record in industrial North America has not been a very good one.

We've got Love Canal; we've got all kinds of things now that were

considered to be relatively safe at one time. All that Niagara

Escarpment is leaching where we thought we had solid rock. Well, the

solid rock is probably in the craniums of the people who planned the

facility, as it turns out. We’ve got the same problem now with tests

going on in the Canadian Shield just a little way outside of Winnipeg,

because they're concerned about percolation of nuclear wastes even

though, ultimately, the half life is millions of years

Our society says we're going to deal with these things, and yes, we

use them, but we don't know how to dispose of them. This may be a

sophisticated attempt to do it, but my instincts tell me it isn't. The

history of regulatory bodies of various kinds has been very

disappointing, whether you're talking about the CRTC or whether you're

talking about the Combines Investigation Act. After these things happen

and long since afterwards, where remedy is taking place, the damage has

been done. That's why I'm more concerned. I'm not even very happy with

the Atomic Energy Control Board, AECB. They seem to be inextricably

linked with the nuclear lobby and Atomic Energy of Canada. The

difficulty, as I see it, is to get an arm's-length, separate appellate

or appeal and investigative branch.

That is, I think, about all we can do. There is little other

protection than that. Or to make it so damned expensive that nobody

will even try. If they get caught flushing PCBs into the Fraser River

or something else down the toilet, even in the privacy of their own

homes, they should throw the book at them. I don't see any other way

out.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: You're absolutely right, Mr. Member. We do

have some pretty heavy offences. We could change those. They are open

to change and I have no problem recommending higher change if we're

expecting that we've got a serious situation. Also, the arm's-length

committee is what we have in the Dr. Boyes committee. That's what I'd

maintain we keep before and after, because what we have here is one of

British Columbia's foremost cancer researchers, and we know that.

[Mrs. Gran in the chair.]

The man has remarkable credentials; he is a very, very good

investigator. He is vitally concerned about the problem we're facing

and is attempting to use his considerable expertise to have us do it.

He's totally arm's-length and he's the best we could find. As a matter

of fact, I think we'd be foolish not to consider that type of ongoing

committee with respect to monitoring and with respect to dealing with

this situation for us.

MR. ROSE: I won't prolong this, but will just say that while

it's not particularly in this ministry, we've had recent examples of a

cask of very serious contaminants — I'm not quite sure of what it was;

I think it was PCBs — taken from some site in North or West Vancouver

over to the gravel dump on the side of the Coquitlam River. We've also

heard examples.... It was reported in the paper; I hope that's not too

far out of order. For instance, the mayor of Coquitlam went out at

night to catch somebody who was an operator releasing his

settling-ponds into the Coquitlam River.

There are all kinds of these little stunts going on all the time;

they are not rare. If there is some way that we could end that, through

adequate provision of alternative means, it would be very helpful.

[3:45]

MR. VANT: Madam Chairman, we in the Cariboo have a very high

level of anxiety, given what has happened in the past. You mentioned

that you hope this fund never has to be used, but when I check the

records and refer to the Environment Canada-Reid, Crowther report on

the need for a waste management strategy, in association with our

government and just about every other provincial government in

Canada.... It says here:

"The survey of landfill sites in British Columbia

revealed that landfills are routinely used for the disposal of liquid

wastes. For example, waste materials known to be entering the Hartland

Road landfill in Victoria include asbestos in powder form, acetone and

paints. These materials are transported in standard packer trucks.

Industrial liquid wastes are also dumped at waste treatment plants in

loads mixed with septic plant wastes.

"A particular concern relates to the monitoring of

leachate. Only four out of 19 sites surveyed had facilities in place

for leachate monitoring."

So it seems that festering out there are great problems, possibly,

down the road. To keep things balanced — and that's why I'm

interjecting in the debate on this

section of this bill — back in

Manitoba they've got problems too in that socialist Utopia. For

example, this in the Canadian Environmental Control Newsletter .

In 1983 a study was done in Manitoba. The Workplace Safety and Health

minister, Gerard Lecuyer, said that the report recommends closing the

Gimli waste disposal site due to its negative environmental impact.

Again, this is another landfill site, and I can assume the rainfall in

Manitoba is nowhere near what it is here in B.C.

The report on the Portage la Prairie site notes that contamination

of some wells has occurred, and it recommends continued monitoring at

this site. The report notes that wastes are contaminating shallow

aquifers and surface waters in the Gimli area. Mr. Lecuyer noted that

affected well-owners had been advised not to use their water for

drinking or for food preparation.

[ Page

2103 ]

So as the MLA for Cariboo, I hope that I never, ever have to advise

the constituents in the 70 Mile House-Koster area: "Gee whiz, you can

no longer drink or even cook with the water from your wells." We hope

that we can prevent problems in the future, and I predict that under

section 13, this fund is very necessary and will be used to great

advantage to help clean up some of the problems from the past.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'm glad that the member, using

out-of-order debate, has once again established his position on Koster,

which I totally agree with as minister, It's regrettable — the landfill

problem you've advised me of that's occurred in Victoria.

Acetone, by the way, is nail-polish remover. It's really not that injurious to people, but it sounds dangerous.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'd just like further clarification. If I

understood the minister right, he said that he wants the Boyes

commission to be ongoing.

Interjection.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Or a commission like it. Such an ongoing

commission could deal with monitoring a facility. Is the minister

suggesting that that task of monitoring the facility would be taken

over by a commission at arm's length from the ministry? What role would

the ministry have in that?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: First of all, I was answering the member

for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose), and his position was that we have to

continue with an independent third body. I would have no argument with

that. It could be Dr. Boyes or someone with his type of science

background and investigation methods.

In terms of monitoring, I would see this independent body as being

responsible for two types of monitoring: the process — is everything

being handled properly as it goes in? — and monitoring the facility

itself in terms of where we may or may not have problems, and what the

remedies might be. So there would be monitoring for the process and

monitoring of the facility itself in terms of its ability to contain

what it is supposed to contain.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Because most of the actual substance is in the regulations as far as monitoring and control go, we'll leave that to

section 15.

On this, and the fact that you're talking about a tipping fee for

the material coming into the site, has the minister considered, instead

of using that sort of collection, the actual taxing or charging of

generators, which would in turn reduce the production and would ensure

a larger fund for the waste management trust fund?

The point I'm making is that while I have used examples of liability

in the United States, I think most of the discussion in Canada has been

far more progressive in that it deals with liability as well as with

source reduction. I don't believe for a moment that we can deal with

special waste management in this province without dealing with source

reduction and recycling. Taxing the generator would do that.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: We suspect we will have source reduction, and many

of these toxic wastes can be recycled. They will be recycled at the source.

That is why we have a trust fund in place: so that people ship as few toxic

wastes as possible. When we put that tipping charge in place, it ensures that

they are reusing as much as they can. So we do see this as encouraging recycling.

I don't see why it wouldn't. But again, as the member for Coquitlam-Moody

pointed out, it's a fine balancing act. You can't make it prohibitive

or they simply won't ship to the waste facility, and then you won't

have the problem addressed.

In terms of a tax, I don't know what you'd want to call it. We think

that it would be hard to monitor at the site. That's why we see this

tipping surcharge. You can call it a tax if that will make you feel

better. This tipping surcharge — in other words, the actual cost per

litre, per tonne, per pound or however we want to measure it — will be

charged to the person shipping into that facility and remitted to

government. We think that's the cleanest and most productive way of

handling the money we have to recover for our own protection.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'd like to suggest to the minister that if he

is talking about a comprehensive plan for special waste management, he

has got to know what the generators are producing, and if you know what

they are producing, then you can tax them to discourage the production.

There are alternatives and alternative uses. A charge for disposal does

not deal with that. It is basically a limited-liability situation,

where only the people who bring their material there are involved in

the liability payment to a community.

In particular, while we all want to ensure that we can

constructively deal with the problem that is in this province, we also

want assurances that it's going to work. So far we've had wonderful

speeches about how pleased we are that we have a waste management trust

fund, but I would like numbers. Can the minister tell us how much waste

a facility would be dealing with per year? And can the minister

indicate to us how much he sees being raised annually by such a trust

fund? Without that, I'm unsure how we can have confidence in it.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: To get back to the first part of the

member's question, we're going to charge at the facility, and that's

the only place. Some generators of special wastes may, first of all,

ship to the United States, for whatever reason — maybe they can keep

their contracts alive in other areas — so they wouldn't be shipping to

our facilities. Some may recycle. That would be quite common, and we

would encourage it. So they're not shipping at all. Under this act,

others may store their special wastes at their own facility.

All we want to do by collecting the fund is to look after the operation of the facility that's in place.

Where were we? I've forgotten the second part of the question. I'm

sorry; what was the second part of the question, Madam Member?

MS. SMALLWOOD: My question was dealing with bottom-line figures — dollars and cents.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: In his preliminary investigations, Dr.

Boyes reckons that there are 70,000 tonnes per year of special waste.

But he thinks — as we think about this further down the road — that

maybe that's year one; that's everybody coming out of the closet with

their special wastes. We have the tendency to think that the figure

will be down in subsequent years.

[ Page 2104 ]

It's not proved, because there's a lot of this stuff that's being

hidden away. As I indicated in my estimates, it could be half a barrel

of last year's pesticide on a farm, and there are many instances of

this type of storage around. Once we have the facility in place, then

we expect to see a lot of it come out. The input may be less in

subsequent years, but 70,000 tonnes for the first year is the best

estimate we can come up with.

In terms of what the cost is going to be, we have no idea. That is

going to depend on the Boyes commission to further establish the answer

to the second part of your question.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Sorry, Mr. Minister, I don't do "trust me"

very well, especially when we are dealing with serious issues like this

and, in particular, with the sort of resources that the Boyes

commission has. There are three commissioners, there are two staff

people, and the only actual support they have is a management

consultant firm that was responsible for the siting of Swan Hills.

The figure of 70,000 tonnes per year was produced and talked about a

couple of years prior to the Boyes commission, so it hasn't been the in

depth study of the Boyes commission that has produced these kinds of

numbers. I think the minister's earlier comments about lack of

information in this area are more to the point.

So while I think there is a great wealth of information and study

out there about systems and liability programs, again, without those

kinds of specifics, it is hard for me — and I suspect for the people in

the community you are prepared to site this facility in — to have

confidence in the facility when you can't assure us of dollars and

cents. When you are talking about the potential of contaminating a

community's water supply and all that entails as far as long-term

health effects go, in order to ask for the support of the opposition, I

think it is incumbent upon the ministry to have those bottom-line

figures available to the community and to this House.

Surely any corporation in this province would not go to an

interested second person and tell them: "Trust me. We don't have the

bottom-line figures, but we're sure this is going to work." Well,

that's not the way it works in the business world, and it's not the way

it's going to fly in communities or in this House.

[4:00]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: What the member said has nothing to do

with the bill, really. We're asking you and the committee to approve

this bill so that the Boyes commission can continue to operate with the

authority of legislation. You may not trust me, and that's fine, but

we're simply asking you to trust Dr. Boyes, and I am sure you do.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I am a very trusting person, but I also want

basic information. That isn't a matter of trusting either the ministry,

the government or you personally, Mr. Minister; nor is it a matter of

trusting a commission that is out touring the province without enough

support. It's a matter of saying that if you are wanting to put

legislation in place — and in particular, we're talking about the waste

management trust fund, which is the vehicle for liability and the

vehicle to assure communities that, should anything devastating happen

in their community, they can be assured in black and white and in

numbers that their interests have been taken care of. Without the

ministry being able to give us that kind of specific information, it's

like coming to the House with a piece of legislation and not the

information with which to be able to judge it.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That information is simply not available

until the Boyes committee continues on its investigations, establishes

a site, establishes what the site is going to do, what type of special

waste it's going to handle and what the volume is. Until such time as

this legislation has passed and further research is done, there's just

no answer that can be given. I appreciate that you want to know

something now that won't be available till next fall, but what you're

going to have to do is wait till next fall.

MS. SMALLWOOD: If that is the case, then this legislation is

premature. There is no way that this legislation should be before the

House without you being able to substantiate it.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: How on earth do you put the committee in

place, with its regulations and its right to operate, without the

legislation? Speak to your House Leader; he'll tell you how it works.

MS. SMALLWOOD: We are not dealing with the committee. The

committee has been mandated by the ministry itself. What we are dealing

with here is a waste management trust fund, the ownership of waste —

the perimeters within which the siting will take place — and the

legislation that will govern the decisions that Dr. Boyes undertakes in

the fall. So any manipulation of those numbers, or the intent of the

committee, flies in the face of the act that we're undertaking right

here.

Section 13 approved.

section 14.

MS. SMALLWOOD: This particular

section deals with penalties,

and the minister was fond of reminding us that he needed legislation

that upped the penalties for violation. Dealing with subsection

(4.1),"a penalty not exceeding $5,000," can the minister tell us why he

would put a $5,000 limit on the obstruction of justice when, for

instance, the Real Estate Act has penalties of $100,000 for not filing

a prospectus? There seems to be a problem in priorities here.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: This is just for obstructing a police constable in the course of his duty. There are heavier fines that come in later.

Section 14 approved.

section 15.

MS. SMALLWOOD: This is a

section that empowers the Waste

Management Act to deal with regulations on special waste. I would like

to go through and make a couple of comments about the special waste

regulations that the minister and I have talked about. I'll run down a

couple of the categories, and then the minister can comment. I will not

try to deal with all of the

definitions. As I have said, there are four

pages that are not part of the Waste Management Act, nor are they part

of the amendment that is before us.

The first one I would like to take exception to is the definition of "impervious." The point that I made earlier was

[ Page

2105 ]

that the dictionary definition is zero migration.

The definition according to the special waste regulations actually

allows leakage. When the ministry identifies any entrance of

contaminants into the environment as actually contaminating the

environment, why would the minister, particularly in a special waste

regulation, by definition actually allow a slow leak? In addition,

water is the substance that the measurement is taken with, and the

comment made by the expert discussing this with me was that solvents

and oils and such leach much more quickly than that.

I'll just make a couple of comments about

definitions, and then we

can move on. On the issue of the liner — this is to deal with the

landfill as well — the way I read this definition, what could happen is

that the facility could dig down to bedrock and use the material that

was taken out of that hole as the liner. It talks about the liner being

intended to restrict the downward lateral escape of special waste. It

does not stop the flow.

Another one that I wanted to talk about is the secure landfill.

Again, this is a situation where they're talking about the facility

being designed or constructed and operated to prevent. When we're

talking about a secure landfill, it's beyond me why it doesn't just

clearly say "prevent."

The final one is in special waste. Under the special waste section, there's a

schedule 4 that lists 31 substances.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, are you looking at the regulations?

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'm looking at the special waste regulations.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Which portion of

section 15 does that pertain to?

MS. SMALLWOOD:

Section 15 deals with the ability to form

regulations. The minister, in our previous conversation, suggested to

me that the appropriate place to deal with special waste regulations

and all of the concerns is under this section. That was clarified in

addition to the conversation which took place at the end of last week.

The thing that's so difficult about this.... I realize that the

minister, as well as the Chair, is allowing this debate to deal with

regulations, which do not as a rule come before the House. The reason

I've asked for this special opportunity under this

section to deal with

these regulations is for that very reason. I would like the minister,

in addition to dealing with these — perhaps this is a cabinet decision

— to consider our having the opportunity to bring regulations to a

committee of the House, as is done in the federal House. It would

alleviate some of these problems.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Madam Chairman, I indicated to the member

earlier, and to the committee, that when my officials arrive we would

be prepared to accept questions about the regulations, because it's

sensitive.

First of all, with respect to "impervious," nothing is impervious.

Liquids can be forced through a chunk of steel. We then, through those regulations,

established what the permeability would be; it's very, very slight. But

no substance on earth is totally impervious. So within the regulations, you

have to adapt some engineering requirements and make some engineering statements

about what you will accept.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Just to finish up, the other definition I

wanted to deal with is "special waste." I was making the point that 31

substances listed in

schedule 4 are identified as substances under the

classification of special waste. A facility such as this would be

dealing with far more than 31 substances. By not defining those

substances or giving that

schedule some ability to identify and deal

with those substances, we're in a situation where the ministry again is

trying to control the contaminants entering the environment without

having those contaminants identified, and therefore being unable to

regulate them.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The idea of listing every single one,

Madam Member, would cause us problems. You get people who can find

loopholes: you have 400 and they'd find 401 that they can get by,

What we do in the case of these 31 is identify the family groups of

the elements, and from that we can trap everything. So although the

list is smaller, it's far larger in generic and family intent, in terms

of capturing the elements, and that makes it far better. That was the

problem they had in the United States; that's why we've gone for this

standard. This, by the way, is a Canadian standard adopted by the

federal government and the nine other provinces.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Perhaps the minister can tell us if he has the

ability to add to that list. In addition to that, I'd like to know why,

for instance. they're not dealing with broad identifications such as

carcinogens, mutagens, corrosives or the bio-accumulation of these

substances.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Those aren't chemical types. Table salt is

a carcinogen, yet it's not a toxic waste. That deals with the impact.

We have to deal with the elements themselves and their chemical family,

and from that we determine whether it's a special waste. But saying

that we'll ban all carcinogens will ban table salt and many other

elements — tobacco, Scotch whisky, rye whisky. It would be a terrible

situation.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Leaving the

definitions, I see that under

"special waste" there is also the inclusion of sewage. Does that

suggest that the minister, at some point, will be dealing with toxics,

contaminants and special waste in sewage?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes. We have to have it there because

sewage could contain toxic wastes that...people are throwing some stuff

down the biff that they ought not to be doing, so we have that right in

there.

Back to your more general question. When we have prescribed

regulations, that means they can be changed by order-in-council

immediately so we can add to the list as we see fit. That's why you

have things in regulations that are a little looser than legislation.

MS. SMALLWOOD: There are several items in the special waste

regulations dealing with plans and the permitting process. I think I've

made the point that it is imperative that not only should the public

have access to information and engineering, but also the ministry, when

dealing with the approval of a permit, should know exactly what they're

approving prior to that approval.

[4:15]

[ Page 2106 ]

Moving through the regulations dealing with waste information,

subsection (4).... In essence, what it's talking about is a provision

dealing with hot loads, where a substance is coming to a facility, and

it isn't a substance that the facility is licensed to deal with. The

point I want to make here is that there must be a public record. There

must be access to information that would indeed help the ministry with

enforcement. If there was a manifest of each load brought in, dealing

with the actual substance and the quantity of the substance.... It

should be filed with the minister, and, of uppermost importance, it

should be public information, allowing the community to help control

the operation of that facility, where the ministry may not have the

kind of administrative capability to do that. In addition, it would

allow the ministry to be able to track the rate of occurrence of hot

loads in a facility.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

In addition, I believe there has to be a provision that gives a time

limit for the filing of that information. I'd like to know if the

minister would make comment.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It's all in place. The record procedure is

kept. The previous

section we discussed with regard to transportation —

section 2 — is in place. That's federal legislation. Everything the

member is asking for is now in place.

MS. SMALLWOOD: So the minister assures us that the public has access to those records. Okay.

Dealing with the actual closure of a facility, can the minister tell

us if the closure procedures are dealt with when the initial permit is

let for that facility? And can the minister give us some indication

about the ongoing liability? At what time does the government take over

the responsibility, where the actual title of that property is

transferred to the Crown?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That would be up to negotiation with the operator of the facility and the negotiation would be known to the public.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Can the minister tell us when that would

happen? Would that happen prior to the permitting process, and would

the public have access to that information as part of the information

necessary for them to participate in the decision of the initial

permitting?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The regulations for closure would be known

at the start of the facility. There could be reason for amendment if

better techniques for storage came along during the life of the

facility, but that's the only technical reason we could think of for

amending closing procedures. But at the start of the facility the

closing process would be in place.

MS. SMALLWOOD: The minister is saying "at the start of the

facility." The assurance that I'm looking for is that all of this

information will be available prior to the initial permitting. The

facilities at this point are permitted, and then an operation's plan is

submitted. The point I am making is that all of the information must be

made available prior to the initial decision being made, including

closure.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Those closing conditions would be set at the time of permitting by the ministry.

MS. SMALLWOOD: On the issue of incinerators and thermal

facilities,

section 20(

b) deals with air pollution and talks about

measurement at ground level. It would seem that "at ground level" is

dealing with the problem after the fact and that the testing should be

done out of the stack and not at ground level.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: You're just seeing part of the

regulations, hon. member. There is stack monitoring, there is ambient

monitoring, and a ground level monitoring is another part. That's where

you test how it's affecting people. People are on the ground, so that's

why you test it there. You test ambient and also at the stack as well.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Now the

section on secure landfills. This

would be of particular interest to rural communities where the reliance

on wells is a factor.

Section 25, and this is number (4): "No person

shall locate a secure landfill in a recharge area for an unconfined

aquifer with one or more high capacity wells or a significant number of

lower capacity wells used for domestic irrigation, industrial,

municipal or livestock watering supply."

Can the minister tell the House how many are a significant number,

how many actual wells are permitted to be contaminated by such a

facility? Perhaps the minister could comment.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: We would simply take evidence from a

groundwater specialist. We have them in the ministry and there are many

in the private sector as well that could determine what would be an

adequate or an inadequate amount. When you're dealing with aquifers, as

the second member for Cariboo (Mr. Vant) has pointed out, many times

you're dealing with an area.... You don't want to have a site there.

The evidence we would accept with respect to that regulation would be

from our own groundwater experts and others that we could hire on a

private basis.

MS. SMALLWOOD: With a secure landfill with a built-in capacity to leach, there is a specific number of wells that are expendable.

Further on the issue of performance standards, dealing with secure

landfills and a situation of non-compliance, here again is a situation

— and the ministry has some experience in dealing with polluters and

permits that are in non-compliance. This particular

section deals with

groundwater quality and the analyzing of data and so on.

The point that I think is missing here is that there is a need for

an automatic closure; that if there is a problem with a facility such

as this, the community, and indeed the province, can be assured that as

soon as the problem is identified, that plant, that landfill will be

closed and that clean-up will take place immediately.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: We wouldn't put that in the regulations.

We would just, immediately move, and we have the right under our

legislation to do it — immediate closedown. The ministry can do that.

That's a problem, Madam Member, with reading amended regulations:

you don't have full scope, because they are draft regulations and

they're not complete yet. As I told

[ Page

2107 ]

you, it would be sometime in August, or maybe

later, that they're all finished. So you're only looking at part of the

picture. But I can assure you, if you'll examine our legislation, that

we can move immediately at any issue, where there's a spill or whatever.

The other thing I want to take offence to is the fact that you say

we're putting in sites which we know are going to leak. They are not

going to leak; we're going to take every precaution. As I told you,

nothing is impermeable, so don't twist engineering facts, Madam Member.

You're not an engineer. I don't think you have the technical

background. I think you should understand what we mean when we say we

want to make those technical regulations.

MR. ROSE: I'm happy enough when the minister tells me they

can move in and shut it down under the regulations. I just think that

it might be more explicit. If that's your power — and this concerns

people — I don't understand why you relegate it to the regulations. Why

don't you put it in the bill?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It's not in the regulations.

MR. ROSE: Oh, I thought you said it was.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It's in the Environment Management Act.

MR. ROSE: Oh, it's not in this act, but you have that power right now in the Environmental Management Act. Thank you.

MS. SMALLWOOD: The concern I have about the ability of the

ministry to act in such a situation is that historically it has not.

The point that I think people are trying to bring home to the minister

is that in dealing with a facility such as this, a facility that we

have not had in this province before, with such high-impact potential,

it must be written in there so that the facility owners themselves

understand that at the first sign of a problem, it's shut down and it's

cleaned up, and that the owner doesn't have the opportunity to discuss

the option of a variance order with the ministry and have the minister

bring it to the cabinet for a decision outside the public purview and

give the operator the opportunity to continue to bring in special waste

and be able to make the profit necessary to deal with any problems that

they may have on site. We all know that those arguments take place, and

without those assurances that those are the rules — that if there's a

problem, it's closed down — I don't know how people can have particular

confidence.

The minister has already dealt with the issue of transfer of title.

He said that those negotiations will happen on an individual basis and

that they will happen prior to permitting. Again, I would suggest that

any negotiations or transfer of title impact liability. That should be

a public and open discussion.

The final thing, and perhaps it's timely, is a compliment. The one

thing in the special wastes regulations that I think everybody in the

province can be happy about is the regulation that deals with

underground extraction. I hope — and I'm asking the minister if we can

have assurances — that when these proposed regulations are being dealt

with, we will have the assurance that there will be no underground

extraction.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The basic geology of this province makes

the underground situation impossible. You could do it on the prairies

but not in B.C. So that's your answer. Thanks for the compliment, but

the answer is geology, and the geology is such that we just can't

contemplate any other remedy

Sections 15 to 17 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed: Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 38, Waste Management Amendment Act, 1987, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed on division.

Presenting Petitions

MS. A. HAGEN: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to present a petition to the House at this time.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Take about five minutes, will you?

MS. A. HAGEN: With leave of the Speaker, thank you very much, Mr. House Leader.

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I am presenting to the House a petition

which was first initiated by a senior in my riding of New Westminster

immediately after the tabling of the 1987 budget. In that budget the

government announced that it would begin imposing Pharmacare dispensing

fees April 1, and that commencing July I it would impose user fees on a

variety of therapeutic services. Over 7,000 seniors, their families and

support groups from communities all over the province have used this

petition as a means of expressing their concerns about these fees and

recommending a course of action to government.

[4:30]

In a moment I will read the words of the petitioners, as they make

this request to government. Just before I do, I would like to note that

in addition to the petitions being presented formally by me on behalf

of seniors and others in the province this afternoon, there are at

least 17,000 petitions that I know have been forwarded directly to

government by old age pensioners' organizations, groups of seniors,

pharmacists and service-providers. I would hazard a very accurate guess

that there are additional petitions of which we do not know. I have

counted 5,500 names on copies of other petitions that I have received,

and the B.C. Old Age Pensioners' Organization alone had, as of its

convention last week, in excess of 11,000 names on petitions that are

coming forward.

"The petition of the concerned residents of the

province of British Columbia humbly sheweth that the recent imposition

of a Pharmacare dispensing fee, as

[ Page 2108 ]

well as a user fee for emergency and therapeutic services, brings

onerous burden onto those people who suffer with long-term illness and to seniors

whose incomes shrink with each attack on universal health care; and that those

who cannot afford the fees will delay or avoid maintenance therapies, and will

no doubt then require more costly health services. Therefore your petitioners

respectfully request that the hon. House cancel Pharmacare dispensary fees and

service fees, and develop a long-term plan for health promotion in cooperation

with seniors and community groups."

On behalf of those petitioners, Mr. Speaker, I present their requests to this House.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I call Committee of Supply.

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Pelton, in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

On vote 20: minister's office, $225,259.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, I'm certainly very pleased to introduce my estimates for debate and look forward to the discussion on education.

Before I begin I would certainly like to pay tribute to the people

who make the system work. That includes my senior management staff

represented by my deputy minister, Sandy Peel, and all of his immediate

senior management and the other people in the ministry who are very

dedicated and committed and spare no effort on behalf of making the

education system work as well as they possibly can in dealing with some

restraints that we face, whether those be in personnel, whether those

be in funding, whether those be in time constraints where you can never

predict exact enrolment at any time. They do a remarkable job of

dealing with that. Certainly on behalf of the people of this province,

I want to recognize them publicly for that.

I'd also like to acknowledge my own direct ministry's office staff —

my secretaries, my executive assistants — who just do a tremendous job

and don't ever question hours and whether or not they have the time.

Whatever needs to be done they tackle and do very well.

I'd also like to recognize all of the people in the education system

in the field. That includes the school boards who work long hours for

really very little pay to put together their budgets to try to meld the

desires of the community with the needs of the schools, all in the

interests of the students in their communities; and also the teachers

in the system who really do a very committed, dedicated and

professional job in the system.

I wish I really had more time to visit in the schools, because every

time I do it's very much a positive reinforcement. You see initiative,

you see dedication, you see commitment, you see an interest in

students. You see all of that happening. You see good relations. You

see the good things happening in education which are then documented in

marks and assessments that go on. Certainly the people do a good job.

The unfortunate

part is that I have to spend more hours in meetings,

and that is where the complaints surface and they talk about poor

morale and that sort of thing. But really, when you get into the

schools, by and large people are working in the best interests of the

students and society in British Columbia in general.

I am also pleased to note that there is ample evidence showing that

B.C. schools continue to provide excellent value for the money spent.

The B.C. taxpayers still pay less property tax for education than

residents of other Canadian provinces. In fact, because of the

provincial homeowner grant which is applied first to education tax,

many homeowners in British Columbia pay actually no property taxes at

all for education other than the minimum tax covering all municipal and

school services.

B.C. has a first-rate education system. In subject areas such as

mathematics and science, where there have been both national and

international assessments, our students are performing better now than

they used to; and even when they were compared against the others a few

years ago, they certainly measured up. We have some recent evidence of

this: we had students in mathematics — I think nine out of 20 on the

national team were from British Columbia, all evidence of a good

education system and that teachers are doing a remarkable job in the

schools.

The direct education budget this year is $1.367 billion, and that's

including the grants from funds for excellence. This year we have

simplified the fund for excellence grants to a distribution on a per

capita basis. I think that certainly pleases all of the people

involved. Far too much of the energy in the past went into preparing

the arguments and the case for applying for the funds for excellence

rather than dealing with putting it into action.

I am very pleased that we have been able to work that out, certainly

not as much as we'd like to, but we did take $20 million from this

year's fund for excellence allocation for discretionary funding; and

then we've added over another $16 million this year, for $36.2 million

for discretionary funding to the districts. I think, as most members

are aware, the salary savings from the April work stoppage or strike

went into the fund for excellence, so that tops that up as well. Quite

a bit of money has gone into that. I'm happy to report that despite

some of the arguments that it hasn't really done much good because it's

only a three-year fund and may not be continued in perpetuity, about 68

percent of that money has gone into upgrading computer facilities in

the school system. So the computers are there. Even if we don't have a

repeat of that kind of money, a lot has been added; a lot of upgrading

has gone on. Basically, these are the programs that the fund for

excellence went to: increasing access to computers; improving the

quality of teacher training; upgrading or replacing instructional

equipment; and making more effective use of existing educational

resources.

The remainder of the $112 million in excellence funds being spent

this year on the public education system will go to continuation of

provincewide commitments and initiatives begun last year. These

include: increased levels of textbooks and operating funding;

development of provincial curriculum for Oriental languages; a program

to help small secondary schools offer a broader range of programs and

services; and expansion of child-abuse prevention and special-education

programs. This year we've undertaken advisory procedures with the

associations of school superintendents and secretary-treasurers. These

have been revised so that there are regular meetings to facilitate

consultation on a broad range of issues.

[ Page 2109 ]

Because of the special public health concerns surrounding the

increased incidence of AIDS — that deadly disease — approximately $3

million has been distributed to put into effect the grade 7 to 12

program, which will be compulsory in all districts starting in

September. Of course, members are well aware of the package on AIDS —

admittedly, an abbreviated package, but certainly at least a very

informative package — that was put out for the students in grade 12 who

will not be there next fall. That is available as a videotape through

the Ministry of Health. Other information is being made available on a

wide distribution basis beyond the school system. Perhaps we can do

whatever is possible to try to restrict AIDS.

Following the Sullivan report this year and the B.C. School

Trustees' Association report on child abuse, we've initiated programs

there. We have hired a full-time special education coordinator and

provided some funding to assist schools to put that into place. As I

mentioned, textbook funding has been increased, from about $12 million

to over $18 million, to try to keep up to date. We've also put into

effect in the ministry a five-year plan to try to keep that level of

funding, and to keep a rotation going so that we can upgrade the

textbooks and take whatever other steps are necessary to make sure our

textbooks are more up to date and available on time. There were always

some problems in the past — not just money, but the availability of

textbooks from the publishers when they are required.

An interesting one that I'm very much looking forward to is a pilot

project in 12 of the school districts that will focus on the outcome of

the education system rather than on the process. We're hoping that next

year more districts will join in that so that school districts and our

ministry can then say,"This is what's happening. These are the results

that we're achieving," in effect making for better public

accountability and better information on how well the students in our

education system are performing.

One thing that has come to light is decentralization in the

correspondence branch. A pilot project was initiated by School District

60 in my own area, and they suggested it for the region. The

correspondence people — the supervisors, the markers — were too far

away, and there was a big time lag; so a local office was opened up in

Fort St. John to serve the northeast corner of the province, and it has

gotten dramatic results. Next year the ministry will be expanding to

Prince George, or somewhere in that area, to serve the northwest. The

students seem happier; the correspondence people are happier; and the

results, particularly in terms of those people who complete the

courses, has been very dramatic.

[4:45]

The early retirement program for teachers has I think been well

canvassed. I'm looking forward to the results progressively showing a

renewal of the teaching force, and also preventing the possible

shortage of teachers in the future. In order to encourage people to go

into teacher training, you do need to have positions in teaching when

they come out of the system. They're eager. They're enthusiastic.

They're raring to go. I think they can add a great deal to the system.

Again, as I visited some of the schools, I've seen some of the

imaginative programs and initiatives that some of these people have

shown. It's really remarkable what people are doing with some of the

handicapped students that have come into the system. It's really quite

an experience to see some of the things that are being done. There are

people now learning in the school system who at one time were

considered completely uneducable, so I'm certainly pleased.

The other thing, of course, is that it has a cumulative effect

because as people learn to deal with some of these situations, they

pass that around and more people learn and they're encouraged. It has

again a positive reinforcement benefit.

We have moved on trying to provide more fairness to the independent

school system and to bring the rate up from 30 to 35 percent of the

funding and to provide, in recognition of what's actually happening in

special education, money for those schools. They have to have a special

education program before they get any of that money, and that is all

worked out. And again, let me express appreciation to the ministry and

to the Federation of Independent School Associations, who have given us

assistance in bringing together that information as quickly as possible.

I need to say very little after all the time we spent on Bill 20,

the Teaching Profession Act. There are misconceptions there. People

have said that this will make teachers more professional; I don't think

that's the case, and I don't think we have ever said that. This will

made the organization recognize the professional aspect of teaching. I

think it is now law. It provides choices the teachers are asking for.

It provides full collective bargaining rights and greater professional

autonomy. A lot of the certification function has been turned from the

minister over to the college, which will be made up of teachers. I

fully expect that, as in everything else they do, they will take their

job very seriously and act very responsibly.

And, of course, the royal commission under Barry Sullivan has

traveled to many parts of the province and is dealing with the rest of

education rather than just the teacher organization and bargaining

rights. I think we can expect them pulling together many of the things

that have been suggested — curriculum, programming and that sort of

thing. I'm very much looking fo