1978 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 31st Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, MAY 31, 1978

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

1855 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

An Art to Regulate Smoking in Public Places and Meetings (Bill M 214) Mrs. Wallace.

Introduction and first reading –– 1855

Oral questions.

New computer equipment. Mr. Levi –– 1855

Constitutionality of Heroin Treatment Act. Mr. Gibson –– 1856

Negotiations on international boundaries. Mr. Lea –– 1858

Statement

Non-smokers' Day. Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 1860

Mr. Barrett –– 1860

Motions and adjourned debates on motions

On motion 8.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 1861

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply; Ministry of the Environment estimates.

On vote 83. Mr. Levi –– 1877

Mr. King 1861 Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 1879

Hon. Mr. Nielsen 1862 On vote 84.

Mr. Smith 1863 Mrs. Dailly –– 1879

Mr. Bawtree 1864 Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 1879

Hon. Mr. Nielsen 1866 Mr. Stephens –– 1879

Mr. Smith 1867 Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 1880

Mr. Lauk 1868 On vote 85.

Mr. Stephens 1868 Mr. Stephens –– 1880

Hon. Mr. Nielsen 1868 Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 1880

Mrs. Wallace 1869 On vote 86.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen 1872 Mr. Lockstead –– 1881

Ms. Sanford 1874 Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 1881

Hon. Mr. Nielsen 1875 Mr. Stephens –– 1881

Mr. Cocke 1876 Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 1881

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 1876

Committee of Supply; Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs estimates.

On vote 37.

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 1882

Mr. Levi –– 1886

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 1890

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. KEMPF : In the gallery with us today is an individual who I am very

proud to have with us to watch the proceedings. He is a fellow I worked with

for many years in the lumber industry - an old sawmiller, an old logger -and

he lives in one of the smallest communities in my constituency, Telkwa. Mr.

Speaker, it's with the greatest of pleasure that I introduce to you this

afternoon Hr. Paul Trobak and his nephew by marriage, Mr. Al Morran make of

Victoria. I ask the House to them very welcome.

MR. KING : Mr. Speaker, up until a very short time ago a very gracious lady used to grace the Law Clerks' table in this institution; I see that Evelyn Iiiller is back - in the members' gallery, visiting the chamber. I would ask the House to extend a very warm welcome to her.

HON. MR. NIELSEN : Mr. Speaker, seated in the gallery this afternoon are 35 students from Colonel By School in Ottawa - part of the Open House Canada exchange - accompanied by their teachers, Mrs. Irene Duncan and Mr. Dave Campbell. Along with those students are 10 students from Cambie Junior High School in Richmond, accompanied by their teachers, Mr. Dan Carswell and Mrs. Ken Wong-Moon. I'd ask the House to welcome them.

MR. SKELLY : Mr. Speaker, in the precincts today is a group of students from Captain Meares Secondary School in Tahsis who have traveled here a long way under the direction of their teachers, Mrs. Susan Lusyk and Mr. Barry Lutvey. Unfortunately they won't be able to attend the session today; but I think it should be drawn to the attention of members of the Legislature that some of the marble in the parliament buildings was brought here from Hisnit Inlet, near Tahsis, and that these students have some affinity to the parliament buildings for that reason.

HON. MR. HEWITT : Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today are two friends of mine from Summerland, Vernon and Mary Schroyen. I would ask the House to bid them welcome.

MS. SANFORD : Mr. Speaker, I have two groups of students to introduce

today, both from the north part of Vancouver. Island. Touring the buildings

at this moment is a group of students from Sunset Elementary School in Port

McNeill, accompanied by their teacher, Laurie Richards.

Later this afternoon there will be a group of elementary, - school students visiting the chamber from Coal Harbour Elementary School in the northern part of Vancouver Island, and they will be accompanied by their parents, Pat Hole, Sylvia Reusch, their bus driver, Darlene Cartwright, and their teacher, Brian Klaver. I would like the House to make then welcome.

MR. MUSSALLEM : Mr. Speaker, may I bring to your attention guests in

the Speaker's gallery today, Mr. and Mrs. Clappison of our town of Maple

Ridge, and their relatives from the homeland of Yorkshire, Mr. Connors and Miss

Denise Connors. Will you bid them welcome, please?

MR. LOCKSTEAD : Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw to the House's attention that today is non-smokers' day, and I would urge all of our people in this province who can do without this very addictive drug to do so. However, for those who cannot, I'll meet you out in the hall in 15 minutes. (Laughter.)

Introduction of bills.

AN ACT TO REGULATE SMOKING

IN PUBLIC PLACES AND MEETINGS

On a motion by Mrs. Wallace, Bill M 214,

An Act to Regulate Smoking in Public Places and Meetings, 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 : I would ask hon. members that during the procedure of the taking of a vote, perhaps it would be wiser not to interject. It is difficult to tell whether or not it is yeas or nays if it is mixed up with other words.

Oral questions.

NEW COMPUTER EQUIPMENT

MR. LEVI : I have a question to the Minister of Finance. I'm going to read this slowly because it might get a bit complicated. In the Vancouver Sun on May 17, B.C. System Corp. placed an ad seeking some equipment that would be compatible with the IBM 370 architecture equipment. Now the government at the moment has a 371-45 which they obtained in 1976, and in January, 1977, they got a 371-58. It's my

[ Page 1856 ]

understanding they're now seeking a piece of equipment in the order of the 3033 size. In view of the fact that the 3033 has 15 times the capacity of the 371-58, and that the 371-58 has three times the capacity of the 371-45, could the minister tell us what the government is going to do with all of this excess capacity with these computers? Just before he gets up, though, because he may take it as notice, I'm sure, has the government placed a reserve on an IBM 3030, and if they have, when did they do it?

The final piece, so he can take it as notice: the time frame in the ad is July 31 for the placement and operation of the equipment. Perhaps the minister could tell the House how it is going to be possible to do that in that very short time frame.

MR. SPEAKER : We normally ask one question at a time.

HON. MR. WOLFE : Yes, I'm advised the B.C. Systems Corp. are advertising for a larger central computer unit, the object being, Mr. Member, basically to save money in the process. There are three smaller units which will be disposed of in the process. I'm advised there's a considerable saving in the monthly rental down the line when this changeover is accomplished. As you indicated, the model is the 3033, a larger computer which can now be supplied by some four different major suppliers. So there has been a request for quotations go out for this.

You mentioned the date of July 31. 1 think that was two to three weeks from the date on which the ad appeared, I'm not sure which. It was the latest possible date that could be used, and I'm advised that all of those interested would have time to submit in that time period.

Yes, I believe there was a reservation in order to place this possibility on line for the future. Yes, there was a reservation placed with no commitment for purchase some time last year.

MR. LEVI : Just a supplementary question. I asked the minister a question last year as to whether the government I don't think I used the word "reservation" was obtaining a 3033. At that time he said no, so perhaps the minister could tell us when exactly the reservation was made on the 3033. Or was it with the IBM? Are we talking about an IBM 3033? Is that what the minister was referring to when he said a reservation was made last year? Now I specifically asked you last year about that, and you said no.

HON. MR. WOLFE : If the member can't remember what he asked last year, I certainly am not able to. As I recall, the question was: had an order been placed? We'd have to look back to see. In effect this is commonly known in the industry as a soft order or reservation, so that when your opportunity comes up to buy you are given an opportunity. I believe the model reference is an IBM, but it is an IBM or comparable unit of a similar character.

CONSTITUTIONALITY OF

HEROIN TREATMENT ACT

MR. GIBSON : I have a question to the hon. Attorney-General. Bearing in mind the ineffectiveness of policy and the great public cost caused by unconstitutional legislation, and bearing in mind the waste of time in this House in debating matters which turn out to be unconstitutional, and noting that competent lawyers, including those who said the youth containment law was unconstitutional, are now saying the same thing about the Heroin Treatment Act, will the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr.

Gardom) , as he has authority to do under the Constitutional Questions Determination Act, refer the Heroin Treatment Act to the British Columbia Court of Appeal for an opinion on its constitutionality before taking up the time of the public in this chamber on debate?

HON. MR. GARDOM : Pretty argumentative question.

MR. SPEAKER : The question plies into the future activity of a government.

MR. GIBSON : I had particular reference to your memorandum of April 24

in which May states that it's perfectly proper to ask the government what

its intentions are, and it is the intentions of the government that I am questioning.

Mr. Speaker, with respect, it's not a question of policy; it's a question

of intentions of the government, which May makes perfectly clear is a proper

item for questioning, and a very important item.

AN HON. MEMBER : It's a policy question.

I will cite the reference in Beauchesne which we have adopted as a guideline for our questioning. It clearly outlines and we have as a practice in this House established that it is not admissible to ask questions into the future activity of a minister of the Crown. I must continue to uphold the rules that were adopted by the House. The reference is

section 171 of Beauchesne, just for your reference. Perhaps you could rephrase the question and

[ Page 1857 ]

make it admissible.

MR. GIBSON : I still submit that a question with respect to the intentions of the government is perfectly admissible. Perhaps I can rephrase it in this way: does the Attorney-General not think it important that the constitutionality of a measure be certified, when it is in doubt before it is brought before this House, as he has the power to do?

HON. MR. GARDOM : Certification is another process. As far as his reference

to the particular statute is concerned, that is reference by cabinet and not

by the Ministry of the Attorney-General.

MR. GIBSON : Does the Attorney-General deny that it is his duty to make a recommendation to cabinet in this regard if one is to be made? Surely not.

HON. MR. GARDOM : Oh, come on! That's not a proper question.

MR. MACDONALD : I'm asking the Attorney-General on the same question whether tie is prepared to give consideration to and report back to the House on referring the question of the constitutionality of that legislation to the court of appeal prior to the large expenditure of public funds in a programme which might be ruled to be unconstitutional. Will the Attorney-General consider the matter and report back to the House?

HON. MR. GARDOM : I am thoroughly prepared to consider any matter, make no mistake of that fact. But as I've indicated to the hon. member from North Vancouver, this constitutional question reference is that of a cabinet decision. Secondly, I would like to mention to the hon. member that any legislation that comes into this Legislature, both during the term of this administration and any administration behind it, comes in as a result of consideration and advice.

MR. MACDONALD : I just want to be clear. Will the Attorney-General on this legislation -this is the one we're talking about, with grave doubt as to its constitutionality -report back to the House after considering whether this legislation will be referred?

HON. MR. GARDOM : If my hon. friend across the way has an opinion, we would be delighted to receive it.

MR. SPEAKER : But not during question period.

MR. GIBSON : I have a supplementary question to the Attorney-General on

an Act which unquestionably is within his jurisdiction. Would he give this House an estimate of the cost to the public so far on the ruling of the Youth Containment Act unconstitutional?

MR. SPEAKER : The question is not admissible; it is completely argumentative.

MR. GIBSON : It's a request for information, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER : The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order.

MR. BARRETT : Is that question out of order?

MR. SPEAKER : By the standing orders by which the House is covered I must rule it out of order.

MR. BARRETT : Mr. Speaker, I challenge your ruling.

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT : You are afraid to deal with this issue; that's exactly what's going on.

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT : Right on! It's a waste of taxpayers' money, and you know the programme may be questioned in the courts.

AN HON. MEMBER : Gordon, how do you know the other one is unconstitutional? It's in front of the court of appeal.

MR. BARRETT : You're the Attorney-General. Why don't you find out?

HON. MR. GARDOM : It's before the court of appeal.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER :

Section 172 of Beauchesne clearly outlines this procedure for question period: "The Speaker, in common with his duties of supervision over the proceedings of the House, may rule out any question which violates the privileges of Parliament in the same way as he deals with irregularities in motions and amendments. He may make an alteration to the question or refer it back to the member for correction." - as was done earlier today - "A member may call the attention of the House to the matter and may challenge the

[ Page 1858 ]

action of the Speaker." The decision of the Speaker has been challenged.... Order, please. We must dispose of this matter.

AN HON. MEMBER : Who is the leader over there?

MR. SPEAKER : The ruling of the Chair has been challenged, and so I must ask the House to act.

MR. LAUK : Mr. Speaker is reading the rules, with respect...

SOME HON. MEMBERS : You're not recognized.

MR. LAUK : ... referring to written questions; we have our own procedures and.our own rules for oral questions.

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please, hon. members. Further to the challenge, the procedure which I have just outlined for all members is that procedure which is followed in the British House.

On reflection and after conferring it is apparent that the motion which this House adopted at the inception of the question period in this House gave the prerogative of ruling questions in or out of order to the Chair without challenge. So I cannot ask the House to make its expression known.

MR. GIBSON : On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, I want to make sure I understand what you ruled out of order. You ruled out of order my question to the Attorney-General asking for the cost to the public of finding the youth containment legislation unconstitutional. That was the question you ruled out of order. That's the question I asked. May I have the confirmation of that?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please, hon. members. Perhaps we could solve this with members who have the floor.

The question was ruled out of order on the basis of it being argumentative. In the opinion of the Chair it is what has been called in this House many times an "iffy" question. Therefore, it being argumentative, it cannot be considered in order, and the Chair has so ruled. Perhaps the member could find another way to ask the question and put it in order.

MR. GIBSON : But, Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might explain. There is nothing "iffy" about it at all. The youth containment legislation has been found to be ultra vires of this Legislature by a court; it's under appeal. I'm asking the Attorney-General what the cost to the public so far is that a court of competent jurisdiction has found that statute to be ultra vires. What's "iffy" about that, may I ask?

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please. Can we move to the next question?

MR. BARRETT : I don't understand on what ground it was ruled out of order.

MR. SPEAKER : The prerogative of the Chair is to rule a question out of order. The question appears to be out of order on the basis of it being argumentative, and the Chair has so ruled.

To the next question, please.

MR. BARRETT : I ask the Speaker to clearly define what in that question is argumentative.

MR. SPEAKER : The question seeks information which might take place if a certain course of action is followed; that is the understanding of the Chair.

MR. BARRETT : No.

MR. SPEAKER : Perhaps if the question can be phrased in such a way that it's in order, it could be acceptable.

NEGOTIATIONS ON

INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARIES

MR. LEA : A question to the Premier. Would the Premier tell this House why the provincial government has kept its position secret in terms of negotiations on international boundaries within the province between Canada and the United States?

HON. MR. BENNETT : Mr. Speaker, the negotiations are going on. British

Columbia has a position that has been researched and presented to the Canadian

negotiators and, as such, we have been invited to be advisers at the request

of the federal negotiators. To aid them in their ability to negotiate with the

United States of America, we have been asked that we not weaken their attempt

by all parties, that is west coast and east Coast, presenting what may be differing

opinions and weakening their opportunity to negotiate. So it was at the request

of the negotiators.

[ Page 1859 ]

MR. LEA : A supplementary question. I'd like to ask the Premier whether he is aware that the position paper is being made public all over the United States but not here in British Columbia. It's being let out of the bag in Washington, D.C. I would like to ask the Premier whether he doesn't think that it's desirable Chat the position of this provincial government, which I believe is a good one, wouldn't be better if everybody in British Columbia had a chance to know what that position is. The federal government is obviously selling us down the tube. I agree with that, the Premier agrees with that.

Why shouldn't we have everyone in this province behind us against the federal government taking our international boundaries and chasing them right down the river to the United States -our fish and our jobs?

HON. M. BENNETT : Well, that wasn't a question, but I'll respond in kind. The province does have a good position and I believe that we have a strong position, an historical position. I'm glad to hear the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) agrees. He believes that he knows the British Columbia position and agrees with it. He makes statements about the distribution of the British Columbia paper being distributed by the United States of America. I will have to check the validity of that charge against another government.

MR. LEA : A further supplementary. I didn't make the charge against another government. I said it is being distributed all over Washington, D.C. , by some people who are in the negotiations. That's how I got it - not through my own government here but through Washington.

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please. Was the member seeking the floor to ask a supplementary question?

MR. LEA : Yes.

MR. SPEAKER : What was the question?

MR. LEA : The question is: why can't we make that public here in British Columbia when the United States, through its negotiating team, is making it public to their people?

HON. MR. BENNETT : Mr. Speaker, I've already mentioned that we're

this treaty. It's part of their responsibility. All of the Premiers of the

Atlantic provinces and the government of British Columbia have offered submissions

pertaining to their areas as part of the negotiations. We've asked to be

observers, and we have been accommodated.

British Columbia will make sure that our position is understood. If we are unhappy with the negotiations, at the proper time British Columbia will indeed have an opportunity to make its case known. As the member should know full well - but perhaps does not - any negotiation that is not concluded must go to a binding decision in international law, which may be the outcome of British Columbia if we were unhappy with the negotiations.

British Columbia is doing everything to press our case, and our position has been given to the federal government in a very forceful way -both on a political level and at the staff level where the research was developed and the historical precedents on boundaries cited.

The final question was: why don't the provinces of Canada squabble among themselves in the media so the Americans could get a negotiating benefit? The answer, I say, is obvious.

MR. SKELLY : With the indulgence of the House, could I make a late introduction, Mr. Speaker?

Leave granted.

MR. SKELLY : I'd like to introduce two late guests who have arrived in the gallery, my wife Alexandra Skelly, and my son, Robert I-lark William Skelly, who was born in 1975.

MR. LEA : Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the people of British Columbia I'd like to ask leave to table in this House the government's position paper to the federal government that I have received through channels in Washington.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND : Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask leave of the House to make a short statement.

Leave granted.

[ Page 1860 ]

NON-SMOKERS' DAY

HON. MR. McCLELLAND : Mr. Speaker, while the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) is going into the hall, I would like to recognize, as he and other members have, that today, May 31, has been proclaimed by the province of British Columbia as non-smokers' day.

Mr. Speaker, the health hazards of cigarette smoking have been well documented and highly publicized. I hope that the observance of today as non-smokers' day will stimulate public interest in this social health problem and encourage smokers to consider kicking it.

The costs, Mr. Speaker, to the taxpayers of this province as a direct result of cigarette smoking are astronomical. It has been estimated that 7.8 per cent of all physician services are related to the treatment of health problems induced by smoking. A conservative annual estimate in British Columbia of medical and hospital costs involved in the treatment of those illnesses would be $45 million.

According to the fire marshal's office, careless smokers were responsible for starting 997 fires in B.C. in 1977, and 31 people died in those fires. The value of property loss from the fires was estimated at more than $4.5 million. In the province's forests in 1977, approximately 9,000 acres of valuable timber were destroyed by some 1,800 fires and careless smokers, Mr. Speaker, started more than 300 of those forest fires.

It is estimated that British Columbians spend in excess of $150 million a year in the purchase of cigarettes.

The provincial government is vitally interested in this problem, Mr. Speaker, and during the past 18 months the Ministry of Health has been attempting to combat some of the problems posed by cigarette smoking on a number of fronts. We have encouraged municipalities to introduce local bylaws. Some have responded, but many have not. The province's general hospitals have been asked to restrict smoking to certain areas, and to consider eliminating cigarette vending machines. In a few instances, the co-operation has been excellent. Frankly, as Minister of Health, I must say that I have been disappointed by the lack of action on the part of many of our hospitals.

I quite often get letters from individuals complaining bitterly about the smoking that is allowed in the patients' wards in many of our hospitals. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that this year those dedicated individuals who serve on the boards of our public hospitals will make a concerted effort to ensure that their hospitals will eliminate smoking in the patient areas and restrict staff smoking to staff boundaries.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say that the pamphlet, "Cigarettes and Your Health, " which was produced by my ministry's division of health information, has been received with considerable enthusiasm and has proven to be an effective incentive in encouraging many smokers to quit. In the 15 months since it was introduced, approximately 200,000 copies have been distributed. The B.C. College of Pharmacists forwarded copies to 1,800 of its members in the province and, as a result, many of our drugstores in B.C. have supplies in their stores for the use of their customers. It's interesting to note, Mr.

Speaker, that a major chain requested supplies for their 55 pharmacies across Canada, and a group health insurance programme in the state of New York requested and received permission to reprint that pamphlet.

We're also involved in the funding of a programme which is being conducted in our school system which will encourage students not to start smoking. That programme is called "Butt Out" and it's conducted by Action B.C., the organization which very effectively promotes good health through physical activity and proper nutrition and good life styles.

The Ministry of Health is also considering the development of other programmes that will help cigarette smokers kick their insidious habit. It's a slow process of public education, but I believe the tide is beginning to turn. More and more smokers are recognizing their problem for what it is: an expensive, anti-social habit that poses a terrible threat to their health.

Interjection.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND : Me? I stopped years ago.

I hope that all members will support Non-Smokers' Day including the member for MacKenzie (Mr. Lockstead) , who is draped around the ashtray in the hall, as a first step to kicking the habit.

MR. BARRETT : Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to respond to the statement.

Leave granted.

MR. BARRETT : Mr. Speaker, I too would like to add my words to the necessity to stamp out those cigarette-crazed addicts who cause so much havoc to the people of this province. I welcome the words of the minister and I hope that the minister has the gumption to include

[ Page 1861 ]

nicotine in Bill 18 so that our morals can be imposed upon those freedom-loving people out there who choose to smoke cigarettes against our wishes and our desires, because so much money is lost and it makes them cough.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, this drug-crazed group of nicotine addicts, who are causing such havoc in our population, need the heavy hand of that minister to stop this addiction from spreading across this nation. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the bill will allow us to lock them up, put them away for being nicotine-crazed addicts that the minister doesn't like.

I welcome the minister's sanctimonious statements about moral judgments of human behaviour. I hope he has the courage to lock up those cigarette smokers with those other drug-crazed addicts that he condemns.

AN HON. MEMBER : There's a full moon.

MR. BARRETT : Put them under the bill; lock them up.

AN HON. MEMBER : The butterfly net!

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please, hon. members. I think that perhaps the statement in reply may have exceeded the original statement.

MRS. JORDAN : Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make a statement to make the Minister of Health's day complete.

Leave not granted.

MRS. JORDAN : 1 was going to tell the Leader of the Opposition he so frightened me, I immediately stopped smoking.

HON. MR. GARDOM : Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to proceed to Motion 8.

Leave granted.

MR. SPEAKER : Motion 8 under the name of the hon. Provincial Secretary.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY : Mr. Speaker, I would like to move the motion standing on the order paper in my name. This was a motion that was not included in the blanket motion given on the first day when the House opened.

On the recommendation of the special committee appointed on March 30, under

standing order 68, pursuant to the Ombudsman Act, that the following members

be appointed to the special committee referred to in

section 2 of the Ombudsman

Act: Davidson, Calder, Mussallem, Hewitt, McClelland, Williams, Dailly, King,

Lloyd, Lockstead, Gibson.

And that the said special committee be empowered to appoint from their number one or more subcommittees, and Lo refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the committee.

That the committee. may sit during a period in which the Legislative Assembly is adjourned, and during a sitting of the House, and during the recess after prorogation until the next following session, and shall report to the House on the matters referred to it at this session, or following the adjournment, or at the next following session as the case may be.

I-respectfully submit this motion.

Motion approved.

Orders of the day.

The House in committee of supply; Mr. Rogers in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY Or THE ENVIRONMENT

(continued)

On vote 83: minister's office, $131,756 -continued.

MR. KING : Last evening I think the good humour of this chamber was interrupted by what I view to be the rather unforgivable response from the Minister of the Environment to my colleague, the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) - a response that I characterized in terms of its content as being rather contemptible. I subsequently went on to raise with the minister the question of the removal of a large tract of land from the agricultural land reserve at Seymour Arm and the head of Shuswap Lake.

I read into the record a letter from the chairman of the Columbia-Shuswap Regional District, Frank Clarke, in which he publicly posed a number of questions to the Minister of the Environment with respect to changes in policy and the procedure for hearing these applications and appeals.

I want to put to the minister those questions that, as far as I know, were not responded to - certainly not publicly. Specifically, I want to ask the minister why it was necessary to proceed with the appeal hearing in Victoria, when the chairman of the regional district involved in making the original decision to decline the release of this land had phoned the ministry to indicate chat he %, us stuck in the city of Kamloops due to problems with meeting the airline schedule. Why was it

[ Page 1862 ]

so necessary to proceed in his absence under those circumstances, rather than call an adjournment of the appeal until an appropriate opportunity when all of those people - the objectors and those affected - could be present for the appeal? I ask the minister, further, to indicate what new evidence came before his ministry which would justify overturning the original decision that was taken by the local regional district in declining the release of this particular parcel of land to Mr. Gary Sorensen and his company. I would appreciate it if the minister would respond to those two specific questions.

HON. MR. NIELSEN : The wording of the question from the member for Revelstoke-Slocan asked generally that the questions would be answered for Mr. Clarke. They were answered -to Mr. Clarke, of course. I don't send copies of personal letters to the newspapers. If Mr. Clarke chooses to distribute my replies he is most welcome to do so, and perhaps it's already been done. That was in very early February - I believe it was about February 3 -and I have not heard back from Mr. Clarke relative to that - at least, I don't believe we have.

The reason the hearing went ahead, of course, is that the appeal is at the request of the appellant. It is arranged through the regulations and the Act, with due notice given to all interested parties - and it is on the request of the appellant. The appellant did not ask for an adjournment. The regional district was represented at the appeal. It's unfortunate that a specific person could not attend, but all other persons who had advised that they wished to attend were in attendance. It's unfortunate, perhaps, that this gentleman couldn't be there, but there was a representative for the regional district.

As I said, the appellant did not request that adjournment be made, and the hearing was for the purpose of hearing the appeal of the appellant.

The testimony from the regional district was available; the entire file was available to members of the committee, including information and opinions from the regional district and other persons involved in that hearing, although I do not have that file before me. We were advised - and I can't quote, of course, what the testimony was - that one of the main concerns with the regional district was that they did not have their plan in place.

It was suggested rather than declared that one of the reasons they wanted the land to remain within an agricultural land reserve was that they did not have their planning in place. A representative of the regional district was advised that the purpose of the Land Commission was not for planning, but rather for the preservation of agricultural land. Another comment was that there was concern about some spawning grounds in the area, and it was suggested - by I'm not sure whom, precisely - that, indeed, this is well covered under the authority of the federal Ministry of Fisheries.

And they do, of course, have authority over such areas.

As I said, I don't recall hearing back from Mr. Clarke subsequent to that letter in February. But I have heard that the regional district in the area is relatively satisfied with the situation and, through some of their representatives, is involved quite actively now with the federal Ministry of Fisheries relative to the spawning areas, I believe, in the Seymour River or Seymour Greek, or whatever its proper name my be.

But the opinion of the committee was that the arguments put- forward to retain this acreage in an agricultural land reserve were inadequate and it was the opinion of the committee that, based on the information presented to the hearing, the appeal should be upheld and granted, and thus it was done.

In Mr. Clarke's letter to myself - and perhaps you read the letter last evening; and I believe Mr. Clarke sent a copy of that letter to me, or at least a letter which contained the same information - I believe there was no reference to the agricultural value of that property. Mr. Clarke discusses the spawning area and other situations. I noted in my response to him that he had not mentioned agricultural values. It was only agricultural values that were being considered at that appeal.

MR. KING : Well, Mr. Chairman, as I understood the procedure, it was not up to regional district representatives to designate agricultural land or to measure the value and the quality of agricultural land. Indeed, the fact that it was in the AIR in the first instance would be as the result of those kinds of tests and those kinds of examinations by qualified experts from the Land Commission. For the minister to suggest that elected representatives to regional district boards should get into the debate as to the quality of agricultural land is a departure which I totally disagree with.

That is encouraging, in my view, the tendency that we have seen under this particular government to invite that kind of representation not only by politicians at the regional district level but politicians at the provincial level also. And I want to say that it is, in my view, most improper - absolutely impro-

[ Page 1863 ]

per - for MLAs and for local politicians to get into the position of making representations on behalf of land developers, or anyone else, that land should be removed from the land reserve because it is not appropriate for agricultural use. It is not up to the politicians to make that kind of determination. No such qualifications exist by the member for Shuswap (Mr. Bawtree) , for instance. There are professional people on the staff of the Land Commission who are charged with making that determination. In fact, Mr.

Chairman, the tendency to shift to this kind of interference by elected officials is the kind of tendency which invites representation on behalf of friends or political supporters based on political considerations rather than technical considerations. And I suggest and I assert that that is most improper.

I can say, Mr. Chairman, that when people come to my office asking for assistance in terms of a redesignation of their land, my assistance extends only to explaining to them what the procedures are through which they might make such an application through the regional district board and to the Land Commission. I have steadfastly refused to endorse any such application because it's beyond my jurisdiction. Certainly it's beyond the competence of politicians to get into that kind of support. It lends itself, as I said, to political patronage rather than any technical assessment.

And I'm surprised that the minister at least appears to be inviting and giving credence and support to that kind of strategy and that kind of procedure in his ministry.

MR. SMITH : Mr. Chairman, I wish to address to the minister a few questions concerning this whole matter of the agricultural Land Act and the allocation of land for agricultural purposes and other uses in the province of British Columbia.

I happen to represent a portion of the province that is large in area and small in population, if you compared it to the lower mainland. I think that no one would disagree with that. But I would like to say, Mr. Chairman, that in that particular part of the province we run into many, many problems that have been created as a result of the present regulations respecting the use of Crown land that are, in my opinion, completely out of touch with the particular area that I represent.

I'd like to give you a few examples, through you to the minister, of some of the problems that I've encountered. This is just a thumbnail sketch, Mr. Minister, of several problems that I can recall that I've run into in the last few years.

For instance, the school district of North Peace River wished to relocate and consolidate three schools 35 miles north of Fort St. John. It was their hope to consolidate three one room schools into an area where they would build a new school and a new activity room and some facilities to accommodate the 130 to 150 students who needed education. Mr.

Minister, because it was zoned agricultural, it took almost two years to get permission for a farmer to sell 10 acres of very, very rocky land, which was unproductive in terms of agriculture, to the school district so that they could build a school which improved the educational opportunity for 150 children in the area. It wasn't agricultural land, and the reason the school board chose that site was that it was central to the whole area of rural farm students who needed the facilities. That's just one example of the sort of thing that we run into in the north.

I can give you another example of an industry in Fort Nelson. I don't think it is any secret that we have two large sawmill complexes in Fort Nelson and, incidentally, the municipality of Fort Nelson is surrounded by half a million acres of Crown land. A lot of it is not productive; a lot of it is swamp and muskeg, agreed. But out of that half a million acres we've probably got at least 100,000 or more acres of land that could be utilized in one form or another, including agriculture, as a matter of fact, and for small holdings.

In this particular instance, a company applied for a piece of swamp - and that's what it was, swamp - for a log dump. They wanted to use it during the winter months to stockpile logs after the ground was frozen in that particular area so they then could feed the logs into the mill during the summer months. They received permission to use the land and purchase it, but the price that was quoted was for industrial use. They paid a substantial amount of money for a piece of swamp that had absolutely no use and no other purpose at all. It was unproductive; it would have never been productive.

It couldn't be used for anything else, yet they were required, because they were an industry, to pay industrial prices for a piece of land that had no other use at all.

I've run into situations where tourist facilities along the Alaska Highway have applied for land for sewage lagoons, because of the requirement under the Ministry of Health to improve their facilities, and there again they've been charged a commercial price for the purchase of that land from the Grown. Yet beyond them are thousands of acres of

[ Page 1864 ]

Crown land, anywhere beyond the very edge of the Alaska Highway. These are people who provide services, Mr. Minister, for the traveling public. They live there, they make a contribution in terms of the facilities that they provide, and yet they're discriminated against - if I may use the word - by regulations which are not really applicable to the circumstances in that part of the country.

It happens time and time and time again. We have land sales come up in areas like Fort Nelson - there's one advertised now - for a few small parcels of land. They are what I would consider to be homesites. There's a great demand for homesites in Fort Nelson of three, four or five acres, so that people can use those sites. Yet the upset price, Mr. Minister, on that particular sale, which is advertised for July of this year, runs from $6,300 for one site. None of these sites is over 4.5 acres, but the upset price runs from $6,300 to almost $8,000. Mr.

Minister, that's better than $1,500 per acre for land that will cost the purchaser several thousand dollars more in terms of clearing, because there is scrub timber on it that has to be removed. The only facility or utility that they are guaranteed is access to the Alaska Highway and power. That's all they get along with the land.

These are the types of problems which are brought to my attention time and time again. I hope the minister does not think I am being very critical of the department. What I am trying to do is bring to the minister's attention a problem which exists as a result of a different concept which we must recognize in respect to some parts of the province as compared to others. If that land was located in the Okanagan Valley or if it was located in the lower mainland or south of Hope, there would be some justification for the Crown to ask those prices. But in my opinion, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr.

Chairman, there is no justification for setting those types of prices in newly developing areas, particularly when the Crown has control of almost all of the land surrounding areas like Fort Nelson, for instance, and areas along the Alaska Highway.

I would hope, Mr. Minister, we will be able to devise a programme which will take into consideration the areas of the province on a selective basis. I am not of the opinion that one Land Commission and one Land Act can accommodate all of the province of British Columbia. It is too large a province and it's too diversified in terms of land capability for one blanket proposal or one blanket Act to accommodate all situations.

I think we have to consider regions of the province and the development of those regions in relation to other areas of the province, and devise some system where we can cut through the bureaucracy and the red tape that is presently surrounding so many of the applications 'that I become involved in each and every day.

I'm not blaming the minister and I'm not blaming the department. What I am saying is that I think there is a better way, and the better way is to devise rules and regulations which are acceptable in terms of preserving as much of the agricultural land as possible and still providing an opportunity for people to purchase land from the Grown and homesites if that's their desire. In many parts of the province - at least 50 per cent - that is a legitimate desire and a desire that we should give attention to in terms of the ministry.

MR. BAWTREE : Mr. Chairman, I find that I must protest the completely uninformed and unwarranted attack by the the member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) on the farmers and ranchers of this province. I don't mind the member attacking me. After all, I have been criticized by experts and it doesn't really bother me. But I must protest and ask him to apologize for the attack on the people of this province who are supplying food to the people of this province.

The member for Revelstoke-Slocan said I was not an expert. I would read from the Blues. The member says: "Mr. Chairman, the member for Shuswap is not a professional. He is not a soil expert. He is not a hydrologist. He has none of these skills and very few political skills also." Mr. Chairman, I want to tell you that I along with most of the ranchers and farmers in this province are professionals. If we weren't professionals we wouldn't be feeding the people of this province at the lowest cost of anywhere in the world.

He says we are not soil experts. I can assure you that we are. We can recognize a gravel pit when we see one. We know bedrock when we see it. He says we are not hydrologists. Yet most of us have a great deal of knowledge about the flow of water and the way it works on our land. Most of us are engineers as well. Even though we may not have any letters after our names we can manage water very adequately.

I want to tell that member that I, along with the ranchers and farmers of this province, feel that an apology is warranted. He also charged that I and the member for Fort George (Mr. Lloyd) approached the B.C. Land Commission in order to help our friends. Mr. Chairman, this also, as usual from that member

[ Page 1865 ]

over there, is a completely erroneous statement.

I have on many occasions visited people in my riding, and maybe people from outside of my riding, who needed assistance in one way or another. I gave my opinion as to the agricultural value of their land. I can assure that member, Mr. Chairman, that I do not write letters to the B.C. Land Commission in order to assist my friends. I don't even ask any of the people from my riding who come to my office wanting assistance what their political affiliation is.

Mr. Chairman, the member for Revelstoke Slocan stated last night: "The

more important point is that it is inherently wrong for any politician to represent

a group seeking to influence a provincial agency. For any politician to seek

to influence that agency implies political manipulation. It implies political

influence. It implies the porkbarrel, and it has no place in B.C. politics today."

I would like to read into the record the history of a piece of property on Shuswap

Lake. That piece of property has been farmed for many, many years. It dates

back to about 1908, when it was first homesteaded by a chap by the name of Herald.

This property was farmed by that family from this time on until 1975.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Order, please. We are on vote 83, which is the minister's office.

MR. BAWTREE : Yes, Mr. Chairman, I'm getting onto land reserves and the jurisdiction.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Order, please. Please allow the Chairman to make his point before interrupting.

We have had several discussions. Last night, I was beginning to wonder if it was the member for Revelstoke-Slocan's estimates, and now I'm wondering if it is your estimates. But it is really not. It is the Minister of the Environment's estimates, and we should be discussing those matters which are specifically covered in his administrative responsibilities. So please consider that in your debate.

MR. BAWTREE : Mr. Chairman, all matters relating to the Land Commission come under that minister's jurisdiction.

I want to relate that in 1975 that particular piece of property was still in a farm, owned by the original people who homesteaded it at the turn of the century. In 1975 the taxes on that land were $45.17. In 1973, when the Land Commission was formed, the taxes on that farm property were increased many times over. In 1974 the taxes on that farmland were increased some more until in 1975 the sole remaining owner, who is a spinster living on that piece of property, was assessed $2,703.17 after three years under that NDP administration. This' was a piece of farm property, and that owner could no longer retain that property because she couldn't raise $2,703.17 in order to pay the taxes.

The NDP administration took that property over; they bought that property from her. She was no longer able to retain that property in her name. They took it over as a park. They talk about political manipulation and how we shouldn't be involved in political manipulation. Yet that was a farm from 1907 and, obviously, it must be in the agricultural land reserve, mustn't it? The fact that that NDP government wanted to take it over for their own purposes wouldn't have any affect on this, would it? No, of course not.

However, I did write to the B.C. Land Commission in 1977 just to see what the status of the land was. This is the letter regarding the Herald Provincial Park on Shuswap Lake. "In response to your letter of July 11,1977, please be advised that the Herald Provincial Park has never been in the designated agricultural land reserve for the Regional District of Columbia-Shuswap." That member for Revelstoke-Slocan had the nerve to get up in this House and talk about political interference in the decisions of the Land Commission.

Never in the history of this province have we had more political interference in decisions of the Land Commission or any other commission than when that administration was in power.

I want to assure this House and the people of my riding that when they come into my office and ask for my assistance - whether it's for problems they have with the B.C. Land Commission, ICBC, the Assessment Authority or any other of the multitude of authorities that we are governed by in this province today -they will have my assistance. When they come to me on matters of land I can give them my professional assistance, my professional opinion.

I want to assure you that I do not make any presentations on their behalf - as that member charged - to the Land Commission.

I would just like to say a few words. There has been a lot of discussion about a piece of property up on Seymour Arm. This Seymour Ann property has been there and been on the fringes of some agricultural enterprises for a number of years. Again, that area was homesteaded in 1908. The particular piece of property in question was never farmed, could never have been farmed. It is nothing but about 90 per cent gravel and rock. In fact,

[ Page 1866 ]

when Highways decided they wished to do some improvements in that area to the roads on adjoining pieces of property, they just went to this particular piece of property and dug a borrow-pit, and there was the gravel right on the surface. If that piece of property was down in the Okanagan or near the Vancouver area, I can assure you it would not be available for subdivision. It would not be available for farming either because it would be far too valuable as a gravel pit.

I'm concerned, as I'm sure all members are, about the problems that may develop if we are not careful with the salmon spawning in that area. But I can assure you that you are not going to preserve the salmon spawning beds in that area by turning it over to agricultural uses and clearing it all off. We would have nothing but a gravel wasteland in that area. We would have terrific erosion because the snowfall in the area is very close to that in Revelstoke. The erosion, in my opinion, would wipe out or very seriously damage the salmon spawning in the Seymour River.

Therefore I have discussed on many occasions with the salmonid enhancement programme people, developers in the area and other people who are knowledgeable on the subject ways of trying to protect that resource which we have in that river. I'm sure that it can be protected. But it will not be protected if we're going to start bulldozing all the tree cover and trying to make a farm out of a piece of land that is really nothing but gravel.

The only thing I want to add is to assure the people in my riding that when they come to me for assistance and want my opinion about the agricultural potential of their land, I will give it to them freely. I will not ask whether they are my supporters or not, as that member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) indicated he does.

HON. MR. NIELSEN : Mr. Chairman, not too many questions were posed by

the last member speaking, but the member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) had

some observations and questions. I appreciate him describing some of the difficulties

associated with land and several of the examples given - the school district

problem, the two-year wait, the agricultural land at Fort Nelson, and so on.

There are certainly problems. There is no question that legislation which is

drafted for a province the size of British Columbia, with its incredibly diverse

areas, climatic conditions and many, many other problems - topography and so

on....

I think that perhaps there is a tendency to draft legislation as it relates to the more heavily populated areas, particularly the Fraser Valley, Okanagan Valley, Vancouver Island and others. I believe very strongly that a delegation from the Peace River today had a few suggestions which, I think, were well thought out, excellent, relative to the Land Commission - how they could make the Land Commission concept work better and how it could be implemented so that it benefited the citizens of British Columbia rather than caused some difficulties for many of the citizens. I think their thoughts were very, very good.

It was suggested that more people from the north or from other specific areas should be members of the Land Commission. That's hard to disagree with. One of the problems, of course, is that when you have a commission, you wish to limit the number of members. It's impossible to represent all areas of the province and all professions associated with agriculture. So I guess a government can do the best it can with people they believe to have the capability to function as commissioners.

It was suggested, and it is certainly worthy of consideration, that what we perhaps need is an office of the Land Commission in a northern area - perhaps Prince George or north of Prince George - staffed with people who are acquainted with the north and who understand what agriculture means in the north, not what agriculture means in the lower Fraser Valley or the Okanagan.

Many of the problems associated with the Land Commission have been with it since day one, because many of the maps were drawn up rather hastily - a broad-bush concept, based on information which was badly outdated. So today we find applications coming to the Land Commission for exclusion of lands from an agricultural land reserve which is completely subdivided and has existing homes all through the area. It was included because the maps which were used at that time did not recognize subdivision which had taken place some years after the mapping had taken place. So certainly the boundaries are far from being accurate.

The chairman of the Land Commission a few months back suggested to me that there is probably about a million acres of land within the agricultural land reserves in the province that very likely shouldn't be in. But also there's probably a million acres outside that should be in. That's to be expected because it's physically impossible to inspect 11.5 million acres even in a few years. So there are going to be situations where lands are improperly in and some lands are perhaps improperly out.

The lots in Fort Nelson interest me a great deal. You quote $6,300 to $8,000 as an upset

[ Page 1867 ]

price. The policy of the government of British Columbia for many, many years under the Land Act has been that land which is disposed of to a private individual should be disposed of at market price. The upset price you mentioned should, I stress, reflect market value. That's how they're supposed to be achieved - market value.

One other option in some situations on a Grown subdivision would be that the upset price would reflect either market value or the actual cost of creating those lots. I find those prices to be rather high for that area of the province. I've already asked senior staff in lands management to have a look at those assessments and see how accurate they may be.

It's our intent to provide land to people in British Columbia at the lowest possible rate, but we do not wish to destroy the market of land by flooding the market with cheap Grown land, if you want to call it that, and therefore cause great distress to many other people. But certainly when we're putting land up for sale, we want to do so at the most reasonable possible price to the individual. I regret those costs if they are out of line, and we will check into that.

Just by way of an example, one lot was recently auctioned, I believe, near Cranbrook. The upset price was, I believe, just over $8,000 for a 4.5-acre lot. The upset price was met and in addition a bonus bid of $10,000 was made for the land. I can hardly wait to hear the new owner appeal his assessment next time. But there are some strange things that do occur when it comes to values placed on land. The Land Act does impose some difficulties in people making these assessments because it suggests that market value is the reasonable price.

I very much appreciate the comments. The period of time that it takes to get land is scandalous in British Columbia. Unfortunately, it's been a fact of life for many years. I mentioned earlier that we have strengthened our land and water field staff to try and re solve these problems, to try and speed it up. I have been assured, and I have some faith in the assurance from the people who advised me, that we can see light at the end of the tunnel. Possibly the backlog could be cleaned up within a year. That backlog, I might men tion, is many years old.

We processed perhaps 5,000 applications in a year, but we started the year with a backlog of 6,500. So we've never been able to quite catch up. And yes, sometimes it takes three years. That's just not to be condoned; that will be modified. We do have people moving out into the field and resolving that problem.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : I would like to introduce to the House a very

fine group of people who traveled from Surrey today - the senior citizens from

St. Helen's Park. Also with them is Jack Ingleson who organizes these trips

on a regular basis. I would ask all members to make them welcome.

MR. SMITH : I am just going to be brief. I do want to continue along the line of what I've been discussing with the minister. Might I say to the minister that the auction that is advertised for Fort Nelson may very well result in bonuses being paid to the Crown over and above the --ice that you are asking, for the simple reason that you only have six parcels available of small acreages for homesites at this particular time, when the demand is several times that? So what will happen is a few of the people will probably pay the government's price, plus a bonus, in order to have a place to build a home.

I suggest to the minister and the officials of his ministry that that is not the way we should be going, particularly when with the exception of a very, very minute amount of land in the Fort Nelson area, everything surrounding that whole community is owned by the Grown. There are hundreds of thousands of acres of Grown land - some of it is not good land, but some of it is.

The area encompassed by the corporation of Fort Nelson and the area that we've been developing serviced homesites on, I think, is working out reasonably well where within the incorporation, the water, the sewers, the streets and so on have been going in. This is fulfilling a demand for those people who wish to live in the incorporated area. But we have many, many people up there who wish to live outside on a small acreage, and when there are so many acres of Crown land available, that has got to be a legitimate desire on their part.

They like to have a home outside of the city or outside of the incorporation; they like to have a horse for the kids. To ask the prices we're asking for four to four and a half acres of what is basically a homesite - $6,000 to $8,000 - is, in my opinion, extortion. It's a price over and above what should be asked by the Crown for those properties.

All I can say to the minister is that if instead of six sites we had 60 or 100 available, we might find that the price offered would be substantially less. But there is a requirement; there is a desire and a need up there to be filled. I believe because the government has the land - it's Crown land - we should be looking more closely at that particular need and not charge everything that the

[ Page 1868 ]

traffic might bear for a few small individual parcels at a time, but try to accommodate the demand as it appears in an area like that at a price that will get those people onto homesites. They become permanent residents in the area and thereby are very much part of the fabric of a newly developing community.

MR. LAUK : Mr. Chairman, I rise only in response to the honourable gentleman from Shuswap (Mr. Bawtree) who, on the second occasion since this House has been in session, rose to make a few remarks. Although one cannot describe the honourable gentleman from Shuswap as being the firebrand of the Social Credit caucus, he must be held responsible for his remarks in this House, which is protected by privilege.

I would think that the honourable gentleman, who speaks slowly and deliberately, would do likewise in his thought process. I will not include his reference to some sort of garbled charge about Herald Park, which nobody seems to understand. Perhaps he could collect his thoughts, put them down on paper and circulate them. But he did say that there was never more political interference with the Land Commission than under the New Democratic Party administration.

Well, let me tell you, Mr. Chairman, that there's a trial that has just been decided by the Supreme Court of British Columbia. The appeal period has expired so we can speak about the matter without fear of offending the rule of sub judice. That trial involved a defamation suit brought by a member of the New Democratic Party against a person who made the same remark outside of this House.

The Supreme Court of British Columbia heard witnesses, including the former members of the Land Commission, officers and other people involved, and the judgment was that there was absolutely no political interference whatsoever from the cabinet level on down with the Land Commission as it was composed under the New Democratic Party administration.

For that member to stand for only the second or third time in this session and dump that kind of poison on the floor of this committee is a disgraceful performance from any given MLA. It's absolutely disgraceful. I certainly hope that the honourable gentleman from Shuswap becomes more considerate in his remarks in this Legislature. No wonder he doesn't speak often, Mr. Chairman. He probably is very fearful to do so. He has this uncontrollable urge to slander people under the protection of this Legislature.

Secondly, Mr. Chairman, it cannot go only in passing, but perhaps it should go only in passing. The remarks made by the hon. minister last night were intemperate. They displayed a widespread and personal contempt for a number of people, not only an individual member of this Legislature. They were certainly remarks that were totally unbecoming a minister of the Crown. I hope he's had an evening to reflect on what he said and regrets it very much.

HON. MR. NIELSEN : Thank you, father.

MR. STEPHENS : Mr. Chairman, I would just like to ask a very brief question of the minister. I'd like to know whether or not his department has involved itself or is about to involve itself in the South Moresby wilderness proposal in the Queen Charlotte Islands. Do you feel that it's part of your responsibility to become involved in that matter, and if so, what have you done and what do you intend to do about it?

MR. CHAIRMAN : I'd like all members to take note of the fact that that was a perfect example of a question that is in order. Questions like that will be most welcome by the Chairman.

HON. MR. NIELSEN : The question is at the moment before the Ministry of Recreation and Conservation. I believe it will probably come before the Environment and Land Use Committee, of which I'm chairman, but at the moment representations have been made to the Ministry of Recreation and Conservation, and I believe representations have also been made to the Ministry of Forests. We have been advised of the interest of the various organizations in that area. I've spoken to some of the representatives and have advised them that certainly we would be prepared to look at their information and recommendations.

At the moment the Ministries of Recreation and Conservation and Forests are communicating with the persons who are proposing this wilderness area.

MR. STEPHENS : The minister says his ministry has made recommendations. Would you please tell us what recommendations you have made to the other ministries?

HON. MR. NIELSEN : We haven't yet.

MR. STEPHENS : All right, then let me ask you this. I understand that Mr. Foster of your ministry has done quite an extensive study on the area. Are you familiar with that study?

HON. R. NIELSEN : No, not that study. Do you want to ask any more questions? Do you have

[ Page 1869 ]

any more?

MR. STEPHENS : Well, I might have more questions, depending upon the answer to this one.

HON. MR. NIELSEN : I'm not familiar with the study on this area by Mr. Foster, although there my be one in existence.

MR. STEPHENS : Just let me point out to the minister that perhaps he should read it. It is a very excellent study. It was prepared for Parks Canada, and I'm sure that he could obtain a copy from his ministry without any difficulty at all. I would suggest to the minister it might be well worth his while to read it so that when he gets involved in this proposal he will have considerable knowledge on the subject.

HON. MR. NIELSEN : We don't establish parks.

MRS. WALLACE : Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your remarks regarding the question from the member for Oak Bay. But I would point out that in committee when we are discussing estimates is the only opportunity that we have to get into a discussion of the direction of government, and very often remarks from the opposition have to be a great deal more than just question and answer. it is not only the opportunity of the opposition to raise points during estimates, but it is also their obligation.

MR. CHAIRMAN : I appreciate your thoughts on the matter, hon. member. I would ask you to perhaps, if you feel strongly about it, review relevancy at your leisure. I'm sure it's in May's 19th edition.

MRS. WALLACE : As I say, I appreciate the problems you have, Mr. Chairman, with many of us at many times, and I will try to keep my remarks relevant.

MR. CHAIRMAN : I believe also that the Chair's remarks are addressed to all members of the House and not specifically to the official opposition. Please continue.

MRS. WALLACE : I have some grave problems trying to grasp just what is the position of the Minister of the Environment on a great many of the subjects that fall under his purview. He stood in the House last night - and I am very appreciative of the fact that he is not quite as arrogant as he was last night in his answers today - and indicated that he was very much in favour of the preservation of river estuaries. And yet, Mr. Chairman, I stood on the same platform with that minister in Duncan when he attempted to take a straw vote of the people attending that meeting to try to ascertain whether or not they were in favour of development in a specific estuary -namely, the Cowichan estuary.

Now I just don't understand a Minister of the Environment who can stand in this Legislature and say that he favours the protection of river estuaries and yet would involve himself in that kind of an exercise on a public platform - attempting to take a straw vote to find out whether or not the people who were attending that meeting were in favour of development in a river estuary. This is, to me, a complete disregard of his responsibilities. He is charged with the protection of the environment and, as such, that is his prime duty. Instead of that, we find him involved, as has been indicated, with the economic development aspect.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

He has been responsible, as much as any other person, for creating the kind of confrontation that is developing around this province which would make the general public think that if they're going to have economic development, we cannot protect the environment. He has created that kind of confrontation and it's a most unfortunate situation that we find ourselves in, because we can move in both directions, Mr. Chairman. He has created the impression that anyone who stands up and criticizes his inaction in protecting the environment is some kind of a heretic who is ill-informed, who hasn't done his research and who does not know what they're talking about.

I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that there are many very responsible organizations and groups and governments who are taking a stand that is quite contradictory to this minister's stand. I would point, for example, to a recent release from the federal government; it's entitled "Human Activity and the Environment." This release points out that man no longer has frontiers to which he can expand. There are no new frontiers and we must learn to live within our present confines and to live in harmony with our environment rather than in opposition to it.

That is a report which has been issued by the federal government of this country. This is not some offshoot, some heretic, some ill-informed body; this is a responsible government agency that has come out with this statement and has indicated that we must move in that direction. The Hon. Len Marchand, in

[ Page 1870 ]

speaking in an address that: he gave in February, said: "Preventing and control of environment damage has grown into a thriving industry in Canada, an industry that creates new jobs and technology that other nations are buying from us."

Protection of the environment is not something that is going to take away our jobs, Mr. Chairman; it's not something that's going to stifle our economy. Until that minister is prepared to recognize that fact and stand up and fight for the protection of the environment, I see very little purpose being served by him for the province of British Columbia and for the citizens of British Columbia. He is not prepared to take that stand. He is not prepared to come out and take a stand that will, in the long term, bring us far greater return than the short-term sort of approach that has been taken by this present government.

I'm concerned about what this minister and this government are doing in using their friends. You know, 1 have been put into a position of constantly having to monitor what goes on in the Cowichan estuary. As a result of that I have been put in a position of appearing to be opposed to the Doman Industries developments there. I have no quarrel with Doman Industries, but I do have a quarrel with a government that makes rules and regulations and then doesn't enforce them. I am concerned, Mr.

Chairman, when the minister tells me that he has now at long last decided to issue a cease and desist order; I am concerned about how long that minister was aware of what was happening in the Cowichan estuary. How long did he know that there was development taking place there that was contrary to his order-in-council? Did he deliberately sit on his hands until someone blew the whistle and made it necessary for him to act? I'm concerned about these kind of problems. I'm concerned about that minister who is more interested in how many suits he takes when he goes out on a tour than he is about the environment.

AN HON. MEMBER : Oh, oh!

MRS. WALLACE : Well, he has two executive assistants, and I see them running around the corridors of this building carrying.... Whenever the minister is leaving, his two executive assistants are traveling with him carrying his suits and his suitcases and his various....

MR. CHAIRMAN : Hon. member, that hardly relates to the administrative responsibilities of the minister.

MRS. WALLACE : Well, I'm concerned that he is more interested in this sort of object than he is in the protection of the environment. He's more interested in his own appearance than he is in what's happening to the environment.

You know, Mr. Chairman, there are many, many responsible groups around this province that are taking a responsible attitude toward the environment. I have spoken about the federal report; I've spoken about Minister Marchand.

The recent technical seminar of the Society of Engineering Technologists made their theme "Technology and the Environment." The spent their whole conference discussing how these two things go hand in hand. Those are the kinds of programmes that this minister should be associating himself with. Those are the kinds of activities that he should be directing his attention towards. Instead w find far more attention on putting 2, 4-D in the Okanagan lakes. I understand that now it is spreading to Cultus Lake.

If it's a question the minister wants, Mr. Chairman, I would like to know what his plans are for Cultus Lake. Is he preparing to go ahead and treat Cultus Lake with 2, 4-D? Because there has been some milfoil found in that area, I understand.

It's been mentioned that Hydro has been prepared to cut back and in many instances to desist from the use of 2, 4-D because of possible unknown hazards to human life from that substance. In my constituency Pacific Logging was all prepared to move in with a stump treatment of 2, 4-D. When new evidence presented itself, what was the action of Pacific Logging? They stopped. They said: "No, we will not go ahead with that programme." Yet the government of this province, under the leadership of that minister, who should be giving the kind of leadership to get more companies and more Grown corporations involved in being more aware of what is going on, is saying: "No, we are going ahead."

I have another specific question for the minister. This relates to land use. I understand that in South Surrey - an area that the minister should be familiar with - Hydro has a proposed Sunnyside location and they are looking for leases for minerals rights. This land is in the AIR. I'm wondering whether or not the minister is going to let this development go ahead. If Hydro gets the rights they are asking for there, generally speaking it is certainly not going to be in line with the Land Commission and the AIR. I would like his comments on what his stand is on that particular instance and into what position it has

[ Page

1871 ]

moved.

Naturally I want to talk a little bit about the Ladysmith harbour. The minister was good enough to meet with a delegation of local citizens who came to see him recently and he appeared very interested in what they had to say. He indicated at that time that he would visit the area and have a look himself. I'm wondering whether or not he has been there yet and what his comments are if he has seen the harbour first hand. There seems to be a rumour around that what is being asked for as a result of his committee which is reviewing this thing for log storage is no more than it was previously.

It is supposed to be a better location because it has moved out of some of the areas, but in fact it is an increase of approximately 50 acres.

When that delegation met with the minister and reviewed with him what has been happening in the Ladysmith harbour, I was very surprised that he seemed completely unaware of what was going on. Apparently he was unaware that transient logs were stored there. I don't know where the minister has been. I have raised this question every year since I have been in this House, but apparently he was unaware of it. At least that is what he told the delegation. He seems to be unaware of what is happening there.

He seem to be prepared to sit back and let the logging interests stymie any joint multiple use of that harbour until such time as it is completely dead. I'm wondering whether he has had a change of heart, whether he has been up there, whether he has reviewed that harbour and whether he is prepared to take some action to ensure that that harbour is protected.

The committee has had to operate by consensus at the instruction of that minister. It has gotten absolutely nowhere because two members of that committee have refused to agree to anything that the majority wants. Because they say no and because it has to be a consensus nothing has gone ahead. Of course, those two representatives represent the logging interests in the harbour.

Another point that I want to raise with the minister relates to his staff member who is charged with the responsibility of looking at land with a view to assembling land for recreation - in this particular instance, the recreational area at White Crown. I raised this matter under the Minister of Recreation and Conservation's (Hon. Mr. Bawlf'

s) estimates, and he assured me - and his staff assure me - that they would be prepared to look at this. But they can't do anything until they have the land released.

HON. MR. NIELSEN : Released from what?

MRS. WALLACE : This land is presently owned by Grown Zellerbach and MacMillan Bloedel. They are, I understand, prepared to make a swap. Now the original thinking was that they wanted virgin timber for logged-over land, but that was surmounted years ago, before this minister was responsible. Crown Zellerbach are not asking for that kind of exchange.

I've spoken with the chap who does the reviews of this. He indicated that he's been there - once. He thought he'd found the right place. He traveled alone. This was some four or five years ago; he hasn't been back. This is a continuing, long-standing problem.

It's an area that is much wanted by local residents. There is a committee set up that's really pushing for this. They don't want just a professional ski area. It's a family recreation area they're looking for, and they're most anxious to have that land freed up so that development can go ahead. Now I think that the man who is looking at these things is thinking in terms of some sort of professional ski area. That is not what these people have in mind, and I would urge the minister to have some input into this thing so we can get that land freed up for some kind of a family park. It's within an hour's drive of Victoria and would be a great boon to people who live on Vancouver Island.

I want to turn to another facet of the minister's responsibility and this lies in the field of water resources. I'm sure the minister is aware of the water licensing provisions which relate to surface water, but I wonder if the minister is aware that in this province we have absolutely no licensing provisions for ground water. I wonder if the minister is aware of the importance of ground water to many individuals and to many communities in this province. Ground water is very susceptible to being drained off by adjacent wells.

It's very easy to destroy a whole town's water supply by simply sinking another well for another purpose and draining that water away. I'm particularly concerned about this because of my own area and because of the [illegible] situation that we have in many parts of British Columbia, but particularly on Vancouver Island. We have a situation in the Cowichan Valley, for example, where the sole water resource of the North Cowichan municipality and the city of Duncan is ground water.

Now it's quite feasible that at the present time any industry - for example, a pulp mill -could come in and sink a well to provide water for that kind of an industry and drain away that entire resource of the residents living

[ Page 1872 ]

in that area.

What I'm asking, Mr. Chairman, is that we have some legislation to license ground water. I have contacted the people in the minister's ministry. We've had quite some correspondence on this. They tell me they are studying it, but it's a long way down the road before we're going to have any action. I suggest to the minister that that's not really good enough. We have been studying ground water for years in this province. His own ministry has been studying ground water. There've been extensive studies done.

One was done in the Prince George area; there have been studies done in the Cowichan Valley; there have been studies done by federal authorities; there have been studies done by American authorities. An American study that was done in 1971 recognized that they had to get on with the job in the States because if we got ahead of them here in Canada, we could spoil their source of ground water if we were to start licensing ground water here. It's been going on for a long time - the studies, the technology. The knowledge regarding how this water lies and how it can be tapped is well established.

As far as the legislative end of it, Mr. Chairman, we have ground- water licensing all around us. Alberta has ground water licensing; Washington state has ground-water licensing; Australia has ground-water licensing. The Acts are there; the legislation is there. It's working in other countries. I would urge the minister to move quite a bit more quickly to ensure that we protect this resource here in British Columbia.

We cannot let it go on with no restrictions. I live in an unorganized area where the only water supply is wells. Every time somebody moves into that area and puts down a well, somebody else's well goes dry. It's just not good enough to have this very valuable resource with no controls, no restrictions. We've seen fit to license surface water for a long, long time, and ground water is, at this point in time, equally important, if not more important. It's a potential future source, and we must have some control over that very valuable resource, that first resource as far as the citizens of British Columbia are concerned.

I would appreciate the minister's comments on that and my other questions.

HON. MR. NIELSEN : Certainly the members last comments about ground

water are well appreciated and shared by the. water resources branch of the

ministry. Indeed, they are moving on it quite quickly. I do not know if we can

expect legislation to be before us certainly not this session - but I would

think that we would very likely see regulations in place in the foreseeable

future. It no doubt will be very bureaucratic and quite expensive to implement

at the beginning. We are working with the well drillers' association and

other interested persons to determine how best to go about licensing well drillers,

the regulations necessary for that, and so on.

A significant portion of the population is served by wells - between 10 and 15 per cent are served by wells - and the topography in British Columbia makes it very difficult from a technical point of view to identify the extent of the aquifers and other situations. Many provinces and many states brought in legislation to deal with ground water because it is easier to do on the Prairies, as an example, than it is in British Columbia. Of course, the same need is not in B.C. as it is in some of the other provinces. But we're moving on that with all due haste.

The member discussed the Duncan meeting. I thought perhaps members of the House might be desirous of having the statements made by the member for Cowichan-Malahat completed rather than left hanging. I asked the 620 people in that meeting, or whatever number it was, on Valentine's Day in Duncan what their opinion was, because their opinion was not being heard We had the opinion of the local government; we had the opinion of the regional district; we had the opinion of the MIA; we had the opinion of one or two organizations.

But the Ministry of the Environment had not the opinion of the people who were living there, and certainly had never had the opportunity of finding out what the opinion was of those specific people who were interested enough to attend that meeting. So I asked them what their opinion was. I asked them who would be in favour - and that's what you mentioned - but I also asked them who would be opposed, which fills in what was said that evening.

One of the problems, I guess, with the people in that area is one which is common throughout the province and maybe throughout Canada. A lot of people may have an opinion but they just do not express it. After that meeting, certainly many, many people took an opportunity to offer their opinion. Prior to that perhaps not more than half a dozen had by way of letter, but they've certainly responded since then.

But the question was: "Are you in favour?" And the question was also asked: "Are you opposed?" That's getting some opinion from the people who had taken the time to come to that meeting and had expressed an interest in the future of the area. We've heard from many of

[ Page 1873 ]

them since.

The member mentioned, I believe, that stands have been taken on the Cowichan. Just for the information of the members in the House, stands indeed have been taken by levels of government on the Cowichan, but I am not aware of a stand having been taken on the Cowichan specifically by the federal government. However, the local government - it's North Cowichan - has advised me that they are in favour of limited development of the Cowichan estuary. The regional district - it's the Cowichan Valley regional district, I believe -has also advised by way of resolution that they are in favour.

The Indian band has advised by way of resolution that they are in favour. So as you've said, some have taken a stand. That report should be presented to us probably at the end of next month or soon thereafter.

The milfoil problem has spread from the Okanagan lakes, or at least in addition to the Okanagan lakes, to Cultus Lake and other waterways up the Fraser system. We have reasons to suspect that it's probably located elsewhere in the province. Perhaps we simply haven't found it yet because people may not use those relatively small lakes.

The two main concerns at Cultus Lake, I suppose.... The people who are concerned at the moment, the citizens, are those who are concerned about the threat to the recreational value of the lake. The other concern is with the people who are responsible for the fish hatchery nearby. We are working with the federal government on this issue and we have had some biologists in the area explaining to those persons immediately concerned what milfoil is and what kind of a problem it is. But no programme has been introduced at Cultus Lake at this time. The federal government is a major partner in determining what programme may be used.

The mineral rights on that land the member referred to in south Surrey would come under the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources. I really don't know what the intent is. You're talking about Hydro. It suggests perhaps some underground storage of natural gas or something. It may be ALR land but that's on top of the land, not the mineral rights. If they obtain the mineral rights, presumably you could still cultivate soil even though there's a cavity many many feet below. I presume that's what they were discussing in south Surrey.

Yes, I was in the Ladysmith harbour. The problem as outlined to us was not transient logs being stored but transient logs being sorted in the harbour. The people we discussed it with were concerned about the transient logs coming in and being sorted in that harbour and then being hauled out again. Many of them felt that they didn't mind logs coming in and being stored for purposes of providing logs for their own sawmills. There seems to be one or two particularly difficult spots in the harbour. One is Burleith Arm, where I think Pacific Logging sorts. That seems to be a very touchy problem.

The other is a proposed area which apparently is a very minimum environmental impact. The logs were stored there but the people don't want them because they live nearby. So that's being sorted out.

The advisory committee, I understand, has agreed to approximately 50 out of 75 recommendations rather than being in total disagreement, as you suggested. I believe they have also agreed that the problems that they have not recommended be resolved by the ministry, relative to the plan of the harbour, and they are going to have a look at the plan once it is in place.

I will have to do some research on the White Crown question. I believe Mr. Al Raine has been in some discussion either with yourself or others. From your remarks I think I heard the land is privately owned, which makes it a different matter and a bit of a more complicated matter. But I think Mr. Raine has probably provided some good information for the organization or individuals who are attempting to acquire that property for ski use. I guess the Minister of Forests would have something to say about it as well.

MRS. WALLACE : I would just like to follow up on the Ladysmith harbour, and I thank the minister for his answers. In connection with Ladysmith harbour he mentioned that there had been an agreement on X number of points. I think that to be very clear we should see just how that thing is operating. We had a proposal brought in by staff people because that committee could not come to a consensus on anything. So they were taking it point: by point - in fact, lease by lease. Certain things were being agreed to, sure. It was agreed that, for example, the marina should have the right to have their lease extended.

But then when it came to agreeing whether or not the present log lease in front of that area should be removed because in order to extend the marina you have to do that, that was not agreed to. So really the fact that you agreed to the marina extension didn't accomplish anything if you didn't agree to removing the log lease that was in front of it.

The oyster people were prepared to agree to the removal of certain oyster leases that were

[ Page 1874 ]

necessary for one small operator there to have his log boom close to his mill. They were agreeable to that even though it was valuable oyster land. At the same time, when it came to changing a forestry lease to allow the oyster production to expand or to allow a marina establishment to expand, the forestry people did not agree to that.

So that kind of an agreement - those 25 points - really don't amount to very much, Mr. Minister, when you have that kind of contradiction occurring. It is sort of breaking off a piece at a time, and you don't get an overall plan by taking one little piece like that at a time and agreeing or disagreeing. You get nothing but confusion and a completely disrupted harbour management scheme. That system of simply breaking off one piece at a time and trying to get agreement on that without looking at the overall context is just going to get you nowhere in an overall harbour management scheme.

MS. SANFORD : Mr. Chairman, I would like to very briefly raise a few issues with the minister this afternoon.

The first one relates to the Island Copper Mine on the northern part of Vancouver Island and the dumping of tailings into Rupert Inlet. The minister is well aware that the federal Environmental Protection Service expressed alarm some six months ago about the tailings that were being dumped into Rupert Inlet. The Environmental Protection Service at that time indicated that the damage to the environment from the tailings was extensive and that it may be irreversible. At the same time, we had conflicting opinions with respect to the environment at Utah Mines Ltd. on the northern part of the Island - Island Copper Mines.

Since the minister established a special committee to investigate the two separate findings which were so divergent, I would like to know what the situation is at the moment. I would assume, after six months, the people responsible - Dr. Buchanan, who is head of the environmental studies division within the Ministry of the Environment - would have had time to analyse the findings of the two groups and will be able to report to us today what the situation is.

If there is a problem, I am wondering whether or not the minister has considered

some alternate means of dealing with the mine tailings from Island Copper Mine

up near Port Hardy. What kind of proposals are being presented to him? How might

we be able to ensure that the operation of the mine can continue without damaging

the environment? I would really like to know what the most up-to-date information

is with respect to Rupert Inlet and the northern part of Vancouver Island.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

The other issue which I would like to raise, Mr. Chairman, is really an appeal to the minister. For approximately four or five years, there has been a group of people in the northern part of the Island who have been trying to get some Crown land so that they can develop it for housing purposes. It is a unique experiment in that the people themselves wish to develop this land and proceed with the subdivision, doing a lot of the work on their own. I know governments move slowly, Mr. Chairman, but I am appealing to the minister this afternoon to ensure that some of that red tape is cut.

Those people have been waiting now for five years, working with that organization known as the North Island Land Lovers, trying to get that land released out of the tree-farm licence so that they can develop their own subdivision up on the northern part of Vancouver Island.

The last thing I would like to raise with the minister at this time relates to a study that has taken 22 months to prepare on the Campbell River estuary. That study has been carried out by the Ministry of the Environment, Fish and Wildlife people, the Regional District of Comox-Strathcona and the Ministry of Economic Development. I have a few questions to ask with respect to that study.

The minister has now had the final study for a month or so. I'm wondering if he has had an opportunity to read it. If so, could he indicate to the House this afternoon the kind of action he might be recommending as a result of this very extensive study on the Campbell River estuary? Could he also tell the House why the Ministry of Economic Development decided to pull out of that study at an early date? The Ministry of Economic Development apparently just decided that the study was not worth doing, and I have not been able to determine why the ministry made this decision. I'm hoping that the minister can tell us this afternoon.

The other thing in relation to this study is the kind of action that the minister might contemplate. He talked earlier about his concern for estuaries. There is a very clear indication of the kind of damage that can be done to estuaries through the development of industry at Campbell River, and the whole object of the exercise, Mr. Chairman, was to try to recover that estuary. I'm wondering what kind of recommendations the minister is prepared to make to his cabinet colleagues

[ Page

1875 ]

with respect to relocation of the industry. What kind of costs is he prepared

to recommend to his fellow cabinet members in order to relocate industry there?

Is he prepared, perhaps, to meet with federal Fisheries people who are spending

a lot of taxpayers' money at this stage on a salmon enhancement programme?

Unless estuaries such as at Campbell River are cleaned up - brought back so

that fish can live in them - there is not much point in spending all of that

money on a salmon enhancement programme. I would appreciate the minister's

comments on those three issues.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Just before I recognize the minister, I hope the member wasn't misquoted in the paper today when it mentioned that it's your birthday.

HON. MR. NIELSEN : To the member for Comox: on the Island Copper, you're quite right. The committee was established, and the latest information from the two doctors is that they require a great deal of information, and they say it's going to take some months yet before they have their recommendations. It's perhaps a bit of an unfortunate situation associated with that in that the attitudes of two responsible groups would be so different in their conclusions and their reading of a situation.

They are quite different, and this is why we felt it was necessary that the Ministry of the Environment - provincially and federally - try and find out what the situation is, or at least what the two could agree on as to the situation, rather than having these very divergent opinions. They advise us it's going to take time; they must get more information.

I certainly don't have the licence before me, but it's my understanding that part of the licence for the dumping of those tailings included a bond and the possibility of land disposal as an alternative built into the licence. If the studies were to indicate that this should be halted immediately - presumably, if the mine is to continue operation -they would have to go to land disposal, which is not necessarily without problems itself, but it may be the alternative. And, if that were not possible, then who knows what someone would recommend.

The people you spoke of, those individuals who were looking for this Grown

land .... I believe the land is in a forest reserve at the moment. I spoke with

representatives of their group - I'm not sure which city it was - last year,

I believe, and we discussed some of their problems. I know that it was being

pursued at that time by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, which

was responsible for that type of subdivision, and Forests, about removing the

land from a forest reserve. It's not actively being logged or something,

but I think it's in a forest reserve. So I'll try and check to see what

the latest is. I haven't heard from these people since that time and I put

it out of my mind because I believed it was being properly handled.

The Campbell River estuary study has been available to me for a couple of weeks and I have had the opportunity to read through it. I've also asked some senior staff to summarize it and offer some critical comment, which they're doing.

I'm sorry, I don't know what your reference was to Economic Development. I'd have to ask them what their attitude was toward that. Rather than being that specific about the Campbell River estuary, perhaps Campbell River is a more dramatic example than some of the others, and history gets involved in this and traditions and attitudes, I suppose, which change over the time. Raven Lumber being situated where it is - right in the centre of that estuary - and having been there for a number of years, and different attitudes which have prevailed and different pressures on that area have caused what we know to be the problem today.

Relocation of industry naturally would be expensive and there is always the question of who should cover the cost. I suppose it will be argued by some people, if you're discussing relocation, that perhaps it would be better to allow the mill or the existing plant to expire, if you like, through the normal period of time where the mill would get to a point where it would have to be torn down anyway, rather than move it and re--establish at this time. So there are many, many alternatives that will be considered.

I think that the Campbell River estuary situation demands a remedy. I don't believe it can be left as it is, because as I suggested it's perhaps the worst example of what happens to estuaries over the years. I think some strong action must be taken. It is going to require a great deal of negotiation; it's going to require a great deal of co-operation.

I think the federal government should be part of the solution with specific reference to their salmonid programme. If the federal government were to advise us that they feel so strongly about the salmon resource in that river, then perhaps they should feel some responsibility in assisting that resource. Perhaps that would be by way of arrangements to relocate industry, move some of the log storage to other areas or to a dry-land storage. These are various situations which

[ Page 1876 ]

could present themselves. That will be presented to the Environment and Land Use Committee in the immediate future for consideration as well. We will then have reports to make public on what the recommendations are and what the decisions are, if any, of the government. It is not going to be resolved quickly - the actual estuary problem. I think what can be resolved fairly quickly is what direction we are going in.

MR. COCKE : I just have one or two words to say. I believe that this minister, having shown his attitude toward 2, 4-D in the interior as far as the Okanagan Lake chain is concerned, and having interpreted reports the way he has, is hooked on 2, 4-D. He's almost like the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) and his budworms.

It gets even closer to home- than one would imagine. I have before me a large picture taken on the lawns of the parliament buildings, where one of our employees is pushing around a 2, 4-D sprayer. It is marked right on it - 2, 4-D. We couldn't believe it until we blew it up, and there it was - 2, 4-D, probably right outside the Environment minister's window. Now I would worry, if I were he. It's one thing to have it pumped into the lakes in the Okanagan, but it's certainly another thing to have it right on our lawns where barefoot children might be playing.

I will send this picture over so that the minister can have a look at it, and see whether or not he wants to admonish any of his colleagues for their behaviour in this regard.

[Mr. Kerster in the chair.]

I would like to say one word about the whole question of the Okanagan Lake chain, and that is that I believe that for every plant you kill you create food for the next plants to grow, so that 2, 4-D actually takes nothing out of the system at all. All it does is create more nutrients for successive generations of plants. There have been many, many studies of this area.

I realize what a serious problem it is, and certainly I sympathize with any environment minister having to make decisions around how you are going to eliminate the problem. As a matter of fact I have a fair amount of land on one of those lakes - Skaha, on the east side, a beautiful place. I have some little weeds growing on my place already, or at least they're on our shoreline already. It's a worry, but I still hate to see us using something that might be detrimental to the health of people, and also something that in the long run may be about as valuable as spraying budworms.

One of the reasons they are stuck with their spraying system in the New Brunswick and Nova Scotia areas is because they have done it and killed all the parasites and all the predators. So now they are stuck with budworm spraying for eternity.

If you don't like what I'm talking about, why don't you just nip outside and enjoy the hall.

The lake system, I believe, deserves to be looked at a lot harder than it is. I know that many people are of the opinion that there are some uses that could be made of the weed. Certainly I recognize it is hardly a valuable food to be harvested for livestock, but there is a body of opinion that says it is one of nature's plants that is very high in methanol, which is something one could look at.

I do think that 2, 4-D is really not the answer and I do hope that one day we're going to seriously look at other ways of controlling this weed. I think we should also think of other ways of controlling the weeds in our lawns at the parliament buildings. You know, even in my own home, for years and years I've refused to use a weed spray. I get out and dig them up, and we've got plenty of manpower. You know, one of the best uses for the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Chabot) would be to get him out there digging up the weeds instead of using 2, 4-D on the weeds in the lawn of the parliament buildings.

HON. MR. NIELSEN : First I have some general comments. Certainly it would not come as a surprise if they're using 2, 4D because it is the most commonly used herbicide in the world. If I'm hooked on 2, 4-D perhaps it's because most of the wheat used for our bread in Canada is treated with 2, 4-D from the Prairies, and perhaps we're all hooked on it. The Prairies use it in great amounts, of course - about 7.5 million pounds last year.

Just a comment, though, to the member for New Westminster, because I think it's of some value to members. Alternatives to 2, 4-D use have been suggested and investigated for control, just to show that, indeed, 2, 4-D was not the first choice and the only choice and the last choice. There have been so many suggestions made.

Bottom barriers, polyethylene or mesh screen, or sand and gravel on the bottom of the lakes have been suggested and are being tried in selected areas.

Draw down the lakes and use electricity for control of the weeds - don't ask for technical details - electrocute the weeds. Someone had that idea and it was again looked into.

[ Page 1877 ]

Dry ice, lime, rock salt, various types of dredges - over 14 different types of dredges have been looked at or used. Many of these are from private individuals and others are more commonly used dredges, some of them very sophisticated, others not so sophisticated.

Machines, of course, have been considered -machines that went on almost indefinitely. There are still machines on stream which are being developed, machines which are being modified and monitored. Many thoughts have gone into it.

The last serious - I shouldn't say serious because it might offend others - major suggestion was by an organization who believed they could use a modification of Portland cement at a considerable quantity - I think about a ton an acre. They believe that it's the toxicity of that compound which would kill the weed. I don't whether it would cement the bottom of the lake as well. That's the latest one that's being considered. The gentleman has made a very serious approach and is in contact with the federal Ministry of Fisheries to determine if they'd have any objections to introducing this material to the lake.

There have been many, many ideas considered and 2, 4-D is the programme of this year.

MR. LEVI : I was at a meeting on Saturday. You might ask your official; he was there too. It was at Gibson's at Elphinstone High School, where the students put on a very good exhibition of all of the literature and also a great deal of illustration relating the problems of 2, 4-D. It was very well done. The ministers official who is sitting with him was there, and somebody from Environment Canada, and a Mrs. Doucet, who has some area of specialty in this.

The thing that came to me in talking to people about this was that one of the things that we have in Canada, which is probably a very serious shortcoming, is that we rely to a great extent in this province on Environment Canada to help us with standards and information and they, in turn, rely on the Environmental Protection Agency in the United States.

There was a very interesting point made that in our own ministry we do not

have a toxicologist, so that area of specialty is not there. It was also very

interesting that somebody pointed out that Canada's universities do not train

toxicologists. Somebody else has indicated that McGill University is now going

to put on a programme for the first time. All of our toxicologists are trained

in the United States. Perhaps the minister might indicate when he gets a chance

to answer just what the plans are for a toxicologist in his department.

There is a great deal of anxiety about 2, 4-D, partly, I think, because of the proliferation of information, some of it valid and some of it not. However, it occurs to me that we don't have at the moment the kind of backup people that can give us the right kind of answers. That's the difficulty.

But what I actually got up to speak about was garbage. Unfortunately the three ministers who might be affected by what I am going to say are in the House. They are the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Mair) - and I might just run straight into his estimates - the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Chabot) and the present minister.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI : Yes, Mr. Minister, I just want to talk about garbage. You may know - or maybe you don't know - that it has been strongly suggested that when we have trouble with landfills, we might start using some of the old, disused mine shafts. You are aware of that?

Interjection.

MR. LEVI : Yes, you'll be in the first tip when it happens.

HON. MR. CHABOT : Just like your speeches.

MR. LEVI : My God, we've got him roused now. Old Jobs!

I want to ask the minister if he will tell us just what his ministry is doing in respect to the whole question of garbage, because it does come under his responsibility. For instance, you recently had a seminar in Victoria, at which members of the minister's ministry were there, and they discussed the question of landfill and the cost that will accrue to people in the greater Victoria area as a result of the kind of operation that will have to be run in the next few years.

I am much more familiar with what goes on in the Greater Vancouver Regional

District. Just to give the minister some idea of what we are talking about,

there's approximately 500,000 to 600,000 tons of garbage that have to be

disposed of in the Greater Vancouver Regional District area each year. The average

cost of disposing of that is something in the order of $35 a ton. That's

to collect it, which is the major cost; and then you have to transport it, which

is probably in the order of about $6 to $7 a ton; and then you have to dispose

of it in the landfill, which is probably another $4

[ Page 1878 ]

to $5 a ton.

One of the things that concerns me is that there is a great deal of discussion going on in the waste disposal industry, or the garbage industry - whichever term you prefer - as to what alternatives there might be. Now back in the east, particularly in Ontario, the govern-ment of Ontario has entered into some agreements with one of the very large, multinational corporations, Browning Ferris Incorporated. They're looking at an alternative mechanism for disposing of garbage. My concern is that, presumably, we in British Columbia will be looking at these alternative mechanisms as well.

We come then to the question of whether, in fact, we are going to leave the disposal of garbage - in the main, landfill operations -in British Columbia as it is now. Or are we going to see a greater involvement of private industry? In order to do many of the alternative methods of disposal - if they go into pyrolysis or other kinds of sorting operations - takes a great deal of money. Now Browning Ferris received altogether $13 million from the Ontario government, and it was for an experimental resource recovery operation. This was to separate the garbage and that kind of thing.

Whatever you go into - if you go into pyrolysis, which is the heating and the sorting of all this garbage - you're getting into very large sum of money. If that's the case, that money -, and we've had examples of this both in the United States and in eastern Canada, particularly in relation to Browning Ferris Incorporated - is, presumably, not coming from the corporation. This money comes from the government. Now I put it to you, Mr. Minister, that we must get into a debate, into a discussion in terms of the garbage industry, as to whether in fact it should not be considered to be a public utility.

As we have to face some of the larger problems of disposal, we're going to require more infusions of money from the government area.

In a recent study that was done by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - and they have what is called "A Decision-Maker's Guide in Solid Waste Management" - they have a

chapter which is certainly worth bringing to the attention of people in his ministry. I am sure he knows about this; he has a very competent young man who is working on this in there, Mr. Giles. In one

section of this book, "Public or private ownership and operation of processing facilities, " they discuss this question. At the end they have a conclusion, which I just want Lo read - it's not very long:

"It is the responsibility of the public sector to ensure that needed processing facilities are provided and are operated in an environmentally acceptable manner, whether or not they are actually owned and operated by a unit of government. In deciding between private and public operation and ownership of a given facility, a city must evaluate factors such as the ability to raise capital, the degree of technological risk involved, the management expertise required and the expected operating cost."

The projections in the GVRD are something in the order of 800,000 tons by about the year 1990. It may not be that the best way to approach this is simply to look for landfills that are larger, that have a longer life. We have Lo look at the same time for other methods of disposal. It has even been suggested - and not in any facetious way - that we shoot the garbage out into space. That was one of the proposals that was dealt with in a very serious way by one conference.

But the other thing is - and this is why I am happy that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is here - that not only in terms of the consumer do you pay 16 cents to 18 cents on every dollar you spend for all of that packaging, but you are also paying money, as a taxpayer, to dispose of that packaging. They get you coming and going.

There has to be some view expressed by the government agency, particularly the minister. What are they doing about it? I know that from time to time they attend conferences. What views does the ministry have in respect to the whole question of landfills?

We have had a number of problems. We presumably still have the problem up in the estuary at Squamish where they want to build a landfill. I would like the minister to tell us what his views are on this. What studies are being done? How many personnel does he have that are looking into this? This is a very important area because it deals with the whole question of health; it deals with the environment; it deals with the whole question of future cost on this. It doesn't matter whether it is private or public; in the final analysis, most of the money is going to come from the public purse.

That appears to be the experience in the United States and in eastern Canada. If that happens, then what we are simply doing is providing those huge government grants again to those multinational corporations. There is one national corporation in Canada, Laidlaw Transport, that is involved in this and is operating in a big way in British Columbia through some subsidiaries.

There are other issues which are not relevant to the minister's estimates - the ones

[ Page 1879 ]

where the debate goes on between municipalities as to whether the municipality should collect it or whether the private people should get contracts. But the major issue I think the minister has to address himself to is that down the road, in terms of the whole issue of waste disposal, we are talking about large sums of public money. The money will have to come from the public, from the taxpayers, from the governments by way of grants. I would like to know from the minister just what is the thinking in terms of his ministry on this whole issue of waste management.

HON. MR. NIELSEN : Mr. Chairman, the whole concept of waste management is reaching a new high profile. Garbage is big business, there's no question about that. It's extremely costly. We are looking at waste management as part of our responsibilities in the Ministry of the Enviroment.As I mentioned yesterday, we are attempting to look upon this waste as a resource of some kind for ultimate use, usually to convert it to energy or to reclaim whatever is possible through some pretty sophisticated methods which are available but very expensive at the present time.

The common habit in British Columbia is that waste landfills are usually operated in a public way. There are a few private companies, sure. Some of the public landfills are operated by a private company.

Landfills are beginning to give us increasing problems, including Richmond, which has lots of problems and more to come. The leaching problems are well documented and common to most landfills. There is the simple problem of running out of room. It's hard to believe in a province of our size that we don't have room. One would think that's ridiculous. Garbage itself is a problem. We also, believe it or not, are running out of room for other types of wastes which are being placed - hog fuel and other wood waste. I think we can utilize that as well.

We have a relatively small number of people pursuing this question at the present time but they are people who are quite competent. But it will not be the responsibility only of that small group to offer resolutions. We intend to modify our ministry to have a specific department looking after waste management. Rather than consider the materials to be garbage, we're going to look at it as waste management for utilization wherever possible.

I don't know what the future will bring but I would think that probably in the not too distant future we will see less and less of landfills as we know them today for several reasons. Health is one, pollution is another and running out of space is a third. But also as the economy provides, we will be able to get a very good return from utilizing this garbage for other purposes. British Columbia perhaps only has a few locations where you could readily convert garbage for heat by way of steam or electricity because of the quantity. GVRD is one example. They have enough quantity to actually get a plant operating.

We do have some excellent suggestions before us. We do have some very competent people reviewing that and analysing how it is done elsewhere. L think we will be in a very good position to move on that very, very soon.

Your comment on your trip to Gibsons and the lack of a toxicologist is very appropriate. We took over when the administration of pesticides was transferred to the Ministry of the Environment. There was a staff of five. We have modified that to a staff of 19. 1 understand that of the 19 there is no toxicologist. We do have a toxicologist on our appeal board - Dr. Godolphin from the University of British Columbia and the Vancouver General Hospital. I'm curious now more than anything about why there wouldn't be toxicologists engaged with our environmental lab at UBC.

Perhaps there is and we haven't identified them as such. But I certainly agree with you that toxicology is one of the most important aspects of