1986 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 33rd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, MAY 6, 1986

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

8077 ]

CONTENTS

Municipalities Enabling And Validating Amendment Act, 1986 (Bill

25). Hon. Mr. Ritchie

Introduction and first reading –– 8077

Oral Questions

Louisiana-Pacific plant. Mr. Williams –– 8077

BCR derailment. Mr. Reynolds –– 8077

Power and freight rates for Louisiana-Pacific. Mr. Williams ––

Soliciting practices of funeral homes. Mr. MacWilliam –– 8078

Social housing allegations. Mr. Blencoe –– 8078

Expo 86. Mr. Michael –– 8078

Social housing allegations. Mr. Blencoe –– 8078

Partners in Enterprise advertising. Mr. Nicolson –– 8079

Mining stock transactions. Mr. Macdonald –– 8079

Decline in commercial construction. Mr. Williams ––

Hotel evictions. Hon. Mr. Kempf replies –– 8079

Tabling Documents –– 8080

International Commercial Arbitration Act (Bill 20). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 8080

Mr. Lauk –– 8081

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 8081 Committee

of Supply: Ministry of Environment estimates. (Hon. Mr. Pelton)

On vote 25: minister's office –– 8081

Mrs. Wallace

Mr. MacWilliam Mr. Rose

Mr. Williams Mr. D'Arcy Mr. Michael Mr. Blencoe

Accountants (Management) Amendment Act, 1986 (Bill PR401). Mr. Reynolds

Introduction and first reading –– 8102

Commercial Arbitration Act (Bill 22). Second reading. Hon. Mr. Smith

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 8102

Mr. Cocke –– 8102

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 8102

TUESDAY, MAY 6, 1986

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce to the

House today David Brosz, a constituent from Courtenay. David is

currently doing some work for the Courtenay-Comox Valley Record, a

newly established newspaper in the area. I would like the House to make

him welcome.

MR. MOWAT: Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure to introduce to the House today,

in the members' gallery, Mr. Jake Paetkau and Edith Wiens, members of the Marpole-Richmond

Sportsmen's Association, who do a great deal of work in our community, and Mr.

and Mrs. Art Wiens from Sidney, formerly from Kitimat. I would ask the House

to make them welcome.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I would like to reintroduce to the House

a gentleman who has been reintroduced before, but not for a long time: the former

member for Omineca, Mr. Shelford.

Introduction of Bills

MUNICIPALITIES ENABLING AND VALIDATING AMENDMENT ACT, 1986

Hon. Mr. Ritchie presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Municipalities Enabling and Validating Amendment Act, 1986.

Bill 25 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.

Oral Questions

LOUISIANA-PACIFIC PLANT

MR. WILLIAMS: Can the Minister of Industry and Small Business

Development advise the House when he was first involved with respect to

the question of the loan for $25 million interest-free to

Louisiana-Pacific?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to take that question as notice, check my diary and bring the answer back.

MR. WILLIAMS: Further, Mr. Speaker, statements were made by

the former minister of trade with respect to competition from the

states of Oregon and Minnesota and the province of Alberta that he

claimed were very strong and difficult and that he was competing with

and that's why he provided such a generous loan. Can the minister

advise us what checking he did regarding those statements or

suggestions?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to take

that question as notice, check my diary and the notes of my meetings

and come back with a full answer at the earliest possible time.

MR. WILLIAMS: The minister is then saying that these matters

were not checked before they made a $25 million zero-percent loan. He

is saying that he didn't carry out those analyses that he doesn't

remember?

Can the minister advise the House if he investigated the question of

the machinery for this operation? Eighty percent of the machinery for

waferboards is produced in Vancouver, in this province, yet he was

willing to loan to a company that was going to use German technology

that only 20 percent of the world uses? Has he investigated that

question?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, yes.

MR. WILLIAMS: Can the minister advise why he made the

decision with respect to funding a program that would not benefit

British Columbia manufacturers?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: The member is wrong, and I would be glad to bring a further full answer when I come back with the question taken as notice.

MR. WILLIAMS: Could the minister advise the House what

investigations he made of the impact of this kind of generous subsidy

on our own plywood industry in British Columbia and plywood operations

in the northeast part of the province, which don't have the benefit of

such generous terms, even though they are indigenous companies?

Can the minister advise why funding was not entertained under the

ERD agreement with respect to Louisiana-Pacific, where we would have

had federal participation in the program?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Answer it. It's a new question.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: It isn't a new question, it is a

supplementary question, and I'll answer it in the fullness of time and

with a very full reply.

MR. WILLIAMS: Will the minister tell us what the criteria

were for this loan? Will the minister tell us whether this was a

backroom deal? Isn't it time that he confessed?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. WILLIAMS: Isn't it time he levelled with this Legislature?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The question is out of order.

MR. MACDONALD: Supplementary.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. There is no supplementary to a question that's out of order.

BCR DERAILMENT

MR. REYNOLDS: I have a question for the minister in charge of

B.C. Rail. In view of the derailment in West Vancouver yesterday, could

the minister advise this House what type of investigation will be

taking place into that derailment, outside of the offices of B.C. Rail?

[ Page 8078 ]

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, the investigations and

inspections of B.C. Rail are conducted on an independent basis by the

Ministry of Transportation and Highways of the provincial government.

That investigation will take place, and I should advise the member that

inspections are made on an unannounced basis frequently by the Ministry

of Transportation and Highways as far as B.C. Rail is concerned.

POWER AND FREIGHT RATES FOR LOUISIANA-PACIFIC

MR. WILLIAMS: To the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum

Resources, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister advise whether B.C. Hydro is

entertaining lower power rates for Louisiana-Pacific?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: No, I can't. I'll check that out — take it as notice.

MR. WILLIAMS: A question for the minister responsible for

B.C. Rail, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister advise the House whether they

are entertaining lower rates than the published freight rates for BCR

for Louisiana-Pacific?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, certainly not to my

knowledge. It seems to me that the BCR was deregulated, and rates are

negotiated by the BCR with shippers all up and down the line.

[2:15]

SOLICITING PRACTICES OF FUNERAL HOMES

MR. MacWILLIAM: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the

Attorney-General. The Kelowna General Hospital has been forced to

change the locks on its morgue in an attempt to halt local funeral home

employees from making unauthorized visits in search of customers —

quite seriously. Will the Attorney-General advise whether he had

decided to investigate the commercial practices of funeral homes that

harass bereaved relatives and engage in other unsavory and unethical

commercial practices?

HON. MR. SMITH: No I haven't, but it's a stiff reminder for me to look into it.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the minister,

and I would suggest that members of the House take it in the serious

manner it deserves.

In some cases relatives have been receiving calls from the local

funeral home regarding disposition of the corpse before they were even

aware of the death. Relatives of the deceased have been hounded with

unsolicited calls within hours after a loved one's death. In view of

the strong emotions associated with a death in the family, has the

Attorney-General considered more stringent regulation of the commercial

practices of funeral home operators in order to eliminate such

unscrupulous, and, I emphasize, unethical behaviour?

HON. MR. SMITH: No, I haven't, Mr. Speaker, and I would need

more particulars. I would be happy to look into the matter and get back

to the member and bring an answer to the House.

SOCIAL HOUSING ALLEGATIONS

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

of Municipal Affairs. On March 12 of this year the minister made

serious allegations regarding conflict of interest in social housing.

Those were the minister's words. He repeated them outside the house,

and a commission of inquiry that was established by this government

found no evidence whatsoever to substantiate the minister's charges. In

view of the serious nature of this matter, has the minister decided to

take the honourable course for members who make wild unsubstantiated

allegations and apologize to the housing organizations and non-profit

societies in this province.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: No.

EXPO 86

MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the Minister of

Tourism a question. Is it too late to put an additional pavilion into

the Expo site? I'm getting a lot of inquiries about the province of

Manitoba from people visiting the site.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, as acting Minister of Tourism

I'll take the question as notice and report back to the House whether

we have any space available.

SOCIAL HOUSING ALLEGATIONS

MR. BLENCOE: I have a question for the Minister of Housing.

The Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing made similar allegations about

the same type and — in his words — rip-off of expenditures of money in

social housing. A commission of inquiry was held, and no evidence

whatsoever was found to substantiate the minister's allegations. In

view of the fact that no such evidence was found, will that minister do

the honourable thing and apologize to those organizations that deliver

affordable housing in the province of British Columbia?

HON. MR. KEMPF: That member continues to attempt to mislead

this House; he has done that again today. The member knows full well

that the report brought in by the commission of inquiry was an interim

report, and that further reports will be brought in and brought down.

I'm sure, when those reports are in fact tabled, they will have the

answers that that member looks for.

MR. BLENCOE: Thank you. I can only assume, then, that those

were interim allegations, Mr. Minister. If you can't do the honourable

thing....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. This is not a time to lecture

other members of the House, hon. member. It's question period. The

member has a question — put the question.

MR. BLENCOE: A question to the minister. If the minister cannot do the honourable thing and apologize in this House....

Interjections.

[ Page 8079 ]

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: Be seated.

Hon. members, this is question period. It is a time for questions.

When members are advised by the Chair, they should at least have the

courtesy to listen to the advice that the Chair gives so that the Chair

does not have to take time in question period to bring to members'

attention what the rules of the House are.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. SPEAKER: Further questions?

MR. BLENCOE: A question to the minister. In that the

allegations have not been proved and he refuses to do the honourable

thing, and in that he has made blatant statements about social housing

and community groups, will the minister do the honourable thing and

resign his seat?

PARTNERS IN ENTERPRISE ADVERTISING

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, I stand here trembling a little, but I'll ask a question to the Minister of Post-Secondary Education.

The minister's genial smile is now appearing in a saturation

television and ad campaign — and I'm sure that everyone has seen it —

which flaunts the Social Credit's current Partners in Enterprise theme

and slogan. Would the minister advise whether taxpayers' money has been

used to pay for this ad campaign?

HON. R. FRASER: I am sure the member would like to know that

every minister, in fact every member of the House, should be promoting

the interests of British Columbia during this great year of Expo.

MR. NICOLSON: A new question. Will the minister report to this House how much this campaign will be costing the taxpayers?

HON. R. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I'm sure that the member will

have lots of ways of finding out the answer to all the questions he has

with respect to government spending of public money.

MINING STOCK TRANSACTIONS

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, on June 25, 1985, I asked the

Attorney-General about New Cinch Uranium and the Attorney-General

replied that there was a body, a dead person. There was $100 million

raised based on a deceptive material statement of fact signed by

Canarim. I asked the Attorney-General what he would do about it and he

said he was looking into the matter. Has the Attorney-General got a

statement?

HON. MR. SMITH: No, it's been a long look.

MR. MACDONALD: Just so we understand each other, is that all

the public of the province of British Columbia are entitled to know

about what happened in the New Cinch Uranium case?

HON. MR. SMITH: Well, I'm sorry that the member appears to be about

as disinterested in the answer a year ago as I was in the question, but I overlooked

the question. I will look at it and bring an answer. I'm sorry that that happened.

DECLINE IN COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION

MR. WILLIAMS: To the Minister of Industry. There's an

indication that in this quarter commercial construction has increased

119 percent in Quebec, 83 percent in Saskatchewan, 52 percent in

Manitoba. It has declined in the last quarter in British Columbia. Can

the minister advise what studies he's carried out and what thoughts he

has in terms of dealing with this problem in British Columbia so that

we can get construction workers back to work?

MR. SPEAKER: I would advise the member than an open-ended question elicits an open response.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Thank you for your kind permission, Mr.

Speaker. I would be happy to have the advice that that member seems to

have, and if he would table the information that he has on his desk, so

that I could study it in the light of the Coquihalla Highway

construction, which is well on its way, of the Annacis Island bridge

construction, which is the most marvellous structure in the world in

terms of new technology; of the construction jobs which have been going

on and are going on at Expo, which is going to be the greatest fair the

world has ever seen, of the construction jobs over the next 20 years,

after Expo, as we develop B.C. Place into the greatest downtown

redevelopment in the world. I'd be very glad to share all of that

information with that member, as I'm sure he'll share the statistics

that he has on his desk with me.

HOTEL EVICTIONS

HON. MR. KEMPF: Several days ago I took a question on notice

from the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe), who asked several

questions about B.C. Hydro's Fraser Hotel. In answer to the member —

and I think it's indicative of the kind of research that's put into

questions from that side of the floor — Hydro owns no Fraser Hotel.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, in the interest of

even-handedness from the Chair, Mr. Speaker, the Chair inadvertently —

and it's little wonder, with the din and hue and cry during question

period — missed the statement made by the Minister of Lands, Parks and

Housing (Hon. Mr. Kempf) in which he accused the member for Victoria of

attempting to mislead the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the Chair overlooked the remark,

just as the Chair yesterday overlooked a similar statement by the

second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams). Do you wish to

continue on the point of order?

MR. LAUK: Yes, I do, Mr. Speaker. The point is that each

individual member must be treated as an individual member in the

chamber. If the recipient of the remark from the minister was the

member for Vancouver East, perhaps, Mr. Speaker, with respect, your

point is well taken. I'm raising this issue as a question of decorum

and behaviour in the House. In my brief absence from this chamber,

things

[ Page 8080 ]

have deteriorated. I wanted to have some assurance

from the Chair that this disgraceful conduct on the part of the

treasury benches will not continue.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the Chair has listened carefully

to the remarks of the member. I'm sure that upon reflection both

members toward whom the remarks were directed will reflect upon their

statements in the House and make sure that those particular words are

not used again.

Hon. Mr. Brummet tabled the 1984-85 report of the British Columbia Utilities Commission.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill 20.

INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION ACT

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to move second

reading of the international commercial arbitration bill. This bill

will provide modern and comprehensive rules for the conduct of

international commercial arbitrations in this province for the first

time, and indeed, for the first time in this country. The legislation

that we're considering here is essentially the model United Nations

legislation which was prepared by 61 states in 18 international

organizations, and we're the first jurisdiction in the world to take

this plunge. The introduction of this act, together with the Foreign

Arbitral Awards Act that we passed in the last session and together

with the establishment of our own international commercial arbitration

centre, underlines the strong commitment of this government to provide

this sophisticated new service to the international business community

located in Vancouver.

Mr. Speaker, there is a growing practice among international

businesses to look to arbitration as a method of resolving disputes out

of contractual relationships, rather than looking to the courts of the

respective jurisdictions. This method of dispute resolution has been

perceived to be very attractive in the international context for a

number of reasons, the first of which is that many foreign nationals

are highly skeptical of submitting to the laws and judicial system of

another state with whom they're doing business, and secondly, that

arbitrations can offer speedier and less costly resolution together

with a practical input into the decision making, because arbitrators

often are people who have some familiarity with a particular commercial

undertaking. There is a need also to draw upon experts to an extent not

available in judicial proceedings, to deal with the complexity of the

subject matter in these disputes. So you can see, Mr. Speaker, that the

creation of a hospitable legal environment for international

arbitrations will encourage international business to attend at our

centre in Vancouver to resolve their disputes, and at the same time of

course these people will be exposed to the business and commercial

opportunities and indeed the recreational and residential opportunities

that are available in this great province.

[2:30]

The readings that we have received from international business, from

lawyers who are involved in practising international commercial law and

from the arbitration community around the world is that there is strong

interest in what we're doing in British Columbia. What we're doing is

pioneering, really, because for the first time we will have persuaded

the Canadian government to adopt the United Nations convention on

foreign arbitral awards — a convention that was passed in the mid-50s

and has never been adopted by Canada, and that is in the process of

being adopted by the Canadian parliament. When we open our own

international arbitration centre in Vancouver on Monday next, Mr.

Crosbie will be present in Vancouver and we hope that he will bring us

the news that parliament, with the unanimous consent of all three

parties in the federal parliament, will be passing the bill that will

adopt the UN convention. It is then necessary for us to proceed with

our own bill which adopts a model law which will apply to these

international disputes.

In the United States of America, a place which is probably more

active than any other country in the world in commercial arbitration,

there are very few international arbitrations taking place.

International commercial arbitration does not take place in the United

States, because businessmen from other countries are very loath to

submit to the possible intrusion of American courts. While you have a

few arbitrations in New York, the Americans are largely in the domestic

arbitration business, and they go for their arbitrations to London or

Paris or Stockholm or Hong Kong or Geneva. The Americans we have talked

to would be most interested in having disputes involving an American

customer on the one hand and a foreign customer on the other hand

resolved in an arbitration centre in British Columbia. So we expect

that it will be a very popular centre and that this legislation will

provide a framework for Americans to come here, as well as people doing

business on the Pacific Rim and in Europe. The time is right for this

initiative, Mr. Speaker.

The bill itself I just will very briefly highlight. It provides

procedural and substantive rules for international commercial

arbitration conducted in the province and for the enforcement of

international commercial arbitration awards no matter what country they

were made in. The code has in the main the ability of the parties to

override its provisions if they wish to do so. The hallmark of the

arbitration process is the ability of the parties to agree to the

method of the resolution of their dispute. Except in a limited number

of essential provisions, the parties can agree to their own process.

There are some exceptions to that.

The second major aspect of the legislation is that it specifically

limits the ability of our domestic courts to intervene in the arbitral

proceedings, except in the manner that's set out in the act and which

is agreed to by international arbitrators. There are some areas where

the court has to intervene. It cannot leave everything to the parties

or to the rules of a tribunal. The grounds for a judicial intervention

are clearly specified, and are quite different from the old arbitration

legislation in place in this province. The changes that we made are

absolutely essential to attract international arbitration parties to

come here and submit to this jurisdiction. There are provisions, for

instance, that secure the protection of the court where it's necessary

and required, in such instances as the necessity of appointing an

arbitrator if the mechanism for appointment fails or breaks down. There

is some limited basis for challenging an arbitrator as well, or for

where an arbitrator is unable to act or fails to act, and there are

provisions that the court can assist with the taking of evidence

[ Page 8081 ]

and with the consolidation of arbitrations, which

is an important power. The ICC arbitrations and other arbitrations in

Europe don't have that kind of provision.

The court may set aside an award only on the very limited grounds

set out in

section 34, just as the court can refuse to enforce an award

only on the grounds that are listed in sections 35 and 36. But the bill

provides a very simple mechanism for the enforcement of international

commercial arbitration awards. We have made some changes to the

UNCITRAL model law, but basically, with a few improvements, it is the

model law that has had so much care and consideration put into its

drafting.

I commend the bill to the House, and I urge its speedy passage.

MR. LAUK: The opposition agrees in principle with Bill 20.

HON. MR. SMITH: I thank the official opposition and my

opposite number, the member for Vancouver Centre, for his support of

this bill. I am very pleased that it is proceeding as a bipartisan

measure.

I move second reading. Motion approved.

Bill 20, International Commercial Arbitration Act, read a second

time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration

at the next sitting of the House after today.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT

(continued)

On vote 25: minister's office, $211,255.

MRS. WALLACE: I want to express to the minister my

appreciation of his concern about my health and to assure him that my

health is excellent. A week ago, when we first started discussing these

estimates, because I was a bit hoarse he may have been hopeful that I

was just coming down with the flu and that it would have relieved him

from this sort of experience. But unfortunately for the minister, I was

just recovering, and my health is excellent.

Mr. Chairman, I think it only right that I compliment the minister on one thing

that he has done. It took him quite a long time, but he finally did it: he removed

the $25 fee for appeals against pesticide permits. There has been quite a lot

of discussion about these permits and the appeals and so on, and I wonder if

perchance the minister or his deputy could tell me whether or not any permits

have been cancelled as a result of those appeals.

HON. MR. PELTON: We don't have precise numbers that I can

give the hon. member, Mr. Chairman, but I can tell her that many

permits have been modified in some way, shape or form or tightened up

or made more stringent. But very few have been cancelled outright.

MRS. WALLACE: I expect that "very few" is actually one great

big zero, and it would be interesting to have that on the record. It

seems to me that it is very difficult to be successful in appealing a

permit. Sure, you get some conditions put on it, but once the decision

is made to issue a permit, that seems to be it. You may get a little

stricter control or limit on time and so on.

I would like to ask you specifically about the permit that was

issued for the Garlon in the Hudson Bay Flats area. That's an

experimental chemical. The minister mentioned earlier that sometimes

it's difficult because of the trade name to get the components, but my

understanding is that this is very similar to 2,4,5-T. It has one less

or one more chlorine molecule. The intent was to do some massive

spraying there, granted on an experimental basis, over a food fishery

source for the native people in that area, and over the natives

themselves — and without concern, apparently, for the streams involved.

The whole thing ground to a halt because of the protest, but basically

there was never a moratorium put on it. My understanding is that the

weather actually stopped the spraying from going ahead. This was to be

a continuing thing, and I wonder if the minister can tell me whether it

is their intention to start that up again, or whether he's going to

intervene and see that that doesn't go forward.

HON. MR. PELTON: I just happen to have some information here

on that. It's relatively current, I believe. This was in the Skeena

River valley you refer to...?

Interjection.

HON. MR. PELTON: The federal and provincial permits were

issued for the conducting of the environmental studies to several sites

west of Terrace. The research program represented approximately half

of a major joint federal and provincial effort — approximately $2

million — to identify the environmental risks that might be caused by a

herbicide currently used in force, called Roundup, and another being

reviewed towards registration, which was Garlon, which you mentioned.

The trials were postponed when the local Indian band was granted a

temporary court injunction halting the spraying. The current status is

that the trials have been withdrawn by the Forest Pest Management

Institute of Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, following a letter to the

leader of the Kitsumkalum Indian band. An appeal against the temporary

court injunction did not take place as originally scheduled on February

18, 1986, so the whole thing is on hold.

Dow Chemical and a private research contractor plan to test Garlon,

likely at the UBC research forest north of Haney in Maple Ridge in

1986, to generate environmental data to support registration in the

forest. The current experimental designs call for overspraying a tiny

stream to simulate a worst-case scenario, as was originally planned in

the Skeena River near Terrace. Based on the success of this court

injunction, there is some concern that some other anti-pesticide groups

may in the future use the courts in the same way, which is their

privilege, but at the moment the thing is on hold. The initiative to

start it up again or to continue it would have to come from the federal

government.

MRS. WALLACE: I thank the minister for his answer, and I'm

glad that this has come to fruition and that it will not be used in

that area. But I wonder if you've spoken to the residents of Maple

Ridge. I would think you would have some concern about that, Mr.

Minister. How are they going to feel about Garlon being used there? Is

this stream a fishbearing stream? It's certainly right in your back

yard. I would

[ Page 8082 ]

expect that you could find yourself in a bit of chemical hot water as a result of this going ahead there.

You know, we have seen ministers before in this province forbid the

use of certain chemicals, even though they have been passed for use in

Canada. I don't know why we should become a testing ground for Dow

Chemical. Wouldn't it be much more practical to do some testing in

alternative means of brush control, rather than using chemicals all the

time? We get one that gets into disrepute.… The older a chemical is,

the longer it's been around, the more evidence mounts. That was the

case with DDT, with 2,4,5-T. The evidence is mounting against 2,4-D.

So then what the chemical company does is just play around a little bit

with the chemical formula, come up with a new trade name, and then

you've got a new chemical that has nothing against it, because it

hasn't been around. So it comes in.

It seems to me that this minister has the responsibility to

protect people in British Columbia, particularly his own constituents,

from being guinea pigs for the use of a new chemical. I submit that he

does have the power to ensure that that chemical is not used for

testing purposes or in any other way here. He has that power if he

wants to use it.

[2:45]

We are hearing a lot about proposed helicopter spraying of Roundup in the Kamloops

area. I wonder whether or not there have been any appeals against those permits

and what the status of those permits is. The residents there are saying that

the "squirt-and-hack" method could be used as opposed to the helicopter

spraying. They're concerned about the fish streams and about the people. So

I wonder what the status of that Kamloops situation is.

HON. MR. PELTON: First of all, I must point out as forcefully as I can

to the hon. member that the testing of Garlon is only a proposal at this point

in time. Certainly wherever the test is held we'll go through all the proper

routines to ensure that everyone is made fully aware of what's happening and

what's going on. Of course, the normal appeal processes will be in place.

I think the member also knows that this government has banned

certain pesticides. We certainly haven't been negligent in that regard.

That has been done, and it will be done again if and when it is

warranted. I suggest that what we're looking for, with particular

reference to the use of herbicides in the forests, is the completely

unharmful way of dealing with the problem. That's what we're trying to

do. We'll never find these things out unless we test them to see where

we stand. We are well aware of our responsibilities in this regard and

will continue to operate in that way.

The current status of the Kamloops aerial spraying issue is that the

permit was suspended. There has been no spraying. I don't know for how

long.... There has been no aerial spraying up there for mosquitoes

for some time. I don't know of a complaint from citizens in the area. I

know of one party who complained about the aerial spraying. I'm also

informed that the regional district is most anxious to continue their

mosquito control program and that the ground methods of handling it

haven't been considered adequate up to this point. In the meantime, as

I say, the licence for aerial spraying was suspended. We are in the

process of trying to arrange for maybe a temporary continuation of that

until such time as we can do a complete investigation as to what is

happening up there. People are plagued by the mosquitoes in that

particular area and many of them are concerned that the ongoing control

program will be stopped.

MRS. WALLACE: I asked the minister a question about the

forestry minister spraying the forests with Roundup and I got an answer

about spraying mosquitoes. It's the regional district that passed a

resolution objecting. What they've asked, actually, is for someone from

forestry to come in and talk to them about this to see whether or not

they couldn't use the hack and squirt method instead. Obviously there's

some misunderstanding there.

The minister talks that he does have the right and that the ministry

— the province — has refused to allow certain chemicals to be used

here. What I'm suggesting to him is that Garlon should be one of those

chemicals that are disallowed here because it is so closely akin to

2,4,5-T, but he doesn't seem prepared to do that. He's quite prepared

to let the people of Maple Ridge be the guinea pigs in this particular

thing.

I want to turn to another subject, and that's air pollution. We've

heard an awful lot about acid rain recently. We've had the agreement

between Reagan and Mulroney at the federal level. We've had the Pearse

report, which indicates that a great amount of acid rain is prevalent

here in British Columbia. It's an ever-increasing problem right on our

own doorstep, and in the face of all this I pick up a little column in

the B.C. Hydro News last December that this minister has granted a

three-year permit to operate Burrard Thermal. This is an area where

there are real problems with the ozone levels.

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: But is that not subject to the ministry? Don't

you have any control over whether or not that plant is going to run? It

seems to me that if the minister doesn't have anything to say about it,

he certainly should, because that's everybody's air. As Minister of

Environment surely he's responsible for clean air. If in fact the

situation is such that any local regional district can grant permits to

allow this kind of pollution to take place without the approval of the

minister.... You know, it doesn't happen in your town with your

pulp mills. Those are all controlled. The regional district can do what

it likes, but the Minister of Environment has the final say. I can't

understand why that's not the case in this particular instance. If it

isn't, it certainly should be.

HON. MR. PELTON: First of all, I cannot allow that member

over there to stand up and record in the Hansard of this House that I

am going to deliberately subject the people in my constituency to an

unauthorized test of Garlon. That is incorrect, and I take great

exception to that member, for whom I have a great deal of respect,

saying that.

The matter of the thermal plant in Port Moody. The authority for the

issuance of the permit was delegated through our ministry to the GVRD.

They granted the permit, but there was a great deal of concern

expressed, so an appeal is being held. They already hold the permit to

operate that thermal plant in cases of emergency, but this was an

extension of that authority to cover a different requirement, which

people took exception to. It's being appealed, and we will all have to

await the results of the appeal before we will be able to determine in

which direction we're going there.

[ Page 8083 ]

MR. MacWILLIAM: We seem to be hopping back and forth here,

and I apologize to the minister. Before we recessed for lunch I had a

couple of issues that I wanted to deal with. Before I do, I want to go

back to an issue that we've already dealt with, and one particular

question that I had inadvertently left out.

As the minister will recall, we were talking about the Wilderness

Advisory Committee and the lack of any representation from tourism on

that committee. The minister admitted that that had been an oversight,

and he also basically reiterated my views that there is a need for

coordinating the interests of both environmental concerns and the

tourism industry. This brings me to a critical question that I'd like

the minister to address, and that is the concept of a joint tourism and

environment advisory committee. I propose this as a personal

recommendation to the minister, if he would consider establishing such

a committee involving representatives from both ministries —

Environment and Tourism — as well as representatives from the tourism

industry and those environmental groups that have environmental

protection as their mandate. I wonder if the minister would like to

comment on that. I would request that he seriously consider such a

joint tourism-environmental advisory committee with the mandate to

identify critical environmental resources and those that are also of

importance to the tourism industry. It's a sound recommendation. Often

it seems, in this maze of bureaucracy, the left hand doesn't seem to

know what the right hand is doing, or at least, is not fully aware.

Such a joint advisory committee could be of real benefit in helping to

coordinate what is really an overlapping concern for both ministries.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Some latitude will be allowed, hon. members of

the committee, but I must remind the committee that discussion of

future legislation, which the question could ask, would not be

permitted. Further, it really would not be appropriate for the

committee to discuss what would be a committee of cabinet. As I said,

some latitude will be allowed the minister in reply.

HON. MR. PELTON: Mr. Chairman, thank you for your sage advice.

I'm always open to new ideas and new suggestions, and yes, I'd be

more than happy to consider the proposal put forward by the member for

Okanagan North, and would perhaps look forward to his being involved in

some capacity if such a thing came to pass.

MR. MacWILLIAM: I'm flattered. I appreciate the minister's response.

Going on to another issue, an issue that we discussed in the

previous session.... I guess I should repaint the background. We

were talking about the waste management plan for the city of Vernon,

and the fact that a proposal option has been adopted. The minister

indicated that the city is now proceeding along those lines. It was his

understanding that work towards the development of an advanced waste

water treatment plant, with a combination of both land disposal and

deep water disposal, was in process. I think the minister can probably

recall that. The minister also indicated that he didn't feel that

simply using the land disposal option was viable, because of the

apparent lack of usable land for that type of disposal system.

I tend to disagree with the minister, and I'd like to just bring to

his attention, in the interests of perhaps whetting his interest in

pursuing the land disposal option as a viable one, a number of letters

that have been written in past years, directly to the city of Vernon,

indicating a very great interest in making more land available. One is

written by Thorlakson Ranches on Commonage Road. I won't read the whole

thing, but it states: "I wish to bring to your attention that we have

approximately 120 acres under spray irrigation presently. If' you have

need of more land, we have approximately another 1,400 acres for

irrigation, all bordering the present reservoir." The minister had

indicated that there was considerable cost in piping to some of these

areas. I would like to advise the minister that there are 1,400

additional acres right next to the present system.

Another letter, by the Circle K ranch to the city of Vernon, indicates, as

before: "We have 400 acres plus, with a complete irrigation system in place

that could be started within 24 hours of a signed agreement. We felt our proposal

would have increased the output of effluent over that of the last two years,

which was one-fourth of your effluent program annually."

[3:00]

Another letter, written by a local agriculturist, a Mrs. French: "I have

a spray irrigation program on my farm, presently of approximately 100 acres.

I have suggested earlier the adjoining grounds of approximately 50 acres for

spray irrigation to help your present problem."

Another one, by a Mr. Anderson, cites the availability of over

2,400 acres of land that could be used for the spray irrigation

program. A letter from El Rancho Vista Farms, on Commonage Road,

indicates:

"We are currently ranching about 1,600 acres, the

larger part of which could be put under irrigation for pasture and hay

land, providing a mutual agreement between ourselves and the city could

be arrived at. It would seem prudent, when there is so much public

concern about putting effluent into the lakes, to take a serious look

at extending the spray irrigation program. We are prepared to allow a

further reservoir to be located on the land, to enable the gravity-feed

system to service many hundreds of additional acres of land."

I'd like to submit to the minister that it is my position, as well

as the position of a number of individuals in the community, that there

certainly is additional land that could be used for expansion of the

present spray irrigation program.

I want to give full credit to the fact that both the ministry and

the city have pursued the concept of an updated and more efficient

waste-disposal system. l also want to point out to the minister that

this is an issue which is still — and I think always will be — of major

concern to the people of the north Okanagan. It certainly has not been

an overnight wonder. The people of the north Okanagan largely — far

more than largely; almost unanimously, I would venture — support the

concept of an expanded land disposal system. I realize the city is

looking at the deep-water outfall, in the event that the future

populations are too large to be served by a land disposal system. That

may be a future reality that has to be approached. But I'm suggesting

to the minister that we do have the land available to consider an

expanded land disposal system; that we do not have to go into the lake

at this time. I would like to suggest a reconsideration of this option.

I bring that to the attention of the minister. It's certainly an issue that continues to be of concern, particularly to the

[ Page 8084 ]

residents surrounding the north arm of Okanagan

Lake, who, I might add, draw their water from the lake and are

obviously affected by the fact that there is a program that will be in

place, which is dumping effluent — although treated, it is still

effluent — into their drinking water. They've got concerns, and

justifiable concerns.

I wonder if the minister would like to comment on that.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

HON. MR. PELTON: The member brings forward some very

interesting points. I know that he is very well versed in the contents

of the waste-water management plan that's come out of the city of

Vernon. I know that even if he was not personally involved, he

certainly would have been apprised of the happenings at various public

hearings and meetings on the subject. There was a great deal of

discussion, as I understand, on the spray irrigation method. It is a

good method, as I think I've said before, and if it could be utilized a

hundred percent would be well received, I'm sure. I wouldn't want to

take a lot of time of the committee to go through some of the public

comments and some of the responses that were made.

In this whole matter, I'm sure that the member has no intention, or

does not seem to be intending, to do an end-run around the city of

Vernon, in bringing in these matters here today. I would just hope

that, for example, the lands that he has talked about in the

correspondence that he had at hand have been brought to the attention

of the city of Vernon. It is their plan, and if they want to make some

changes to it or to come forward with some different ideas, that would

be most acceptable to us. But certainly if that land is available and

it is right next to the reservoir, unless there is some other reason

why it can't be utilized, it would seem kind of a logical step. But I

would really like the member to discuss this matter with the city, and

if they want to come forward with some suggestions, we would be pleased

to receive them.

MR. MacWILLIAM: I am pleased to hear that the minister is

open to at least a consideration of other options. Yes, for the

information of the minister, that information has been made available

to the city for some time now.

I don't want to belabour the issue, but I just want to point out

that it is the consideration of members of the community, including

some professional members of the community who have particular

experience in agriculture and the application of effluent on forest

crops, that this is a viable measure that could be instituted. I guess

I am just speaking on behalf of the community and those individuals who

have some concern that the city may not have investigated this option

to its fullest. If the minister is saying that he is open to the

consideration of other options, then I am sure that those individuals

will be pleased to know that they can at least have an audience.

I would like to move on to another issue of concern regarding a

recent letter that I wrote to the minister about the Shuswap River

flooding. The minister may recall that last year there was a major

flood problem on the Shuswap River south of Mabel Lake in the north

Okanagan area. I had documented the problems experienced by the

farmers. It was an unusual year as far as rainfall and the degree of

snow melt all happening at the same time, but I think the critical

issue here is that much of the land that was inundated with flood water

has had considerable erosion damage done to it as a result of the

flooding. I also brought to the minister's attention that it is not a

first time for this flooding; in fact, it occurs reasonably frequently,

although not on the magnitude that it did the other year.

I made a previous suggestion to the minister, one which he didn't

seem to wish to comment on in the letter. The river protection

assistance program is basically 75 percent funded by the government

with 25 percent put up by those individuals. I would like to submit to

the minister that perhaps in looking at those situations where we have

prime agricultural land being destroyed as a result of the natural

erosion of a river, land that is under cultivation or under usage being

destroyed as a result of these natural forces, perhaps the ministry

should be considering an alteration of that formula. Even though the

individual landowner has to put up only 25 percent, that 25 percent in

these tough economic times is sometimes a figure that is economically

unattainable by those individuals. I brought that case to the minister

and suggested that possibly, looking at agricultural land specifically,

we make an alteration of that formula.

I don't suggest any figures to go along with that, but it's with the

view of reducing that 25 percent front-loading cost to the individual

farmer. Alternatively, if we can't reduce it from 25 percent to 15

percent or 10 percent or whatever, I suggest looking at an amortization

program. Rather than the farmer having to come up with $5,000 or $6,000

or $7,000 front-loaded before the work can be done, would the ministry

consider an amortization program where that money can be paid back over

a period of 10 to 20 years? Would the minister care to comment on those

suggestions at this time?

HON. MR. PELTON: It is difficult to comment on something

that would require approval through cabinet, so I can't really comment

on any reduction in the formula as it now stands, from 75-25 to

something else. That would be highly improper and inappropriate as

well. But I can tell the hon. member that situations similar to the

situation in the Shuswap River prevail throughout this whole province,

and that there are literally thousands upon thousands who have like

problems and that would also like us to move in and take up the cost of

doing something about land erosion and flooding, etc. There are a lot

of programs relative to flooding. They have the ones that we have in

the Fraser River basin, and we have other programs that relate to areas

where they get flash flooding and all this kind of thing.

I don't know if the ARDSA program has been renewed yet, but there's

another program that is involved with water, with groundwater

particularly, and with rural areas. I can't see us making any change. I

wasn't involved when the formula was established, but I guess you

always come to the question that if an individual is not prepared to

put something up himself, then the value of the whole undertaking comes

into question. That undoubtedly was something that was considered at

the time the formula was put in place.

With respect to the amortization of the percentage share which would

be the responsibility of the recipient of the works that would go into

stopping erosion or other damage from floodwater, that also is a

subject which would require discussion at cabinet level. We'd have to

have that type of approval. So there again, as I said before, we can

certainly look at the suggestion and we will, but it is impossible to

give any indication of how the situation might be resolved.

[ Page 8085 ]

MR. MacWILLIAM: Just in concluding that point, I would like

to emphasize to the minister that arable agricultural land, in terms of

the percentage of land in the province, I think stands at about 3

percent to 5 percent. In terms of financing or altering the finance

formula for agricultural land, it would not be, I don't think, that

much greater a financial burden upon the ministry.

To move on to another issue for the minister, recently there has

been the startup of a $6 million resort industry for houseboats on the

Okanagan Lake in the Westbank area, in the constituency of Okanagan

South, and there are plans for 100 charter boat rentals as part of this

marina facility.

Now apparently, in the process of obtaining land, I understand there

has been some land obtained through the local band council of the

Westbank Indian band, but there is also an application through the

Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing for the lease of almost 15 acres

of Crown foreshore.

I know this is in the area of another ministry, but it does impact

upon the Ministry of Environment, and I'll explain how it does. A

licence was recently granted by the Minister of Lands, Parks and

Housing, against the wishes of 1,400 residents that petitioned both the

Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing and directly petitioned the

Premier of this government, who is the MLA in that constituency, to

allow for a process of public input before such licence was granted.

The reason I bring this up within the concerns of the Minister of

Environment is that the rationale for that public inquiry or those

public meetings to be held was that those residents — 1,400 names on a

petition — were concerned over, largely, the environmental issues and

the impact of such an industry on Okanagan Lake.

Now I think there are a lot of positive aspects to be considered

with the houseboat industry. It has a lot of merit in terms of local

tourism potential, and I'm not critical of the concept. But what I'd

like to point out is that this marina facility, where there will be a

hundred large houseboats on the lake, has gone ahead virtually without

any study or any input in terms of the environmental impact on the

lake. Now apparently on March 20, 1986, at a public meeting held up in

the Westbank area, an official from the Ministry of Lands, Parks and

Housing advised those residents that the Ministry of Environment was

directly involved, I understand, in assessing the lease application.

When the citizens contacted the Penticton office of the Ministry of

Environment, they were informed that the ministry was not involved in

assessing the lease application.

[3:15]

We have a public statement being made by an official in the Ministry

of Lands, Parks and Housing saying the Ministry of Environment was

involved, and we have the Ministry of Environment saying no, they've

got nothing to do with it. I might point out for the minister's

information that Mr. Eain Lamont, who is the chairman of the Okanagan

Basin Water Board and also, I believe, one of the regional directors in

the regional district, has called upon the Minister of Environment to

hold a public meeting regarding the impact of houseboats upon Okanagan

lake. Here are his words.... Sorry, these aren't his words. I will

get back to his quote in a moment.

Here is a quote from a Mr. Barry Cope which was brought up at the

Kelowna Chamber of Commerce meeting regarding this situation. He says:

"Houseboat operation is unregulated, and one particular marina is

nothing less than an animal show all summer long." Now I'm not sure

which one he's talking about, and he makes no specific reference. He

goes on to say: "There is sewage, beer bottles, large quantities of

grey water, and all forms of vulgar flotsam thrown into the lake every

day of the summer." He goes on with some other quotes, but they're not

particularly of concern to the Minister of Environment.

John Thompson, who is a representative in Lands, Parks and Housing,

indicated that the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing really has no

legal clout in enforcing operations upon the houseboat operators. I

guess he was only hoping that goodwill on both sides would allow for a

stringent operating plan to be developed.

Here is the quote from Eain Lamont, who is the regional district

director I was referring to earlier. These are minutes taken from the

regular board meeting of the Kelowna Chamber of Commerce, so I assume

it's a quote. Perhaps it's being paraphrased. Mr. Eain Lamont says that

he was concerned too about another aspect, that of houseboats being

pulled up on shore and therefore becoming permanent residents. He felt

strongly that some sort of licence or permit should be required for all

houseboats on Okanagan Lake. John Hurlburt of the Okanagan Mission

Residents' Association says that he too agreed the regulation was

necessary and went further, to suggest a moratorium be established to

allow time for proper rules to be implemented.

Now I cite those comments for the minister's attention, as well as

the fact that there has been a request for a public meeting and an

impact study to be done. I think the bottom line here, to stress the

point to the minister, is that presently there are no regulations in

terms of what can and can't be done. There doesn't seem to be any

central authority responsible for monitoring the activities of these

houseboats, so there is the potential for abuse — environmental abuse,

including noise pollution, as well as certain safety factors. For

example, are the people who are going to be renting the houseboats

going to be duly registered or qualified to operate them safely? The

minister probably well knows that there's very little shelter along the

main part of Okanagan Lake, and there's considerable concern for the

safety of a party of 15 people who go out in the lake, get caught in a

storm.... The RCMP have confirmed that they can't rescue 15 people —

that their rescue boat wouldn't accommodate such.... So there's a

whole bag of concerns wrapped up under this umbrella of environmental

concerns.

Perhaps the minister would like to comment on that.

HON. MR. PELTON: Mr. Chairman, as the member just stated,

there are many, many things involved in this issue, and even the

member, with his excellent memory, had to refer quite extensively to a

document he had to bring the problems that he sees to our attention. So

I would suggest to him, in the particular problem which he has brought

to this forum today, that if he would provide my ministry with all of

the background, we would be more than pleased to look into it and to

respond in some way. He might be interested to know, however, that we

do have some clout in this regard. Under the Litter Act any boats that

are found discharging unacceptable effluent into the lake can be

charged, and also there is some federal legislation which is in the

process — I don't know whether it's been approved yet — which would

give provincial governments further powers in dealing with this kind of

thing where people might be dumping effluent into a lake or even into

the ocean. It would give powers to designate areas where people without

holding tanks, for example, are not

[ Page 8086 ]

allowed to go. It would provide the authority to

demand that pump stations be located in certain harbours and certain

areas. But as I say, that's still in the process. We haven't had that

legislation passed on to us yet.

But in the meantime, the concerned individuals — I think you said

there were something in the neighbourhood of 1,400 in that particular

area — might consider or might be interested in talking about doing

something that was done on Shuswap Lake, where they formed a Shuswap

Lake management plan. Maybe these people might want to get into that.

The plan was proposed by the regional district in the Shuswap area, and

it was made to encompass many areas, including environmental impacts,

relating to the future development or use of Shuswap Lake and the

environs all around it. So they might be interested in doing something

like that. In the meantime, though, I say again to the member that if

the specifics of the case he cited could be passed over to us, we'd be

pleased to have a look at it and do something about it.

MR. MacWILLIAM: I guess that's the particular point in

question that I'd like to emphasize. These individuals have requested

that there be an opportunity for public input, whether through a public

meeting or a public inquiry — whatever you wish to call it. The

minister seems to indicate that he would entertain the concerns of

those individuals. I would like to know if the minister would be

willing to entertain a public inquiry of this sort, in terms of

establishing some regulations and guidelines to ensure that the

environmental concerns these individuals have have in fact been

addressed, and perhaps even go so far as to consider the establishment

of a controlling body — an Okanagan lakes or basin water authority, or

something of the sort — which would be there to monitor. The minister

has said that they do have some clout, but it's no good having clout if

you've got no one monitoring whether abuses are taking place. It's my

understanding that the onus is on the company's goodwill to ensure that

there are no infractions taking place. I'm not trying to impugn the

integrity of the company, but that is kind of like setting the wolves

to watch the sheep. I would suggest that it would possibly be better to

have an independent authority that could monitor the situation — above

and beyond the houseboat issue, there are many environmental concerns

at the lake.

So going back, there are two questions. Would the minister entertain the opportunity

for a public meeting to air the environmental concerns? Secondly, would he

consider the establishment of a controlling authority for that lake?

HON. MR. PELTON: I'll reserve judgment on that and reserve my answer

until you provide me with all the background you've been talking about today.

MR. MacWILLIAM: I will do that, and perhaps at that time the minister can give me a more adequate response.

MRS. WALLACE: I doubt it.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Well, moving on to another issue...

Interjection.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Thank you. I've just got to sift through the paper here a little bit.

...which is the issue of the application by Crown Forest

Industries of Kelowna to use sodium tetrachlorophenate to treat their

softwood lumber, at the last opportunity I had to contact the ministry

that application was still being reviewed. To refresh the minister's

memory, as the minister well knows, tetrachlorophenols, of which sodium

tetrachlorophenate is a derivative salt, are among the most toxic

chemicals used in British Columbia. What is even more concerning is

that a natural contaminant, due to the manufacturing process, is

dioxin. The minister is also aware that dioxin is a compound that has

been found to be increasing in the environment throughout British

Columbia. In fact, levels of dioxin contaminants in human tissue

samples have been found to have almost doubled in British Columbia,

compared to samples taken in other major industrialized parts of the

country.

I'd like to submit to the minister, as I have before, that that

particular dioxin contaminant is peculiar to the wood-processing

industry. The minister is well aware of a fairly detailed report that I

submitted to him which cites this evidence. It also cites the

particular concerns about the use of these fungicide preservatives at

the Crown Forest operation in Kelowna. To again refresh the minister's

memory, that particular operation is located right on the lake near a

major residential area and a recreation area. The land that it sits on

is porous, and the water table is very high. Although I think the

company has made every attempt to ensure that the industrial process is

adequate and safe, there are many outstanding concerns regarding

accidental spills and the possibility of a fire in the plant which,

through the sprinkler systems, would cause flooding, and obviously

cause a leakage of the fungicide from the tank when it overflowed.

There is also the problem of drippage and waste disposal. There are a

lot of problems, as the minister well knows, regarding this particular

issue.

[3:30]

The community members have been most concerned about the application

for use of this fungicide. The Kelowna city council has come out

strongly opposed to it. The local MLA has been strangely silent. But on

behalf of the people of that area, I would like to ask the minister

whether he has reviewed this situation. I might add that in my

investigation with the application process, I found that officials in

the Ministry of Environment are only responsible for testing and

monitoring the atmospheric contaminants coming out of the spray tank.

There is no testing or evaluation of other sources of contamination —

groundwater contamination, drippage, spillage, etc.

Has the minister taken these dangers into consideration? What is the status of the present application?

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

HON. MR. PELTON: I think I'm reasonably well aware of the

many different items mentioned by the hon. member with respect to the

Crown Forest Products application for the permit in Kelowna. I

understand that there have been meetings held up there. They weren't

sponsored by this ministry, but I understand there have been meetings.

I'm aware of how the Kelowna council and the mayor feel on this issue.

I've had considerably correspondence from people in the community, and

know how they feel.

At this point in time, and as far as I know, the decision still rests in the hands of the director of waste management of

[ Page 8087 ]

the Ministry of Environment; once his decision has

been reached, depending upon what that decision may be, there is still

the opportunity for the appeal process, and for all of those various

other ways and means in which the public can have their say and their

input into what goes on. We don't have any say in where a thing is

located.

We just look at it on the basis of all the best information we can

find, and have to make a decision as to whether a permit might be

proper in any case that comes before us. This one is still under

consideration. A decision hasn't been made yet. So under those

circumstances there's really nothing else to be said, from my point of

view, at this point in time.

MR. MacWILLIAM: I don't know if I'm reading something into

the minister's statement, but he says that after the decision has been

made there is always the process of appeal, which gives the implication

that the decision has been made informally. I don't know if the

minister is indicating that through his statement; but it does concern

me somewhat. The minister has said that he has been fully briefed on

this issue. He certainly received my report, because I have a reply to

the report I submitted. He has certainly received other documentation

from council and from concerned citizens.

The minister has the information. I might advise him also that he

has the power to make that ultimate decision. I would suggest that it's

a bit of a copout to say that the person responsible is the director of

waste management. This is a situation that must be looked at, in terms

of the public outcry that has been raised. That is the minister's

responsibility: to pay attention to those public concerns and, if need

be, to override decisions made within his ministry. I'm suggesting to

the minister that this is a case that he should be taking a personal

interest in, and not be ducking out the back door by putting it onto

somebody else's shoulders. I understand that the decision has not been

made. I would suggest to the minister that there is still opportunity

for more public input. Perhaps there is again opportunity for the

minister to go to the people who have requested that public input and

to allow them due process that should be established.

I'll leave that point as is, and I hope the minister takes those

remarks in good faith. It is a particular concern of vital interest to

the people in Kelowna — not only in Kelowna, but to people throughout the

Okanagan. I might remind the minister that this mill is situated in the

heart of what he has now classified as an environmentally sensitive

area, and his decision regarding the outcome of this application should

reflect the nature of that environmentally sensitive area.

MRS. WALLACE: I've been listening with great interest to my

colleague from North Okanagan because he has been raising some points

that have certainly concerned me over the past several years in this

chamber, particularly relative to these environmental concerns. He's

right when he says that the minister has the power. The minister does

have the power to make these decisions. The minister told me a few

hours ago that once a permit is issued, the chances of an appeal ever

being granted to cancel that permit is practically zilch. Once that

permit is issued, it's there. The minister certainly does have a

responsibility to ensure that if in fact there's a hazard to the

environment.... He's the minister responsible for the environment.

He's the minister responsible for our clean air and our pure water. If

he just sits idly by and lets somebody decide, and says: "Well, I can't

do anything. Somebody is going to decide this for me...." That

seems to be the format that he follows.

My colleague from North Okanagan talked a lot about the houseboats,

and I had intended to get into that with some detail. I don't know if

it's worth my effort to even repeat some of the arguments, but I do

have some interesting suggestions here about some of the things that

are happening — some very positive suggestions. The minister says:

"Well, you know, we don't have the authority; the federal has some

authority." I have a letter from the minister — this was in March —

which tells me that Canada has the prime jurisdiction to regulate

navigation and shipping and that they're coming up with some

cooperative program to regulate pleasure craft. The draft regulations

have been circulated, and promulgation is anticipated later this year.

So there it is, but here we are with nothing happening again.

This particular individual, who happens to live out of the province but owns

a cottage on Shuswap Lake and comes in to holiday, is really concerned about

what's going on with those pleasure boats. He indicates that some of the problem

is the simple invasion of privacy, because under the law these people apparently

have foreshore rights. They can dump garbage or trash on the foreshore or in

the lake. There is the sanitary problem, with no real control of holding tanks.

They trespass above the high-water mark searching for firewood; they build fires

in hazardous locations; they create noise and disturbance.

AN. HON. MEMBER: Do they shoot cows?

MRS. WALLACE: Yes, they shoot cows.

What he suggests is that there should be some regulations. They

should limit the number of houseboats permitted on the lake. They

should permit overnight docking only at prescribed sites; all such

sites should be equipped with suitable garbage removal facilities.

Locks should be required on all sewage holding tanks, with supervised

unloading facilities. Large identification numbers should be required

on both privately owned houseboats and those rental units, with the

name of the renter so that offenders can be spotted. To do that

requires some pretty strong rules and regulations.

The minister says the owners should get together, or the upland

residents, the local ratepayers, the regional district or whatever. I

suggest that this is an environmental question and that's the minister

who should be doing something about it. He's had letters, and I have

copies of them, from the B.C. Wildlife Federation complaining

particularly about the saltwater situation — which is again a different

situation, but a continuing situation — and the difficulties between

the two federal and provincial jurisdictions and nothing happening.

Sure, the Litter Act is there, and how often is anybody charged and

convicted under the Litter Act? Not very often, Mr. Chairman. Letters

from ratepayers associations.... They go on and on.

And then I have a letter that the minister is sending out. I'm sure

that he's getting all kinds of letters relative to this, so he has a

form letter that he's sending out talking all about the fact that this

is a great problem of jurisdictional difference, and so on. He winds up

by saying that he has assured the yachting association that before he

takes any action he will be sure that they know what he's going to do.

What about the ratepayers? What about the people who are really the

upland dwellers? Is the yachting association all you're going to deal

[ Page 8088 ]

with? Sure, they're one element in it, but it seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that more than that should be reviewed.

If there are two things that I'm sure to talk about in this

Legislature — and they both really relate to Environment — one is my

bill relative to non-smoking, which I won't talk about, and the other

is...

AN HON. MEMBER: The Cowichan estuary.

MRS. WALLACE: ...the Cowichan estuary. My colleague

already anticipated it. This has been a subject that I have spoken on

every year for the last 13 years.

MR. BLENCOE: Fifty-six hours, now, Mr. Chairman.

MRS. WALLACE: Well, I'm going to be brief today. The minister

and his staff have put together, at long last, a draft management plan.

We had a plan long before this minister saw light of day in this House

that established some pretty firm terms about what should and shouldn't

happen in that Cowichan estuary. Over the years it has been ignored and

watered down. Then we had order-in-council 3339 which said that nothing

should happen there without a full environmental impact study. And now

we have a draft report. The minister has indicated that he's going to

bring in some legislation — at least that's what the throne speech

said; I haven't seen anything on it on the Orders of the Day yet — in

which he's going to put this draft, or some further version of it, into

being. And you know, I commend the people who have worked on this

thing, particularly Mr. Lambertsen who has worked hard and long on it.

But what I am concerned about in this draft is that when it boils

right down to it there are certain things put into place but all of

them are subject to the minister's discretion. If there is a difference

of opinion, the minister can decide, with or without consultation with

local groups. If that draft goes into place the way it is written, then

he is taking into his own hands the final decision-making. We've seen

what's happened there in the past, where certainly industry has had far

more influence than the environmental groups. I can foresee that ten

years down the road, if this goes into place and if that minister,

heaven forbid, should remain the Minister of Environment for ten years,

we will see that whole thing destroyed, that Cowichan estuary, which,

in fact, was the richest fish-bearing stream on all of Vancouver

Island, far richer than even the Campbell River, in its heyday. And

it's gradually being destroyed. I can see that if this plan goes into

place as it is written, with those kinds of powers being taken on by

the minister, we may as well kiss goodbye to that Cowichan estuary. I'm

hoping that the minister will ensure that when he finally decides, if

he ever does decide, what he's going to do about that draft plan, and

if he ever brings in the promised legislation, he will take into

consideration the problems inherent with allowing those kinds of powers

to a minister to make those decisions if in fact the plan is objected

to by any of the participants.

[3:45]

HON. MR. PELTON: Just one small comment, Mr. Chairman. I'm overwhelmed

by the faith that the good member for Cowichan-Malahat has in me. It's really

very gratifying to know that one's efforts are appreciated. I would suggest

to that member, and she admitted it herself a moment ago, that we have come

a long way in dealing with the Cowichan estuary plan. The final draft of the

plan is almost ready and will be going forward to cabinet very shortly.

I find it very difficult to sit over here and listen to the

comments. I do think that my critic does a lot of homework on this, but

one moment I hear said from across the way that the minister has the

powers and should use them to veto this and to veto that or to disallow

a plan for this or to disallow a permit for that. Then in the next

breath they stand up and say that the minister should not have any

discretionary powers to do with something else. So one is led to wonder

really what is important from that other side, whether just to make

chitchat — yes, nitpicking — and fill in time or whether there is

something really definite coming out of there.

We've come a long way in the Cowichan Bay plan, and I think it will

go a lot farther. I think the work that has been done by the ministry

is deserving of praise, as the member for Cowichan-Malahat suggested,

and that the people in that area will benefit from the work that has

been done on the Cowichan estuary plan.

HON. MR. McGEER: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, what is a quorum in the House?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Ten, hon. members, including the Chairman. We're okay, if that was a concern.

MR. ROSE: A highly intelligent intrusion or intervention. The minister is....

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The minister has not been recognized.

MR. ROSE: I don't recognize the minister, but I certainly

hope a man of his ability and reputation for brilliance has learned how

to count. I give him credit for that, even though some people might not.

I am going to talk about three little matters, maybe not so little.

They are riding matters, and I will just list them quickly in case

there is a need for the minister to go and get some documents. I have

referred to him the case about Anmore Camplands and its water licence;

he agreed to look into that. I would also like to find out from him and

bring it up for the record about these aerial surveys and digital

mapping, on which I also made representation to him a couple of weeks

ago. I wonder if he has done anything about those. Finally, I would

like to know a little bit more about the dangerous goods....

HON. MR. McGEER: On a point of order, I don't know whether

this is a reflection on the member's speech or not, but I believe that

the New Democratic Party is now down to three. It was better than the

one they had yesterday, but for an issue that is of such importance to

the New Democratic Party, we would think at least they would be able to

have a quorum for their own members' speeches. Do we not have a quorum?

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, we don't. One moment, please, and I'll summon the members.

HON. MR. McGEER: I think we should remind the members opposite that there is a debate on the environment going on, Mr. Chairman.

[ Page 8089 ]

MR. ROSE: It is not unusual that when I get up to speak large

numbers of people leave the building. But I am able to attract some

others among the numbers that I repel, approximately equally I hope. I

think the minister is just feeling his oats this afternoon, feeling a

little bit cocky, a little bit capricious. I understand that. He gets

bored with life from time to time, and he thought he would inject into

the House a little bit of fun or what passes as humour.

Anyway, as I was saying to the minister, I've got those two items

that I would like answers to, if I can get them, and I'll talk about

them in a moment.

Before I get another point of order on a quorum call, I would like

to be able to tell him the third one. It has to do with the

transportation of dangerous goods in the lower mainland. I want to

know, since it is a shared jurisdiction with the federal government,

what he intends to do about that and what his position is.

I will deal with the first one, having to do with the Anmore water

licence. I received a letter from Hal Weinberg, a GVRD director for

that area, and he is concerned about the granting of an extended water

licence to a commercial enterprise in that part of the riding. Last

summer Camplands used in excess of their 500-gallon-a-day limit, and

that greatly exceeded the allowable use. I understand now they want

more and there are other users on that creek. So they are very

concerned about what's going to happen to the other users if this

licence is changed from domestic use to commercial use.

I've no objection to having Camplands there. I think we need those

facilities, especially this summer. But what I am concerned about, and

so is the director of electoral area B, is that what this will in

effect mean is that other users who perhaps have equal or prior rights

are going to be denied a limited supply of water, especially if we have

a long, hot, dry summer. I suppose the question would be, rather than

grant these people additional rights on that creek, that they should be

urged to seek other means, such as well drilling, for their

requirements. I'd like to know, since this is a matter of some urgency,

if the minister is prepared to give me today, in the House, a response

to that particular question.

HON. MR. PELTON: It seems only a few days ago that the member

for Coquitlam-Moody asked me about this particular subject and gave me

a copy of a letter that he had received. I took that letter back to the

office and immediately passed it through to the ministry for their

response, and I will be letting the member know exactly where we stand

in that regard just as quickly as I possibly can. As a matter of fact,

on that particular question I put a little "urgent" tag on it, so I'm

hoping to get the information back as quickly as possible.

I do have a response that just came through today to the member's

queries with respect to the aerial mapping program. I could read that

letter to the member if he wishes, but it will be coming forward in the

normal manner, if that will be satisfactory.

MR. ROSE: I thank the minister for yielding on that point. I

would like an answer, but for the record I would also like to put the

thing in a proper setting before he gives his answer. So perhaps we

could deal with the water rights question earlier.

The letter sent by the regional district director on April 14 was a

registered one, so that was in excess of three weeks ago. I wouldn't

suggest that that is too short a time to get some sort of a response,

so I think it should be ready. I don't think it should be done with

undue haste, but at the same time undue lethargy is not to be admired

either. So I look forward to an answer to that one.

On the mapping service, I have a constituent who is one of a number

of mapping companies. It's a small enterprise in my riding, and

apparently he has been ruled out of an umbrella group that is going to

go for a different type of mapping called digital mapping, which

requires a fair amount of investment and equipment. There seems now to

be a group, co-op or enterprise which effectively rules my constituent

out of this particular business. Try as he might, he has so far been

unable to break through to this other group which has the exclusive

contract, worth about $25 million. So it's a matter of substantial

business to him, because most of the mapping, as the minister well

knows, is done by the government. He feels that he's excluded. Other

companies have been brought in. He is a B.C. company and a struggling

beginner in the field. This is of great consequence to him, and I'd

like to have an answer now. It would be worthwhile if the minister has

a brief response. I'd appreciate receiving his letter and I hope it's a

positive one.

HON. MR. PELTON: Well, not having had the opportunity to look

at this file copy of the letter that was prepared for the hon. member,

I'll have to read from it. The first part, of course, is just in

reference to the letter that we received. Then it goes on to say,

"The content of Mr. Hume's letter to you...is

generally factual. The proposal that was submitted by the Canadian

Association of Aerial Surveyors (B.C. Chapter) in 1983 met the

following criteria for unsolicited proposals.

"It was submitted by an individual or organization in

the private sector on its own initiative. It satisfied a government

science and technology requirement in a unique manner. It was sponsored

by a program — in this case the surveys and resource mapping program,

and directly supported the mission of that program. It had scientific

merit and technical feasibility. It was unique enough to justify

waiving the normal competitive procurement process. In this case the

proposal contained unique ideas as well as a unique capacity for

carrying out the proposed work.

"The members of the association later formalized their

relationship by forming a limited company known as the Digital Mapping

Group, which presumably provided working capital for compilation and

presentation of their proposal, whose scientific merit and uniqueness

also makes it attractive to overseas markets around the Pacific Rim.

"I believe Eagle Mapping Services Ltd. was a late

arrival on the scene that was definitely not in existence at the time

of the unsolicited proposal. For the Ministry of Environment this is a

precarious issue since the unsolicited proposal is a technological

concept that rightfully belongs to the 'proposer' until we commit

ourselves to pay for its implementation. It would be unethical for us

to (

a) take the unsolicited proposal and ask another organization to

carry it out, or (

b) force the proposer to take on new partners.

"We could recommend that they take on new partners if

we had serious doubts that they lacked expertise or capital to carry

out their proposal. This is

[ Page 8090 ]

not the case, since we do not believe that Eagle Mapping offers

anything needed to enhance the proposal. In fact, it is a relatively small company

(no smaller than at least one of the member companies of the Digital Mapping

Group) where retroactive inclusion would only be another level of complication

for the general manager of the ten-company consortium. It might also set a precedent

for other applicants who have not yet set up shop.

"Nevertheless, my surveys and resource mapping branch

people have asked the Digital Mapping Group board of directors to meet

with Mr. Hume and give him an opportunity to review his position. He

may or may not be admitted as a partner, but at least the answer that

you and I seek will come from those who have control over his

admission. Certainly the Ministry of Environment cannot dictate the

corporate structure of the company that made the proposal.

"In closing, I should point out that the project plan

being prepared recognizes the role of subcontractors for special

services, and it is possible that Eagle Mapping Services Ltd. might

participate in that way."

That's the letter you will be receiving

officially, hon. member.

[4:00]

MR. ROSE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think it's a reasonable response. I'm grateful for it and I'm sure he will be.

Just one or two points that I think might be mentioned, though. I

don't believe that all of the 11 were the original creators; they were

brought under an umbrella group by the initiator. As the only one in a

mapping service left in B.C., my constituent feels it's a bit unfair

that he wasn't allowed to be included. If he were seagulling in from

some other jurisdiction, I could understand their reluctance.

Digital mapping wasn't invented by this group. It's a technological

innovation and was sold to the government, as the letter states.

There's no argument about that part of it. The argument is that if what

we've created is in fact a monopoly or a cartel which forbids his being

brought in, then that could be grossly unfair, especially if the total

mapping in future is going in that direction — that is, a digital

system. He's set up for the other stuff, but it's a technological

improvement or change, and he's out in the cold. If it's true that he's

the only one left out in the cold, it would seem to me that it wouldn't

be too difficult.

I can understand that you can't force any number of new partners

into a firm or a partnership, or whatever you want to call the umbrella

group. I think there has to be a limit. But if he is in fact the only

one that's left out, it wouldn't seem to be.... And he's a small

firm, a single-man operation. He would have to put out money for

further equipment. Undoubtedly he would be prepared to hire people. The

counterargument to that, I guess, would be that there's only so much

mapping going on and we're just dividing up the jobs among fewer

people; we're not going to create totally new jobs. If you let Mr. Hume

in he may hire one more, but there would be one fewer by someone else.

I suppose that could be the counterargument.

I just feel that to exclude him really endangers condemning his

business to death. That's what I'm concerned about. So I'm delighted

that he's going to have a hearing; I hope it will result in some sort

of positive approach. He isn't whining about this. He feels that the

system accepted by the government is a good one. His complaints don't

rest there; his complaints are his view of the exclusivity of his

particular role in CAAS.

I'll carry on with something else, unless the minister wants to respond to that one.

HON. MR. PELTON: Certainly I understand what the member is

saying. I still have a lot of faith in people. If in fact Mr. Hume's

company is the only one that has been excluded, I think we've made a

little bit of progress simply in the fact that he's going to have a

meeting with the others. I'm sure that in that specialized field

they'll be understanding of his position, and I would hope they would

be able to do something to accommodate him.

MR. ROSE: It's very interesting that the minister has been

here three years, and he still has a lot of faith in people. He could

have learned otherwise in that time. The prediction that the critic for

environment...the member from Cowichan expressing an interest in

his longevity for another ten years I think restores a lot of faith

in.... We're looking forward to increased and enhanced geriatric

treatment by that time, so both of us will be in great shape, I hope.

HON. MR. PELTON: So will my critic.

MR. ROSE: Your critic's checking out.

What I want to deal with briefly is not a personal matter involving

one or two citizens; this one involves thousands. It has to do with the

traffic of dangerous cargo, by rail largely, but not exclusively, in

the lower mainland. Now the Eisler report of some four years ago called

for long-term planning. We really haven't had that long-term planning.

We had the rail transportation committee hold hearings about two or

three months ago in Vancouver, at which I appeared on March 3 as an

intervener.

What has happened essentially, although this has been delayed, was

that the terminal for trans-shipment of this dangerous cargo, some five

bargeloads per day, has been altered or will be altered from just below

the Vancouver Club, almost cheek-by-jowl with the new Canada Pavilion,

to somewhere near the foot of Campbell Avenue, the idea being that it

should have been taken out of the Vancouver harbour entirely. What

scared me as member for Coquitlam-Moody was that there was some

suggestion that that dangerous cargo dock would go in the city of Port

Moody at the head of Burrard Inlet. I could give the minister some

facts to remind him how environmentally sensitive that area is on two

or three grounds, not only the marine life, the restoration of salmon

stocks, but the waterfall, the air inversions, the fact that it is a

dead end or a cul-de-sac for a lot of air pollution. So it is a very

important matter that we don't have another Mississauga in Port Moody.

But we don't want it down at the foot of Campbell Avenue either,

because we'll have removed the dock from the foot of Granville Street

or thereabouts — maybe at Burrard Street would be closer, the old CPR

docks — and we have located it again now at the Burlington Northern

docks. So we've taken the risk from all the tycoons that are sitting in

the Vancouver Club in case there is an accident — and ultimately there

will be an accident. One of the prices we pay for living in a complex,

technological, highly pollutant society is that we have to deal with

chemicals and explosives and things that are

[ Page 8091 ]

generally grouped under the heading of dangerous

cargo. Anyway, the tycoons of the Vancouver Club will be safe from now

on, and so will all those large buildings, and the good burghers that

live in my friend's riding at the foot of Campbell Avenue for the

foreseeable future will have all that dangerous cargo right on their

doorstep. So we have altered our terminus from a threat to property and

all those highrise buildings around there and those expensive office

buildings to a threat to people.

If you think about the different times of day when these things

occur, the downtown core.... If there had been an accident in the

daytime, it would have been a holocaust because of all the people

working in those buildings. If it occurs at night, it's not quite as

bad because those buildings and areas are largely vacant at that time

except for maybe the Holiday Inn Harbourside, or something like that.

It wouldn't be good anywhere. But it is just the opposite in Campbell

Avenue, where you have people working in the daytime, by and large not

at home, and they come home at night. So you see you've got a

tremendous risk anywhere.

I want to know what level of cooperation the minister has had with

the federal government on this dangerous cargo, what he has done to

press for a long-term solution to it. Because wherever you put that

stuff it is going to be dangerous. I can give you the criteria that I

have used in deciding where these things should go. But perhaps he

could give a general statement here on his general involvement and

cooperation with the federal Department of Transport and what he thinks

is going to be the future of these dangerous-cargo routes and when he

anticipates some solution or the conclusion of a long-term plan in

cooperation with the federal government.

HON. MR. PELTON: I know that the member opposite knows that

the lead ministry insofar as the provincial government is concerned is

the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. The Ministry of

Environment has been working through the Ministry of Transportation and

Highways, but to my knowledge we have never had any direct contacts

with the federal ministry who brought this legislation down.

I of course have a copy of the latest decision in the matter of the

transportation of dangerous goods and commodities by rail in Vancouver

and Victoria waterfront areas, which I know that you have also. Our

concerns are very real, and we are trying to keep on top of how this

thing is going. We do have a certain amount of input, but the

decisions, when they are finally taken, are taken through the Ministry

of Transportation and Highways. As the member knows, this came into

force last July, I believe it was, and they were given a six month lead

time to February of this year.

We will continue to monitor this thing, because we become involved,

and unfortunately we always become involved after the fact. When

something has been spilled, or we have a problem, then the Ministry of

Environment comes in to try to mitigate the circumstances that have

come about as a result of the spill or such other incident. We would

like, of course, to be able to bring forth some type of legislation

that would do away with this kind of thing altogether. I guess things

like that will happen as long as we're transporting goods of this

nature. But the best we can do is to do everything possible to ensure

that they do not happen. We will continue in the ministry to be

involved in this matter. Other than that, I wouldn't like to be accused

of passing any bucks here, but I do believe that a lot of the questions

on this matter would be much better directed to the Ministry of

Transportation and Highways.

MR. ROSE: I don't blame the minister for wanting me to ask

these questions of another minister. But as the minister pointed out —

if not explicitly, at least implicitly — it's the Minister of

Transportation's responsibility if something happens. Until something

happens; then you're in it with both feet, and you've got to clean up

the mess.

MRS. WALLACE: He'd better prevent it instead.

MR. ROSE: Well, that's the point that I'm trying to make. It

seems to me that there are certain principles that we have to follow.

Number one is that we are always going to have these hazardous

chemicals: there's no question about that. We can't have a modern

industrial society, especially in the resource industry, without using

some of those chemicals — not that I know of. So we're going to have

toxic chemicals. What worries me is really not so much the rail stuff

as the trucks. There doesn't seem to be the same kind of concern or

safeguard as far as trucks are concerned. Then you've got to consider

an evacuation plan, wherever you put one of those things. If you put

them, for instance, in Port Moody — that's a cul de sac. There are

30,000 cars going through that area a day. All the dangerous goods,

with the exception of those going on CN, go through my riding. So we're

sitting on a powder keg.

The minister knows, as well as I do, that until we had the Mary Hill

bypass there was a virtual impossibility at certain times of the day

for members of his constituency.... His voters and my voters would

be in the same boat if there were any kind of terrible accident along

the lines that we almost had in Mississauga and that we've had in other

places, notably in the States. So that's the second thing.

We've got to consider safety, the environment, and cost

effectiveness. If you're going to consider the evacuation plan, you

can't ignore those costs. We need a whole system to develop a

provincewide plan. Maybe they shouldn't be going down the Fraser

estuary at all. They are now though. Maybe they should be going down

and out.... Some people will say: "Well, we don't want them in our

yard." They're like prisons and garbage dumps and nuclear plants: "Not

in our yard, please." But they're going to be in somebody's yard.

If they're going to be, what do you consider? Number one, I think

you have to consider population density. Keep that junk away from as

many people as you can — and Campbell Avenue doesn't do it. The

Ministry of Environment, I think, has a tremendous voice, a tremendous

public responsibility to make those statements on behalf of the safety

of those people should an accident occur, because you're right in it

then.

The other thing is that you've got certain kinds of navigational

constraints. What are the implications of water and road

transportation? You've got environmental concerns; I've mentioned some

of them, so I won't go into those. Finally, you've got the evacuation

problems.

In terms of the population density, it would seem to me that we

should be dealing, especially for the upcoast stuff that we're barging

out of Victoria and out of Vancouver.... Maybe they should go

through someplace else; maybe Kitimat. Kitimat wants it. Prince Rupert

wants that stuff. So maybe we should be considering that.

[ Page 8092 ]

I could go into the Port Moody issue in much greater detail, but I

don't think there's any purpose in doing that here. The Ministry of

Environment has, I think, not only a responsibility, but a great

opportunity to push for an early resolution to getting that stuff out

of the densely populated areas of the lower mainland, and to insist

that the CTC come up with a long-term plan, not just for rail but for

all modes of transportation, and not just for the lower mainland but

for all parts of British Columbia.

[4:15]

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

MR. WILLIAMS: I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if the minister has a

response to those points. It seems to me that certain basic criteria

could be established readily by the Ministry of Environment. Those

criteria could be conveyed to the other ministry, in terms of your

discipline and concerns. The simple point, I think, that's made

regarding population density is an obvious one. The Campbell

Avenue–Raymur Avenue location is simply not acceptable. There is

highrise housing, part of the greater Vancouver housing complexes,

right at Hastings and Raymur and Campbell Avenue, just a few hundred

feet away from the Burlington Northern dock. That clearly is not

acceptable. There is a pedestrian overpass right over there for school

children going to Seymour Elementary School. It's just not acceptable

in that kind of urban environment.

The options that the member has mentioned, including Kitimat, are

interesting, and there aren't the densities there. But at the same time

there are areas of lower density in the Fraser corridor. The other

option of Tilbury Island, for example, or Port Mann.... Tilbury

Island would be away from significant residential densities anyway.

It doesn't seem to me difficult to establish some broad criteria and

say these broad criteria should be adhered to — and density is one.

Could the minister advise the House whether he's prepared to do that?

HON. MR. PELTON: The points made by both members are very

valid ones, and I must say that I support the things that they say, and

that insofar as I am able, I will bring these points forward at every

opportunity to those people who are charged with making the final

decision.

I should mention in passing, though — and I think it was the member

for Coquitlam-Moody who mentioned evacuation plans — that we do have

all these plans in place through our provincial emergency program. We

are prepared for all of these events, and just hope that we never have

to bring the plans into use.

As I said before, the points made are very valid ones. On the matter

of population density, it would seem to me that anybody with even a

limited amount of common sense would take that into consideration when

considering the issue as a whole. One thing, though, that may have been

overlooked — I don't think deliberately — is that the new legislation

that was brought forward and that came into effect last July, and in

B.C. In February, was a tightening up of all the rules and regulations

relating to the transportation of dangerous goods. I think some credit

is deserved for them having done that.

I think that at this particular point that's about all I would have

to say on the matter, except to repeat once again that I think the

points made are well made and that at every opportunity I get I will

bring them forward in the forums where they are appropriate.

MR. ROSE: I don't want to prolong this unnecessarily, but it

is an important problem. The minister said that there are evacuation

plans in place under emergency measures. That is a little bit contrary

to my understanding of it. One of the problems is that at the moment

there isn't any provision under the fire marshals' act, unless my

research is incorrect, for a person to even give the order to carry

that out. So he might be interested in looking into that. Who's

responsible in case of an emergency? Where does the responsibility lie?

Who gives the orders? Where does the liability lie if there's a death

or damage due to either an evacuation or some serious accident because

of dangerous commodities?

HON. MR. PELTON: We do have a plan, but it's not a mandatory

thing. If we want to evacuate people, we cannot force them to leave any

particular area. All we can do is suggest very strongly to them that it

would be in their best interest. It is under this type of circumstance

that this plan was formulated. We do have a plan. I don't know about

the feds. I imagine they do, because they've had evacuation plans for

many years relative to war and that kind of thing. Ours is related

primarily to the kinds of things which we envision happening through a

spillage, or something like what happened in Mississauga. But I say

again that we have no.... Our mandate will not allow us to compel

people to leave a particular area. All we can do is persuade them in

the best possible way.

MR. ROSE: I don't think that's good enough. I think that we

should have that power. We should also have a designated person. I

notice that when they had the gas spill — was it in Moncton? —

recently, the mayor ordered several blocks of the city cleared. It

wasn't voluntary: "Hey, fellows, would you like to get out of town?

We've got a gas leak here." No, they had the power to order people to

vacate homes and businesses in a designated area. I think we need the

power, and to have somebody who's in charge, somebody who's

responsible, somebody to assume liability in case of injury or death,

and certainly the power to order people to evacuate, rather than just

allow a sort of voluntary thing: if you want to go, you can. Otherwise,

if you want to be a torch, you can do that too. I think we need more

powers than that. So I'd appreciate it if the minister, in his spare

time, would look into that aspect as well. Thank you.

MR. D'ARCY: I'm going to jump around to a different part of

the province now, and give the minister a little bit of a break here.

He and his able deputy, I know, are carrying on well here.

I'd like to ask the minister if he can advise the committee what he

and his ministry are going to be doing regarding the emission levels at

the Westar pulp mill in Castlegar. This plant is not only a bit out of

compliance with his ministry's regulations part of the time, but the

monitoring devices operated by the ministry and by the company itself

show that it's massively out of compliance most of the time. I know the

pulp market isn't very good in terms of price — it has improved

slightly, but it's not very good — and Westar management says: "Well,

you can't get blood out of a stone." They can't install the equipment

necessary to bring this mill somewhere near the level of the mill's

competitors throughout the interior and the north in terms of

atmospheric emissions, because they say they don't have the money. But

this mill under a succession of owners has been saying that

[ Page 8093 ]

you can't get blood out of a stone for 15 years and

yet for 25 years it has been one of the most efficient producers of

quality kraft pulp anywhere in British Columbia, and it still is that

way today, even though it is basically operating with technology which

is 25 to 30 years old — which is a tribute to the management, engineers

and working people and maintenance people in that operation.

But, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister if he can give

this committee an assurance that when the application for a variance,

which is before him and his people now, is considered, the compliance

will not be set on some timeframe — one year, five years, ten years,

fifteen years — but rather will be based on being necessary when the

price of pulp rises to such a point as there is cash flow in order to

bring that mill into the same operating range as has long been accepted

by other mills in the interior and the north and for all I know at the

coast as well.

Mr. Chairman, this mill and this company operates in the same pulp

market as other mills in British Columbia. I agree when the company

says that they have a slight disadvantage in the fact that they are the

only mill in the interior or the north which is required to process

round wood in the plant site by the Forests ministry. Nonetheless,

there is absolutely no excuse that this plant has been allowed to get

away with what they have since 1960, when it comes to levels of

atmospheric pollutants which the people of the lower Columbia Valley

have been exposed to during that time. It doesn't happen in the

Skookumchuck mill, it doesn't happen in Kamloops, it doesn't happen in

Quesnel, it doesn't happen in Prince George, it doesn't happen in

Mackenzie. There's no reason why it has to happen that way in Castlegar.

So I would ask the minister to give a commitment to this committee

that that operation will be required to install the equipment to put

them into compliance just as soon as the price of pulp in British

Columbia warrants it. Because I know that if his ministry says, "You've

got ten years," which is what they've applied for, it doesn't matter

what happens to the price between now and 1996; they won't do anything

until 1996. And if the price of pulp is bad then, they will do exactly

what they've done since 1961 and say: "We can't afford it right now."

So it can't be a fixed time. It has to be a variable time, and it has

to be rigidly enforced by the minister and his ministry as soon as

there is money there to make it possible.

Mr. Chairman, the other series of questions I want to ask the

minister involves the water licence that was issued way back in 1962 to

B.C. Hydro to construct what is now known as the Keenleyside Dam on the

lower Arrow Lake. As part of that water licence, the comptroller at the

time, Mr. Paget, recognized that sport-fish spawning in the lower

levels of the creeks was going to be flooded because the valley was

U-shaped; there was going to be serious damage and elimination of much

spawning habitat, especially for rainbow and kokanee, and he required

at that time that the holder of the licence.... In fact he made it

a condition to British Columbia Hydro that they indulge in a fisheries

mitigation project or projects on the lower Arrow Lakes. Since that

time — now 24 years ago — absolutely nothing has happened. There has been

fishery mitigation on the Mica reservoir. There has been fishery

mitigation on the upper Kootenay Lake at Meadow Creek. There has been

fishery mitigation on the upper lakes due to the Revelstoke project,

but there has never been fishery mitigation for lost habitat on the

lower lake for a water licence that was issued in 1962 and for a

project that was completed in 1969.

Rather than going through a historical horror story about how this

was arrived at — I'm not here to throw darts at either the fish and

wildlife branch or B.C. Hydro at this point — there has been agreement

in principle all along, through a succession of Hydro chairmen,

including the present one, and through a number of ministers in charge

of the fish and wildlife branch — in charge of Environment, in charge

of Lands, Forests and Water Resources, when that was the name of the

ministry — that something be done. But nothing has happened.

It is my understanding that a proposal has been put forward to

develop spawning channels in Inonoaklin Creek at Edgewood on unrecorded

water that licensees don't have. It's also my understanding that some

holders of water licences have objected, even though their existing

licences wouldn't be threatened. I've also discovered, from talking

with people in the Agriculture and Environment ministries, that some

consideration has been given to water storage projects to increase the

flow, which gets very low in that river during August and September,

which is exactly when it normally can be expected to have spawning

fish. Things have been trotted out, such as storage and diversion of

Barnes Creek and other projects, which may or may not have the approval

of the local people.

I would like to ask the minister to report to this committee what

the status of this project is. It is 24 years old at this point. I

don't think there's another fishery mitigation project — which is a

condition of a water licence — which a succession of ministers and

governments and Hydro chairmen have dragged their feet on that comes

anywhere near this in length of time of overall obfuscation. If the

minister and his ministry are to decide that this particular project is

inappropriate to resolve the problem, and they want to do something

else on Lower Arrow Lake, then I wish they'd make that decision soon,

too, so that everyone can get on with the replacement project or

projects. There are a large number of people from my constituency and,

indeed, from throughout the province, and even from across the line,

who make use of Lower Arrow Lake as a recreational resource for

boating, camping, fishing, picnicking, and for just general enjoyment.

When we consider what government decision has done to this part of the

province by flooding all the usable land, the very least the Crown can

do is restore the fishery resource to something of what it was before

the water impoundment known as the Keenleyside Dam and the Arrow

Reservoir.

[4:30]

HON. MR. PELTON: I'll deal first with Inonoaklin Creek and

the fishway. The member will be very pleased to know that after 23

years I can give him reasonable assurance that we think we'll have this

thing resolved within a matter of weeks now. The final report is in.

What we've been trying to do all along, I suppose, is see if we can't

satisfy, to the very best of our ability, the concerns of all the

people involved. We now have the final report. I could go into more

detail, but I think that the member would be just as satisfied to know

that I can give him pretty reasonable assurance that this should be

resolved to the satisfaction of everyone within the next few weeks —

and after 23 years that's a long time. I think we've finally reached a

point where we can come up with this kind of a decision. At the moment

it's just a matter of our getting together with the people who are

involved with the agricultural side of the thing, which is where a lot

of the complaints came from.

[ Page 8094 ]

As far as Westar's Castlegar mill is concerned, the member should

know that we're so interested in the emissions that come from that mill

that we recently took the company, Westar Timber, to court on 28

different counts of air pollution, the majority of which happened

within a relatively short period of time. Unfortunately the case was

dismissed by the court for a couple of reasons. One was that we hadn't

established unequivocally enough that there was a threat to human

health, and the other one was that there was some question about our

being able to prove where the emissions were actually coming from. We

are in the process of appealing this decision, and we would hope to

have some better luck in the appeal than we had in the original action

that we took against them. In the meantime we're having an investigator

go in and investigate this whole matter, and he'll be talking to not

only the local authorities and the people who live in the area but also

the people who work in the mill and the union officials, and we hope he

will bring back a report. They have asked for a variance on this permit

they have.

I am taken with the member's suggestion about tying the length of

time to the price of the product that they sell. I think that is an

excellent idea, and we are going to take a very close look at that. As

the member knows, we haven't issued any variance order yet, and we

won't until after the investigation is complete. But we have been

concerned about this for a long time, and we are concerned about

emissions in other areas of the province as well.

But they are very difficult things, I am sure the member would

agree. As he stated, it is usually a matter of money, from the point of

view of the people that are guilty of causing the unacceptable

emissions. Then you know the ultimate step would involve the loss of

jobs. We have to be very cautious about that, particularly in this time

and in this industry. But we are very concerned about these matters,

and I will certainly take into consideration his suggestion if a

variance order is approved.

MR. D'ARCY: The minister's statements on the Inonoaklin

proposal are indeed most encouraging. Representing my own constituents

who are looking for long-denied justice and mitigation, I certainly

would not want to impose another problem on the people of the

Inonoaklin valley in the Edgewood area whereby the government down the

road would have to mitigate them, just transferring a problem. So I am

pleased to hear that the minister is working something out with

Agriculture which hopefully is going to be acceptable to all concerned.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Mr. Chairman, I was aware that a prosecution had taken place. I am

not in the committee going to question that decision or that judgment

to prosecute, but I think most of my constituents would agree with me

when I say that prosecuting and getting a conviction or 20 convictions

or 50 convictions doesn't resolve the problem. People want the problem

resolved, and they want that plant brought into compliance with the

rest of the province of British Columbia.

Let's remember that even if the mill was in compliance, there is

still going to be a problem on some day or days when atmospheric

inversion does not allow the dispersal of material which is offensive

to man and beast. Yes, the minister and his ministry did prosecute, and

the court ruled against them, but even if you were successful, that

really isn't a solution, and I hope the government realizes that. The

solution is resolving the problem, and the solution is installing the

equipment that other mills in this province have long since installed.

I want to repeat to the committee that all these mills compete in the

same market, and they buy wood at the same rate.

I hope the minister is going to deal with that. As I say, the

community there has been very patient. The last thing anybody wants is

to see a threat to employment, but we are tired of hearing that story

too. That's why I make the strong suggestion that if the company does

not have the cash flow now, just as soon as there is whatever the

minister deems appropriate — a 10 percent increase, a 20 percent

increase — they be required to comply with all deliberate speed.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, just following up on the

dangerous-goods movement: in view of the positive statements the

minister has made, agreeing with some of the points made on this side

of the House, is he prepared to send a letter to the provincial and

federal ministers involved and their ministries backing up the point of

view he has expressed today?

HON. MR. PELTON: I don't see any reason that I couldn't do that through the provincial minister to the other minister concerned.

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you very much. I am pleased to hear that,

and I am sure that citizens in the high-density areas of the urban area

of Vancouver will be pleased to hear that as well, especially those

along the Burlington Northern line.

I would just like to talk a little about some of the provincial

parks and the potentials in that area. I recall that the provincial

park acreage doubled during the 1972-75 period from about 6 million to

11 or 12 million acres. That is something I am particularly proud of.

It includes parks like Naikoon, which is the northeast part of the

Queen Charlotte Islands, the Spatsizi and many others. But since then

not much has happened. There have been modest steps here and there, but

generally relatively small-scale improvements. One would hope that the

new minister, who's not burdened with other obligations, or not too

many other obligations, might pursue more actively the question of

preservation of wilderness, of river corridors and of new park sites in

the province. Certainly one of the areas that intrigues me.... I

wonder how much the minister has travelled through these locations

around the province. I know it's a pretty vast empire that we try to

govern here, but I wonder, for example, if the minister has visited the

Stikine. Has he seen the Grand Canyon?

HON. MR. PELTON: I've flown over it.

MR. WILLIAMS: By helicopter?

HON. MR. PELTON: No.

MR. WILLIAMS: If one is to appreciate, for example, the Grand

Canyon of the Stikine.... It's very difficult to hike, but if you

can take a helicopter down through the canyon, it is absolutely

spectacular, and is one of the great wonders of this province. I would

urge that upon the minister. I've flown that region by helicopter