1989 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, JULY 6, 1989

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

8231 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Hospital Amendment Act, 1989 (Bill 69). Hon. Mr. Dueck

Introduction and first reading –– 8231

Oral Questions

Logging in Stein Valley. Mr. Miller –– 8232

AIDS prevention video. Mr. Perry –– 8232

Minimum wage for farmworkers. Mr. Sihota –– 8232

Dawson Creek contractors' dispute with Louisiana-Pacific Corp.

Mr. Miller –– 8232

National milk marketing plan. Mr. Rose –– 8233

Sale of Jericho land. Ms. Marzari –– 8233

Committee of Supply: Ministry of State for Cariboo,

Responsible for Environment estimates. (Hon. Mr. Strachan)

On vote 55: minister's office –– 8234

Mr. Cashore

Mr. Lovick

Mr. R. Fraser

Mr. Kempf

Ms. Pullinger

Mr. Clark

Mr. Miller

Mr. Blencoe

Mr. Perry

School Act (Bill 67). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Brummet) –– 8260

Ms. A. Hagen

Ms. Marzari

Ms. Edwards

Mr. Lovick

Mr. Jones

Hon. Mrs. Johnston

Mr. Williams

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

MR. PELTON :

Hon. members, if you'll bear with me for just a moment, I've been asked

to introduce a number of people today. First of all we have some

parliamentarians and public servants visiting us from Belgium, and I'd

like to introduce them to the House. Gaston Paque is a senator and a

member of the Socialist Party and represents the riding of Liege.

Robert Denison is also a member of the Socialist Party, representing

the riding of Namur. Octaaf Van den Broeck is also a senator and is a

member of the Flemish Freedom and Progress Party, and he represents a

riding called Termonde-Saint-Nicolas. Manu Desutter is a member of the

Christian Social Party and represents the riding of Bruges. The civil

servants who are accompanying these gentlemen are Mr. Herman Nys, Mr.

Robert Godefridi, and his wife Mrs. Godefridi, Jean Cristoiovean, Frans

Van Melkebeke and Jos Elsen. Would you welcome them, please.

MR. ROSE :

In greeting the members from Belgium from this side of the House, I'm

not going to attempt to go through the list that my hon. friend from

Dewdney did. I think one session of his pronunciation should be enough

for this House today. I welcome them and enjoyed meeting them at a

lunch hosted by the Speaker. I noticed that when they were set out

here, all the right-wingers were put behind the government and all the

left-wingers were put behind the opposition.

MR. PELTON :

Hon. members, also in our House today we have some people from la belle

province. First of all, we have Mr. and Mrs. Michel Bissonnet. Mr.

Bissonnet is the MLA for Jeanne-Mance. He's the government Whip for the

Liberal Party in the province of Quebec. We also have Mr. and Mrs. Ral

Gauvin and Mr. and Mrs. Bill Cusano and their two children, Connie and

Bill Jr. Would you welcome these people, please.

HON. MR. REID :

In the members' gallery today with my ministerial assistant, Mr. Hans

Schinz, are some very special guests: Ellen Sinclair, chairman of the

board for the Peace Arch Hospital in White Rock, together with Colin

Luxton and Jack Geddes, representing seniors' organizations in White

Rock. Would the House please make these people welcome.

HON. MR. VANT :

In the gallery opposite, just above the socialist NDP corner of the

House, is a very important young man, a constituent of mine, who was

born at 100 Mile House and currently lives just south and east of

Williams Lake. He's in Victoria studying at the Royal Conservatory of

Music. I'm very pleased that my son, Timothy Vant, is here. I hope the

House will give him a warm welcome.

HON. MR. REE : Today, for the first time in this parliament, it's

my pleasure to introduce some people in the visitors' gallery. The lovely

blonde lady up there I'm very pleased to say is my wife Cheri, and with

her are her aunt and uncle, Ray and Muriel Thagard, who are visiting us from

Winnipeg. I would ask this House to give them a very warm welcome.

MR. RABBITT :

It's certainly my pleasure today to introduce a friend of many years,

Ida Makaro. She has brought two guests to visit the capital city: her

niece Arlene McWilliam from Regina, who is just returning from a year

of touring Australia and New Zealand, and friend Kathy Brooks of Maple

Ridge. I would ask the House to give these three fine ladies a very

warm welcome.

HON. MR. SAVAGE : It's indeed a

pleasure on behalf of the second member for Delta (Mr. Davidson) and

myself, along with colleagues in government here, to welcome to the

precincts 70 students from North Delta who have been brought over here

by their coordinators Miss Hoffinger and Miss Robson. Would this

assembly please make them welcome.

MR. PERRY :

Monsieur le prsident, j'aimerais aussi accueillir le membre de

l'Assemble nationale du Qubec, M. Bissonnet, et sa femme, au nom de

notre partie.

Introduction of Bills

HOSPITAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

Hon. Mr. Dueck presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill

intituled Hospital Amendment Act, 1989.

HON. MR. DUECK :

Mr. Speaker, this bill establishes a new Hospitals Foundation of

British Columbia that will work with hospitals and existing hospital

foundations throughout British Columbia to promote the raising of funds

for all purposes related to the operations of hospitals.

This

Hospitals Foundation will be an agent in right of the Crown of British

Columbia. As such, a person donating money to the foundation will be

entitled to claim more than 20 percent of taxable income in any one

taxation year, unlike standard charitable donations or standard

charitable organizations.

The provisions respecting the

establishment of the Hospitals Foundation are very similar to the

provisions of the University Foundations Act. That act was introduced

by my colleague the Minister of Advanced Education (Hon. S. Hagen) last

year.

This is an important initiative, Mr. Speaker, and I

am pleased to have the opportunity to recommend this bill to the

Legislative Assembly. I move that the bill be introduced and read a

first time now.

Bill 69 introduced, read a first time and

ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the

next sitting of the House after today.

[2:15]

[ Page 8232 ]

Oral Questions

LOGGING IN STEIN VALLEY

MR. MILLER :

I have a question to the Minister Responsible for Native Affairs.

Yesterday in the House the minister denied having written to the Mount

Lytton band regarding the Stein Valley. Would the minister confirm that

is not true, and that he wrote to the Lytton and Mount Currie bands on

May 9, asking for additional information, so that he could — and I

quote from his letter — "...determine the best course of action in

renewing our government's continuing dialogue on this important

subject."

HON. MR. WEISGERBER :

I was wrong yesterday when I indicated that I had not written Chief

Dunstan. I did, in fact, write one piece of correspondence on May 9. I

received a very brief response to that letter yesterday, and I intend

to follow up on that.

MR. MILLER : A further question to the minister, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday again the minister said — and I quote from Hansard —

"The Minister of Forests will continue to negotiate on behalf of the

province." The Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Parker) has stated that

there was no call for an agreement with the natives on the Stein, there

was no agreement necessary; that as far as operations in the Stein were

concerned, it depended on Fletcher Challenge. Is this the minister's

idea of negotiations or the continuing dialogue that he refers to in

his letter?

HON. MR. WEISGERBER : This is an issue of

forests and the people who are involved in them. I expect that ongoing

discussions will probably be led by the Minister of Forests. It was my

intention when I wrote the chief to offer, on behalf of the province,

to continue discussions, and I'm prepared to do that.

MR. MILLER : A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Assuming the minister is serious — and I take him at his word —

that he wants to lead negotiations, and the Minister of Forests

refuses, even though he's charged with that responsibility, is the

Minister of Native Affairs prepared to step into the vacuum and take

over the negotiations so that the people of the Stein can get some

straight answers from government, instead of these contradictory views

from two separate cabinet ministers?

HON. MR. WEISGERBER :

No, I didn't suggest that I wanted to lead the negotiations or

discussions on behalf of the province. I did say that I had written on

behalf of the province, indicating that we were prepared to continue

discussions.

Interjections.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER : Well then, if you have questions for the Minister of Forests, I would suggest that you direct them to him.

AIDS PREVENTION VIDEO

MR. PERRY :

A question for the Minister of Health. Can the minister confirm that he

viewed his department's controversial AIDS video before it was

exhibited at the international AIDS conference in Montreal and that it

was shown there against his wishes?

HON. MR. DUECK : When I had my first viewing of the film, I suggested that it not be shown until I had given it clearance.

MR. PERRY :

Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister then explain why he gave

approval for the film to be exhibited internationally but refuses to

let it be shown to the B.C. audience for which it is intended?

HON. MR. DUECK :

The member for Point Grey again and again infers in this House. I did

not say that I had approved it; I said that when I first viewed the

film I rejected it, and until it was cleared by my office it was not to

be shown. I don't appreciate the member constantly inferring something

that might have been said and then putting it into the record as though

I had said it.

MINIMUM WAGE FOR FARMWORKERS

MR. SIHOTA :

The Minister of Labour announced today that there would be increases in

the minimum wage. My question to him is: what steps is the minister

taking to provide minimum wage protection for farmworkers in British

Columbia?

HON. L. HANSON : I am sorry, I couldn't

hear the first part of the question. If the member is referring to the

minimum wage announcement made today, the same increase applies to

farmworkers too.

DAWSON CREEK CONTRACTORS' DISPUTE

WITH LOUISIANA-PACIFIC CORP.

MR. MILLER :

To the Minister of Forests. With regard to the Louisiana-Pacific issue

which I raised last week — the $25 million loan which the minister

stated has been paid back — would the minister advise whether the

full $25 million was received by the government, or was it less than

that figure?

HON. MR. PARKER : This ministry doesn't administer loans to industry. I can take that question as notice and bring it back to the House.

MR. MILLER :

Perhaps I should redirect a new question to the Minister of Finance.

Would the minister advise what the cost to the provincial treasury was

of the $25 million loan arrangement?

HON. MR. COUVELIER : I didn't bring any of that data with me, so the best I can do is take that question under notice.

[ Page

8233 ]

MR. MILLER : Back to the Minister of Forests. Would the

minister advise whether the original agreement with Louisiana-Pacific

stipulated that a certain percentage of wood must be purchased from

independent contractors in the area.

HON. MR. PARKER :

I can't recall the precise wording of that contract. We had several

hundred such contracts in the province. The requirement under pulpwood

agreements is that the licensee addresses wood supply from residual

sources and from sources other than from his licence first, and the

pulpwood agreement provides makeup volumes as necessary.

MR. MILLER :

A final to the Minister of Forests. In view of that, would the minister

be prepared to table in the House the original agreement between the

government and Louisiana-Pacific that contains the provisions of the

loan agreement and all of the other concessions that were made to that

company?

HON. MR. PARKER : I'd be happy to table it in the House if it serves any useful purpose. I will do so in the fullness of time.

MR. SPEAKER : Opposition House Leader.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : Where were you last night?

NATIONAL MILK MARKETING PLAN

MR. ROSE : You don't ask me any questions, I won't ask you any questions.

I'd

like to address a question to the Minister of Agriculture. On Tuesday

of this week, by the use of a monosyllabic flat no, the minister

refused to assure this House that B.C. will not opt out of the national

milk marketing plan, despite overwhelming rejection of the idea by the

province's dairy producers. Does the minister plan to bull ahead — no

pun intended — and ignore the wishes of 95 percent of the B.C. dairy

industry?

HON. MR. SAVAGE : As the hon. opposition

House Leader knows, there is a task force now operating, having

hearings throughout the Fraser Valley, the Okanagan, the north and also

on Vancouver Island. The reason my answer was no the other day is that

until such time as the response comes from that task force and

subsequent recommendations, we have to stay with the position. We

cannot guarantee that at this particular time. That doesn't mean to say

that due consideration wouldn't be given when the time comes around

after the task force report is tabled. Then we will make the

appropriate decision.

MR. ROSE : During the debates on the minister's estimates the minister

said: "Once you opt out there is no control." What I'd like to

ask the minister is whether or not there's some kind of theatre going on

throughout the province and whether or not he's willing to take into account

the 95 percent of the producers who don't want any change in terms of opting

out of the national plan.

HON. MR. SAVAGE :

Obviously we take the input of the producers. That input is also being

given to the task force. The task force is also seeking input not only

from the dairy producers but from the consumers, the processors, the

bankers — several different sectors that are involved in the dairy

industry. Once that input is accumulated and simulated into a report

that comes to our desk, we will then ask what recommendations.... It

possibly could even be a vote; we don't know at this stage. But I'm not

going to make a comment on a guarantee until such time as I see that

task force recommendation.

SALE OF JERICHO LAND

MS. MARZARI :

A question to the Minister of Government Management Services. Mr.

Minister, Jericho lands represent 50 acres of undeveloped land on the

west side of Vancouver, virtually the last acreage of undeveloped land.

With the Defence lands next door, it's 100 acres of undeveloped land in

West Point Grey. Has the minister been approached by the mayor or his

colleagues and associates in the rental housing scheme, such as Mr.

Jack Poole, for the development of those lands?

HON. MR. MICHAEL : Yes, that is future action.

MS. MARZARI :

Past tense, Mr. Minister. Has the minister been approached by the mayor

or any of his colleagues in the rental housing scheme for the

development of these lands?

HON. MR. MICHAEL : It's

well known that the Minister of Social Services and Housing (Hon. Mr.

Richmond) has a very active program underway of which I'm sure this

House will have further information as the weeks and months unfold.

Indeed, we are very proud of the efforts that the minister is making in

respect to social housing. I think it goes without saying that it would

be natural that the minister and his committee would certainly have

touched base with all the Crown corporations to see what government

properties may be available. It's also fair to report that the

committee and the minister have had contact with the Minister of Crown

Lands (Hon. Mr. Dirks) to see what Crown land may be available for

development.

As the minister in charge of the B.C. Building

Corporation, the B.C. Pavilion Corporation and the B.C. Enterprise

Corporation — all corporations that have land banks of one degree or

the other — we certainly have had communication with the minister about

the excellent program that is in the cards for future development. As

the minister in charge of the B.C. Building Corporation, we certainly

have a large number of lands that could be made available either all or

in part for the program that will be unfolding,

[ Page 8234 ]

as announced by the Minister of Social Services and Housing.

There

have been certain discussions, but the long and short of the answer is

that no firm decisions have been made, particularly on Jericho yet. We

realize that it's a very important parcel of land. We're certainly

aware that at the present time, the land carries two institutions that

are very important to British Columbia, and what happens with those in

the future.... I repeat my very first answer: it's future action.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. RICHMOND : Mr. Speaker, I call Committee of Supply.

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF STATE FOR

CARIBOO, RESPONSIBLE FOR ENVIRONMENT

On vote 55: minister's office, $286,884 (continued)

[2:30]

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

It's nice to rise to my feet once again and address the committee on

the various issues concerning the environment and the Cariboo

development region.

At the outset — and I've already

indicated this in private conversation to the member for Burnaby North

(Mr. Jones) — I'd like to correct something I said this morning with

respect to the Chevron refinery being out of compliance. I had misread

my notes; Chevron is in compliance. They had been out of compliance in

'85 and '86 with respect to discharges, but they have remedied that

problem and are in compliance now. I want that on the record.

The

member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) made some comments about the pulp and

paper industry and also about pesticides, and I would like to address

those concerns now.

One of the thrusts of the member for

Omineca's debate dealt with the profitability of the pulp and paper

industry, and of course he's absolutely right. As we look at the annual

reports of those publicly trading companies, we can see that they've

made very good profits in the last couple of years. The market for

paper has been exceptional. That's been good, from my point of view,

because at the same time as those companies have been making record

profits we have also been discovering, through very sophisticated

testing, some disastrous problems in terms of discharge — dioxins and

AOX in general, dioxins in particular. We've advised the pulp and paper

industry that they have a big job to do in cleaning up, and because of

their profits they've agreed to do so. As a matter of fact, as I've

said a couple of times during these estimates, I reckon, from what I

can calculate from what they've told us they're going to be spending to

meet our requirements, that the bill to the pulp and paper industry

will be in the neighbourhood of $1 billion.

If one looks at

the dioxin problem that they're solving, if one looks at the use of

low-sulphur crude oil for the Vancouver Island pipeline pulp mills, and

if you look at the air work that's being done in some of the pulp

mills, particularly the ones in Prince George, the bill to the

provincial industry will collectively be about $1 billion. As the

member for Omineca points out, they are making record profits, so I

guess it's good that we've been.... It's not good that we've had a

problem discovering dioxins, but it's fortunate that the industry does

have the profits to address that problem, and to address it well. They

seem to be almost stumbling over themselves in terms of getting out

press releases to tell everybody what they're going to do.

any event, there are record profits in the industry, and they are

certainly agreeing to clean up under our directions. As I say, we see

press releases every day indicating what they're going to be doing.

the matter of pesticides, I can't help but agree with the member. Both

of us are MLAs from the central interior. Both of us have, over the

years, faced the concerns of constituents about pesticide application:

the way it's applied, the chemicals that are applied. We are both well

aware of forestry practices that can use mechanical or other means of

weed species control. So on principle I tend to agree with the member

for Omineca on the need to address better pesticide application

methods, and maybe even to consider no pesticide application at all.

Currently

the regulations that we operate under are that Agriculture Canada first

has to permit pesticides before they're allowed to be used in Canada.

We do not question the federal decision on which pesticides should or

determination about the safety of chemicals, and their determination is

acceptable to us for allowing the chemicals to be used in the province

of B.C. We do, however, through a variety of methods, control the

application of those pesticides, and that is our role as a ministry of

environment.

I should also point out to the committee that

about 80 percent of the pesticides applied in British Columbia are done

by the agriculture industry, over which the Ministry of Environment has

no control, which is regrettable. I have often argued that we should

have control, but the agricultural industry has indicated they want to

manage their own affairs. The concern I've had is that there are

nitrates in groundwater, particularly in the Fraser Valley, and

obviously when you see that type of contamination, you know it's being

caused by the agriculture industry. That's a continuing battle we have

with that department, and I would encourage all who are listening to

what I'm saying that if they're in the agriculture industry, they'd

better regulate their pesticide and herbicide application because it is

causing us some problems. I hope that someday a Minister of Environment — me or another one — will be able to get that program under control

and ensure that pesticide and herbicide

[ Page 8235 ]

application in the agriculture industry is better controlled than it is now.

that industry's credit, they have undergone an extensive education

program with their own constituents, and farmers are being trained now

in the proper use of pesticide in the proper measurements; to not

accept the theory that if one litre is good, then two litres are twice

as good — because that's not the way it works in pesticide application — and also to do a better job of measuring and applying.

balance I would say that I agree with the member for Omineca on the

principle of the less pesticides the better. I think there is a lot we

can do in terms of studying other methods of weed control. As I pointed

out, there are mechanical means; some people have suggested sheep

grazing in newly seeded areas, which is not a bad idea when you think

about it, because the sheep will not eat a coniferous seedling, but

will eat deciduous weed species as they grow. There is some merit to

that idea.

I think there are lots of good ideas out there

where we could get away from the pesticide population. I don't think

we've got the determination at this point to do it, but I will continue

to make that argument to the Minister of Forests, and I am sure other

concerned MLAs and citizens of the province will as well. I think to

some degree the Ministry of Forests is listening, along with the other

agencies that do spraying from time to time. I think of Highways, the

CNR and the CPR with respect to their rights-of way. Agriculture is

not....

AN HON. MEMBER : Ninety-five percent.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : Eighty percent, and it's not controlled by the Ministry of Environment, so therein lies the problem.

I will close on that note for now, but in principle I share the member's concern about pesticide application.

MR. CASHORE :

I am sure that the member for Omineca will be responding at some length

to what the minister has just said. I expect that he will be getting up

at about 3:30.

With regard to the Doman sawmill statement

that the minister made just before we broke, I would like to thank him

for it. But I would like the record to show that while I appreciate the

information the minister brought back, the minister didn't answer my

question, which was why Doman was allowed to get away with burning

contaminated sludge from 1982 to 1989.

Despite the work of

citizens' groups, the effort of those who worked so hard to bring this

deplorable situation to the attention of the ministry and the

subsequent effort for seven years on the part of people within the

ministry to get some kind of action, the fact is that they got away

with it. There was never any prosecution, and it's an indication of

what is happening in the area of waste management in this province. To

all appearances, it is going to continue to happen, because we haven't

seen the kind of political will, structure or deployment of resources

that's going to address that.

Mr. Chairman, one year from now what are those criteria going to be whereby

this ministry will say: "Yes, we have improved, and we've improved

significantly"? It will have to be an absolutely dramatic turnaround to

be seen as anything other than lip service. Meanwhile, this situation — where

this one mill was allowed to get away with that for seven years — is carrying

on elsewhere in the province. Mr. Chairman, that's just one example.

would like to come to the issue of the provincial Environmental Lab

that was privatized as part of the government's privatization program.

Had this government been paying attention to the polls with regard to

environmental issues, and if they'd had that information a year later,

I don't think they ever would have privatized that lab. They would have

known that it was politically disastrous for them. They would have

known that to privatize the lab and destroy that perfectly functioning

instrument that was so useful to the people of British Columbia in

testing for the purpose of environmental protection, water quality and

other issues.... Were it not for that....

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Are you against privatization?

MR. CASHORE :

Mr. Chairman, the Premier is making a speech. He is sitting down, and

he's not at his seat. He's disobeying all sorts of rules of the House,

and I guess he feels that he can do it. He has always carried on that

way. He hasn't had too much of an appreciation for the rules of

society, of the House or of fair play. The privatization of the

Environmental Lab is a very good example that this Premier is not

willing to be fair to environmental quality in this province. Now he's

trying to play catch-up, and it's not working, because the public sees

through this Premier.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Where's your leader?

MR. CASHORE :

Well, for all I know, he's probably in your riding getting the votes we

need to win that seat, which I fully expect we're going to do.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Order, please. Thank you. Please continue.

MR. CASHORE :

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With regard to the lab, let's look at a little

bit of background on this. Perhaps one of the best ways to get into

this situation is to reference a report that was done by Environment

Canada with regard to conservation and protection. There was a

data-quality review done on the British Columbia Ministry of

Environment and its contribution to the national monitoring program,

dated March, 1989. I believe this review involved Mr. Earle Anthony,

who formerly was an employee of this government. It's ironic in a way

that it would be Mr. Anthony who was

[ Page 8236 ]

conducting this review. He certainly would have known the circumstances which were being dealt with.

The

report is a devastating critique of B.C.'s failures with respect to its

required contribution to ongoing national monitoring programs since the

lab was privatized. I would want to note that the minister gave

assurances at the time, since the privatization, that the lab would be

fully functioning by January of this year. Also, the member for

Burnaby-Willingdon (Hon. Mr. Veitch) stated at the time that it would

create

100 new jobs, and there would be an economic benefit as a result of

these new jobs. We certainly haven't seen the results of either of

these promises.

[2:45]

The review was particularly critical of B.C. Research's role, which

is to provide quality assurance and to audit Zenon Environmental Inc.,

the private lab that bought out the Environmental Lab. B.C. Research is

also a private company and was apparently given audit responsibilities

by the B.C. government, in return for which an order-in-council was

passed in approximately May 1988 authorizing B.C. Research to bill

industry 8 percent of their permit fees, as well as other fees, that

would give B.C. Research about $600,000 in operating costs per year.

addition, B.C. Research, in about October, 1988, was given a separate

contract authorizing it to charge for work done developing new methods

of testing. B.C. Research began billing the companies under the

order-in-council on November 15, 1988. But as of March, 1989, when the

federal report was done, B.C. Research didn't even know it was supposed

to perform an audit function. To quote from page 8 of the report, Dr.

Leach, director of industrial chemistry for B.C., said: "It was very

clear in stating that B.C. Research does not see itself performing an

audit role for the MOE."

The report goes on to say that

proper methodology records were not kept current and didn't include

sufficient quality-control data for the methods used. Only about one in

five of the tests required to be done for the national air pollution

survey was done, making one year's data invalid. And reference sampling

was not properly done, which would make all of B.C. Research's

water-quality samples questionable.

When you think of the

amount of money that's involved here and when you think of the stakes

with regard to the health and safety of British Columbians, this is an

appalling situation.

Environment Canada had the severe

mistrust of this government's ability to ensure that these services

were being provided as a result of the privatization of this lab, and

that mistrust was borne out in the results of their survey.

turns out that only about 1,500 split samples were done, when about

7,500 should have been taken, and there was only one stack sample taken

in B.C., compared to about 200 normally taken by the GVRD in that same

time period. These deficiencies will take a long time to rectify. There

are data that are missing, apparently forever.

Mr.

Chairman, I want to ask the minister how the Ministry of Environment

can justify having a private company provide a fundamental public

service such as environment testing and even authorize it to bill

industry directly for its program, when you consider that, after all,

in a situation such as this, industry is certainly not going to

complain if the testing is not properly done, as was the case here;

it's to their benefit.

When it comes to environmental

testing, what is necessary is fairness and independence. No vested

interests — just that it be done efficiently and appropriately and

effectively. I would like the minister to comment on the devastating

report that was done, and the fact that it appears that this

privatization process isn't working and is not going to work.

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

The member is not totally forthright on the Environment Canada report.

The Environment Canada report audit confirmed that environmental data

being collected met acceptable standards; however, the review pointed

to several problems with respect to program delivery, which the member

has correctly identified, but the standards in place were acceptable.

Those

problems have been rectified by the Ministry of Environment. Dr. Terry

Howard is the director of B.C. Research. Although it is a private

company, it is a research company and it does good work and has

rectified those problems. Air samples and other examples that the

member has pointed to have increased considerably. I guess we probably

have a philosophical difference of opinion here that we will always

have in terms of this Legislative Assembly, and that is that the

members opposite cannot accept the fact that private industry can do

better in many cases than government can, and that's a difference that

will always be fundamental, I guess, to our two political parties.

have to advise the committee that the private sector does considerable

testing in B.C., both for industry and for medical purposes. Many

private medical labs do excellent work. Because someone is privatized

doesn't mean they are in any way inferior to a laboratory system run by

a government.

The other comment I want to make is that the

member seems to think that a private testing firm, if they do incorrect

sampling, is always going to err on the side of the company that

they're testing. They could err either way. So it's in the company's

best interests and also in the private company's best interests to

audit and test correctly and have appropriate testing procedures in

place. This is not something that one fools around with. This is not

something that one does wrong, nor that one can accept being done

wrong. Standards have to be met. Science is very precise. And if

something is going wrong, then there's not only Environment Canada, but

many other people are going to know about it, and whoever is making the

error is going to have to correct it.

[ Page 8237 ]

will admit that B.C. Research did let us down considerably, but I also

will advise the committee that those problems have been rectified now,

and we feel that we are in a much better situation. In terms of

environmental testing, we have auditing being done. We have a very good

company doing testing for us: Zenon. They are employing British

Columbians and are growing as an industry in this province, doing work

for us as well as other work. They are large in terms of people in

water management and water consulting; and they are international class

when it comes to that type of work. So I'm pleased to see Zenon here.

I'd

also like to point out that we did, of course, offer the lab to the

ministry employees. No bids were received. Of the 32 staff at the

former lab, 12 joined Zenon and 20 decided to stay with government; and

of the management staff, one opted to stay with government and the

other joined Zenon. So all staff were looked after, which, of course,

is consistent with our BCGEU contract. With that said, I'll take my

place, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CASHORE : Mr. Chairman, I

appreciate the minister's candour and his admission of his

disappointment in B.C. Research. But when he says that the problems are

rectified, does he mean that the performance of B.C. Research and Zenon

at this point is equivalent to the total output of the B.C.

Environmental Lab prior to it being privatized?

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

The answer is yes, Mr. Chairman. Zenon always was up to snuff; it was

B.C. Research that was lagging, but they are up to speed now.

MR. LOVICK :

The other key point that was made in the criticism of privatization in

the

summary document produced in that federal report states that the

ministry does not have the capability by itself to adequately audit the

performance of its laboratory contractors — which takes us to the nub

of the whole privatization question: namely, are we prepared to put the

resources into doing the kind of monitoring work that needs to be done?

The minister gives us assurances that the problems outlined here have

indeed been corrected. Can he be somewhat more specific in showing us

what particular steps have been taken to correct those problems?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : One asks the old question: who watches the watchers? There's a Latin phrase; Gary Lauk used to use it all the time.

MR. LOVICK : Quis custodiet ipsos custodes .

HON. MR. STRACHAN : Yes, that's the one.

How

far do you go? We believe that with the audit situation that we have in

place, the data standards group still with the Ministry of Environment,

former lab employees and Zenon and B.C. Research, collectively, we have

everybody being watched. And let's not lose sight of the fact that if

testing is not done properly — it can be in error one way or the other — industry is going to blow the whistle on the testers. Industry is

watching this as well, and if they suspect that something is not being

handled properly, they are going to advise us immediately. Although it

may be difficult to accept the fact that industry is also watching the

testing, you have to accept it, because they are quite concerned about

everything being done properly and that the correct results are being

achieved when one does this type of testing. Of course, they have their

own labs, in many cases, to do their testing. They are going to ensure

that whoever is watching them is using the correct procedures and is

achieving the appropriate results.

I can assure you that

that would be the case. Industry is too sophisticated to let anybody

pull the wool over their eyes or do improper testing.

believe that we have the system in place to monitor that which we have

to monitor. We are having regular management meetings with B.C.

Research and Dr. Terry Howard of that organization, to ensure that they

are performing up to our standards and up to the standards expected by

the public of British Columbia.

MR. LOVICK : I have

no desire here to lambaste the minister or anything, but I would just

remind him that a little sense of history would not be remiss. We got

precisely those assurances when we had our first debates about the

privatization of the environmental testing laboratories. It was

suggested in this very chamber that we on this side were being somewhat

alarmist — perhaps our suspicions were entirely unfounded. Lo and

behold, our concerns seem to have been vindicated and validated by the

first independent investigation that followed that activity. Therefore,

Mr. Minister, you can understand our being a little bit skeptical and

suspicious when we hear you declaim: "I believe we now have the system

in place."

A direct question, though, if I might, in terms

of the final statement made in that

summary of the federal report,

namely the recommendation that the situation be reviewed again in six

months. Can the minister advise us whether steps have been taken so

that that process will indeed occur?

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

First of all, let me say with complete candour that I accept what the

member said in the

preamble to the question. I accept it as a member of

government and as Minister of Environment.

With respect to

the reviewing, Mr. Member, that's being done every three months, not

six months as the report suggested, because we recognize it's a

critical situation and we have to stay on top of it. That's the agenda.

[3:00]

MR. CASHORE : I'd like to thank the minister for his candour.

Regarding the data standards group, this is a group of six persons in the Ministry of Environment

[ Page 8238 ]

operation

that was to oversee B.C. Research and Zenon to ensure that the

standards were being carried out properly. The report on pages 11 and

12 indicates that the data standards group should be given far greater

resources, including access to laboratory facilities, and it recommends

it be given the capability of auditing and verifying the performance of

B.C. Research and Zenon, which is essentially the audit function that

B.C. Research was to do.

Has this been done? Has this

recommendation of this report been followed? Has the data standards

group been given access to laboratory facilities? Has it been given

what it requires in order to fulfil that? To ask it another way, what

role will the data standards group play in fulfilling its job that is

in keeping with that recommendation of the review?

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

We have only reviewed those recommendations with the federal ministry,

but that's an option we may agree to. At this point I'm not prepared to

say anything further with respect to that particular recommendation.

MR. CASHORE :

Let's just take a little look at the history of Zenon Environmental

Inc. It was an Ontario company with no previous experience in lab

operations which was handed an absolute giveaway when it purchased the

Environmental Lab for a mere $875,000, when a Price Waterhouse report

valued the lab at $2.25 million — a giveaway of the money of the people

of British Columbia. Plus it was given a guaranteed $2.8 million per

year in government work over five years, apparently whether it does the

work or not, for a total of $14 million worth of business.

The

federal report details that there were long delays in testing samples —

this is with regard to Zenon. I would remind you, Mr. Chairman, that

the minister said in this House that all this has been corrected now;

it's up to speed. He has said that both B.C. Research and Zenon are now

producing an output equivalent to that of the B.C. Environmental Lab

prior to privatization. He's saying that we are now fully up to speed,

but the report stated that there were long delays in testing samples,

which would make some data invalid, and that the quality of the water

sampling is not up to par, because Zenon has not participated in

quality assurance programs. The report recommended that Zenon should

produce an action plan as soon as possible for modifying their lab's

quality assurance program so that it is acceptable to the data

standards group.

The minister has said that they're still

reviewing these recommendations, so I anticipate that his answer would

be: "We haven't done that yet; we're still looking at that

recommendation." If that is the minister's answer — that they haven't

got around to it yet — will he at least give us some reassurance about

what is happening to ensure that it is going to be done at the earliest

possible opportunity?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : I guess the

member has got the answer that it's part of the ongoing review. I can't

let the statement go by that this is a company with no previous

history. As a matter of fact, out of the whole Environment Canada

report, Zenon came up best. They are fulfilling all their obligations,

so what the member said about their performance is not correct. They

did very well. They also have a substantial record. They are an

international-class company in terms of plumbing systems, water

testing, water quality and that type of very sophisticated research.

They also do dioxin testing in British Columbia. So they have an

extremely good track record. They have been the one part of the whole

privatization scheme that has not let us down; it's been the other

areas where we've had the failures.

Just to answer the

member's question generally, we are going through the whole report as

published by Environment Canada and are doing the review. We'll answer

those questions and ensure that we are operating a proper control

program in British Columbia.

MR. CASHORE : The

minister referred earlier to the workers and what happened to them

during the privatization process. He indicated that, given a government

contract, these people were essentially looked after in the process of

privatization. But if these people were to be consulted and asked how

they felt about the way it worked out, I think we would find that they

wouldn't have that positive view of it.

Certainly there is

a problem in this privatization, which confirms what we'd been saying

all along, and possibly this is one of the things that the minister is

thinking about when he recognizes that the

preamble of the comments of

my friend the first member for Nanaimo (Mr. Lovick) is true. When we

look at the human capital situation, we're looking at a number of

people trained to do this kind of work, people with a great deal of

experience.

As a matter of fact, will the minister confirm

that up until about two weeks ago there were 11 former employees

essentially doing busy-work in the waste management branch in Surrey?

One or two weeks ago, five of these people — I have their names here,

but I'm not going to release them — with a total of 86 years'

experience among them, were sent to take training in how to work in a

liquor store. Here are five people with good training, with an

accumulation of 86 years of experience working in the lab, who have

been sent to learn how to operate a liquor store. Will the minister

confirm that?

MR. R. FRASER : I'm going to get in on this debate.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : Are you? Good stuff.

MR. R. FRASER : What does he know about labs?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : I can't comment on what's happening now, but I will tell you....

MR. LOVICK : The romantic fallacy has arrived.

[ Page 8239 ]

MR. R. FRASER : What do you guys know? Nothing.

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

Zenon wanted that expertise, and all the employees of the Environmental

Lab were offered work by Zenon in the lab doing what they had been

trained to do, at generally the same salary. Twelve joined Zenon. We

followed, in this privatization, what the BCGEU had in their contract

with respect to positions and what we had recently signed in the

agreement.

Let me say two things: first, they were offered

jobs by Zenon using the training that they had; secondly, we followed

the conditions of our recently signed BCGEU agreement. We undertook to

uphold our end of the responsibility in the agreement.

MR. CASHORE :

This is an appalling loss of human capital. I have talked personally

with a great many of these people. I have met with them. In the process

of the decision being made about whether or not they would go with

Zenon, they weren't able to find out exactly what kind of a job they

were being offered or whether it would be equivalent to the one they

were doing. Very stressful procedures were being carried out at the

time they were coming to the wind-down phase of their employment with

the Environment Lab.

The majority of those people will say

they were treated in a very shabby way. It's an appalling and tragic

loss of human capital; there's no two ways about that. The Minister of

Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mrs. Johnston) said: "Would you want them not to

have work?" Of course we want them to have work, and we want them to

have meaningful and fulfilling work. I think working in a liquor store

is very worthwhile work, and I don't have any complaint about that. But

people who have this training and this experience should have the

opportunity to provide the benefit of that to the people of British

Columbia.

Interjections.

MR. CASHORE :

It's kind of sad, when we're dealing with something as important as

human capital in this province, something as important as people who

have given their lives to working in an area where they really believe

that what they are doing is worthwhile and that they are making use of

their gifts and their talents, that somehow this minister would choose

to ridicule this process, or ridicule the concern that's being

expressed.

I dare say the minister himself has indicated

that he has some concerns about the way the privatization has turned

out, and I appreciate his candour on that. I don't think there is any

need whatsoever to try to downgrade these people any more than what

their experience has been. They have been treated in a shabby way.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : What a lot of rubbish!

MR. CASHORE :

I don't think this minister would want a member of her family to be

treated in this way. I don't think it's fair; I don't think it's

appropriate. If we look at the Environment Canada investigation of how

it has been working, that federal report indicates it hasn't worked

well. A little bit of truthfulness on the part of government would

certainly be very good for it. The minister has done an admirable job

of recognizing that things were not handled as well as they should have

been.

One of the tragic fallouts about this is the loss

from British Columbia, for environmental protection, of this human

capital. I think it's very sad that these people who were trained to

work in this lab are now, very much because of the inappropriate

process that was followed during this transition, not able to fulfil

their life goal.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : Don't you have anything positive to say?

MR. CASHORE : Yes, I think we have a lot that's positive.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : Let's hear something.

MR. CASHORE :

The positive thing is that we want a private environment lab in this

province to provide the services that were being provided. I can assure

this minister, it isn't that long until we form government, so it won't

be that long before that lab is up and running and functioning well

again.

MR. R. FRASER : What an opportunity! Did you

hear that member over there say that when they're government, they're

going to crank up a whole bunch of new government agencies? Now isn't

that what you wanted to hear? It isn't what we want to hear over here,

I can tell you that. We want some people out there earning money,

paying taxes so that we can do the job that government should do.

MR. LOVICK : Civil servants don't pay taxes.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

MR. R. FRASER :

You certainly wouldn't want to have everybody work for the government,

would you, Mr. Member from Nanaimo? Yes, you probably would. You've got

the funny idea that the only people who do anything are civil servants,

and that's not true. That member from Omineca knows that, hard-working

member that he is. Ex-logger, not a bad guy. He makes a speech in here

from time to time.

But I've got to tell you, Mr. Chairman,

what those people over there know about running a lab you could put in

a thimble, and it would be half full at best.

[3:15]

Interjections.

[ Page 8240 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN : Order, please. I'd ask the government cabinet members to restrain themselves while the member continues.

MR. R. FRASER :

There's no question about the fact that people working in the private

sector are legitimate; there's no question they pay taxes; there's no

question about the value of the work they do, the quality of it or

their integrity either. There's some funny theme coming from that side

over there that if you work in the private sector there's something

wrong with your integrity, that it's somehow touched and tarnished. Not

so, Mr. Chairman.

What do they do over there? Everything

has to be the government. It's just got to make you sick listening to

that stuff coming in over there. They say: "When we're government we're

sure going to put everybody back on the payroll." It's not possible,

and I want to hear more, because those remarks can be seen around the

province, and that's the kind of stuff that's going to blow you out of

the sky — to your own surprise but not to mine.

Maybe those

people who worked in the lab did go to another province; maybe they

didn't. Maybe someone from another province came here. There's nothing

really more useful than sharing experience across the country — indeed,

across the world. We send students overseas and overseas students come

here. It's not such a bad plan. A little research program here and

there, mixing it up, using some good, logical thought processes.

MR. CHAIRMAN : The member will eventually relate this to vote 55 and the administrative office.

MR. R. FRASER : We're talking about the lab.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Well, you're getting a little off the track, and I just thought I'd try and bring you back in order, that's all.

MR. R. FRASER :

I'm ever so grateful to you for your guidance, and all of us really. If

we paid more attention to you we'd get on with these debates a lot

faster.

I would actually like to compare some of the work

of the opposition with what's been done in any lab, given it's

government or private, for gosh sakes. The disgraceful waste of time by

those members opposite in these debates and in almost every debate in

estimates and everything else is a disgrace.

Now minister, tell us about the lab, where we're going....

MR. LOVICK : Can you spell irony?

MR. R. FRASER : I beg your pardon.

MR. CHAIRMAN :

Order, please. The conversation must be directed through the Chair and

not in direct response to the member's jibes. Having said that, I'd ask

the member to continue.

MR. R. FRASER : I would never

respond to that member directly, that member for Nanaimo who slid in

here on the coat-tails of one of the gentlemen of the House who now is

a federal MP. Can you imagine how he can look himself in the mirror

when talking about your bill?

Mr. Minister, tell us more about the lab and what the people are doing there.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : I'll tell you one thing, that's the last time I go to the bathroom during my estimates.

Thank you very much, my colleague the first member for Vancouver South, for the levity and the break in what we're doing here.

guess to sum up, we saw the privatization of the Environmental Lab as

being appropriate; we do see it as being cost-effective. Once all the

systems are in place — and I have admitted to some deficits, but they

have been rectified now and the review is in place — the testing will

be first-class, be supportable and be able to undergo any scrutiny. I

will make no apologies for its ability to do what it's supposed to be

doing. I will, however, admit to some hiccups along the way.

With

respect to the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Cashore) and the

comments he made earlier about the staff, I guess those are regrettable

things. Probably there are, as I said earlier, philosophical

differences, and no doubt the people employed at the lab at the time

did not want to leave the government service, and I completely

understand that. That's presumably why they would want to work for

government in the first place. There are many good advantages to

working for government, and I'm not saying that in any derogatory way.

A lot of people do like that type of work and do enjoy serving the

public the way they did. For those people who have been displaced, I

guess that's what happens when you have this type of change. However, I

will repeat — and this is not a total answer — that they were all

offered employment with Zenon, and all changes that we made were done

in accordance with the BCGEU agreement. So we did follow our part of

that agreement.

MR. LOVICK : I'm going to resist

temptation and refrain from making any comment in response to the first

member for Vancouver South. Instead, I will only say that never has

this House been more entertained so exquisitely by the use of extended,

ironic, utterance. I think we owe that member a great deal when he can

say one thing and effectively give a lie to what he's saying by his

actions and his comments. I think that's a clever and witty device on

his part.

Interjection.

MR. LOVICK : It's an expression. It doesn't suggest what you were intimating, Mr. Member, through you, Mr. Chairman.

[ Page 8241 ]

I want to change the subject a little bit from the specifics of the privatization of the laboratory.

Before

turning to that I might just offer two comments to the minister and ask

him for some information, not now but perhaps later. One of the things

that I notice has not been canvassed at all in all the discussions

about the privatization of the environmental testing lab was the cost

factor. I wonder if the minister would undertake to table in this House

at some point an analysis of just what that financial picture has

finally proven to be. Has any net benefit been accruing to the province?

The

second point I would like to make is that I think we really are turning

a blind eye to a very serious problem when we underestimate the

importance of the human capital argument. There is a very serious story

out there, and I am going to undertake now to table some of that story

and bring it to this House at some point. I am certainly aware of a

good part of it. The minister probably knows some of it as well.

Certainly my colleague the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam knows

something of it.

Mr. Minister, there are some 126 persons

who used to be government union employees who are now considered

unplaceable. We have gone through all the machinations and the avenues

available to us in the memorandum of agreement and the Government

Employees' Union collective agreement, but we simply can't deal with

those persons. That's a heck of a price to pay. There are some very sad

stories embedded and embraced in that 126 figure, and I just want to

give notice to the government that we on this side don't intend to let

that story disappear from our consciousness. We think it's too

important. At the very least what we must do is recognize the flaw

within the process that allowed that to happen — those 126 casualties —

to see whether we can't somehow come up with a better means of treating

our people than we have found thus far. I want to establish that point,

if I might.

I want to turn to a more specific issue, and this one concerns logging in watersheds,

not Crown land watershed but rather watersheds that surround and impact communities,

serving as the basis of the water supply of communities. I raise this now, Mr.

Minister, for two reasons. Your ministry as well as the Ministry of Forests

has some direct involvement simply because the rules that apparently govern

logging and watersheds — certainly in Crown lands, but in private lands as well,

I understand — are the product of a joint committee's deliberations. The

committee was, I think, inaugurated in about 1974. It reported in 1981 and the

report has been updated on various occasions since that time. It was an interministerial

committee in which your ministry certainly had some involvement. One reason

I wanted to raise it now is that it deals, I think directly, with your ministry,

though it may indeed also concern the Ministry of Forests. The second reason

is that it impacts very directly on my constituency. I am talking about the

town of Ladysmith, where there is now a logging show going on that deals directly

with three particular watersheds: Holland Creek, Stocking Lake, and Heart Lake.

apologize to the minister if this disquisition is not as coherent as it

ought to be. I hadn't planned on talking about this now, and therefore

I came without notes, but I think I can give you enough to ask the

question.

In any event, what happens is that this logging

show is obviously in a sensitive area. As I say, we are talking about

three watersheds, two of which are used as a water supply for at least

part of the year by the community of Ladysmith. I know there has been

some research done. I spent a little time in the library and got some

information on the subject of logging in watersheds and also dealing

with watersheds that provide a drinking-water source for communities.

The information, however, seems to be rather old. It is also not clear

to me whether we have anything in place to protect those communities so

they can protect their water supplies when the land is private as

opposed to Crown land.

I am wondering if the minister can

tell me what the existing or current policy is regarding logging on

private land where that land is watershed and the watershed impacts on

the water supply of a local community. Can you give me any help on that

one?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : I want to go through a

couple of things. I want to get back to privatization just for a

minute, because I have to acknowledge that I understand what the member

is saying about human capital. This is graduate paper stuff for someone

doing psychology or business administration or personnel

administration, if we look at the whole privatization initiative

carried out in the last couple of years.

I can tell just by

looking at the numbers that only 12 of 32 people joined Zenon from the

ministry's services. As I said earlier, they obviously had some

dedication to government service, felt that they would feel

uncomfortable or whatever in the private sector and opted to stay with

government for whatever reason. I think by and large that's because

they enjoy the public service; they enjoy being part of government

because it's industry but it's big industry, and you really do have an

impact on policy when you're with government, more so than you would

have with the private sector. I think that's sort of the intrigue and

the glue that causes a lot of people to enjoy working for the

government. It's going to be a very interesting study.

I'll

get off this quickly, because I'm going to talk about another ministry.

I know a lot of people who went with the privatization of highways in

my area; they went with Yellowhead Road and Bridge. The reaction with

them was entirely opposite to what we saw with the Environmental Lab.

They saw themselves as being, in many cases, more productive, because

they didn't have the very stringent union contract to deal with. They

saw where they could use other methodologies that perhaps the Ministry

of Highways wasn't employing at the time, and they took a totally

different view, at least at Yellowhead

[ Page 8242 ]

Road

and Bridge, which is an employee group, of privatization. I'll end on

that, because I'm talking about another ministry and about philosophy,

as opposed to administrative aspects. As I said, it's worth a graduate

paper in terms of personnel and how one should do things...

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : You've got two students doing it now.

...and in terms of the right way to do things and the wrong way to do

things. I think we could learn an awful lot from our experiences over

the last couple of years in that whole exercise.

Also, with

respect to the budget, at the time we acquired Zenon there was certain

information made available to you. Orders-in-council have been made

public, but probably in the next annual report we will indicate more in

terms of that. Of course, we don't hide anything. Order-in-council

payments are public, the sale agreement has been made public, and we've

also made public the price that we're going to pay Zenon for the lab.

So all of that information is available. If you require more, as a

matter of fact, I'd be more than happy to supply what I can for you,

unless Zenon has some sort of agreement with us that indicates there is

information they want kept confidential. But if you want to write to

me, I'd be more than happy to respond to you on that question.

[3:30]

Now back to the watershed and logging on private land. First of all, there

is nothing we can do there. Practices on private land are entirely up to what

the owner of that land wants to do. On Crown lands and on the west coast — the

area you're interested in — we have forestry/ fishery guidelines that have

proven to be quite successful. It's a guideline system that I want to have

implemented in the interior. To my knowledge, it appears to be working reasonably

well. I have talked to other constituent users such as the Wildlife Federation,

and they indicate to me — of course, it's not the perfect system; it never

is — that it is better than some of the practices employed in years past. So

I'm satisfied there.

terms of your specific question, that's a really good one, and I can

understand your concern. If you have a private property owner doing

whatever — I mean, he could be building a road, logging or digging a

gravel pit — and if it somehow impacts on someone's water supply

downstream, then those people downstream have a concern. I really don't

have the answer to your question now, but I'll certainly provide it to

you if there is one. If there is any remedy we can put in place, I'd be

more than happy to undertake that remedy. But for the life of me, at

this point I've never heard of a situation like that, and I can't think

of a response.

MR. LOVICK : I thank the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) for allowing

me just a moment to clarify this. I'm concerned, because I know that there

is in fact fairly significant literature on logging on watershed Crown land.

We obviously recognize the dangers of it, and we have a pretty specific set

of guidelines for it. I am also familiar with the forestry/fishery guidelines,

and that's good work. But what we're talking about here is a little

different, insofar as we're not talking so much about fish habitat or fish-bearing

streams; we're talking about a water supply. We're literally talking

about the lifeblood of a community and the danger, of course, of sediment and

other kinds of pollutants getting into that water supply.

I say, Mr. Chairman, I neglected to bring my notes along. But there is

a document I got from the library that has a title on it: something

about community watersheds and community water supply, or something

like that. I am a little concerned when I hear you say there's nothing

we can do if it's private land. Surely there must be some kind of

permitting process that's invoked and implemented when we're dealing

with something as sensitive as a water supply. If there isn't, surely

there ought to be some such thing.

I wonder if the minister

might be able at least to share with me his thoughts on that in terms

of changing legislation or bringing in new legislation, so we can in

fact get that kind of power. I don't think it's coercive power; I don't

think it's trammeling the unfettered right to use one's property or

something. Rather I think it's a necessary and legitimate protection

that communities should have available to them. Would the minister care

to respond?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : I don't want to leave

the impression that I said there's nothing we can do; it's just that

there's nothing I can think of that we can do at this point. We have an

inquiry — going off now to our water management branch — and hopefully

they'll be supplying some information to the committee as soon as

possible. As soon as that comes, Mr. Member, I will share it with you.

there's a deficit in the legislation, if there's something we have to

do, I have no problem with agreeing to looking at it, because you

identify a pretty serious problem: an upstream private developer, no

matter what he's doing, impacting on a community water supply. There is

no doubt that government should take a position on that, because that's

the role of government: to ensure that the people are protected.

MR. KEMPF :

I listened very intently to the response by the minister to my

questioning done before lunch, and I was very happy to hear the words

he spoke with respect to the use of what he called pesticides. But what

I was attempting to zero in on more than the use of pesticides — which

I know is mostly a problem of the agricultural industry — was the use

of herbicides.

A lot of the information I get — and this is

how very little we know about these subjects — refers to both

herbicides and pesticides as pesticides, which they are not. It's the

herbicide issue that I'm most concerned with and that the minister

should be most

[ Page 8243 ]

concerned

with as far as the northern part of the province is concerned. We don't

have any need for the use of herbicides. Many of our people out there

use them. They use them in the Ministry of Highways, as the minister

said; railways — the CN, CP, BCR — use them; municipalities, regional

districts, the B.C. Forest Service and the forest industry all use

herbicides. In fact, there is an increase. If you look at the

applications in this year alone, there is a tremendous increase in

applications for the use of herbicides in our province. And there's

absolutely no need for their use whatsoever. There are alternative

methods.

Yes, and the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Parker)

can look with consternation. There are other methods. If the industry

can't afford those other methods, methods that are safe as far as the

health of our citizens in British Columbia is concerned, then just

perhaps that industry had better leave this province and leave it to

British Columbians to harvest that resource. There's absolutely no need

for the use of herbicides, particularly in the forest industry of

British Columbia. None whatsoever.

When it comes to the

question of safe drinking water and of catching fish that are safe to

eat, I think that's a very serious issue. Again I say that if the

forest industry — those giants in the forest industry who control

almost all of the annual allowable cut in this province now — can't see

that, then perhaps they should leave our province and leave the harvest

of that resource to British Columbians.

The minister talked

about not questioning the determination of the federal people with

regard to these chemicals. That is exactly my argument. Therein lies the

problem. It's because of the province not being able to question what

is in those chemicals, what we are spraying and pouring into our water

supplies all over this province, that that is a real concern.

want to read into the record — and I think it will say it all —

something that was quoted in the Journal of Pesticide Reform in the

summer of 1986 — three years ago, already: "Experts are not able to

predict the impacts of a pesticide." Again, they use pesticides and

herbicides as one, and they are different. They "...claim that they are

informing the public about pesticides, or claim that they have studied

the effects of a pesticide if they do not know which chemicals are

present as 'inert' ingredients and have not tested the pesticide

formulation as a whole: active and inert ingredients together. It is

simply as unsettling as that."

That's the way it is. We

don't know what we're using. We don't know what we're putting in our

water supplies. We don't know what we are spraying on our citizens out

there. Every time you attempt to do some research with respect to those

poisonous chemicals, you are inevitably directed back to the

manufacturers. That's not a good situation at all. It's one that's

pretty darned scary, if you ask me.

I want to get off that

subject and go on to two other situations that I wish to canvass in

this minister's estimates. One is with respect to the Kemano 2 project

and its effects on the Nechako River. I want to know from the minister

what thought the ministry has given to the long-range problems faced on

the Nechako which will be caused by Kemano 2 — the fact that only half

of the water now flowing in the Nechako, which is not very much in the

first place, will remain after the start of operations of the

hydroelectric project now being constructed.

Mr. Chairman,

I'm happy to see the Minister of State for Nechako and Northeast (Hon.

Mr. Weisgerber) in his place this afternoon. I received the economic

development initiatives framework from the minister, for which I thank

him. It was written on January 16 of this year, and I received it a

couple of days ago. It's only six months too late. However, there's

absolutely nothing in this that voices any concern whatsoever about the

kinds of environmental damage that will be done in my constituency by

Kemano 2. Incidentally, there's no mention of construction of a pulp

mill in Vanderhoof, either.

There's going to be an awfully

low water table, Mr. Chairman, when the flows of that river are cut in

half. There's not only going to be a problem with the water table,

there's going to be a problem with water consumed by agriculturalists

in their operations, there's going to be a problem with water for the

communities along the river, and there's going to be a very real

problem with sewage disposal along that river, with the advent of

Kemano 2. I'm just wondering what the ministry has done or is doing

with respect to attending to those possible problems.

[Mr. R. Fraser in the chair.]

I'm going to go on to

another subject. Time is short this afternoon, I'm told. It's probably

one of the most crucial subjects that I want to talk about in this

minister's estimates. It's probably one of the most serious problems

and serious threats to the environment emanating from any mining

operation in British Columbia. I want to talk for a moment about the

Equity situation. It has been kept very quiet, Mr. Minister, but it's

probably one of the most serious situations that exist in British

Columbia with respect to the mining or perhaps any other industry. It's

very serious to that community. It has been suggested, Mr. Chairman,

that because of the operation in Houston of Equity Silver, there will

be a problem left behind after that mine closes, in perhaps as short a

time as a year and a half, that will be a problem for the people of

British Columbia for in excess of 100,000 years. It is a very serious

situation. It has already caused the death of a lake and at certain

times of the year causes the death of a whole river system. It's a

river that runs directly through my hometown of Houston. It's not

something that should be taken lightly by government or industry or

anyone else.

[3.45]

I really get the feeling, Mr. Chairman, that the Ministry of Energy, Mines

and Petroleum Resources is doing its best to shuffle the Ministry of Environment

out of this one, and I think the minister should be very concerned about that.

It's a problem that's going to exist for many years, and it's a

problem that has to be addressed. It has to be addressed immedi-

[ Page 8244 ]

ately,

because if we let that mining company off the hook before they close

the Equity Silver operation, the taxpayers of this province are going

to assume the problem and pick up the tab for many hundreds of years

into the future. The problem is not going to go away. Nothing can be

done about the problem. All that can be done is for the problem to be

contained, and that's going to cost a lot of money every year.

understand that the ministry is asking that $40 million be placed in

bond so that the interest on that money may pay for the containment of

the problem, on a yearly basis. But we don't know, Mr. Chairman,

whether the problem is going to escalate. It may, because it feeds on

itself. The more heat that's produced, the more acid is produced.

Whether in fact 50 years down the road that problem can be contained

at, say, a cost of a million and a half a year, or $2 million or $3

million or $4 million, no one knows at this point.

questions to the minister are: what is the ministry doing in order to

determine what the long-term impact of this leaching of acid is going to

be on Goosly Lake and on the Buck river system? How much will it cost

to simply contain the problem as we know it today? Do we know whether

the problem is going to escalate? Do we know that the bond we're going

to ask that company to put up is going to be sufficient ten years down

the road, or is it going to be a liability on the taxpayer of the

province of British Columbia?

It has to be contained —

there's no doubt about that — because it will affect the water supply

of virtually all those living along the Buck, and perhaps all those

living in the community of Houston and maybe even beyond. So it is a

very serious problem. What about the cleanup? We talk about what it's

going to cost to contain the problem, and I heard the minister in

discussions talk about the cleanup of soils that have been

contaminated; problems that have come from the past. What about Goosly

Lake? What about the cleanup of that lake?

I know it very

well, because 25 years ago I used to buck logs on the ice of that lake.

Twenty-five years ago we were told by the Environment ministry we

couldn't do that, because it would pollute the lake.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Hon. member, I must advise you that your time is up.

MR. KEMPF : Mr. Chairman, I have a lot more to say, and I'm sure there's some intervening business.

MR. LOVICK :

Mr. Chairman, I'm sure that the member for Omineca does indeed have

some important things to get on the record, so I would certainly

encourage him to continue for a few moments more.

MR. KEMPF : I thank the first member for Nanaimo. I want to get all of my questions on the record here before the minister gets up.

want to know what we are really doing with respect to this very serious

problem. Again I say that it has been kept very quiet. But not only is

it a problem as far as containment is concerned, it's a problem as far

as cleanup is concerned. I don't think the only issue is to have that

company put up a bond in order to look after that problem for the many

years that it's going to exist. Before that company is allowed to close

its doors, we've got to address the problem of cleanup.

Goosly

Lake was at one time a pretty good fishing lake. It's now dead. A

number of times a year the Buck, depending on the flow of water, is

killed to the point where we have people who live along that river

doing their own testing because they're afraid that the water they use

directly out of the river or take out of the wells is not fit for human

consumption; on many occasions they have found that to be true.

What

are we going to do? How much money are we going to ask Equity Silver or

Placer Development to put up in order to ensure that the taxpayer of

British Columbia doesn't pick up the problems caused by this operation,

which, incidentally, members of this assembly might wish to know, has

only been in existence for ten years. It has not been the best

corporate citizen in the world; it has paid virtually nothing in taxes

to the community of Houston; it has not covered the cost of the

infrastructure that was necessary to accommodate it in the first place;

and now it leaves a problem, a very serious problem, that's going to be

with us, the estimate is, for 140,000 years.

While the

minister is pondering that, I want to ask if the minister is aware that

the very same situation could exist — and perhaps does and we don't

know it, because testing has not been done — with respect to the Endako

Mines operation at Fraser Lake. Same kind of ore, same kind of

situation: effluent flowing into a creek that eventually flows into

Franois Lake. I would call on the minister to do the same kind of

testing as is being done at Equity and not be scared off by the

Ministry of Mines.

I commend the minister and his ministry

for what they have done at Equity. But through what they have done,

they have revealed a very serious and very real problem that's going to

exist for many hundreds of years. I think it's a very good lesson for

us to have learned in British Columbia. Perhaps there are certain

situations we should not enter into, such as mining that ore body in

Houston.

We've had ten years. The community has paid

through the nose because Equity did not. It wasn't Equity's fault; it

was the government's fault. The government did not require Equity to

pay their fair share into the tax coffers of the municipality of

Houston. So maybe it's a lesson. We had ten years of employment for a

few, and now we've got 140,000 years of problems for the many.

I'd like to hear what the minister has to say with respect to that.

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

We've got a variety of things to discuss here. First of all, I'd like

to return to the first member for Nanaimo (Mr. Lovick) and his concern.

We have no authority with respect to logging on private lands unless

there is a deleterious

[ Page 8245 ]

effect

on a stream, and our power is generally after approval is required

under the act for works in and about a stream. That doesn't bode too

well. However, along with the Ministry of Forests, we are examining the

issue of logging on private lands. A number of initiatives, such as

independent resource review committees, are being looked that. I have

instructed staff to look at your particular situation, identify those

watersheds, and by virtue of what I am saying now, see if we can

address that problem, determine how serious it is and identify remedies

that would be available to us and your constituents.

To get

to the concerns of the member for Omineca, I think I said earlier that

I agree with him in terms of his concern about pesticides. I would

agree that it is probably appropriate that in our pesticide control

branch.... By the way, I do understand the difference between the terms

"herbicide" and "pesticide," and I know they are used interchangeably

to say the same thing, unless you are talking about specifics. If I use

one or the other, you will understand that I am using the generic term

for both. I think it's probably time that we in the Ministry of

Environment began looking not just at the proper application of these

chemicals, but at whether or not we should apply them at all.

The

culprit is not forestry, the culprit is not highways, and — you are

going to love this — the culprit is not the CNR. The culprit is

agriculture. That's the real problem, my friend. We have been trying to

get the agriculture industry to educate itself. I believe they are

making some progress now towards understanding the problem they are

developing on their own property, in their own groundwater. But they

are going to have to be continually reminded that we can't continue to

apply these chemicals without having some reaction, because nature

always reacts, nature comes back. I think of Rachel Carson's Silent

Spring in the mid-sixties; it first alerted all of us to these

concerns. Generally, Mr. Member for Omineca, I do agree with you.

With

respect to Alcan, I wouldn't accept your percentage — that 50 percent

of the water is going to be depleted. But I can tell you there is going

to be some loss, and we are aware of that. We have a couple of general

restrictions in place that I think should give British Columbians some

comfort.

First of all, the Department of Fisheries and

Oceans will not accept any loss in the salmon fishery. If there's any

indication that this will happen, then Alcan will have to address it.

DFO cannot accept that. As a matter of fact, it's in their legislation.

They have to be assured before anything happens that there can be no

net loss in the fishery. Likewise, our provincial Ministry of

Environment has to be assured — and I have to be assured, just as the

Prince George MLA — that there is going to be no loss or serious impact

on the Nechako River. As the member knows, I live on the Nechako River.

I value it for its recreational values and for its appearance. It makes

for a nice part of town to live in, having that river go by. So I have

some very personal concerns there.

We're going to manage

that project to the best of our ability and ensure there's no

deleterious effect on the Nechako either at Vanderhoof or at Prince

George. There are a lot of issues to be resolved before we carry on

with the Kemano project. We have some essential provisions to be put in

place. I can assure the member that those will be discussed with him,

if he wishes, and with the concerned citizens of that area west of

Prince George on the Nechako.

[4:00]

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

get to the most serious problem that the member addressed, Equity Mines

and acid mine drainage, acid mine drainage is a very serious problem in

British Columbia because of the sulphide content of our rocks. They do

produce sulphuric acid. The Tsolum River was, I guess, the worst

example; it had a Ph almost approaching battery acid in terms of

acidity. The fish died. They've eventually come back. Equity is a major

concern. We are working with the company, as the member knows, along

with the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources and advising

them that they have to do something. We're watching that very closely.

are doing extensive work at UBC. Probably the best research on acid

mine drainage is being done in British Columbia, or that's what I'm

advised. It's a serious concern to the industry and the ministry, and

it's a serious concern to the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum

Resources as well. We do have a lot of ore value here, but if we're

going to have potential for acid mine drainage, we have to address ways

of not having acid mine drainage develop. Otherwise, mining will have

to be halted.

Since 1980, as the member is aware, we have

put in place the mine development review process which insists that all

applicants for mining development tell us how they are going to handle

acid mine drainage. That's worked well. Regrettably, it's kind of

closing the gate after the cow is out in the case of Equity, because

that process wasn't as thorough as it should have been when Equity

began production in 1980. Their planning and development approvals were

given before 1980. It's a serious concern. I can assure you that both

my ministry and the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources

are on top of it. EMPR do not stand in our way, Mr. Member. They don't

want to see this situation go bad or go acid either, because it's in

their best interests to have mining carried out in the province

properly and not have these lingering problems. They're being very

cooperative and doing everything they can to ensure we can remedy this

problem.

I'm not going to try to tell you — you've been

around too long to take any glib or fast answers; you know the

situation there — that we've got it totally under control, that the

whole thing is going to work out well and we'll all live happily ever

after, because that's not the case. It's a very serious problem. We

know it. Equity knows it. The industry knows it. The association knows

it. Academia knows it. Everybody is doing everything they can to ensure

that we don't

[ Page 8246 ]

have

a bad situation at Equity, that the closure is orderly and we don't

have this lingering legacy of acid for the next 100 years or so. It

could go that way if we're not careful and if we don't put the proper

remedies in place.

I thank the member for his comment, and I do acknowledge the seriousness of his concerns.

MR. KEMPF :

I don't want to belabour any of these points, and I appreciate the

minister's comments. Certainly the minister is aware that the

agriculturalist is not the culprit with the use of herbicides in the

area that I am basically concerned with — the northern two-thirds of

this province. My concern is what I see as a proliferation of

applications for permits in this particular year by industry and by the

B.C. Forest Service, not only to use herbicides but also to

aerial-spray herbicides, and this concerns not only me, as the minister

knows, but many of the citizens of the areas that we represent.

far as the Nechako is concerned, the minister lives on the Nechako and

I am sure loves its beauty, but the area that I am most concerned with

is the area west of the confluence of the Stuart and Nechako Rivers.

There will be a reduction, Mr. Minister — Alcan has said this publicly —

of 50 percent in the flow of that river under the bridge at Vanderhoof.

That is a real concern, not only to the people in the communities but

to agriculturalists. Fort Fraser, for example, will have a very serious

problem with their water supply. They will also have a very serious

problem with sewage disposal, as will other communities and individuals.

From

my experience with this thing — and it has been lengthy; as long as

I've been in politics — all that Fisheries and Oceans is for is the

salmon that frequent the river; that's their only interest. They seem

not to have any interest in the game fish, the wildlife and everything

else that uses the river. Their only concern now seems to be that the

water temperature is suitable for the salmon runs. As far as the other

things go that we enjoy on and in that river, they don't seem to pay a

whole lot of attention.

As far as you carrying on all these investigations and assuring the people of safeguards before Kemano 2 is

underway... Kemano 2 is underway, Mr. Minister, in a big way. I can

assure you that as soon as that tunnel is completed and the

hydroelectric operation is ready to go, it will be fired up. The flows

will be reduced in the river and the problem will be there. So it's not

a case of when it might be underway; it is underway.

As far

as Equity is concerned, I believe that time is running out. I am happy

to hear that the minister knows and is aware of the seriousness of the

problem; but time is running out for the taxpayer of this province, for

looking after the problem after that company leaves the site. I know

that they are carrying on exploration and I hope that there is a

possibility of additional ore bodies being found so that it can

continue its operation, because you can't do any more harm than has

already been done. My concern is for what happens afterward. My concern

is for who is going to pay for the problem after they have closed their

doors, and that could be as early as a year and a half from now.

The

bond that the government requires Equity to put up has to be

sufficient, not only to cover the problem today, or ten, 20 or 1,000

years in the future, and not only to cover the containment of the

problem, but to clean it up. It's got to be sufficient to do all those

things. If it's not, we have made a grave mistake in this province in

allowing that operation in the first place. I understand that the

safeguards weren't in place when it started. But they are still there,

Mr. Minister. We know the problem exists and we should be doing what is

in the best interests of the taxpayer of this province in asking for a

sufficient bond.

The minister didn't answer my question on

Endako Mines. The same problem, I suspect, exists at Endako. I suspect

that the same effluents are flowing into Franois Lake as into Buck

Creek, and I ask the minister now to immediately entertain a program of

testing at Endako Mines as well.

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

Just to be brief, I can't say I really disagree with anything the

member for Omineca has said or any suggestions he has put to me. In

terms of Endako, yes. I hadn't seen that one on the list or heard about

it in my briefing notes, but we will have a look at it and maybe it is

being tested now. If it isn't, it will be.

MS. PULLINGER : Just listening to the member for Omineca discussing the mistake in

allowing the industry into the riding, a specific industry that has

become a problem, we have some concern in our riding of Nanaimo and

Ladysmith that a proposed ferrochromium plant there could be a problem.

Initially people felt fairly comfortable that it was all right, but

since then there have been growing concerns, largely because there have

been more and more questions raised and we don't seem to be able to get

any answers to them. I'm hoping that perhaps today in this debate we

can come up with some of those answers so that we can be reassured that

the plant is indeed safe.

There's no question that we need

the jobs in Nanaimo and would welcome Mr. Wooding and his jobs — if

indeed his plant is safe. We're not here to crucify Mr. Wooding or

necessarily negate the plant; we would just like to have some questions

answered.

I'd like to start with a few questions about the

information on which the minister has based his assurance that the

plant is totally environmentally safe. We have heard the minister of

state for the region tell us that it's safe, as well as many others.

The first thing I would like to ask the minister is: have there been

any studies done for the province other than the Rescan study? I'm

aware of the federal studies, but is the Rescan study the only

environmental study undertaken for this plant?

Interjection.

[ Page 8247 ]

MS. PULLINGER : For the ferrochromium plant proposed by Mr. Jay Wooding for Nanaimo.

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

I'm sorry, Madam Member, I was doing some talking about Wooding, and

then I thought you got onto a different subject. As long as we know

we're on the same subject, I'm fine.

Just to give the

committee a fast recap, the ferrochromium proposal first came to the

Victoria area, and it raised some eyebrows, to say the least. One of

the reasons it did was that it indicated in the preliminary drawings

and preliminary description that there would be water discharge, or

that Brentwood Bay salt water would be used for cooling purposes. That

raised a lot of concerns in terms of what could leak out — whether we

would have poached salmon; and other concerns were raised.

There

was also a large zoning issue, and people were upset about that type of

industry in that location. It wasn't so much a political thing. It

really never got to my desk as an environmental problem. It was largely

political all the time it was down here, and then Mr. Wooding made the

decision that he should maybe look somewhere else. He did, and in doing

so he told us verbally that he would use an air-cooling process; he

would not be considering any water-cooling. There would be no intake or

discharge of water. Air emissions would be the only problem we would be

concerned with, and the technology described to us indicated at first

blush that it could be safe, would be acceptable and would meet B.C.

ambient air standards, and that we would have no problem with it.

[4:15]

On the basis of that, we have given him an approval in principle on

two conditions: (1) that he file a permit; and (2) that he hold public

hearings. The permit has just now been filed. I spoke to the

environmental consultants working for Wooding last Thursday, and they

indicated to me that they hoped to be filing the permit with the

Ministry of Environment on Tuesday. I understand from my colleague here

that parts of the permit have been filed in the Nanaimo office, but we

don't know if it's complete. In fact, we are just now learning from Mr.

Wooding, officially and on a technical basis, what he wants to do.

Now

we can begin our process, but in terms of what's transpired up to now

and what we know about the ferrochromium plant on an official permit

application basis, the answer is that we know nothing about what Mr.

Wooding wants to do outside of what he said publicly. The permit

application is now coming in, and we can begin assessing it. I can't

give you an answer now, because theoretically we have no information

from him.

MS. PULLINGER : I have a concern that we

raised the other day, and I would like to clarify what you said,

because it conflicts with information I have had from the waste

management branch. I perceive there is a very serious problem in the

process of permitting this plant. According to the information I get

from the waste management branch, Mr. Wooding, now that he has approval

in principle, is free to go ahead and build the physical plant. They've

confirmed that information three times now. As you're obviously aware,

that contradicts the information I've had from you.

I would

be greatly relieved to know that you're going to undergo this entire

process before the first footings are poured for the plant. I perceive

that as a very serious flaw in the process, if what the waste

management branch is telling me is true. I would appreciate a response

from the minister as to how that indeed does function. How does that

process work? Could you explain to us what the process is, in terms of

the relative time-lines for when Mr. Wooding can build and the full

environmental process that must be gone through?

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

I just got some more information. This is getting more and more

confusing all the time. I'm beginning to have some doubts, in my own

mind, about the proponent, but I'll leave it at that.

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : Hansard can't put this down, but whooo!

any event, let's get back. Approval in principle was given by the

ministry when we were notified that there would be an air-cooling. Now

there is further discussion that Wooding may want to go into

water-cooling again. That puts a whole new set of concerns with the

Ministry of Environment; now he's going to have the federal ministry

involved again. But I don't know. Officially, I don't know anything,

because the permit has just arrived, and we are looking at it now. But

we have heard about his water-cooling and water discharge problem

again, so we would have a problem there.

To get to the

bottom line: can he build? Yes, he can build anything he wants. Anybody

can build anything they want. Can they operate? No. That's where we

stop them. But if they own the property, yes, they can build within

zoning regulations. But will he be allowed to operate? That's the

question. So you're technically correct: he could begin building the

plant now, but he would never be allowed to operate until he satisfies

our concerns from the environmental point of view and also goes through

some public hearing process, which is included in our first approval in

principle. But if we're back into water discharge, we're into a

brand-new ball game, and I'm sure Mr. Wooding and his consultants

understand that.

MS. PULLINGER : I'm very relieved to

hear that has come through your people, because we have been hearing in

our community that indeed Mr. Wooding has changed. One of the

difficulties, as you say.... The minister states that he is beginning to

have some grave concerns about Mr. Wooding. An awful lot of people in

my community have expressed that same

[ Page 8248 ]

concern,

because there are some gross inconsistencies in what he's saying about

the greenbelt, the process and a lot of things. We have no track record

for Mr. Wooding; we don't seem to be able to get any information. Some

of our media folks have done some very in-depth investigation and come

up with nothing. So I think that's a very valid concern, and I'm glad

to hear you articulate that.

I am concerned, however, to

discover that the waste management branch was correct in saying that

the plant can be built, because obviously if we're going to go through

the leasing process, transfer the covenanted lands from the greenbelt

to the province and allow him to go ahead and build this large

structure, there's a great deal of pressure to allow him to operate.

Nothing short of a catastrophe is going to stop it. That's an extremely

serious problem with the process. As the minister says, we know nothing

about it now. We're going to allow this man to come into our community

in Nanaimo on a piece of land that's very close to residential areas;

it's beside Northumberland Channel, which has $100 million worth of

herring go through it every year, and it backs onto the Nanaimo River

estuary.

We know nothing about Mr. Wooding, according to

the minister, and nothing about the process or the environmental

ramifications of this plant. I think it's a very serious problem that

he can build that plant with no information. I think that's very

serious — I would hope that the minister will address that problem,

because it's clearly a difficulty.

I'd like to just refer

back. I asked a little earlier if the Rescan preliminary overview is

the only piece of information, documentation or environmental study

that has been done to date by the province of British Columbia and by

your department. Can the minister confirm what has been done, or that

there has been nothing more done?

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

First of all, let me qualify a couple of things. I want the record to

show that I do not have — as the member said — concerns about Mr.

Wooding; I have concerns about Mr. Wooding's proposal, and I want the

record to show that clearly.

Secondly, as I said, approval

in principle was given on the understanding that we had air-cooling

only. I'm sitting in the Legislative Assembly right now; I'm not a

technician, and I am not in receipt of the permit. So all I can say is

that if we have a permit that indicates we have water-cooling or a

water discharge, then he does not have approval in principle. The

approval in principle is given on the basis of an application for

air-cooling; and things will have changed....

In terms of

testing that has been done, there is the report that you mentioned. Our

staff have also done some independent research on their own — or

independent of that other report — to better understand the process

that we think we're going to be looking at. I don't know the extent of

that, but the ministry technical people are reviewing the ferrochromium

process as proposed by Mr. Wooding.

MS. PULLINGER :

Thank you for that response. I would like to clarify as well that I'm

certainly not in any way meaning to attack Mr. Wooding. He is of course

welcome in the community, and we would be pleased to have him and his

plant there — if it's environmentally safe. The object of the exercise

is to determine that it will be safe and that the process is adequate

to ensure the safety of our environment and the people of our

constituency.

You say the staff has done some additional

research on top of the Rescan study. I'm pleased to hear it, because

the Rescan study is very superficial and incomplete. I wonder if the

minister would be prepared to share that research with us so we can get

some answers to our questions.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : We

have done some preliminary research. We will of course do extensive

research now that we have received the permit. All the information we

have will be part of the public hearing process, which I am sure you

will attend; I would if I were you. It will be held in Nanaimo.

MS. PULLINGER :

You are calling it a public hearing process. My understanding was that

there only needed to be a public information process, which is a very

different thing. Will you confirm that the process is indeed a hearing

process, where the people of Nanaimo can come and raise their concerns

and have their questions answered in a hearing format rather than

simply an information meeting, which is a far less thorough and

informal process?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : You're right.

The term I should have used was public information process. "Hearing"

has a different connotation. However, in that process you can certainly

ask questions of the proponent and also of the ministry staff. That's

what we mean by public information process. We will provide answers as

the Ministry of Environment, and so will the proponent.

MR. LOVICK :

I listened with interest and appreciation to the response from the

minister to the questions posed by my colleague, and I want him to know

we have accomplished a great deal in the last five minutes. We've

probably got more information than we've been able to acquire in about

the last three months of some pretty serious digging and hard work. We

truly appreciate that.

A couple of questions, though. Am I

correct in understanding the minister to say that the proponents do not

have approval in principle insofar as they are now talking about a

water cooling system?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : If they are

applying for a permit that includes water discharge, they do not have

approval in principle. They only had it for the air-to-air cooling.

MR. LOVICK :

I appreciate the answer. It might interest the minister to know that in

all the discussions my colleague and I have had with our friends in

[ Page 8249 ]

Nanaimo

city council, nobody has ever talked about an air cooling system;

rather, the question has been whether it's fresh water or sea water.

The minister might like to note that, in terms of adding to the

confusion surrounding the project. There are even people on council who

begin to wonder whether the proponent now wants to go to salt water

rather than fresh simply because of the possibility that if one uses

fresh water one will have to pay a certain amount of money for that,

i.e. an additional cost. In all the discussions, we've never yet had

any reference to an air cooling system, and that's why I'm quite

surprised and why I went through that elaborate process of asking you

again to repeat and clarify the point for me.

I have a

question about this whole business of funding and financing. My

colleague quite correctly pointed out what we perceive to be a flaw in

the process: that you can build the facility before you get the permit

to find if something is indeed environmentally benign. Just as that is

an important question and points to a flaw in the process, so I think

is another question: the matter of funding. As you recall, Mr.

Minister, this project has been touted for some time as having a

tremendous economic regeneration capacity, which is probably true, but

within that statement has been the claim that the money's in the bag.

We're talking approximately $4.5 million from the western

diversification fund and a matching amount from the provincial

government. I understand that those statements are also somewhat

premature, given that all we're talking about is approval in principle — an approval that is clearly subject to a number of conditions being

met. Is that a fair construction?

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

I don't want to duck this one, Mr. Member, but I am not going to

comment on financing. I am the Minister of Environment. If I were

minister of state for the area I guess I would make a comment about the

financing and also about the federal side of it, but I will not in this

case. I don't think it's appropriate. But I would encourage you to ask

the Minister of Regional Development (Hon. Mr. Veitch) about that

aspect of it.

[4:30]

Getting back to where we are in terms of the company, I think I've

laid out everything to you the way I understand it. If we have a change

in process suggested by the proponent, then the approval in principle

is cancelled.

The building thing: again, your own city

officials who offer building permits may put that restriction in.

Regrettably, as Minister of Environment, I can't stop someone from

building a plant as long as what he's doing and building is

environmentally sound. While the plant goes up and on the ground, he's

not doing anything; there are no discharges. It's just another building — it could be a warehouse; it could be a shell — but until it starts

discharging into the environment, then I really have nothing to operate

on, so it could proceed. However, as soon as they turn a wheel or turn

the key, then we become quite interested. I can assure you that we will

not accept undue pressure from that proponent or any other. If they've

gone to the trouble and expense of building a multimillion-dollar plant

without getting our approval to operate, and we don't let them operate

it, that's a gamble they've taken and lost. I stand by that statement.

We just can't operate any other way, and I want to assure the members

of that.

In terms of zoning and the greenbelt — I've heard

a few comments about that — I think it's a question better posed to

Nanaimo city council, who changed it, I think, for residential

purposes. You could talk to your council about that. We had no interest

in it.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

You're doing that, are you? By the way, I want to tell you one more

thing. I should tell the committee that my friend from Nanaimo and I,

many years ago in another movie, were coaches of respective debate

teams. We had a lot of fun, worked with some brilliant students and

really enjoyed ourselves. But the member sent me a letter yesterday,

and there was no object. You didn't put down the proposition you were

talking about. I knew, but I just.... Did you get my return letter? You

asked me: "What about this proposition?" I said: "Which proposition?"

There we go.

In any event, I appreciate your concern. I hope I've been able to answer your questions.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : No, the word "object." Don't you understand what "object" means? There was no proper noun.

Anyway,

I hope I've answered your concerns. If you have any more, please

present them to me and I'll be more than happy to answer your questions.

MS. PULLINGER :

I think it was covered fairly well, but at this point, I would just

like to bring to your attention some concerns of the people of Nanaimo,

so that you are perhaps better able to deal with them. One is the whole

issue of chromium 3, chromium 6, etc. A group in Nanaimo has done some

extensive research on this. I've had the results of its research looked

at by a chemist in the field who deals with ferrochromium and the

plants. I don't know whether the minister has seen that document, but

there is a concern that the information about chromium compounds has

changed very rapidly, and what was once thought to be a stable compound — chromium 3 to chromium 0 — is no longer held as being so.

There

is a great deal of information. A five-page bibliography was given to

me by some residents from this research group, which indicates just by

the titles that there are an awful lot of questions out there about the

stability of the various chromium compounds, I hope you will address

that, because given that we have seawater on both sides and that seawa-

[ Page 8250 ]

ter seems to be the catalytic element in the change, it should be addressed fairly thoroughly.

Apart

from that, another concern is that there never has been a functioning

prototype of this plant. Indeed, the one that there was — a similar

plant in Luxembourg — failed; it had a meltdown and has never produced

ferrochromium. It's a serious concern, given that this kind of

production is innovative, new and obviously will have a lot of

glitches. In the problems and glitches that it has in the on-site

development of the process, if we're emitting chromium 6, which is

highly carcinogenic, there is room for some very serious problems for

both the marine life and the people in the area.

Those are

just a couple of the processes. Another is that we are dealing with

possibly very hazardous substances, and there are possible

difficulties, for instance, in the baghouse filters, as Mr. Wooding is

proposing. I hope you will address those concerns.

The

other one, my colleague reminds me, is that the studies we have right

now are addressing quite directly the production of ferrochromium.

However, 46 percent of what's going to be produced by the plant is

slag. One of the studies indicates — I believe it's the provincial

study — that the slag will then go through a process and become a

mineral wool fibre for insulation. However, the Norwegian people say

that there are simply no markets for it. I have a concern about that,

because if there are no markets, obviously we're not going to have that

mineral wool produced. We're going to end up with 20,000 tonnes a year

of slag sitting on Jack Point and Duke Point.

information is that there are two problems in crumbling the slag. One

is that it's a very dirty, smelly process, and we've got residential

areas just across Northumberland Channel and in Cedar. The other is

that we're not really sure what the leaching will be from that. Will

there be leaching of chromium compounds? I've heard it said by one of

the environmental waste management people, I believe, that the

suggestion is that Mr. Wooding will indeed at this point simply crumble

or make pellets or whatever out of this slag and distribute it around

the area. Given the sensitivity of the area, I think that's a very

important concern. The process of making mineral wool out of the slag

has not been addressed in any of the studies anywhere. I would hope it

would be looked at, since it's half the process.

I think

that covers fairly well the major concerns that we have. If we have

others we'll pass them on to you so that they can be addressed. I'm

very pleased with the position that we're hearing today, because the

concerns in Nanaimo have been that this is just going to be ramrodded

through without adequate environmental protection. Thank you for your

responses.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : The stability of the

chromium was one of the concerns we had. We had George Poling at UBC do

some work for us on that issue. His information back to us is that the

chromium in this process is stable.

With respect to all the

other questions you've asked, the information cannot be provided until

we have analyzed the permit. The permit, as you can appreciate,

presents drawings and shows us the process and tells us everything we

want to know. But your questions are duly noted, of course, and are on

the record now. As we review the process I will attempt to answer those

questions for you by having my staff review the questions you've posed

today in committee.

Of course, as I told you before, the

public information session.... I'm sure it is going to be well

attended, given what you've told me and given the few that I've

attended, not on this issue but other events I've been to. I can

understand the public is going to be very much concerned with the

proponent, his design, his product and his operation. I'm sure all

those questions that you've posed and more are going to be asked during

the information session.

I thank you for your information,

and I hope I've been able to provide you with some comfort and some

basic understanding of where this ministry stands on the issue.

MR. CLARK :

I'll be very brief on a completely different topic. Let me begin by

saying that at this time the Environment portfolio is in many ways the

most important portfolio of government, and I appreciate how difficult

it is and how complex it's becoming. I know that's true for our

spokesperson as well. It seems to me that one almost has to be a

toxicologist to be conversant with all of the different complex

compounds in existence today.

I just wanted to raise with

the minister and the ministry something that's come across my desk

which has to do with something commonly called TBT — toxic tributyltin,

an anti-fouling paint for the bottom of boats. I might say at the

outset that much of this information comes from someone who has a

vested interest in a competing product, and I don't want the minister

to view this as my advocating a particular product.

The

background material on TBT is that it's been banned in California,

France and Britain. Its sale and use is now banned to such an extent

that I gather that American boaters by and large come up to British

Columbia to buy TBT and paint it on their boats. It's extremely toxic.

I have an

article from Jacques Cousteau's magazine which clearly

documents the hazards of TBT. There appear to be other products which

work as well.

I think the minister in a previous discussion

in this chamber said that many of these kinds of things come across his

desk. As I said at the outset, one almost has to be a toxicologist to

try and fathom the complexities of this field of environmental

pollution. For example, I gather that B.C. Ferries uses TBT and others.

It seems to me that just because it's banned elsewhere, it doesn't

necessarily mean that one has to follow suit. The evidence does appear

to be significant.

The California banning is only a year or two old. I appreciate that we may be ahead of other jurisdic-

[ Page 8251 ]

tions

in certain areas and behind in others. This kind of thing seems to be a

checkerboard in some respects. I wonder whether the ministry is

reviewing any policy with respect to the sale of TBT, and how we

monitor these questions that come across all members' desks from time

to time. This does seem to be quite a good case against TBT. It is

legal here. It's certainly not legal in California.

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

At the outset — I'm not being glib; this is factual — they are banning

just about everything in California. It's very restrictive there, and

for a good reason, I guess. There are 28 million people there, and

they've got some major pollution problems — air, water, you name it —

and a long history of neglect as well.

But that aside,

we've looked at that. We've thought of doing something under the

Pesticide Control Act because that's what it's designed for. We do have

a few problems internally with the federal government. We are well

aware of that concern. Something that I'd like to see completed is to

have that material banned, if in fact it is that toxic, and if there

are other chemicals we can use that are less toxic and just as

effective.

MR. MILLER : I want to canvass with the

minister in reasonably general terms the issue of preserving old-growth

forests in British Columbia. It's my view that there is a need to

clearly set aside areas of this province from both a scientific and

aesthetic point of view. The conflicts that we see happening all too

often in British Columbia are the result of the government not being

ahead of the game, in terms of identifying those particular needs. I

hope that the minister would agree with the premise that it is

desirable to maintain areas of old growth in British Columbia.

[4:45]

I think that there has been very little work done in identifying

what we have here in British Columbia. What is worth preserving? How

much is there? How much should be preserved of various types? I intend

to quote fairly extensively — and I don't want to take a lot of time —

from a document that I've just finished reading in relation to that. I

think it illustrates my point. I would be happy to hear the minister's

comments in terms of the work that is or is not being done in your

ministry and perhaps your view of the kind of work that should be done.

The

paper I refer to has been done by three British Columbians. It's titled

"Protected Old-Growth Forests in Coastal British Columbia." It deals

with coastal British Columbia. I'll start out with some quotes in terms

of the percentages of the various types that are preserved. I think it

illustrates that some more work needs to be done. The two most common

protected old-growth forest types are the western red cedar–western

hen-dock type; they group two types together in terms of classification — 25 percent; the western hemlock–amabilis fir type — 23 percent. A

distant third is the Douglas fir–western hemlock type — 10 percent. The

next highest ranking is Sitka spruce–western hemlock — 9.5

percent, followed by red cedar–Douglas fir — 7 percent, mountain

fir–amabilis fir — 5.5 percent and western hemlock — 5 percent. The

least common protected old growth types are Douglas fir — 1 percent and

red cedar — 0.3 percent.

In the conclusion to the paper, which is not all that long, they make some observations. I think they are worth repeating:

"However,

these old-growth forests are dwindling. Their liquidation commenced

early in the development of the province, and logging and land clearing

have increased ever since. Although there is still a substantial area

of coastal old growth remaining, especially on the north coast,

virtually all productive accessible forest has a price on its head.

This was amply demonstrated in the recent battle of the proposed South

Moresby National Park.

"If logging proceeds

as planned, today's operable timber will all be logged probably within

15 to 25 years depending on economics. The 185,600 hectares of

protected old growth