1984 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 33rd 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, MARCH 15, 1984

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

3857 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Industrial Development Amendment Act, 1984 (Bill M201). Mr. Howard.

Introduction and first reading –– 3857

Oral Questions

Booths closed at ferry terminals. Mr. Lockstead –– 3857

B.C. unemployment rate. Mr. Macdonald –– 3857

Food allowances. Ms. Sanford –– 3858

Bank profits. Mr. Blencoe –– 3858

Care of disturbed children. Mr. Barnes –– 3859

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

On vote 25: resource and environmental management –– 3859

Mr. Mitchell

Mr. Lockstead

Ms. Sanford

Mr. Skelly

Mrs. Wallace

On vote 26: emergency assistance –– 3872

Mrs. Wallace

Mr. Lockstead

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing. (Hon. Mr. Brummet)

On vote 47: minister's office –– 3873

Hon. Mr. Brummet

Mr. Mitchell

Mr. Howard

Mr. Kempf

THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 1984

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, we have in the gallery today

Mrs. Sharon Malmberg of the Kootenay Livestock Association in Fort

Steele. I would like the members to join me in welcoming her.

MR. MOWAT: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of introducing to

the House some members of the B.C. Hotels Association who are in the

gallery today: their president, Mr. Merle Schrader, and executive

director, Mr. Lloyd Manuel, together with the other directors of the

B.C. Hotels Association who have had consultation and discussions with

the government today. I would ask the members to welcome these visitors.

Introduction of Bills

On a motion by Mr. Howard, Bill M201, Industrial Development

Amendment Act, 1984, 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.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, yesterday a matter arose during oral question period which the Chair feels should be clarified.

A question was put to the acting Minister of Labour, and in response

to that question the Premier rose to reply. The Chair expressed some

unease as there was no wish to see an unusual or unanticipated practice

develop. I have now had an opportunity to consult the authorities, and

I am satisfied that questions addressed to the ministry may be answered

by the minister responsible for the subject matter raised by the

question, whether or not that minister was named in the question or by

the leader of the government. It is obviously impossible for the Chair

to be aware of the internal operations of the cabinet. As president of

the executive council, the Premier is able to assist the House, and his

intervention to respond to an oral question does not require leave of

the House.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, inasmuch as Your Honour has made

mention of the proceedings in question period yesterday, I draw to Your

Honour's attention that on three occasions Your Honour permitted the

Premier to refer to a member of the cabinet by name rather than by

title, and that is an infraction of the rules that should never be

permitted. Unless the same opportunity is afforded members of the

opposition, one can only conclude that maybe the Premier has more

influence in this chamber than one would give him credit for.

MR. SPEAKER: The first part of the point of order was, in

fact, in order. The second point was not. The point raised by the

member is accurate. The Chair expresses regret that that matter was not

addressed at the time, and I'm sure all hon. members are aware of the

rules governing the use of members' names in this chamber.

MR. LAUK: I have a point of order of equal import, Mr. Speaker. It is

my view that the ruling would allow the person whom you described in your ruling

as being able to respond for other ministries — but who has not in eight years

done so.... I wonder if Mr. Speaker would assist the opposition to some extent

and restrict the length of time that such persons take in giving answers to

questions put by the opposition. There are only two or three people ––

I wouldn't call them offenders, because they are not offenders; they just

can't cope with the language with any degree of precision — who tend to ramble

on. For example, there was that time....

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. I'm sure all hon.

members recognize the need to adhere to the spirit of question period,

and I commend that to all members.

BOOTHS CLOSED AT FERRY TERMINALS

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

Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. A. Fraser). At a time of

record unemployment, will the minister advise why B.C. Ferry

Corporation has taken action to destroy several small private

businesses in British Columbia by closing down and refusing permission

for arts and crafts booths to operate at B.C. Ferries terminals?

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I don't know what the member's

talking about. I'll take that part of your question.... But I'll tell

you that B.C. Ferries just called a contract to put 450 people to work

right in the capital city of Victoria.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: On the last part of the minister's remarks, Mr. Speaker, I understand that the Queen of Alberni ,

when it is completed, will actually be servicing my riding, and I very

much appreciate that. However, that is not the question; the question

is will the minister now, in view of the fact that he.... And he knows

very well what I'm talking about. You're closing down the arts and

crafts booths at the ferry terminals. That's what you're doing, and

you're allowing it.

Will the minister advise whether he supports the decision of the

B.C. Ferry Corporation to arbitrarily withdraw the livelihood of the

small business operators who promote British Columbia arts and crafts

to travelers all over the world? Do you support that? Sure you do.

HON. A. FRASER: As I said, I'll take that part of the

question as notice, because I am not aware of that. I'll look into it

and bring an answer back.

B.C. UNEMPLOYMENT RATE

MR. MACDONALD: I have a question for the Premier, Mr.

Speaker. Yesterday the Premier said that the socialist government of

France was having "an even worse economy than in any other country in

the industrialized world." Now we all know that Reaganomics and

Bennettomics — or whatever you call it — has created a depression

throughout the western world, but is the Premier aware that the

unemployment rate in France is less than 10 percent, while in British

Columbia it is more than 15 percent?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I'm glad the second member for Vancouver

East asked that question, because as ministers and those who have

recently visited France will know, the French

[ Page 3858 ]

government had to abandon the policy that that

party there still advocates, and that they practised when they first

became government. The policies now are all geared to freeing the

private sector and having jobs created in that area. I'm pleased to see

that they're having a dramatic turnaround in results, although late.

As the member would know, trying to compare a country with a

province is very difficult. I'm sure there are areas of France that are

dependent on external trade, that are not internally related, and that

probably have a fluctuating rate or rates — different than the French

average. But there is no doubt that the policies they advocate and

practise are very similar — in fact, identical — to the type of

policies that that party has continued to press for during the last 50

years in Canada; they're identical now to what they were 50 years ago.

They did not work and they had to make a dramatic turnaround. In fact,

if the member gets some of the news coming out of countries facing the

recession, I think he will find that governments of all political

stripes, no matter what their political rhetoric, have had to make the

difficult choices that we've made. They've had to curtail public

spending in the face of a decline in revenues, and they've had to do it

as part of an industrial and economic strategy that doesn't compound

the debt to the point where it would be prohibitive, by implying future

tax increases and thereby discouraging investment and jobs in their

areas. Every country in the world has had to come to grips with the

recession. It's only in British Columbia that the New Democrats, a

perpetual opposition, still advocate unworkable policies.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary. I'll be glad to

get in touch with Mr. Mitterrand, the Premier of France, and tell him

that he now has the support of the Prime Minister of British Columbia —

that you've been converted and that you're a supporter of the Socialist

Party of France.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: You're not? You sounded like it.

[2:15]

HON. MR. BENNETT: No. I'm always pleased to have socialist

parties see the light once they have the responsibility of government

and adopt responsible policies. Unfortunately the opposition here has

an opposition mentality, incapable of change, incapable of

responsibility, and capable only of dissent, disruption and a wish that

the government would fail in its task — not because they want to help

people, but because it's the only way they see that they could somehow

get back into power. It isn't going to happen here, Mr. Speaker.

FOOD ALLOWANCES

MS. SANFORD: I have a question for the Minister of

Agriculture and Food, Mr. Speaker. What studies has the minister done

on the nutritional adequacy of the food basket available to income

assistance recipients, particularly those under the age of 25, whose

food allowance has been slashed by 25 percent under the new regulations?

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Mr. Speaker, our ministry does not undertake the duties and responsibilities of analyzing the nutritional values of food.

MS. SANFORD: Well, that's an interesting admission for the

Minister of Food to make. I think it's high time that the minister took

an interest in the nutritional value of the food that the people of

British Columbia are consuming, particularly in view of the low incomes

with which they have to purchase that food.

The other day — on Tuesday, Mr. Speaker — the minister suggested

that the Ministry of Human Resources has increased funding for

recipients in order to purchase food. Is the minister aware that all of

the GAIN rates have been frozen for two years and that those people

under the age of 25 have been cut by 25 percent?

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Mr. Speaker, the total number of dollars

made available through the Ministry of Human Resources to help people

in need has been increased. It is the responsibility of the Minister of

Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) to determine the best possible way

to put those dollars into the hands of the people who have the greatest

need.

MS. SANFORD: The suggestion that the minister gave the other

day, then — that there was more money available for those people who

were in receipt of assistance from Human Resources — is, in fact,

erroneous. There are just more people, not more money available to

those people.

Previously the Ministry of Human Resources referred British

Columbians with urgent need to the volunteer food banks, and we have

many examples of that. Even though the provincial government provides

no support for those food banks, has the minister decided to recommend

a program of government assistance for food banks, which could be

implemented almost immediately?

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Not yet, Mr. Speaker.

BANK PROFITS

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier.

The day before yesterday the Minister of Agriculture and Food said

there is no money available in government to buy British Columbia

produce for distribution to low-income families through volunteer food

banks. We also know that much of the response to the crisis, the

recession in our province, has come from the volunteer section, the

community agencies and the churches, and they continue to respond to

that crisis. One of the major institutions in our province, the banks,

have done little in this crisis, yet taken lots. What consideration

have the Premier and the cabinet given to increasing taxation of the

chartered banks, who last year in British Columbia made $300 million in

profits?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I don't know how the member relates that to

the distribution of food by churches, in wanting to single out one

sector of society that operates a business in the private sector, but I

would say that the government, as far as taxation in this province

goes, did increase the bank tax on capital ahead of any other

government in Canada a few years ago, and has the highest extra rates

for capital purposes. That policy, incidentally, was followed by

Manitoba in a very half-hearted way.

MR. BLENCOE: Supplementary to the Premier. Despite what the Premier says, the banks indeed continue to make

[ Page

3859 ]

record profits not only in this country but in this province. Does he not feel

that those institutions that continue to make record profits, particularly when

they make them from people who are losing their homes and being thrown into

the unemployment lines, have some responsibility in these difficult times to

return something to those people?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I wish every business in this province was

making record profits, because then they'd have the type of money to

reinvest and employ our people. The mindset that that member and his

party have against profits, that somehow profits and business are dirty

words.... We found out that when there is no business and there are no

profits, as struck our forest industry, that creates unemployment for

our forest workers, which is unacceptable to me. It was only a few

years ago that we used to hear the tremendous attacks on the forest

industry for any profit at all. We know very well what happens when

profits aren't there: investors in these companies, who may be anybody

in Canada.... Corporate entities aren't in themselves some big

invisible group; they're made up of thousands or hundreds of thousands,

depending on the institution, of individual shareholders and depositors

who get a return on their money.

The member thinks it's popular to criticize financial institutions.

It's part of the mindset of the 50-year-ago policies of the NDP. Mr.

Speaker, I'm not here to apologize for the banks or any other business.

I'm here to say that our government isn't going to single out, in a

vindictive way for the political purposes of the second member for

Victoria, any single group for punitive taxes just because we wish to

be vindictive.

CARE OF DISTURBED CHILDREN

MR. BARNES: My question is to the Minister of Human

Resources. As the minister realizes, today families in the province of

British Columbia are experiencing considerable stress. Young people are

finding themselves more and more without the security of home life. As

a result, the schools are having more problems with young people with

behavioural and emotional problems. What will happen to these young

people now that she has ordered the termination of some six child-care

workers in the Victoria area and approximately 50 child-care workers in

the Vancouver elementary and secondary schools?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I'll be pleased to answer

the question in detail. I'm cognizant of the fact that there is only

one minute left in question period.

In Victoria, I think the member is addressing himself to the Lampson Street

educational rehabilitation program closure. We have 23 students in the Lampson

Street educational rehab program; of these, 12 are wards, and the remaining

11 live with their families. Almost all are 17- and 18-year-old young people.

The Ministry of Human Resources funds 11 such programs. It is one of 11 in greater

Victoria, seven of which are in the Victoria School District. The Lampson Street

program was the only one staffed by ministry personnel. Of six staff positions

at Lampson Street, one is vacant, and we're told that as of March 31, 1984,

alternative staff placements are to be offered to the remainder. On February

27, 1984, the school principal was notified verbally of the ministry's intent

to close the program on March 31. As of March 14, 1984, of the 23 students affected

by closure of the Lampson Street program, nine are going to the Warehouse alternative

education program, which is a like service, without displacing any other child

on their waiting list. The staff indicated that they expanded their capacity

to make everyone's

schedule for the Warehouse School, plus up to ten children

from Lampson Street School. Three others are looking for work. Two of these

had completed the Lampson Street program and the third had already been expelled

due to noncompliance with attendance requirements. Two students are to return

to regular public schools. One of these had been confirmed and the second placement

is awaiting confirmation. Planning had already been underway prior to any change.

One student has been placed in a program in the Indian Friendship

Centre. One student is attending the Crossroads program funded by the

corrections department. One student was withdrawn from Lampson Street

School by his parents. Three students, who are wards, quit Lampson

Street School as soon as they heard that the program was ending. All

were looking for an excuse to quit. Staff are looking for options to

assist them, so they are still under the counselling of the staff. They

would be difficult to place in any alternative education program. There

are three students awaiting word on whether they can go into a work

activity program in the city. Two of these students are close to

obtaining their grade 10 level of education this spring, and if at all

possible they should remain in the school system to obtain their

education. Our staff is working toward that goal.

Staff continue to work to find appropriate options for the students

not yet placed, of whom only the three that I mentioned were difficult,

even within the Lampson Street situation.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say that in a

question asked during the question period by the member for Comox (Ms.

Sanford) the inference was that the Minister of Human Resources

constantly or always or often refers people to the volunteer food

banks. I have never done so. I have never publicly stated that, and

never have done that so I want the member to be corrected.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, with all due

respect, that is not a point of order. It could have been made in

another forum but not as a point of order.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT

(continued)

On vote 25: resource and environmental management, $88,866,952.

[2:30]

MR. MITCHELL: I want to get back to where we left off before

the lunch period. I kind of resent the minister's attack that the

people in the Western Community and those who are involved in waste

management at the community level can't make up their minds. I want to

stress again to the minister and the ministry that the people in the

Western Community can make up their minds. What confused the issue was

the minister's kind of offhand remark that the people in the Western

[ Page 3860 ]

Community cannot make up their minds whether they

want sewers or waste management disposal of septic sewage. It's

unfortunate that people at the government level at one time took the

attitude that they were going to force sewers on the Western Community,

similar to the operation that took place on Salt Spring Island.

Although it would be desirable and would have a lot going for it, it is

not economically possible at the present time to put a sewer system in

the Western Communities. It may be something that should have been laid

out 30 years ago, but it is not going to happen in the Western

Communities. We still have the problem out in that area of pumping

septic sludge deposits into the sea. I am not afraid to ask the

minister for positive leadership. I know he has talented people in his

ministry who can give that leadership, and that leadership has to come

from the government. The government has missed the boat. To make an

offhand statement that the people out there have to decide if they want

sewers or composting is not the issue. The issue is that something has

to be done in the line of composting if we're going to protect our

environment in the Western Communities of the greater Victoria area.

I have a second question I would like to put to the minister, and I

brought it up in an earlier speech. I was hoping to hear something from

his ministry. Has the minister made any firm study of the Whiffin Spit

erosion? Is there any cooperation between the Environment minister and

the Highways minister to do some repair work on the Whiffin Spit before

we have another storm at high tide causing the damage that is suspected

to take place in the Sooke Basin if that natural breakwater, which has

evolved over thousands of years, is not repaired? I mention it to the

minister so that he may give serious consideration to either putting in

some rock fill or to doing something to patch up the present hole. It's

not only that it will protect the inner harbour in the Sooke area, but

it will make the park area accessible to the general public.

A few years ago, just prior to the 1979 election, the government

released $30,000 from the Lottery Fund to work on Whiffin Spit. The

government at that time recognized Whiffin Spit as part of the Sooke

community and part of the responsibility of the government in general.

They decided to use Lottery Fund money and to give it to the chamber of

commerce to do repair work on Whiffin Spit, which I think was kind of a

petty political move. The government did do that on the insistence, and

with the leadership, of the then Social Credit MLA. But the undertaking

by this government at that time that Whiffin Spit is a needed

breakwater for the harbour, that it was a tourist attraction, was an

access to the park area on the east end of the spit.... For the last

year and a half it's been sitting there in a state of disrepair. The

effort that could go into repairing it would create some needed

employment in that area. It would open up the area for tourists and

parks and would be taking protective measures before the damage comes.

We're coming into a summer period, and I just don't want to hear the

government say that the erosion off the banks is going to bring a lot

of gravel back.... We can't wait, hoping that what took hundreds of

years to build up is going to be solved right away. I think the

government has to take a positive stand. I know that the minister

doesn't like the words "positive stand," but it has to be repaired.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Responding briefly, it's interesting how

the member can make some selective juxtapositions of comments that I

made this morning. He said that I said that the Western Communities

couldn't make up its mind about the sewer system. I mentioned that

perhaps a sewer system would solve some of their problems, but what I

said was that the member couldn't make up his mind whether he wanted

local autonomy or imposition from Victoria. That was what I referred to

about making up their minds.

As for the Whiffin Spit situation, no, we have not looked at it

recently. The reason that lottery funds were given is because our

riverbank protection program does not provide or allow for storm damage

from the ocean. It would be better to give some money out of the

lottery funds rather than nothing, I would think. If the member is now

suggesting that we should spend that money to improve the breakwater,

at this time I would welcome a suggestion from him as to what other

program these funds should come from.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I have a few quick questions for the minister.

The first deals with a problem that is of particular concern in my

riding, although it is happening all over British Columbia: that is,

the use of herbicides and pesticides. The minister may recall...I'm

sure he will recall, because we seem to go through this every year. The

Forest Service, B.C. Hydro, other groups — occasionally Highways, but

not so much any more — apply for a permit to spray whatever it is they

spray –– 2-4D or whatever — on the plants. The Minister of Forests

shakes his head; in a second I'll give you an example of a current

situation. When the agencies apply for permits, first of all we usually

give.... The environmentally conscious people in my riding, no matter

where they live, ask questions and sometimes appeal or attempt to

appeal decisions. Certainly two of the regional districts in my riding

— the Sunshine Coast and Powell River Regional Districts — have on

numerous occasions protested to your ministry about the issuing of

permits for people to go in and spray here, there and wherever.

The latest case, which does in fact involve the Forest Service — and

I'm pleased to see the Minister of Forests in the house — is near Earle

Creek, which is near the Skookumchuck just out of Egmont. I'm sure you

know the area; it's quite famous. It's also quite near a provincial

park. The Forest Service has applied to use a herbicide to spray alder

in that area, which they did last year in that area as well. We were

successful last year, at least in one case in the Powell River area, in

getting the Forest Service to use the hack and squirt technique, which

is much better than aerial spraying or having people walking around

with sprays killing everything in sight with the herbicides and

pesticides that they use.

I am asking the minister to use his influence with the minister

sitting next to him.... Now standing, now sitting again; he's like a

jack-in-a-box. He got all fidgety there on his trip to Germany. He was

over there for three weeks, and he hasn't reported back to this House

yet. We don't know what he did over there. Did he sell anything?

What I am asking, Mr. Chairman, is for the Minister of Environment

to use his influence and ask that minister to consider using the hack

and squirt method in that area if it is required to kill the alder at

all. Quite frankly, I don't know why in some of these areas it is

necessary to wipe out what is a merchantable type of tree, in any

event. The Forest Service sometimes gets carried away. I personally

don't understand why the Forest Service has to always get these permits

for this type of spraying when they ask for them, and why we have to

kill alder in the first place, particularly in areas like that.

[ Page

3861 ]

Another item I want to ask the minister about

very quickly is that when someone applies for a permit to pollute, in

other words — that's really what it is — or to use these sprays and

herbicides, there is no charge for receiving that permit. But if a

citizen or a group wants to appeal the issue of such a permit, they

have to pay to the ministry or to the Environmental Appeal Board, as

published in the procedures put out by the ministry, a $25 fee. I fail

to understand that as well. I have had a number of complaints. For each

permit they have to pay $25 and I simply don't understand that. A large

operation like the Forest Service or a large forest company can easily

afford to pay something to apply, but here you have the appellant, who

may wish to appeal a decision made by the ministry or the minister or

the board, having to pay a fee of $25. Some of these people don't have

a whole lot of money nowadays, particularly since the last two budgets

this government has brought in.

I have another question for the minister; this is a constituency

item as well. Could the minister tell me how much money the ministry

anticipates spending on diking in the Bella Coola valley, river,

estuary — the whole bit — this year? If you have a figure, I'd

appreciate it. You may not have that figure with you today, and I

understand that and am prepared to wait for an answer.

[2:45]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: As to the permit applications for spraying

or using pesticides, that is our requirement to make sure that we have

control over it. We ask the people to apply for that. The member also

questioned the $25 fee for people who appeal. It started out that at

one time there was no charge for the appeals, and it seemed that there

were a number of repetitive appeals coming in on issues that had

already been resolved and gone to appeal, so that every time a permit

was issued, an automatic appeal came in. So the fee was there to

determine the seriousness of the appeal, and it is required from

individuals, groups or companies wishing to appeal. It has not

prevented the serious appeals, and it has done something to prevent

tying up the appeal board on every single issue that had been decided

over and over again in similar instances. The member, I think,

recognizes that the permits and applications are site-specific,

specific controls, in order to exercise a very good control over that.

Certainly aerial spraying is the toughest to control, and we try to

avoid it to the extent possible, but sometimes it's the only practical

route to go. I guess the member can call it a permit to pollute, but

we're looking at it as a permit to control what is there, and we rely

on the technical people to make the decisions as to whether it's safe

to do so or not. If it's not safe, then of course the permit isn't

issued.

Regarding the amount for your constituency, I'll get you that.

MS. SANFORD: For the benefit of the House Leader, I'm going

to be very brief. I have one question to direct to the minister which

relates to a particular issue within my constituency. There are a lot

of other questions; I'm going to deal with some of them by mail, and

some of them I'm working on with his various ministry officials, but

I'd like a direct answer from the minister about this one.

Within the constituency of Comox and located in the city of

Courtenay is a conservation officer who has served that area for a long

time. For some reason which I have not been able to determine, and

which people like the Fish and Game Protective Association in Courtenay have not been able to determine,

this particular conservation officer is no longer going to be located

in Courtenay but is going to be moved 30 miles north into an office in

Campbell River. The current office is in the courthouse, which is owned

by BCBC, and I cannot think that the ministry is making that move

simply because of office space, and perhaps putting three or four

officers together in one office in order to cut down on the rental

costs.

The service which the conservation officer, Ray Rogers, has given to

the area has been outstanding, and I think everyone who is involved in

the conservation field will agree with that. If he is moved to Campbell

River, he will obviously not be able to serve the area as well as he

has in the past, having to commute an extra 30 miles in order to

respond to the requests for his services. The people within the area

will have to make a long-distance call if they're going to contact the

conservation officer, as a result of this move. Also, people are very

concerned that the conservation officer already located right in that

area is very hard-pressed to meet the requirements of the various

problems that develop within the constituency. There's quite a large

agricultural area in there, and of course, the conservation officer is

quite often called in to police a number of problems related to

agriculture and wildlife — deer, bears, swans, geese, cougars and dogs.

All of those would not receive the attention that they require. Even

now that conservation officer is hard-pressed to respond to all of

those calls.

The other aspect of this is that Ray Rogers has served as a vital

force in that local fish and game organization. They feel that if he is

moved to Campbell River, they will lose that kind of readily available

information, assistance and guidance that he's been able to give them

over the years. I cannot understand why the move is being made; they

cannot understand why the move is being made. Certainly the service

provided to that area will be woefully inadequate as a result of this

particular move. Could the minister give me an explanation that makes

some sense?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, I didn't hear the last part.

It is part of our zonal office concept, whereby we're trying to pull

people together into a central office which will then have

administrative assistants. It will help. I don't have the record right

here as to whether the officer is going to be responsible to the

Campbell River office and continue to live in Courtenay — as in some of

the areas. I can tell the member this: in total, the area gains. Adding

up Campbell River, Courtenay and so on, there are four conservation

officers. There will now be five, plus backup assistance; in other

words, there will be access to the office even when he is out in the

field. It's the same concept that is being used in other places. We're

trying to cut out office rents, and that's showing up as a saving.

We're trying, wherever we can, to have an automatic telephone transfer

where long-distance calls are involved. I don't know whether that can

be done in that area, but we're taking every step to make sure that

these people are accessible. With five officers and the office backup

now in the area, I think the area will get as good a service as in the

past. I'm glad to hear that the conservation officer is giving good

service. I would hope that he would continue and give even better

service.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, I just have a few questions for the Minister of Environment. The first concerns the

[ Page 3862 ]

estimates for the waste management branch and the pesticide control

branch. I understand from the estimates this year that the operation of

those branches is going to cost the provincial government a total of

$9.572 million. Over the last few years, my concern has been that there

are no charges made for pollution control permits in the province, that

the provincial government totally subsidizes those who have pollution

control permits or pesticide permits. We as taxpayers pay the full

shot. Also, we end up paying the costs of cleanup when that is

required. As taxpayers, we do not benefit from the application of

pesticides in many cases — the individual applicator benefits. We're

subsidizing these people to the tune of about $9.5 million. The

government seems to be of two minds about this type of subsidy. When it

comes to subsidizing Pacific Coach Lines to the tune of $8 million

annually, they want to get rid of Pacific Coach Lines and privatize it.

But when it comes to subsidizing the waste management branch and the

issuance of waste management and pesticide control permits, the

government seems to be of a different mind.

I discussed this with previous Ministers of Environment across the

floor, and of course in letters, suggesting that the people who benefit

from pollution control permits or waste management permits or pesticide

application permits should be the people who pay the cost of the

department issuing and monitoring the permits. I gather that it amounts

to, per permit holder, a very small charge. I'm wondering why the

minister persists in subsidizing these permit holders at taxpayers'

expense when, for a very small charge, we could save $9.5 million of

taxpayers' money and allocate that to some useful applications. For

example, we could keep David Thompson University Centre going for three

years on the amount with which we're subsidizing pesticide control

permits and waste management permits. I wonder if the minister is

giving consideration, as previous ministers have promised, to at least

having these branches of his ministry self-financing, through charges

on pesticide and pollution control permits. That's my first question.

In the auditor-general's report of March 31, 1981, as the minister

knows, an audit was done of the Ministry of Environment. The

auditor-general looked at the extent of noncompliance on page 130 of

the report, and she did a number of samples of permits. Let me see if I

can find out what she said there. "Using the above criteria, we

classified 14 of the 39 permits where we were able to assess compliance

as seriously violating permit conditions." She made a number of

recommendations and also found that there were gross violations and

some violations that were not as serious. In any event, she found that

almost every pollution control permit in existence was in some stage of

non-compliance and recommended that the ministry should ascertain the

extent and severity of non-compliance with permit conditions and should

develop and implement procedures to bring dischargers into acceptable

compliance over a reasonable period of time.

We're talking about establishing a privately operated landfill

system near Ashcroft, regulated, I understand, by the Ministry of

Environment. The auditor-general has found that the ministry has not

been an effective regulator of people who have waste management

permits, and has requested that measures be taken by the ministry to

improve the enforcement of waste management permits, bringing those

permittees into an acceptable level of compliance. I am concerned about

what the ministry has done to bring about this more acceptable level of

compliance. Prior to the establishment of any facility for dealing with

the disposal or storage of hazardous wastes, we should make sure that

the ministry is capable of enforcing waste management permits and the

regulation it imposes on people who dump or store hazardous substances.

I am wondering if the minister will outline exactly what he has done to

bring about a better level of compliance among permittees.

The third question was in fact brought to my attention by the

brewery workers. It has to do with the old Litter Act, which I gather

is now being brought under the new Waste Management Act, under sections

41 and 35, (h), (i), (

j) and (k), which sections have yet to be

proclaimed, and that minister is currently considering regulations

under that

section of the act. The brewery workers are concerned that

it takes only half the number of workers to produce the same amount of

beer in cans as it does to produce beer in bottles.

AN HON. MEMBER: They could build a pyramid.

MR. SKELLY: The minister is as irrelevant now as he always

has been. Why aren't they appointing you to be the agent-general in

London, instead of the member for South Peace River? I'll vote for you

and support you.

The brewery workers are concerned that producing beer in cans

requires only half the amount of labour on a can line as it does on a

bottle line. We're buying these aluminium cans from outside the

province, so we're losing a tremendous amount of employment in British

Columbia by switching from bottles to cans. They are concerned that the

new Waste Management Act regulations that apply to deposits on cans and

bottles are going to favour the use of aluminium cans rather than

bottles which can be reused something like 12, 15 or 20 times; also

those bottles are produced here in British Columbia from British

Columbia materials. I'm wondering if the minister can give us an idea

of what the proposed changes in the regulations are and whether he will

consider the representations from the brewery workers' union — I think

they're a division of the B.C. Government Employees' Union — prior to

bringing down these regulations. They are concerned that the

regulations are going to encourage the changing from bottles to cans by

providing a smaller deposit on aluminium cans than you require on

bottles. That is the other question I wanted to ask the minister.

[3:00]

In the past I've asked the minister questions about Meares Island.

As the minister is aware, there are a number of groups on the west

coast of Vancouver Island in my constituency who are concerned about

the future of Meares Island. A decision that was made by the

Environment and Land Use Committee of cabinet allowed Meares Island to

be logged according to a plan that was arrived at by the Environment

and Land Use Committee. The people in the area feel that much more

information should have been given greater consideration and that more

weight should have been given to their arguments.

Unfortunately, when the Environment and Land Use Committee came to

their decision on Meares Island, they didn't give adequate weight to

those arguments from groups other than the logging companies. They

would like to see the moratorium on Meares Island extended under the

Environment and Land Use Act until such time as the minister has had an

opportunity to hear those additional arguments. I'm wondering if the

minister has heard from the village of Tofino or if he has agreed to

meet with representatives from the

[ Page

3863 ]

village of Tofino and with other organizations from the area. Are

you willing to meet with them or have you met with them yet? If so,

what conclusions have you reached? Those are the questions I'd like to

address to the minister.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, taking them in order,

regarding the Waste Management Act and the Water Act, we are looking at

the user-pay principle across the board. What we're somewhat concerned

about is that government, in effect, requires all these permits.

Imposing a cost on them is one of the considerations. The member says

we could save $9.5 million. The $9.5 million would have to come out of

industry, which is in a delicate situation right now. It has to come

from somebody, and whether it gets passed on by the industry....

But we are certainly looking at it. We're moving in some areas. We're

analyzing each of the areas and are seriously considering it.

The member reads from the auditor-general's report of the lack of

compliance. That was taken seriously by the ministry. The

non-compliance has now been reduced. One of the things that has been

done is that the conservation officers have had their scope extended —

not just for fish and wildlife, but they keep an eye on other things as

well. We've been concentrating on where environmental damage has been

done rather than going to supervise the actual application of each

permit. I might say, in broader terms, that our waste management plan

gets focused in on certain particular areas, but part of the intent of

that is to give people the alternative to do something so that there is

a way to comply more easily, and therefore we can enforce. Stronger

enforcement is a part of that waste management plan.

Regarding the cans versus bottle and the labour situation, in my

ministry we're looking at the recovery rate. Even though it's tempting

sometimes, we can't get into it from a litter point of view. We have

had representation from glass, can and other organizations, and we are

working on putting together the regulations that encompass that. I

don't recall hearing from the group that you're mentioning. If they

want to send in their concerns, fine. You asked if I would meet with

them. I have a fairly hectic

schedule for the next while, so it might

be faster to get a letter that I can deal with and then try to set up a

meeting.

The Meares Island situation. As the member well knows, there was a

conflict about what should be done with that, so a study team was set

up. That study team held all kinds of public meetings and proposed

some options which went from one extreme to the other extreme and

halfway down the middle. The only recommendation that came forth was

that studies be continued. In considering what we took to be the major

points of concern — the watershed and the view from Tofino — we tried

to make a decision. Immediately that a decision is made in any

situation, you then have the approach from people to say: "We now want

further public discussion. Rather than accept the decision, we want to

do further studies, so please put a moratorium on any decision." That

could go on indefinitely. We did assure ourselves that any of the

logging would be done according to plan. The statements that "they're

now going to wipe out and clearcut all of Meares Island this year" are

not correct. It's going to be done over a period of years, according to

a management plan which will be supervised by the Forests ministry,

and, of course, with referrals to the various ministries that are

concerned. So it will be done properly. By the time the last of it is

logged, some of it would probably be well grown up again.

MR. SKELLY: I believe the minister received a request from

Alderman Barnard of the village of Tofino. I wonder if you have agreed

to meet with the village of Tofino or with Mr. Barnard to discuss the

moratorium, so that he at least has an opportunity to meet with you on

it and make his arguments to you directly.

Also, I wonder if the minister has established.... Every minister to whom I've addressed this issue of user charges for

waste management permits and pesticide control permits has said they

were giving it serious consideration. One minister said he had no power

under the act to make those charges, but when you read the act, of

course he had the power. I'm wondering if you put any deadline on this

serious consideration that's been taking place over the last five or

six years at least. Surely if this cost the taxpayers of British

Columbia $8 million last year and is now costing $9.5 million dollars —

and growing — there should be some deadline that you place on the

consideration. Make the decision one way or the other: either go to the

user-pay concept or continue the taxpayer-subsidized concept. In this

case, I'm certainly in favour of going to the user-pay concept. People

who have their water tested pay for the cost of the testing. People who

buy maps from the ministry pay for the cost of those maps. The ministry

doesn't seem that concerned about the cost to the taxpayer. You seem

more concerned about the cost to industry. Yet the taxpayer is in just

as difficult a situation as the industrial side. Surely the principle

of user-pay should apply regardless. So I'm wondering if you put a

deadline on when you're actually going to make a decision on

self-financing of these two branches of the ministry. Or is it going to

go on and be seriously considered for ever and ever, without any

decision being made?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I never like to put deadlines on serious

consideration. In other words, I always want to seriously consider it

until we reach the point of making a decision. I might point out that

on the basis of fees.... You talk about water-testing. It has come to my attention that even

though we charge a fee for that, it's probably a quarter or a fifth of

what the lab tests actually cost. So if a proposal came in to say that

we should have a proper fee.... I didn't make a decision in

considering that. On the one hand, we're trying to encourage people to

make sure they have their well-water tested. If we make the fee

prohibitive — up from the $25 to, say, $125 or $135, which is the

actual cost of it — then we may certainly recover all the testing costs

but we may discourage people from testing their wells. Those are the

kinds of things we have to consider. I know the member is in favour of

charging fees in this instance, but time and again, whenever we do come

up with user-pay, we are just as severely criticized for imposing a fee

during these tough economic times. So that's why. I would suspect that

we will try to make that decision as soon as possible, because we are

trying to do that. Whether it will be within this year or

sooner.... I'm very favourable to getting the decision made, so

that I can get on to the next issue — there is always another one. But

sometimes I have to spend a little time weighing them.

MRS. WALLACE: The last time I was on my feet the minister and

I were discussing hazardous wastes. Before I move on to another topic,

I do want to go back and pose a couple of questions to him relative to

that. I was interested in the comments this morning of the Minister of

Forests (Hon.

[ Page 3864 ]

Mr. Waterland). His comment about the the minister and the ministry

getting involved in some kind of public discussion with the people at

Ashcroft, rather than leaving it to the company, seemed to me to be the

sort of thing that the people in Ashcroft are asking for. I accepted an

invitation — actually the invitation was extended to the Leader of the

Opposition and he asked me as Agriculture critic to go to Ashcroft last

Saturday, which I did. The feeling I got from those people in Ashcroft

was that they really wanted to have some backup information; they

wanted to see the data, the studies. They were pretty concerned about

the letter that the minister issued, dated February 27, "To whom it may

concern...." In item 3 he talked about extensive studies, to

learn what you are going to do. They would like to see those studies.

They haven't seen them; at least they haven't seen any studies from the

government. They've seen lots of information from Genstar-IT, but they

haven't seen anything from the government. They're looking for those

studies.

AN HON. MEMBER: So are we.

MRS. WALLACE: Well, yes, so are we. I've been quoting a lot of information in this House that indicates that IT is not the best of operators.

MR. SKELLY: The minister said: "So are we."

MRS. WALLACE: Oh, I thought you said.... The minister

said: "So are we"? Well, why are we doing something if we don't know

what we're doing?

Item 12 of this letter was the item that really upset the people

there, because it reads: "The problem began with improper management of

toxic wastes." We all agree with that. "But it seems that some would

have us leave that problem in place or return to it."

I think the minister is misreading the intent of what's happening in

Ashcroft. They have been trying to get information. They haven't been

able to get it from the ministry. They have grave doubts about the

reliability of the company responsible for putting this operation into

effect. They have grave concerns about it being monitored only by a

government agency. My colleague the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly)

just pointed out some of the reasons for those concerns. The track

record of the ministry is not good in monitoring things relative to

disposal of wastes, pollution and those kinds of matters. Here we are,

facing massive layoffs; something like 100 people, I understand, are

finished this month in your ministry, including a great many in areas

that would be related to this particular topic. I note that you've got

all kinds of money provided for professional services. I don't know if

that's how you are proposing to monitor. But there are some concerns.

They would like some exchange, some dialogue.

[3:15]

I believe you have a letter, Mr. Minister, requesting you to attend a meeting

on April 10; requesting you to be there, someone from Genstar to be there, and

to meet with Mr. Kaufman, whom you have taken some issue with in the public

press. They would like you to come to Ashcroft on April 10 and discuss your

information, give them your supportive evidence. Let them know why Mr. Kaufman

is wrong. Mr. Kaufman has the support of a great many very well-known groups

and authorities who agree with the things he is saying. I would hope that the

minister will stand up in this House and tell us that he will go to Ashcroft

on April 10, that he is prepared to meet Mr. Kaufman on the public platform,

not in a debate but in a symposium, a discussion, and make the information available

that those people in Ashcroft are trying to get, because they feel that they're

going blind into this thing, that the company is not being well monitored, that

it won't be well-monitored, and that the same kinds of concerns that have

developed in other areas will develop there.

I was pleased to hear the minister say that Genstar-IT is bonded. I

would like to know how large a bond he intends to have them post,

because the history in the United States has been bankruptcy, and the

cost of looking after, cleaning up and maintaining, and getting rid of

a half-completed site.... I know that you're not proposing to put

any liquids in this dump, and that has been happening down there. I

shouldn't call it a dump, I'm sorry. It's not a dump; it's a

solid-waste disposal area. They are concerned — and I am concerned —

that this may happen again; that we may find the company out of

business. Certainly the generators of the waste are the people who

should be paying the shot. I know they're going to be charged for

bringing this in. But what happens once they have paid that charge and

the company is not able to deal with it, if it finds that it is not an

economically viable operation, and they pull out? Who's going to pay

the costs then? Is that bond sufficient to ensure that the whole

operation can continue, that it can be subsidized through that bond or

something? Because once you've started this operation, it pretty well

has to be carried out. If the operation turns out not to be safe, if

there are problems, if it's not properly done, then it's going to be a

major cost to ensure that there is no resulting pollution. I'd

certainly like answers from the minister on those items: the

professional services, how he's going to cope with monitoring this

thing.... It must be monitored if it's going to be safe, when he is

facing fewer employees and an already overloaded staff as part of the

government policy of reduction in staff; how he's proposing to police

this thing; how large the bond is; and whether he will go to that

meeting on April 10, meet with Mr. Kaufmann, and present the arguments.

If he has solid basic data, then let's see it. Let the public see it.

Let those concerned citizens see it.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: It's strange how they interpret. The member

is delighted that we are suddenly going to get involved in this waste

management plan. We have been involved from day one. What I said this

morning is that we felt that the technical information was the key

issue. We are now going to get more directly involved in the community.

We went there and offered to answer any questions, to come to any

meetings they wanted and send any technical staff, any consultants, any

expertise and anything they wanted. We released all of the available

studies. Some of the studies we're referring to we can't get; people

have blocked them. I said in number 12 in that letter that some would

seem to want us to back off this program because some people have taken

the position from the day we announced it of: "Stay out of our back

yard. We don't want you." They didn't ask initially, "Is it safe? What

are you doing?" and so on. Some of these people from day one said: "We

don't care what the information is. Our minds are made up." Many other

people have still kept an open mind on it. We have tried, all along, to

respond. My assistant deputy minister has been in there on several

occasions. I've been in there a couple of times. We try to keep

[ Page 3865 ]

anybody informed and try to answer all questions of a technical

nature. The ones we have some difficulty answering are questions like,

"Yes, we agree that something should be done, but go somewhere else,"

when we're trying to find the best location.

You say that the ministry's track record isn't good. I rather object

to that. You can say the minister's track record is not good, if you

like, which you....

MS. SANFORD: No, the ministry's.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Well, the other day you said that a zero

salary was exactly what I was worth. That I can accept, but now you're

saying that my best technical people have a poor track record. You pick

out isolated examples of non-compliance and that sort of thing. How do

we find out about non-compliance? Our people are finding out about it,

and when a spill happens or anything happens, these people are right on

it. So I do get a bit resentful when you malign very professional

people in an attempt to criticize me. Criticize me by all means, but

give some acknowledgment and credit to those people who are doing a

very technical and good job. Our ministry people on this special waste

problem have come up with a great deal of research — and it's all

available — about the bad problems that have happened in other places.

The member refers to Mr. Kaufman. Mr. Kaufman was brought in and

financed, as I understand it, by the people who said: "Whatever the

security is, we don't want him in our area, so this is it." I guess

what bothered me is that Mr. Kaufman came in under the pretence of

representing the Environmental Protection Agency in the United States,

and we checked and they had completely dissociated themselves from him.

They said: "No, he's in no way representing us." So maybe he's

representing his own concerns; I'll give the man that. But he came in

and attacked our program without making any effort to check what our

program was. What was his objective and motive? Now I'm invited to

appear on the stage with him. Last time it was very carefully, I

thought, staged: I left here on Friday at noon, and on Friday afternoon

the invitation came in to be there on Saturday, which of course was too

late. I pointed that out. I think that some of the people wanted to

point out that there's no way I would appear. Now Mr. Kaufman, having

set the stage, and with what I consider a complete lack of credibility

because he had never looked at our program, was attacking us on the

basis of the worst examples in the United States, where he comes from

and where he was on the EPA at one time. They set the regulations, and

our regulations are an improvement on that; yet he criticized us for

having no regulations. So, yes, now I guess the answer is that these

people "against the dump," as they call it, against our secure

landfill, trying to stop this factor in our waste management plan, are

bringing Mr. Kaufman back, and I'm supposed to go there and put on a

stage show with him. I'm not interested in putting on stage shows. I

will meet at any time with any people who want to ask responsible

questions. I am not interested in providing a sideshow for somebody.

Even the last meeting was not billed as an informational meeting; it

was billed as a citizens-against-the-dump rally. That was not

information; that was to make their point. So they're making their

point. I am not going to help them in producing stage shows for the

media. I am willing to provide any information and any assistance that

I can, in any form.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

MRS. WALLACE: I don't think there's much point in pursuing

that particular aspect. Obviously the minister has made up his mind; he

has decided that's what he is going to do, and he is not prepared to

listen to any alternatives.

I want to deal with recycling. I understand that the people who were

employed with the ministry to direct the recycling program have been

pink-slipped; they'll no longer be with the ministry. This concerns me.

Certainly the minister has talked a lot about the need for and the

importance of recycling. I wonder how he is going to deal with this.

How is he going to give any direction or assistance to recycling depots

around the province if, in fact, he doesn't have any staff who are

prepared to do that? Apparently there were also grants going out, to a

maximum of $10,000, to provide the community or regional districts with

recycling, if they agreed to match that amount. It was a fifty-fifty

thing. Ninety-six percent of the operating groups are non-profit

organizations. That funding was terminated. I understand that they were

advised by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr.

Hewitt), or the minister's colleague, that they should stop being

non-profit associations and turn it into a business. Well, there are

not the facilities or the money. Some of them are too small. It's a

real slap in the face to people who are trying to do something that is

ecologically sound and environmentally wise and at least a forerunner

of what could become a very viable program in the long haul. But to do

away with those people at this point in time — as well as cutting the

grants, which has been done for some time — is not good. That's one

question that I have regarding waste disposal.

The other question relates to sawdust and wood-chips. I understand

that in my particular area there's been a bit of a conflict between the

industry and the ministry people. Let me stop right there for a minute.

The minister indicated earlier that I was throwing black marks against

his staff. That is certainly not the case and not my intention. The

lack of effectiveness of the program has nothing to do with the

capabilities of the staff. It's the shortage of staff and the shortage

of desire on the part of this particular government, that minister and

his predecessors to really crack down on the polluters. Certainly I had

no intent of throwing any derogatory statements relative to the people

who work for the ministry. I've had excellent cooperation from many of

them, and I'm sure they are all very dedicated people. They are

extremely busy and spread very, very thin.

Sawdust. People in the ministry and in the industry tell me that

there was a bit of a conflict. The industry wanted the ministry to set

up places where they could dump the surplus sawdust and chips from the

mills. The ministry said: "That's not our responsibility. It's up to

the industry to find a place. Then we will check it out to see whether

it's suitable and acceptable, and give you a permit to put the sawdust

there." Nothing happened. Eventually a tacit agreement was reached.

Industry went and found a place where they could put it. They're going

to individual landowners, small farmers and small plot holders, and

saying: "Can we dump some sawdust in that low place in the back of your

property?" I suppose they're paying them something for it. Times are

tough, and so this is happening. On the other hand, the Ministry of the

Environment has agreed that unless a report comes in objecting to this

being dumped they will not do anything about it. That's partly because

they're overworked, they don't have the time, and the whole thing has

come to this

[ Page 3866 ]

situation. It's bad from an environmental point of view. I know that

the local officer is presently looking at one spot up there where a lot

of sawdust and chips have been dumped. They could well have PCP in

them, because they're out of sawmills, and all the other leachates.

They're checking to see whether this will be flowing into Shawnigan

Creek, which will flow into Mill Bay and would certainly have harmful

effects on the fish. If that is the case, and it's found to be a

hazard, who is responsible? The person on whose land it is dumped. Now

that's a very unfair thing that's developed there, and I don't know

what the answer is. Obviously an answer is more staff and more time to

find a piece of Crown land where that stuff can go. Or else utilize it;

set up some kind of alternative energy plant where we can burn the

chips — something besides just leaving it, so that the little guy at

the bottom of the ladder who needs the money and allows the sawmill to

dump on his property, not realizing the consequence....

That's a local concern which I have, and, together with the

recycling concern, ends my comments on hazardous waste disposal. If the

minister wants to answer those two, we can then move on to something

else.

[3:30]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, regarding the sawdust

situation, I am not aware of the specifics that the member is talking

about. I can say in general terms though that we cannot have our

technical people, who have a mandate to supervise, advise and analyze,

put their priority into going to look for sites which industries might

want, no more than we can have some people going out looking for where

people would like to farm, etc. In other words, the people have to come

in. Industry, I think, accepts the responsibility that it is up to them

to make the proposal and then have our ministry people check out

whether or not it is suitable. I don't have much difficulty with that,

although I would be interested in following up the specifics.

As far as approaching people to allow them to dump waste on their

land, which becomes a subsequent problem, I suppose that is part and

parcel of the person's responsibility for what happens on their land.

If they allow people to dump sawdust.... Let's use another example.

If, for the sake of making some money because of hard times, they say:

"If you've got some waste oil please feel free to dump it on my

property" — I'm using that extreme example to make the point — yes,

they have to be held accountable because they have some property

rights. We certainly will do what we can to check into that.

I think that was about it, wasn't it?

MRS. WALLACE: What about the recycling people?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Oh, yes, I'm sorry. I guess initially the

proposal that came forth in the program adopted by the ministry was

that it was felt recycling could actually pay its way as long as there

was some seed money for equipment or startup costs; so some grants were

provided from that. Some of the programs are now self-funding. As often

happens with government programs, people accept on those terms, saying:

"Yes, give us startup money and we'll take it from there," and then

once it has started up they need a continuing grant. We can't very well

do that, particularly when we'd have to take that money from higher

priority areas. There is only so big a pot.

Yes, we have cut out the grants for next year. We are working with

people to see what we can do, and under our waste management program

we'll have people do it. Of the people who have been working

specifically on the recovery program, one has been laid off. I believe

one has been transferred and will be working under the waste management

program rather than as a separate entity. So we're pulling a lot of

these things together. I'm sorry, because the recycling grants did

start some good things, but it became a matter of priorities. We think

some of them can carry on. I talked to some people just recently about

how they can carry on and what we might be able to do to assist them so

that it's a viable operation which keeps going, and we hope to be able

to help in any way that we can.

MRS. WALLACE: I thank the minister for his remarks.

While we're dealing with cutbacks in staff, I understand that the

standards and data unit of the water management branch is losing seven

people; in fact, that seems to be almost the entire staff. I am

concerned about that generally, and specifically in relation to my own

Shawnigan Lake situation, where for a long time we have been trying to

get some updated and more realistic water quality studies done there. I

assume that this is the group that would be doing that. It is a very

sensitive area because of a lot of development around that lake and

problems with the water level. The one side of the lake is more subject

to flooding than the other side — a real conflict about what the lake

levels should be, according to the people who live on other side of it.

I certainly have some concerns about that in relation to Shawnigan Lake.

I'm also concerned about problems like those they've been having

with the Fraser River. Just a week ago I noticed a clipping in one of

the local papers where they are claiming that no progress has been made

there. A government spokesman has cited restraint as the reason for the

delay. The chairman of the coalition that has been dealing with this

has indicated that immediate action is necessary because of continuing

destruction in the estuary. The "Fraser River Estuary Study" was set up

by the federal and provincial governments in 1978 to develop the

management plan for the estuary. The proposed plan was sent to Victoria

about two years ago, and nothing has happened. That indicates to me the

need for more people in that particular area of research rather than

fewer and fewer, and perhaps more and more action.

Another similar thing is the whole situation in the Georgia strait

and Stuart Channel — all those inside waters. I think there is a real

conflict over who has jurisdiction over those — federal or provincial.

The province quite often has claimed that they have the jurisdiction,

but what we are seeing happening out there is that the federal

government has certain regulations and is supposed to designate

specific anchorage areas for freighters-in-waiting, as it were, yet

boats are in areas which certainly haven't been so designated. The

federal minister's own statement in answer to a question in the House

of Commons has indicated that it is true that boats very often anchor

in those areas.

What's really brought it to a head recently is the problem with the

coal dust that was so easily traceable and so obvious. But that's just

one of the problems. Those boats anchor there; they are like huge

cities with all their lights on. Maybe somebody who lives in the heart

of a city wouldn't realize that that is a bit of a pollutant, but I am

sure the minister, who comes from a small, rural area as I do, will

recognize that when you have that rural atmosphere...and certainly

the

[ Page 3867 ]

Gulf Islands is one of the most special sort of local environments....

HON. MR. BRUMMET: You're prejudiced.

MRS. WALLACE: Well, it's a very precious, special kind of

setup in the Gulf Islands. To have almost a city, with its glaring

lights and noise, imported there and sitting for a week or so is bad

enough, but even worse is what else is being discharged into those

waters from those ships.

I don't know if the minister is prepared to take on the federal

government relative to some kind of control over those inland waters or

not. As I say, it has often been indicated that you feel you do have

the jurisdiction over those waters. If the feds aren't doing much about

it, maybe the minister can move in.

The next subject is one that is very dear to my heart. I know that

the minister has been waiting for me to talk about this ever since he

issued this report two or three days ago. Certainly the Cowichan

estuary is not a new subject on the floor of this House. It started

back in 1975 when I first came here, but it was certainly up for

discussion before that, and we've gone through task force 1 and task

force 2, one in 1974 and one in 1980, and now we have what is supposed

to be the implementation program of Task Force II. I have some specific

questions for the minister.

What's the status of order-in-council 3339? Has it been repealed

yet? That order-in-council specifies that there will be no further

development in the estuary without an environmental assessment. One of

the things this thing is calling for.... Sorry that I call it a

"thing," but that's what I feel about it. The implementation program

is calling for the provision of a dike on private property — $200,000

worth. Do you know that dike is already being built? Now where is the

environmental assessment study for that, if order-in-council 3339 is

still in place? There is no business in that going ahead if there

hasn't been an environmental assessment study made and if that order is

still in place. So I would like to know the status of that. The

minister, in his press release that covered this, indicated: "I intend

to proceed in the next few weeks with appropriate action to follow up

these agreements."

I would like to know what action he is proposing. He goes on to talk

about this being fair play and that everybody is going to accept it

gracefully and gladly. That's not the case. There are a couple of

problems, and they are the same kinds of problems that we have been

talking about with almost everything this minister undertakes. The

hazardous wastes was one; there are others. There is no public

involvement prior to the announcement — suddenly there it is. The

minister puts his head down and shakes his head. The terms of reference

set out for the coordinator, which the ministry appointed, ordered that

the coordinator was to work along with federal Fisheries — "interact

with federal Fisheries," were the words, I think. He was to report

progress to all local levels of government and the public. Sure, in the

initial stages he talked to everybody, I guess. I know he came and

talked to me for quite some time. He had a public information meeting

in the community centre some several months ago — almost a year, I

think. Then suddenly we have a final report. The supposed direction

indicated in this report is that this constitutes public consultation

and progress reports. It's interesting to note that one local

government was advised on the same day that the minister made his

announcement. That local government was not told that this was a final

report. They were told it was a progress report; that it still had to

go to ELUC. Yet on the same day the minister made an announcement

saying: "Here it is folks. This is it." I haven't seen any

order-in-council that has indicated that this is it.

The other thing I'm concerned about is that the whole emphasis of

the implementation program is on the forest industry, recreation and a

bit on agriculture. There's very little mention of the environment.

Just a little background, first of all. In the original report they

came up with four different concepts. In concept 4 the environmental

people were rated number 1, and the forest companies rated number 4. In

concept 1 the forest companies rated number 1, and the

environmentalists rated number 4 — the absolute reverse.

[3:45]

Concept 2 came up with second choice for both the environmental and

the forestry people. So it seemed a logical direction to go was to

implement concept 2. When this report came out, the covering press

release talked about the great reduction in log storage. Well, sure,

there's a reduction from what those people were actually storing there.

It's absolutely contrary to what the original task force said. It's

absolutely contrary to concept 2 of the report. For example, Doman

Industries, which was supposed to have 20 acres in the 1980 task force

plus 15 acres dryland storage, are presently storing on 128 acres. The

task force has come up with 50 acres intertidal storage — 40 acres,

plus 10 acres for peak loads, plus 80 acres in deep water. I agree,

that particular industry is going to make an exchange of 23 intertidal

acres, seven of which were already established under previous

arrangements to replace the current mill site; so it's really just 16.

In return for that, they're getting the $200,000 dike. That's a

reduction? It's a reduction from the 128, but it sure isn't any

reduction from the 20 plus the 15 dryland, or even the 40 that was sort

of agreed to. They sort of said: "Okay, if you can't do it on 20,

temporarily you can have another 20." It's way above that.

B.C. Forest Products is right on. In fact, it's even just a little

bit less. hey've done very well — 16.3 — except that they have added

about 30 acres in deep water that was previously in intertidal. Now

that's questionable deep water. If you look at the charts in the

implementation program, you'll see that some of it was sort of flipped

over, and part of it — the table I'm looking at is on page 23....

But one of the charts — I think it's chart 2.3 — shows the flipover of

that deepwater storage, which is still partially in the intertidal

zone. Also, it's on top of the crab beds, I understand. So while it

seems that it's somewhat of an improvement from the 22.1 that concept 2

recommended, it still leaves a bit to be desired.

MacMillan Bloedel presently has 73. They're going down to 57, and

the recommendation in concept 2 was 44.6. But what are MacMillan

Bloedel getting as well as that? If you read the written part of the

report, you'll see that it talks about them being very reluctant to do

this. So what are they getting? They're getting the right to barge up

the estuary — 10 acres — and they're getting the right to bring a road

in. So we're going to have them bringing their logs in, I assume, and

barging them out. So it's even more than this shows.

L&K Lumber has been phased out. Well, that, I guess, should have

been phased out, because that was in a very sensitive spot, That's

better than the task force's concept 2 recommended. But it's

interesting, Mr. Chairman, that L&K Lumber is the only site that

independent loggers can use. That's gone now. B.C. Forest Products has

a site, MacMillan

[ Page 3868 ]

Bloedel has a site, Doman has a site. But there's no place where

independent loggers can put their logs in the water. That bothers me,

because it seems as if we're hitting at the little guy again and

leaving the major operators with the goodies.

There's one other catch in this thing: Doman has the right to

expand. As the mill increases, so will their log storage, up to a

maximum of 10 more acres. So it seems to me that when the person who

wrote this report wrote down that the logging companies — and I think

it's on page 6 of the report.... "Many forest companies were reluctant to give up the intertidal

storage sites. They were reluctant to go with concept 2, even though it was

their second choice." And on page 7: "The log management concepts

would have been more realistic if the forest companies had been given the opportunity

to participate directly in formulating the concepts." The forest companies certainly sat on that task force in 1980, and had quite

a major input. The implementation coordinator took the approach that what he

would do is simply ask the logging companies what they wanted. And it seems

that's what they've got.

I notice the minister has been making notes. I'm sure he wants to

make some comments. I'm extremely concerned that this seems to be not

the beginning of the end but the end of the end for the Cowichan

estuary, as far as fish habitat, wildlife and all the other things that

we have wanted to retain so much are concerned. It's a very valuable

fisheries resource. At one time in the House I quoted figures which

indicated that that fisheries resource in the Cowichan estuary was far

more lucrative in its prime than even that of Campbell River. We've

lost a great deal of that. We could recoup. But I'm afraid that under

this it's gone forever.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I believe the member now has me completely

confused. I had the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) berating me for

making a decision. I had that same member stand up and berate me for

not making a decision on the Fraser River estuary. Now, again, I'm

being attacked for making a decision. I don't know what it is that you

want. I can't change my convictions and my operations according to the

convenience of the moment, whoever it happens to suit. I can tell the

member that there was a report on the Fraser estuary finally, and after

all of the study, an implementation plan, and that's being worked out

right now. We're waiting to hear back from the federal Environment

minister, and are hoping to get that into place as quickly as possible.

To say that nothing has been done is, I think, a gross exaggeration.

Repeatedly we're asked where the public input and involvement is.

The member by her own admission says that there has been a

long-continuing study program in the Cowichan estuary; a task force

studied it and made recommendations, and they came up with a proposal

that has been evaluated and looked at by the lumber companies, by the

other people, by federal Fisheries and by our people. A proposal was

put together that there were some agreements possible that would help.

That went to a public meeting last December — public input. The member

now says we should have gone to dryland sorts at that public meeting.

Apparently the public wasn't prepared to accept dryland sorts. We took

that advice and incorporated it into an implementation plan so that

something be done.

The member says that this is bound to destroy the Cowichan estuary.

As far as I understand, they have been using the 128 acres and it

hasn't destroyed it. Now it's going down to 73 or 58, and you say that

that is now going to destroy it. The federal Fisheries people have

looked at it and have said: "This is certainly an improvement on what

is, which hasn't destroyed the fisheries, and it's much better. We

think we can live with that and that it will help the fisheries and

help a great deal." Roughly 61 percent of the intertidal storage has

been moved out, instead of the 68 percent that was at one time

recommended by the task force. So here you have the situation that the

decision has been made. Also they say that there's nothing

environmental about it. We've discussed the fish and the possible

effects, and we think this is a beneficial effect and will allow things

to go on. Also, by building that dike, we pick up a whole bunch of

marshland — I can't give you the exact acreage — for waterfowl and for

that sort of thing. The company has donated that. They don't just get

what they want.

I suppose what it boiled down to, Madam Member, is that a person charged with trying to implement all of these.... You say that we should get agreement. Oh, wouldn't it be wonderful,

Madam Member, if we could get full agreement on any of these proposals?

Sometimes agreement requires some compromise and the best possible

solution. As I understand it, what it really boiled down to was that if

Doman had to be limited to 20 acres, they would in effect have to shut

down, The member shakes her head, but if the company can't operate, and

if there were only 20 acres in the total estuary, then you assume that

all of these companies don't need any water storage. Surely, we're just

as interested and perhaps more interested in preserving some of the

industries that create jobs. We have to be conscious of that. As

Environment minister, I could simply protect the environment by

stopping everything else. That's an extreme statement, but it's a

ridiculous position for me to take. So we get the best advice, we get

all this public input — say the Meares, the Fraser River estuary; years

and years of study — and when it gets to the point where you put all

this information and public input together and try to reach a decision,

then the immediate reaction is: "Why don't you involve the public in

the decision?" I really don't know how you collect information. Do I

bring 100 people into the office and say, "Today is decision day," or

do we collect all that information from hundreds of people from various

sources and from all of the interested parties, and try to come up with

something?

This was not an imposition; there is agreement. That should be

something. Doman has agreed, Mac-Blo has agreed — and who's the other

one? — and they are prepared to sign an agreement to let this thing

finally go ahead and be solved. It won't damage the fisheries, we're

told by the people who are given the mandate to protect the fisheries.

It will improve the environment. It will help the agriculture. It will

help everything, and it will serve the best needs of the most possible

people. It will never serve the needs of somebody who looks at it and

says: "No, we don't want anything on our waterfront." The only way we

could do that is stop everything else in this province. As much as that

might be nice for me as Minister of Environment, to get Brownie points

to stop everything to protect the environment, I have to be pragmatic

and realistic. I can't adjust my mandate to fit the situations wherever

the Brownie points are available. And then I don't really know: what is

public consensus? It's usually public opinion as represented by a whole

variety of conflicting and varied interests. That is public opinion.

So I thank the member, and the one point I'd like to finish on.... I guess I took exception, and perhaps I get a bit

[ Page 3869 ]

defensive when somebody seems to be attacking the technical people

who I know do their job as well as they can. I'll accept the member's

statement that there was no intent of that.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, when you have a task force, you

spend a lot of money on it. That's what happened in the Cowichan and

Fraser estuaries. I would think that that task force should make

recommendations that should be implemented. All I'm saying is that the

actual implementation with regard to the Cowichan estuary doesn't bear

much resemblance to the recommendations of either the 1974 or 1980 task

force. As far as the Fraser task forces are concerned, nothing has

happened.

[4:00]

I want to turn to the subject of chemicals just briefly; it has been

dealt with by various people. There are a couple of things that I want

to deal with and one is in relation to the minister's position on

allowing chemicals into this province which have not been approved by

the federal government. I think there are a couple of them. Their names

are difficult to pronounce, but I know one is used in onion production

and the other in carrot production. I am sure the minister is aware of

what I'm speaking about. I'm wondering what he is proposing to do

relative to those particular chemicals, or any chemicals, which in fact

are not approved for use in Canada by the federal government. The

federal government system is bad enough and loose enough as it is,

pretty well rubber stamping anything that the United States approves,

and the United States system is to farm it out to testing companies,

most of which are owned and operated by the chemical companies, so it

is a bit of a hazard. I see the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Hon.

Mr. Schroeder) smiling away, and I know this is of concern to the

farmers who really feel that the only way they can produce these crops

is to use these chemicals.

Certainly what we need is more research and development and more

alternative methods. As far as the onions are concerned, I think there

are now alternative methods available. We'll probably have to do more

research before we can come up with something that's really going to

give us the kind of protection we need for carrot production. What we

need is some kind of overall policy to work toward getting rid of many

of these chemicals — as many as we can. We have to look to

alternatives. Chemicals are a poison, and we're the guinea-pigs.

I have been reading quite a bit of the writings of Ross Hall, who is

a biochemist at McMaster University. To paraphrase him, he says in

effect that you have about three or four different choices of what you

can do, but if you continue the way you're going, then you have to make

a conscious decision that you're going to continue to eat poisons,

because that's what these things are and they don't dissipate. They may

be in small quantities, but they build up over time. Of course, his

suggestion is that we set up an independent commission to really review

this whole thing, and that's on a federal level. I'm not asking the

province to do that. I do have some concerns, and perhaps the Minister

of Environment could become more actively involved and have the

particular concern about those couple of chemicals that have been

allowed into this province and were not approved by the federal

government.

The other thing relative to chemicals that I want to raise with the

minister is the high-tech industry. We always hear that high-tech is a

nice, clean industry. It's a very heavy user of chemicals,

tetrachloroethane particularly. In the Silicon Valley in California,

where high-tech is a big industry, they have had some major problems.

They have to store this stuff in underground tanks, because it is that

hazardous. I think they have 44 known storage tanks down there, 36 of

which have had leaks. It's about a $10 million project at the present

time to clean up a spill that they had. That is one very grave concern

about high-tech industry that I think the Minister of Environment

should be keeping a close eye on. If we're going to bring it

practically right in to the city of Victoria, where we have ferry

transportation back and forth.... I think the Minister of

Environment really should be involved in this one.

The other one is in relation to the people who actually work in the

plant. It is a relatively new industry, but already there is a fair

amount of information building up that indicates that a lot of the

people who work there are affected by caustic burns as a result of

working with these chemicals. I believe it's in Sweden, but I'm not

sure. I know in Sweden they've set up a testing system where all

doctors have to report all malignant tumours. They have a different

system there. You're registered at birth and carry the same number

right through, so wherever they have a malignant tumour.... I'm not recommending that we do that here particularly. What I'm

saying is that when a malignant tumour is reported, they're able to

trace where that person has been all through their life, and perhaps

are able to tie it in to some recurring environmental problems. Cancer

of the liver and various liver problems have been fairly well

documented, with a much higher incidence in people who work in the

high-tech industry.

I just wanted to bring those matters to the attention of the

minister. It's apparently an upcoming industry here in British

Columbia. There's a great possibility of that. I think the minister

should be very aware and very watchful of what happens with those

chemicals in that particular industry.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Just a brief response on the two chemicals

that the member referred to about onions and carrots, allidochlor and

chlorbromuron. These are two that the federal government decided to

suspend because the manufacturing company had suspended further

studies, but they did allow their continued use in British Columbia,

Ontario and Quebec because they seemed to be essential to the

successful production of those industries, I can tell you that yes, we

have acted on that. We've moved them from

schedule 4 to

schedule 1,

which is the most restricted use, with the most protection that we

can.... They require a certified applicator and very rigid

controls. So we've moved on that.

As far as the other concerns about the high-tech industries and so

on, I think we have reasonably good safeguards built in in the Ministry

of Environment. That's why we require permit applications. That's why

we require people to identify chemicals. With our waste management

plant and the new regulations — you know, our manifest system,

cradle-to-grave sort of check on this — we're moving in that direction,

very much in the hope that we'll have much better results than in the

past. I thank the member for bringing these concerns to our attention.

We should be concerned about them, and we are. That's what the people

in the ministry do, and that's really what our ministry is all about.

I suppose I could conclude on a more positive note perhaps. Yes,

there have been some unfortunate experiences. Some bad things have

happened and mistakes have been

[ Page 3870 ]

made. I don't accept that as the status quo. From every one that has

been made we have learned, and we've improved our attack on these

problems. We've improved our efforts to deal with them. We don't just

ignore problems; people deal with them. I wish we could have every

problem solved before it happened, but I'm sorry, life doesn't quite

work that way; and neither does government.

MRS. WALLACE: I want to deal briefly with your

responsibilities for clean air. The local forest people have been very

concerned in both Alberni and the Cowichan area. In Alberni I believe

there is some evidence that wood treated with PCP is being burned at

the mill site; also, ends and so on are being given to the workers to

take home for burning. In Cowichan the concern is that the regional

district incinerator was burning waste wood that had been treated with

PCP. The problem, of course, is the dioxins in the air. When the

minister is successful in getting his hazardous waste plant in

operation, I would hope that's a problem that may go away. In the

meantime, I wonder if he's prepared to take any action to do any

testing. Alberni is a particular problem because of the closed-in

valley there; the air doesn't escape or move around very much. I'm

certainly concerned about the regional district incinerators in

Cowichan if they are burning wood waste that has been treated with PCP.

About the only way we will know is if in fact atmospheric tests are

done for dioxins in the air. I'm wondering if the minister has any

funds available or if he would be prepared to get involved in doing

that.

The other thing, of course, relates to the Vancouver area, where

there have been quite some studies undertaken. I think the government

gives a grant. I notice in the estimates that you are still making a

grant to the Vancouver Regional District. I assume it's for air

studies. Maybe 50 percent of the problem is from motorcars, and perhaps

if we get a rapid transit system in the metropolitan area, that will

reduce some of that. But there is still a great amount of air pollution

that will remain in the Vancouver area. It comes from all sorts of

sources. My understanding is that a test program was set up in

Vancouver. It was recommended and almost implemented by the provincial

government, but then you backed off, even though the money had already

been spent in setting up the structure. This, I believe, was a joint

federal-provincial program. I'm wondering why the government backed off

on that. If they thought that perhaps by introducing rapid transit it

was going to resolve the problem, I don't think that's an adequate

answer, because certainly all the information indicated that it was

only about 50 percent if you took all the vehicles off the road. It is

getting to be a fairly serious problem over in the lower mainland. It

certainly would be better treated now than later, because those things

build up and we can get into a serious problem if something isn't done.

So I have those two questions about the minister's responsibility for

clean air.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I think, I suppose most realistically,

regarding the burning of these products and so on at Port Alberni and

Cowichan, I can express grave concern here in the House. I think the

more effective route, if those instances are happening, is to report

them to our Nanaimo regional office, and we expect that our officers

would go out and check into them.

As for the GVRD, that's not a grant. They do air monitoring, we do

air monitoring, and to save duplication, because we get those services,

we pay them a fee for service. That way we both benefit from it. The

pollution problem in Vancouver is one that, as a city grows, the cars

and so on produce more wastes. We have asked the federal government, or

given our support, that Canadian standards be tightened. I think they

are working in that direction right now.

To save bobbing up and down here, perhaps if the member has a few

more questions she will put them all together, and I'll stand up and

try and answer them all at one time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, just before we proceed, I have an

announcement that I would like to make. I would like to bring to the

attention of all hon. members that we are honoured in our House this

afternoon by having with us on the floor the Deputy Premier of the

province of Ontario, the Hon. Robert Welch, and accompanied by Rev.

Carl Sulliman. I would ask that all those members present welcome His

Honour.

[4:15]

MRS. WALLACE: I'm very close to the conclusion of this particular vote, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Minister you'll be pleased to know.

I have just a few unrelated items here. The soil-testing lab in

Kelowna, I understand, is being closed down or discontinued. Six of the

nine staff are being laid off. Is it being closed down completely, or

is it still going to operate? Are those three people going to be able

to carry on? Why that particular facility? Certainly that soil lab

provided a very much-needed service.

Also I understand that there has been quite a reduction in the

survey and mapping branch. Is the thinking that you are going to do

less in that way, or are you going to contract it out? The thing that I

notice is that there is a terrific increase in the amount that you have

budgeted for professional services this year, as compared to last year.

Last year you had expected to spend something just in excess of $5

million on professional services. This year it's $15,675,000. That's

way more than three times as much on professional services. It doesn't

indicate that the pink-slipping of government employees is really going

to save the government anything in dollars. In fact, your budget this

year is slightly more than last year, in total. So you haven't really

reduced your expenditures. When I see the number of auxiliaries — I

think there were about 144 last year and 100 this year; if I'm wrong in

my figures, I hope the minister will correct me — who are being got rid

of.... Yet we have that whopping increase in professional services,

which, I assume, means that you're.... In the government's idea of

privatizing things, we're spending more money on these outside

professional services that we're bringing in than we would have had we

kept our own people on. Just from looking at the budget, it's hard to

tell, because the accounts are different every year, and it's very

difficult to sort it out. Certainly the professional services are

pretty straightforward, and it is more than three times as much this

year than it was last year.

I want to talk a little bit about the habitat conservation fund. I

note that the interim financial statements up to December 31 of last

year.... At the beginning of the year there was $96,000 in that

fund; at the end of December that had gone up to $1.174 million. The

minister has indicated in question period and at various other times

that they have actually expended some $622,000 this year. The reason

I'm raising this is that many of the people who willingly — as you have

said — contribute the $3 surcharge on their licences

[ Page

3871 ]

have come to me with concerns as to whether, first of all, this

money is intact. You have assured me that the fund is intact. But they

are concerned now that while the fund is intact, it isn't being spent.

As of December 31 there was close to $1 million in the fund over and

above what was there on April 1 of the preceding year. It doesn't

indicate that that money is being used for the purpose for which it is

being gladly donated by those people who buy hunting licences. It's all

well and good to say that the fund is intact, but if it isn't being

spent, it's not doing the job for which it was intended. So those

figures cause me some concern as they are causing concern among the

people out there who buy hunting licences.

There has been some discussion of the fish and wildlife conservation

officers. I have been very concerned about what has happened in my area

through attrition. As I understand it, the position of conservation

officer in the Victoria area has not been filled. The very dedicated

fellow who works out of the Cowichan office is now required to cover

both areas. In addition to that, he no longer has any administrative

staff. Well, he's going to kill himself, I think. He's working at night

and every weekend. It's beyond the call of duty. It's an impossibility.

Certainly it's not in the best interests of conservation. He's also

having to do this whole sawdust thing that I was talking about before,

which is not good.

I got a note this morning, which is sort of in line with what my

colleague from Comox (Ms. Sanford) was talking about. She tells us that

the Courtenay officer is being moved to Campbell River, but the Gold

River officer has retired and is not being replaced. So the Campbell

River conservation officer is having to cover his own area plus Gold

River. He's certainly not being criticized by the people there. He's

doing an excellent job — as best he can — but it's impossible for him

to cover his area plus the Gold River area. The message that I got just

this morning was that because of the depressed economy and no

surveillance, people are poaching the elk herd. The elk is a very

special kind of animal that we have to be very careful about, because

it is not that plentiful. The local people up there are genuinely

concerned that the whole herd will be wiped out. They spoke of a recent

incident there in which elk were killed. Many of the carcasses were

just simply left, which doesn't indicate to me that that kill was by

people who were really that hungry. I understand the RCMP have been

involved in that one. It just goes to show that those people are spread

too thin, that it's not possible for one person to adequately cover

that large area.

I want to talk about the hunter training program. The book used to

be available for $15. The fish and wildlife organizations provided the

instructors. I think there were about six around the province, and they

taught from 30 to 70 students twice a year. This was a volunteer course

they put on, I understand. There were eight meetings for two hours per

night for $15, and the Minister of Education provided the materials for

the course. There was a multiple-choice exam provided by the Minister

of Environment, and then they were taken out to the rifle range for a

practical test. What it meant was that the prospective hunter received

a piece of paper which could be exchanged for a hunting licence. It was

a good program. It was working well. Lots of kids were involved, and it

was within reach of their pocketbooks, and certainly it made for safer

hunters.

Now apparently what has happened is that the program is being

transferred to the Open Learning Institute, and the cost of the

material there is $23, as opposed to $15. There is no instruction

available. It is simply like a correspondence course through the OLI. I

understand that B.C. Shooting Sports is being asked to do the

examination and some practical work. But there, again, there is going

to be a cost. They are talking about charging; I believe the figure

that I heard was $40. Now we are looking at something in the $60 to $70

range, as opposed to the $15 that the student paid before. I'm not sure

that the practical instruction problem has even been resolved. I

understand that you are presently going back to the fish and wildlife

people to see whether or not they will undertake to do this, after

having taken the thing away from them. I don't understand why you're

doing that. It was a good program before. Why didn't you leave it the

way it was? What was the problem? Why wasn't it left the way it was?

One other item that I would like to deal with under this vote has,

of course, to be the minister's wolf-kill program. I wrote the minister

some time ago, and I have had no reply. I had requested a moratorium,

because I had gone very carefully through the material that he had

submitted, which was supposed to back up his program. I think this,

again, is one of the instances where the minister decided that this was

the way to go; that he was going to kill X number of wolves in X number

of valleys, and then when.... It's a very divisive issue. I'm sure

there are divisions on that side of the House. There are people with

different opinions on this side of the House, but the fact remains that

if you are going to do that, then certainly, when you know it is a

divisive issue, you should have the very best possible statistical

evidence to back it up.

On the first page of the Kechika enhancement project report, he

talks about the number of moose, stone sheep, elk and wolves in the

Laird. The moose, for example, are estimated to be 45,000 in 1982, and

then in the Muskwa project, page 8, he estimates the number of moose in

the Laird to be 4,000. What you have done is to take the totals for the

whole northeast area — Deadwood, Kechika, Laird, Rabbit, Toad, Crest,

Muskwa, Fort Nelson, Etsho, Trutch and Sikanni — total them, come up

with 45,000 moose, and transfer it over to this report as being in the

Laird. That's one example. You talk in one area about how the wolf

population has increased between 1982 and 1983. It increased from one

wolf in 25 acres in '82 to one wolf in 33 acres in '83 — a complete

contradiction.

That's why people have raised the kind of opposition that's been

raised, because there hasn't been the backup that's required. The

Wildlife Society of Canada and the wildlife biologists'

section of the

Canadian Society of Zoologists went through the report in great depth.

I just received their report this morning, and I want to read a few

sections of it into the record. It is interesting to note that what

they're in effect saying is that the people who wrote those reports you

submitted did not come up with the results which were used to support

the wolf-kill project. For example:

[4:30]

"However, the committee," — this is the committee

that studied the report — "did note that the authors of the research papers

accompanying the minister's news release were usually cautious in presenting

the results of their research. They frequently pointed out biases in sampling,

noted the constraints of time and money on their research effort, and qualified

their results accordingly.

"In most discussions about predator control the committee noted that the proximate and ultimate

[ Page 3872 ]

causes of prey declines are seldom recognized. Consequently there

remains considerable confusion about the relative importance of the various

factors which influence prey population sizes. Recent work suggests that predators

may influence prey populations under certain conditions, typically after some

initial cause of prey population decline — for example, habitat deterioration

or overhunting."

And they give the reference for that. I'm just reading excerpts.

"In the first instance, the committee concluded that

there was no biological justification for the wolf program per se in

northeast B.C. at this time. In the second, the committee found little

evidence that the current situation could be viewed as a carefully

designed experiment."

And they make certain recommendations.

"Recognizing that the stated objectives for the wolf

removal program in B.C. purport to be biologically based, but are not

supported by available biological evidence, the committee recommends,

as an alternative to the present management action, a continuation or

even an intensification of the research effort aimed at understanding

the complex interaction of environmental factors."

I'm not going to read any more of it. I just wanted to make the

point that a great many very highly qualified people have raised the

same and similar points. I would repeat again that this is a paper

produced by the Wildlife Society of Canada and the wildlife biologists'

section of the Canadian Society of Zoologists.

With that, Mr. Minister, I conclude my remarks on this vote.

Vote 25 approved.

On vote 26: emergency assistance, $2,530,000.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MRS. WALLACE: I just have a couple of remarks on this vote,

Mr. Chairman. The inadequacy of the provisions under this particular

measure were pointed out recently in the situation at Hatzic. We've

seen them pointed out in many areas, and I've seen them in many areas

in my own constituency. Because of the very restrictive limits that are

put on how that emergency money is expended.... The regulations are

very strict, and I'm sure the minister is aware of the kinds of things

I'm talking about. Circumstances are very pertinent, and it is a sort

of judgment call for so-called essentials. How do you decide what is an

essential? Often gardens and landscaping are not considered essential,

and yet they certainly are very much an added value to that property.

There is often a deductible formula. There have been people who have

been absolutely excluded because they didn't make their permanent

residence in that particular home and various other things. I just

think that that whole program should be reviewed to make it more

comprehensive and more readily applied to help people in real need.

When you have an emergency, it's an emergency, and when you're faced

with all these rules and regulations and narrow

interpretations, it

makes it very difficult for people to re-establish themselves or to

continue to carry on any kind of normal life.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The member is perhaps confusing this a bit.

The emergency assistance program is to deal with emergencies, and this

isn't a budgeted amount. I think the member has gotten into

compensation and that sort of thing. Under the compensation program

we're really trying to deal with disaster relief in that we say

that.... The member has said it is very restrictive. No, when an

emergency happens, the people are out there and they do the job and try

to deal with the disastrous situation and prevent it, mitigate it and

what have you — provide immediate shelter for people. Then when we get

into the compensation program, we're really involved in some basic

concepts there: is it the responsibility of government and the other

taxpayers to provide shelter and accommodation for people, or is it a

government responsibility to compensate them fully for all their

losses? We have said that since it's disaster relief, since we're

limiting our commitment, we should provide enough to provide a home,

and we do pay rent as a temporary measure and that sort of thing

automatically, but we deal with what they can live with in a basic home

basically furnished, etc. To that extent we provide assistance. In the

Cascade Creek situation land was taken into consideration. Every effort

is made. We also fund the improvement of the creek bed, with the

municipality, to try to help in the future. But I don't think we can

get into compensation, because if we get into that do we, the

taxpayers, owe as much compensation to someone who has a $50,000 unit

as to someone who has a $500,000 or $900,000 home? We say that whether

you have this home or that home, our obligation — which isn't a legal

but a moral obligation — is to provide you with what it takes for basic

living. Then we can't get into how much money you've borrowed, how much

you owe, how much finances, because then we're immediately into total

compensation.

I wish we had the answer to just assist everybody to the extent that

anybody and everybody would like to be assisted by government, but that

opens up such possibilities that it could break the government, which

is the taxpayers in the province. Do the people who build on high

ground owe full compensation or disaster relief, through taxes, to the

people who live on low ground? It's not an easy question; it's a

difficult one. I have to make some pretty hard policy decisions. I

sometimes wish I could be the nice guy, and when someone is in tears in

my office because of how much money they owe and so on I could say that

would be it.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: No, people approaching me.

Yes, I do have a heart, but I can't let my heart rule except in my

own personal situation. As minister I have a responsibility to deal

with policy and how it affects the government and the rest of the

taxpayers. I have to be pretty rough sometimes.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to be very brief as

well under this vote. I think those of us in this House who, as MLAs,

have to deal with disasters, and flooding problems particularly, in our

own areas are familiar with government policy that came into place

about two years ago or more in terms of revising the guidelines for who

receives compensation and who does not.

Just two things very briefly, Mr. Chairman. I noticed that this

year's vote has been reduced by about $1 million, to just slightly

above $2,500,000. To tell you the truth, when you

[ Page 3873 ]

consider the flooding problems we have just in my own riding, never

mind the severe problems you have in places like Squamish and this year

in the Fraser Valley and other places, it seems like a very small sum.

The minister will recall that we had a severe flooding problem this

year in Roberts Creek — a creek called Clough Brook up in Elphinstone

Mountain, flooded, although it was the first time in probably thousands

of years. I've been in the logging industry as a logger. I've got many

friends in the industry. The reality was that Mount Elphinstone was

logged, and the water of the small running creek was allowed to run off

in one fell swoop after a severe, heavy rainstorm. The net result was

that a number of homes were flooded out and damaged, and no

compensation at all will be paid. I want to make it quite clear in

saying, first, that the Ministry of Highways were very good, as well as

Hydro and other people. But the Ministry of Highways did come in and

rebuild road, provide access to private property and install culverts

rather than bridges, which were wiped out. Your ministry assisted as

well in this particular instance in putting the creek bed back in its

proper channel, and those kinds of things. I appreciated the

assistance, as I'm sure the people there did, and the technical advice

we received from your people working out of, I think, your Richmond

office and the local emergency program director, whose name I'd like to

put in Hansard , but his name escapes me. They were of a great deal of

assistance in that way.

The problem is that those people living in those areas have suffered

severe financial losses, and there will be no compensation. It's as

simple as that. They are not living on the floodplain. This area is not

considered to be floodplain. In fact, it's on a bit of a side hill, on

the upper side of Highway 101. You were good enough to write back to me

after my correspondence. I made a special trip to Victoria over this

matter. You were out of Victoria at the time, but I did meet with your

senior people — in fact, I think, with your deputy at the time. You

proposed a 75 to 25 percent sharing formula through the regional

district as financial compensation to assist some of the people who had

received a great deal of damage. The problem is — and this has happened

twice now.... Two years ago we had the same problem in Bella Coola. By

the way, the problem in Bella Coola is going to occur again, and

everybody within the ministry knows that. You could spend half the

provincial budget, I would guess, and maybe still not solve that

problem up there. But the fact is that that problem in Bella Coola is

going to happen again and again. What I'm really asking about is the 75

to 25 percent proposal on cost-sharing formulas. The regional

districts, particularly in areas like the central coast and the

Sunshine Coast, simply can't afford to come up with even their 25

percent share, or whatever their share may be. They simply don't have

that kind of tax base and that money. The net result of all this is

that these people who have suffered severe flood damage in this last

case, in the Roberts Creek area — but there'll be other cases in the

years to come in those areas.... We all know that. In the year

before it was in a different area of the Sunshine Coast. I was

wondering if the minister could add any thoughts at all on this

cost-sharing formula which simply isn't working because regional

districts can't afford it.

[4:45]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The cost-sharing formula is 75 percent from

the taxpayers from the rest of the province against 25 percent from the

affected taxpayers in the area. It's hard to see that as not being

fair. I know that the costs are high in some cases, but then I suppose

you have to look at it in terms of the people there not seeing the

advantage being sufficient to warrant paying 25 cents out of every

dollar for their protection. I know there are some difficulties and

emergencies, but we can't deal with all of them unless we say that

whenever something happens some place, the provincial government shall

just pay 100 percent of all the cost of anything that happens from the

main pot, which is the taxpayers' money. I might just add that again

we're confused with this emergency assistance funding, which is there

to help immediately and so on. The compensation thing that we're

talking about is not included there. Since I became minister we did ask

for some guidelines, because each situation had to be dealt with. We

basically accepted disaster relief rather than full compensation.

Again, we'll never satisfy the people who have had extensive damage.

We decided on the deductible because the people have some

responsibility before the government help kicks in. I know it hurts at

times. I know it's difficult. I guess we have to deal with each

situation as we can. The other thing that I might add is that this

assistance program is not elsewhere in the budget, and that's why our

budget is as high as it is — diking money and that sort of thing. We

try to spend as much money as we can on protective measures. In some

cases, we do ask for the municipal contribution of 25 percent. We try

to build as many dikes as we can before the flood instead of after, but

we don't make it in all cases.

Vote 26 approved.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

LANDS, PARKS AND HOUSING

On vote 47: minister's office, $191,758.

MR. MITCHELL: Is the minister going to lead off?

MR. CHAIRMAN: We'll allow the minister a moment of courtesy to change portfolios.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I thank the Chairman very kindly for giving

me time to — as he said — change portfolios. I'd like to make a few

introductory remarks. I'm sure that the rest of it can be covered under

questions.

Once again I'm pleased to present the estimates of the Ministry of

Lands, Parks and Housing. I would like to again recognize my staff, and

if the moccasin telegraph is working, my deputy minister should be here

shortly to assist me with the questioning. I'd like to recognize the

efforts of certainly my deputy, my senior staff, my ADMs and regional

staff in trying to maintain services at the same time that there has

been reorganization and restructuring in the ministry, and even some

cuts. I'd like to commend their efforts in trying to simplify the

process — and in land dispositions. We have maintained a good record

because of their e