1979 Legislative Session: ist Session, 32nd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, JULY 11, 1979

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

669 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral questions.

Upgrading of Highway 37. Mr. Passarell –– 669

Natural gas exports. Mr. Macdonald –– 669

Family Relations Act. Mr. Leggatt –– 669

Miard report on ferries. Mr. Nicolson –– 670

Federal Health Resources Fund. Mr. Stupich –– 670

Report on timber allocations. Mr. King –– 670

Report on the financial community. Mr. Levi –– 670

Dismissal of Margaret Caldwell. Ms. Sanford –– 671

Purcell Wilderness Conservancy boundary. Mr. Hanson –– 671

Hospital employee x-rays. Mr. Macdonald — 671

Matter of Urgent Public Importance

Natural gas exports.

Mr. Macdonald –– 671

Routine Proceedings

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Environment estimates.

On vote 89.

Mr. Mitchell –– 672

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 673

Mrs. Wallace –– 674

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 675

Mrs. Dailly –– 676

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 677

Mr. Howard –– 679

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 680

Mr. Gabelmann –– 681

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 682

Mr. Hanson –– 682

Mr. King –– 684

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 685

Mr. Davis –– 686

Mr. Levi –– 687

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 688

Mr. Lockstead –– 689

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 689

Mrs. Wallace –– 689

Mr. Leggatt –– 690

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 691

Mr. Howard –– 693

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 694

Mr. Skelly –– 694

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 694

Mr. Macdonald –– 695

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 695

Matter of Urgent Public Importance

Natural gas exports.

Mr. Speaker rules –– 696

Presenting Reports

Corrections branch and Law Reform Commission annual reports.

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 697

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

Mr. Speaker, visiting the Legislature today are a good friend, Mr.

Gordon Wilgan; his wife, Ann, their daughters, Beverly and Brenda; and

their son, Frank, from Maple Ridge. With them are Mr. Lorne Marshall,

secretary of the rural municipality of Buckland in Saskatchewan; his

wife, Stella; their son, Trent; and their daughter, Sherry. I would ask

the House to bid them all a gracious welcome.

HON. MR. GARDOM:

I have a couple of friends in the gallery today from central Sooke,

Messrs. J. and M. Sal Monwhacker, and I would like all members to bid

them a special welcome.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Speaker, I

ask the House to welcome Mr. Len Smith and his wife, Margaret, and

relatives from Holland. I would appreciate it very much if you would

make them welcome to this great city of Victoria.

MR. SPEAKER:

Hon. members, Little Red is here today and she has brought with her our

two friends, Mr. and Mrs. Raabe, and we would like to welcome them to

the chamber.

Oral Questions

UPGRADING OF HIGHWAY 37

MR. PASSARELL:

I would like to address this question to the Minister of

Transportation, Communications and Highways. Has the minister made any

commitments to Arrow Transportation regarding the upgrading and

maintenance of Highway 37?

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr.

Speaker, I met the officials of Arrow Transportation some three months

ago. We gave some commitments on maintenance regarding Highway 37 and

we're starting to carry those out.

NATURAL GAS EXPORTS

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy,

Mines and Petroleum Resources. Following his statement yesterday that the government

supports the export of an additional 60 million cubic feet of natural gas per

day, and the statement of Mr. Bonner, chairman of B.C. Hydro, that B.C. Hydro

has complained about the information supplied by Westcoast in support of the

extension of the export permit, and pointed out that those cases referred to

showed no such surplus for the people of the province of British Columbia, and

pointed out that there was a lack of analysis by Westcoast and other applicants,

demonstrating the impact on Canadians of having to purchase more expensive natural

gas to replace cheaper Canadian gas that would be exported to the United States

under this proposal.... In view of that disarray and the cogent case made by Mr.

Bonner, will the minister reconsider that decision that he made in his statement

of July 10?

HON. MR. HEWITT: No.

MR. MACDONALD:

A supplementary to the same minister. In view of the minister's

statement of March 5, 1979, that no decision would be made by this

government on the export of additional quantities of natural gas until

there was an overall energy policy in this province, and in view of the

minister's statement in estimates that policy might come down in

October, why has he backtracked and decided to support this application

now?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, as I think the

second member for Vancouver East knows, the permit that is in place now

allows for the export of natural gas to the year, I believe, 1989. We

have not exceeded that figure, Mr. Member.

MR. MACDONALD: What — 1989?

HON. MR. HEWITT:

I believe it's 1989; I could check that out for you. What we are doing

is supporting the application for additional sales going down there,

but it doesn't exceed the existing limitation on that long-term,

20-year contract.

MR. MACDONALD: On a supplementary question, is the minister saying that this additional amount is only until 1989?

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: What did he say?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, we cannot accept an answer until you take your seat.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, the export licence, GL-41, as the member probably knows, terminates in 1989, I believe.

MR. MACDONALD: That's right, but this is an additional one you're asking for.

FAMILY RELATIONS ACT

MR. LEGGATT ': Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Attorney-General.

There was a news report this morning that another provincial court judge, Judge

Winnifred Murphy, had been adjourning cases that had been referred to her under

the provisions of the B.C. Family Relations Act. My question to the Attorney-General,

Mr. Speaker, is: has he canvassed with the senior judge, Judge Goulet, as to

the number of provincial court judges that are now taking a position that they

will not hear matters referred to them under that particular Act?

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'll have to take the question as notice today.

MR. LEGGATT: I have a new question, Mr. Speaker. It's probably sneakily supplementary, but we can call it a

[ Page 670 ]

new

question. The vagueness at the present time in terms of the Family

Relations Act is a direct result of the failure to have a definitive

decision surrounding the constitutional validity of this Act. Can the

Attorney-General tell me why, at this point, he has not used the

Constitutional Questions Determination Act to refer this Act directly

to the court of appeal so that we can have a decision once and for all

and settle the uncertainty in the law in this province?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Well, I'd like to respond to the hon. member and

assure him that the law is being carried out in the province. There has been

a challenge which was not argued in front of the court, which we all appreciate,

and the matter is under consideration.

MIARD REPORT ON FERRIES

MR. NICOLSON:

I have a question for the Minister of Highways. Some time over a year

ago the minister acknowledged that he had received the Miard report on

coastal and inland ferries operated by the Ministry of Highways. I'd

like to ask the minister if he has yet had a chance to read the report.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I have read the report.

MR. NICOLSON: On a supplementary, has the Minister of Highways decided to release the report?

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.

MR. NICOLSON: On a further supplementary, will the minister release the report?

MR. SPEAKER: That question is not in order.

MR. NICOLSON: I know it isn't, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

A further supplementary to the same minister. Has the minister decided,

or will he tell us, when he is going to put fares on those inland

ferries now serving the northern and interior lakes of British Columbia?

MR. SPEAKER: The question is not in order.

MR. KING:

I wanted to ask the Minister of Transportation, Communications and

Highways if he would have released the report had the Premier not

shouted "no" at him?

FEDERAL HEALTH RESOURCES FUND

MR. STUPICH: I'm hesitating, in case the minister wanted to answer that question.

have a financial question to ask of the Minister of Health. I'm reading

from the Commons debates of November 27, 1978, when Hon. Monique Begin

said:

I deeply regret that you have to explain clearly that under the administrative

procedures for the Health Resources Fund, which is a 50-50 cost-shared program,

the concerned province must take the initiative to send us a submission or a

draft submission signed by the competent authorities.

late September I received one from British Columbia, an application

without even a signature. You cannot play like that with amounts of

several million dollars.

My question is whether or not B.C. has since submitted a proper application.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

The question was not correctly put by Madame Begin. We submitted all

the forms at the proper time, and in the proper way. However, a holdup

in the mail at one point got our application for one particular part of

the Health Resources Fund to Ottawa after the arbitrary deadline of the

cutoff of health resources funds, which was made without any

consultation with the minister, or the ministry, or any province in

Canada. It was made — I might also say, Mr. Speaker, through you to the

member — in the face of a signed contract with Ottawa. So there was no

question of a wrongly submitted form.

We did subsequently

appeal that, and all the necessary forms are in the hands of the

federal government. We have since appealed to the new government, and

I've asked for an immediate meeting with the federal Minister of Health

and Welfare in an attempt to have that amount of money — which is

designated for the Children's Hospital in Vancouver — to be reallocated

to us.

MR. STUPICH: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. On what date were the proper forms originally filed?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

I could get all that information for you. I have a full file on it.

They were filed with Ottawa according to all of the proper procedures

before the cutoff deadline. If the member would send me a note, I'd be

happy to give him the whole file on the situation as it is up to this

point.

REPORT ON TIMBER ALLOCATIONS

MR. KING:

My question is to the Minister of Forests. There was a report compiled,

I understand, by an independent forestry consulting firm — referred to

as the Thomson report — on various timber allocations and inventories

in the province. Would the minister consider tabling that report as

public information?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I believe the

report referred to by the member was one that was actually commissioned

by the Truck Loggers' Association and presented to the Forest Service.

Since the report was commissioned by the Truck Loggers' Association, I

suggest you ask them for a copy of it.

MR. KING: I

have a supplementary question. Does the minister have any objection to

the report being released by the Truck Loggers' Association?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: It's not up to me to object to a truck loggers' report being released or not.

REPORT ON THE

FINANCIAL COMMUNITY

MR. LEVI: My question is to the

Minister of Economic Development. Two years ago he authorized a report

by Brown, Farris and Jefferson on the financial community. Can the

minister tell us if he's received the report?

[ Page

671 ]

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

I believe that report was commissioned in conjunction with the Ministry

of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. I believe the report is in their

hands. We're taking a look at it.

MR. LEVI: Is the minister saying that they received the report? When did they receive the report?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'd be happy to take that question as notice.

DISMISSAL OF MARGARET CALDWELL

MS. SANFORD:

My question is to the Minister of Labour. Could the Minister of Labour

advise the House when he anticipates that he will have that legal

advice as to whether he should appeal the board of inquiry decision

relating to the teacher whose contract was not renewed because of her

marriage outside her faith?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Not accepting the premise upon which the question is asked, the advice has been requested for Thursday, which is tomorrow.

PURCELL WILDERNESS

CONSERVANCY BOUNDARY

MR. HANSON: I have a question

for the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing. Has the minister

instructed his staff in the parks branch to get recommendations on

redrawing the boundaries of the Purcell Wilderness Conservancy?

HON. MR. CHABOT: The answer is no.

MR. HANSON:

My understanding is that the parks branch director has in fact sent a

letter to the regional office. Was that done without your knowledge?

Did Mr. Lee send a letter to the regional office regarding redrawing

the boundaries of the wilderness conservancy?

HON. MR. CHABOT: The answer is no.

MR. HANSON:

Has the minister received representation from logging companies

regarding access to timber through the Fry Creek area of the Purcell

Wilderness Conservancy?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Not that I am aware of.

MR. HANSON:

Has the minister received representation from any mining interests

regarding redrawing of the boundaries of the wilderness conservancy.

HON. MR. CHABOT: The answer is no.

HOSPITAL EMPLOYEE X-RAYS

MR. MACDONALD: I have a question for the Minister of Health. My information

is that employees in the hospitals of the province, because of Workers'

Compensation regulations, are required to have chest x-ray examinations, when

they commence employment., six months later, and then annually thereafter. This

obviously brings up the question of unnecessary X-rays at excessive dosages.

Is the minister aware that this is the policy, and is it still continuing in

the hospitals of B.C.? I would like to say to the minister that the question

is not amusing.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I will take that question as notice.

MR. MACDONALD:

I should wait for the orders of the day to be called. Mr. Speaker, I

ask leave to move adjournment of the House under standing order 35 for

the purpose of discussing a definite matter of public importance. The

matter is the proposal of Westcoast Transmission, acceded to by the

government, to export additionally 60 million cubic feet of natural gas

per day to the United States without regard to the needs of the

residential and industrial customers in British Columbia, and in the

absence of an adequate price for our gas on the international market. I

hand up the statement, Mr. Speaker, and I append to that, since the

reasons in support of the application for debate are rather lengthy,

this prepared statement as well.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon.

members, it becomes the responsibility of the Chair to determine the

urgency of the matter and to determine whether or not, in this

particular instance, the matter falls directly within the jurisdiction

of this House, or whether some shared jurisdiction exists with this

House and the House in Ottawa. Therefore I would reserve decision on

the matter without prejudice.

MR. MACDONALD: May I speak to the matter?

MR. SPEAKER: There is no provision under standing orders to speak to it until such time as it is considered in order.

MR. MACDONALD: I don't want to debate the issue, but I want to bring certain matters to your attention as to the urgency of debate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please. Hon. member, I have the motion and the appendices before

me. Therefore I would consider those matters which the member has

placed before the Chair. and come back to the House at the earliest

possible time with a decision, without prejudice to the hon. member's

position in this debate. Is that agreed?

MR. MACDONALD: One or two additional matters not in the notes relate to the urgency of the need for debate.

MR. SPEAKER:

If there are any further matters which need to be filed with the

motion, I would urge the hon. member to do so. However, we cannot

provide for a debate on it until such time as the matter itself can be

declared in order.

MR. MACDONALD: May I refer to the additional matters?

MR. SPEAKER: You cannot refer to them at this time. They can be filed with the Chair, or with the Table. We cannot accept further debate.

[ Page 672 ]

MR. MACDONALD: I want to make one or two points that are not in those notes, and make those very briefly.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member may wish to file....

MR. MACDONALD: Well, I would rather do them orally, but if Mr. Speaker is saying....

MR. SPEAKER:

Hon. member, if there was a way we could do it by recognizing the

member in his place just now, I'd be happy to do so. But the standing

orders do not provide for it.

MR. MACDONALD: I make the single point. The estimates of that minister are passed, Mr. Speaker, and I think you should take that into account.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

MR. KING:

On a point of order, there are two points that I would like to raise. I

understand it is in order on a point of order to offer advice to the

Chair with respect to the matters that should be taken into

consideration in arriving at your conclusion as to whether or not the

request itself is in order. That is not debating the issue surrounding

the motion but, rather, offering some advice to the Chair as to why the

member feels it's in order.

The other point is that I would

ask for your consideration with respect to the practice of reserving

decision on a matter raised as a matter of urgent public importance in

particular. Mr. Speaker, the rules do require that a matter of that

nature be raised at the earliest opportunity. That factor in itself can

be compromised by a delay in the decisionmaking process. I would ask

the Speaker to consider that very carefully for the future.

MR. LAUK:

Mr. Speaker, the two issues that arise on this point of order are

these. First, due to the delay in arriving at a decision in some other

British parliamentary jurisdictions, the Speaker may ask the mover if

it will prejudice him if there's a reserve for a few hours while the

Speaker considers the matter; otherwise the Chair recesses. The House

still sits, and the Speaker retires until he has considered the matter.

I provide that information to the Speaker, but I'm sure he's already

aware of it.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you very much.

MR. LAUK: The second thing I respectfully draw to the Speaker's attention is standing order 38 of our rules, which states:

member addressing the House shall, if called to order by Mr. Speaker or

on a point raised by another member, sit down while the point of order

is being stated, after which he may explain. Mr. Speaker may permit

debate of the point of order before rendering his decision, but such

debate must be strictly relevant to the point of order taken."

I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, the idea of urgency of debate is on a

point of order, and that the Speaker may allow at least information by

the mover and even — if the Speaker desires all the information before

making a decision — may allow debate on the point.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, without presuming to take the

time of the House to give instructions in the standing orders, with

great respect I must refer to standing order 38 and suggest that is the

procedure on a point of order. I must remind hon. members that the

reason for recognizing the hon. second member for Vancouver East (Mr.

Macdonald) was not on a point of order, but rather on a request for

leave to make a motion that the business of the House be adjourned.

Hon. members, it is the Speaker's responsibility to determine not just

urgency but whether or not a matter is urgent enough so that the

regular proceedings of the House shall be interrupted. I am sure that

all hon. members would like to have that matter given due consideration

and that the House be given a well-considered opinion.

On a point of order, the first member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. LAUK:

I don't want to delay the House any further, but it should be pointed

out that when the matter is put before the Speaker, or the House, the

member desiring to make such a motion rises in his place, asks leave to

move the adjournment of the House to that purpose and states the

matter. He then hands a written statement of the matter proposed to be

discussed to Mr. Speaker, who, "if he thinks it in order...." Now "in

order" is a point of order, and when one refers to standing order 38,

that describes what happens during the discussion in this chamber on a

point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: I wish I could accept that.

HON. MR. MAIR:

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might, with the indulgence of the House,

introduce a guest in the House today. Unfortunately I was detained.

MR. SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted.

Leave granted.

MR. SPEAKER: Please proceed.

HON. MR. MAIR:

Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce to you and the House an old

friend of mine and a distinguished citizen of my constituency of

Kamloops. He is Mr. Sandy Sandiford, and he is with us today.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT

(continued)

On vote 89: minister's office, $164,938 — continued.

MR. MITCHELL:

I would like to go over a few of the problems which have faced my

riding and a decision made by the cabinet and how it is affecting my

riding. The decision was made by three members of the cabinet who sat

as an independent board and overruled the Pollution Control Board when

they brought down a decision not to allow a

[ Page

673 ]

sewer outfall from a subdivision known as the Lagoon subdivision in the riding. Lagoon is in the Colwood area.

am not altogether opposed to the decision that was made by the three

members of the cabinet. I know that decision was made because of 20

years of inept Social Credit government. This is the part that has

never been brought to the attention of this House. There have been no

regulations on allowing housing to be developed on an area that should

never have been zoned as residential. It was a rural area suited for

farming. They allowed a collection of 70 homes to be built on it, which

caused the pollution of the lagoon.

I know the problem was

there and I know there was discussion on how it should be solved. I

know the Pollution Control Board and the pollution branch were at

divisions. I know that the cabinet made a decision to allow a sewage

plant that would pipe sewage out a thousand feed into the sea. At this

time I don't want to argue the decision. It was made, I sincerely

believe, with good intentions. But as the road to hell is paved by good

intentions, these good intentions are causing trouble throughout he

riding. I think if the issue is allowed to continue, we will continue

to add additional sewer outlets into the sea, and we are going to have

a problem.

This decision has already spurred two groups to

make an application for sewer outfalls from a holding tank into the

sea. One of these is in the Pedder Bay area, and one is in the Otter

Point area. Problems will develop throughout the province of British

Columbia unless the government, the cabinet and the minister come down

now with a firm, solid public policy that sewage treatment must be a

community effort. We cannot allow groups throughout the province — be

they companies or corporations or individuals — who have a large piece

or a small piece of property where they can establish a hotel, a camp

or a private home in an area.... Instead of setting up a proper

treatment plant for the sewerage, or instead of developing a community

sewerage system for the whole area, they can start the issues that were

outlawed in general practice years ago — the running of sewage into the

sea. They should stop it and not allow it to start up again. I feel

that the issue is going to arise and every little group in a community

has to rise and fight another application that comes from a group who

use as their precedent the decision made by our present cabinet in

allowing 70 homes in one area to establish a sewerage plant and then

pipe it into the sea.

I just want the minister to rise and

expound on the policy. What is the policy of his ministry? Is he going

to allow each issue to be fought, to be argued, locally and the

problems go to the health officers or the pollution branch, or the

appeal then to the Pollution Control Board? If that is defeated, they

can go to the cabinet and get another decision. Are we going to have

throughout the province, throughout the greater Victoria area, from

here through to Sooke, a succession of little sewerage outfalls that

will go out into the sea? I know they can say that at the present time

it is not polluted. But do we wait till the whole coast is polluted and

then say: "Well, it's too late."?

This is a policy I want

now. I want the minister to come out and publicly say where we stand.

Groups are now coming forward all over the province, or throughout my

riding, now making applications to pipe sewage into the sea, and they

are using the precedent as set down by the cabinet. I would like his

statement now.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Chairman, before I

answer the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew, I would like to take this

opportunity to correct an answer I gave to the hon. member for

Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson). I believe it was last evening when he

talked and asked about the Salmonid Enhancement Program.

unwittingly gave him an answer that the balance of the money in the

budget — over $1,250,000 — was money that we spent on administration

and that sort of thing. Unfortunately I was in error in that regard.

There's $750,000 we do spend, but it is charged back to the federal

government. I'm sorry if I misled the member with that answer.

Dealing

with questions raised by the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew, first

of all, I'm sure, Mr. Member, you don't expect me to come up with any

counter-answers to decisions rendered by my colleagues, which are

always difficult decisions to make. I've sat on those cabinet

committees, and I sit constantly on the ELUC committee; I've sat on

liquor appeals and so on. They're always vexing. You always have two

sides of the question that are very well articulated, each of which has

merit. I don't know the merits of that particular case. I'm instructed

that the branch allowed the application. It was overturned by the PCB

and reinstated by the cabinet.

I'm also instructed that

there's a good case to be made for the proposition that the

subdivision, which started during the time of your party's

administration, ought never to have been allowed. Be that as it may,

that's history. What you want from me is some statement of general

policy, and I'll try very hard to give it.

First of all, I'm

sure that you did not wish to give the impression that we have embarked

upon some ill-considered policy all around the province and are not

concerned with the question of sewage disposal, because that's simply

not so. We're committed to a long-range plan of dry land disposal in

the Interior. We've already started in Penticton and that area, and

we're beginning to get on the road in Kamloops. I'm sure the member

understands and appreciates that there are enormous cost factors

involved in any turnaround of what has been a long-term method of

sewage disposal, not just in British Columbia but throughout the world.

It's not something that's going to be accomplished easily, but I quite

agree with the member that it's got to be started now and we've got to

be making long-term plans. So we have made a long-term commitment, and

I've made it a number of times over, that we have to work towards the

and of no discharge into any streams, rivers or lakes in our province.

Now

dealing with the question of disposal in the ocean, it's a somewhat

different problem. It's different only to a matter of degree, but we

can allow ourselves, I think, for the time being, in any event, the

luxury, if I may use that term, of some disposal at sea provided the

outfall is sufficient and long enough in order to accommodate the

situation. Now I appreciate that the first thing the member may well

mention to me are the journeys of the boat Ra

and so on across the Atlantic Ocean, where human sewage was in fact

seen. Quite obviously, we have to bear in mind that the ocean like

everything else has a limited tolerance.

In any event, I

think we can, at least for the time being, allow a degree of disposal

at sea, which is much better equipped to take sewage than the lakes and

rivers, as I'm sure the member well knows. There's a much better

scavenger situation; there's a much better absorption

[ Page 674 ]

situation,

and so on. However, I think that over a very protracted period of time

we will get to the point where we don't have to do either. But in the

meantime, we have to immediately work on the Interior, where we're

talking about fresh water, interference with our salmon runs and our

resident trout populations, and indeed the drinking water of the

people, and so on. We have to work immediately on dry land disposal or

other methods of disposal. In the ocean, on a slightly longer term, I

think we have to work toward the same end.

MR. MITCHELL:

I would like to rise and disagree with that statement and idea that you

can run it into the sea, because something is going to happen.... You

are using the example of the McCauley Point outfall where you're

running it 5,000 feet out into the sea. That is an extensive discharge;

you're out into deep water and you're out into the currents. You have

private individuals run it over the bank onto the shore. I know they'I

say they are going to run it out, but anyone who has studied the

engineering facts of life of trying to run a pipe out into the western

part of the Strait of Juan de Fuca — where the waves, tidal action,

current, and the power of the Pacific come in — knows it will destroy

any small, cheap, economical pipe that a private individual or private

corporation can afford to put in. You end up having sewage literally

running onto the beaches and along shore where there are mussels, crab,

clams and the fishing.

The policy of running it into the sea

is wrong. In Mexico they have been doing that in their unplanned areas:

they build a beautiful highrise and in front of it they have a nice

swimming pool, because in back, on the sea side, the sewer is running

into the water. This is what we are going to have on this coast if we

allow it. To say that we can run it into the sea because it's not as

bad as running it into your drinking water.... I will concede it is not

as bad as running it into your drinking water, but the policy of

running sewers into the shore is wrong.

We can't afford the

luxury of waiting until our bays and our shoreline are polluted, as

happened in the lagoon area. The local taxpayers in the lagoon area

have to put in the sewer development and rescue the environment and

finance the thousand-foot outfall into the sea. We must take a stand on

this issue before the coastline is polluted outside the greater

Victoria area. We can't afford that pleasure. It would be nice to say

that it is not as bad as running it into the lakes; I concede that.

sincerely ask that you and your ministry consult with the health

officials of this province who are facing these issues locally, and

where individuals are asking for these applications, that you study

what's happening to our coastline and how it will be polluted. Let's

not wait until it's polluted and then add that tax dollar onto the

citizens when trying to put the sewers in at a later date. If this land

is going to be developed, let's develop it properly and put in the

sewers. I agree with you 100 percent: what is good for those in the

Interior — dry land disposal of sewage — is equally as good and equally

necessary for us who live on the coast.

HON. MR. MAIR:

I don't think we are really arguing, Mr. Member for Esquimalt–Port

Renfrew. I agree with you that the more we can turn to single large

plants instead of multiple disposal pipes, and that sort of thing, the

better. I don't think disposal of sewage in any water is a good

long-term solution. I was only trying to say that when you're looking

at the question of which you solve first and which you solve second and

which you can afford to let go a little while longer in view of the

huge cost implications, you're safer with a long outflow into the ocean

than you are with any outflow into lakes and streams and rivers. I

agree with what you say. It's a question, of course, of facing up to

the enormous expense, which all of us are going to have to face up to,

whether we are taxpayers in a municipality or a city, or general

citizens of the province. I don't disagree with what you say. It's only

a question of when we are going to be able to afford to do it.

MR. MITCHELL: Just one thing. Mr. Minister....

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. In committee, when there is debate going across the

floor and there is unlimited speaking time other than the 30-minute

time limit, the Chairman will endeavour to recognize the speaker who

has been carrying on.

The member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew continues.

MR. MITCHELL:

When you have a private individual making the application, he's making

the application to make a quick buck; it's needed now. Maybe he won't

be around after he's sold his hotel or whatever he's building. It's not

the same as when a municipality goes in and does a proper survey.

Individuals are running pipes into the water; it looks good now, but

they are not going to last. This is where I feel we should make a

stand, and I would like the minister to bring it to his attention.

MRS. WALLACE:

For a start, I would like to just carry on this same theme, Mr.

Chairman. I think the minister is aware that in greater Victoria we

have a lot of beaches that are already polluted. Certainly the city of

Victoria has shown some concern about what has been happening. I know

that they have been considering some alternative ways of getting rid of

their waste. I think that's what I want to talk to the minister about

today.

I think we have to took at those alternative ways. In

my mail today I had a series of letters from your seat mate, the

Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), showing thousands

and thousands of dollars in grants going to a few areas in my

constituency in aid of sewerage assistance programs. I think we have to

look at some alternative ways of spending that money, that will be more

effective and less expensive in the long run.

The city of

Victoria was suggesting burning their waste material. I would like to

suggest to the minister that he consider something that 1, for lack of

a better name, have called a garbage train. We have a railway running

from one end of this island to the other and we have many, many small

communities along that rail line that are experiencing horrendous costs

in getting rid of their waste material. I think we should look at

establishing a central depot where we could process our garbage for

burning, to produce energy or fertilizer or any of the many other uses.

We don't always want to think about digging trenches in the ground, or

in the rock, and running that sewage into some dry land disposal.

The

minister and the ministry are to be commended, as are those local areas

that have undertaken it. That's a move in the right direction, because

it is, as I understand it, a third

[ Page 675 ]

processing

level — it is actually fertilizer on the land. That's certainly the

case in the Vernon area. Those are good programs. But we have to get

into more of those, and we have to get into other alternatives too.

the Crofton mill, for example, a boiler has been installed in which the

engineer who designed it is quite convinced municipal garbage could be

burned. There has been some breakdown there because they thought there

was too much fluid — or there was some problem. But I think those are

the problems this ministry has to be looking at, and looking at

alternatives, because this other method is just getting too

uneconomical. Also, it's creating too much pollution.

I have

indicated that the minister is to be complimented for the progressive

steps he has taken, but I want to point out to the minister just one of

the things that has come to my attention which indicates the sort of

downward trend that has been occurring in connection with the Pollution

Control Board.

The case in point concerns my old friend, Cargill Nutrena Feeds Ltd.,

a hog farm. When they started out, Mr. Chairman, they had permission for discharge

of 15,000 gpd. They were at that time supposed to put in certain provisions

to take some of the bacteria and so on out of that effluent. In 1972 that permit

was extended even though there were still some problems in getting all the preventive

things in. In 1977 the amount of effluent permitted was doubled to 30,000.

In 1978 the Pollution Control Board granted a permit for 55,000. Apparently

they have until 1980 to complete their control measures. Now that effluent is

going right into the Fraser River and into our saltwater system, eventually.

I am concerned that a firm like this is continually getting permits to increase

its output of bacteria-laden effluent and not being pressured to put in the

kind of control measures that are necessary.

Again, here is an opportunity to try something new. I was reading in a magazine that I get, Harrowsmith ,

that at Cornell University they have come up with a procedure — a

rubber whale is what they call it — that is simply installed over the

waste manure. This was set up on a dairy farm and they produced enough

methane and other gasses from the fermentation of that manure to power

well over 90 percent of the energy needs of that dairy farm. Now there

is an alternate method. Hog manure, as I'm sure the minister is aware,

is high methane. We have an energy crisis. Why spend money in putting

in all these great pools and basins to try and get rid of this stuff?

Why not put that money into making use of it? Those are the kind of

things that I think the minister should be turning to. I would urge him

to take steps in those directions.

While I'm on my feet,

last night we were discussing the Cowichan estuary and I had raised

some points on that. We were reaching I p.m. and the minister responded

rather quickly to beat the deadline. But I have just a couple of

questions regarding his response. I think he indicated that he would

have a report on his desk in ten days to two weeks. Am I to take it

that is the task force report, or is that the report of the Environment

and Land Use Committee? It's the task force report, I gather. Okay, in

that instance then, how long before that will be going to the

Environment and Land Use Committee? When will it be made public so

people can have it? You know, Mr. Minister, because of the delays — and

I know they're not on your desk — and because of the air of suspicion

that has developed locally about this report, I think it's very

important that the public have access to that report just as soon as

possible. And I would ask you how soon you think that can be, and

certainly I would ask too for your commitment that report be made

public before your final decision is reached.

HON. MR. MAIR:

Mr. Chairman, dealing with the last point the member makes concerning

the Cowichan River study, I would expect that the report from the task

force will be on my desk within the next ten days to two weeks. I will

then convene an ELUC meeting as quickly as I possibly can to assess it.

Now I think the member knows some of the difficulties that one has in

getting an ELUC meeting, a meaningful one, together. I don't think it

was any different under her government than under ours. The problem

that you have is getting not only all of the ministers together, but

more particularly getting the ministers there that really have a direct

interest in whatever the subject matter happens to be. This isn't a

question of laziness on the part of any minister or anything of that

sort. You've got people who are travelling and who've got other

commitments and so on.

Now it's going to be essential when I

have that meeting that I have a number of my colleagues there

particularly. There may be some reason to suppose that one or two of

them may not have as much interest as others, but certainly I think the

member knows that there are going to be five or six ministers that I

must have a firm date from. I want to have that as quickly as possible,

and I mean that — as quickly as I possibly can. I have wanted to

address this matter and come to some solutions ever since I first

became interested, long before I was in this ministry. But as I said

last night, Madam Member, I don't want to do something in haste that

we're going to repent later. I don't want you to take from that,

however, that there will be any undue delays. I will use every human

effort to convene a meeting of ELUC to deal with that report as soon as

I have it. I'I convene it as quickly as I possibly can.

The

question of making it public, Madam Member, is a decision, obviously,

I'm going to have to make with my colleagues when the time comes. But I

can tell you that philosophically I'm opposed to keeping reports

private. I think the reports that are made ought in most cases to be

made public as soon as possible, as soon as practical. As the member

indicated last night, a great deal of the thinking is already public.

You had some working papers which had leaked out one way or another.

You know, there is no great secret as to what the parameters of the

problem really are. But I will, of course, endeavour to make that

public as quickly as I can.

Now going back to your original

points, if I may, Madam Member, I think that I should bring us back to

the point we were earlier yesterday afternoon or yesterday evening. My

ministry has as its obligation basically to identify problems, not to

provide the solutions for them. Now other parts of the government must,

of course. It may be regional district governments, it may be civic

governments, it may be municipal governments, it may be the government

industry, it may be a combination of all of these things. But if we, in

my ministry, were to be handicapped in our operation by having to

provide a solution before we could identify a problem and force the

polluter to find a solution, then we might as well not be here. So

there is very little sense in saying to me: "Look,

[ Page 676 ]

you

go out and provide a solution" — for whatever that sewage problem is or

whatever that industrial waste problem is or whatever it is. My job is

to make them do that, by simply saying that they are not allowed to get

a permit under the Pollution Control Act or it will be such and so, not

quite to their liking, and therefore apply pressure upon them to do

what they must do to bring the problem under control.

Now I

think that my deputy reminded me of a truism that I'd forgotten since

about grade 5, that energy can be neither created nor destroyed. All

that you're really doing when you get rid of these waste problems is

creating another one. You know, it's not unlike the pesticide and

herbicide problems we were talking about yesterday. We know that we're

doing something that has an impact; it's a question of reducing its

degree and narrowing down its target as much as we can.

one of the problems that the member talked about on the Fraser River —

I'm not well acquainted with that specific problem, but with the

general problem I am. One of the things we have tried to do is to

recognize that there are in existence operations which have existed

long before we, as a civilization, started to care enough about our

atmosphere to do something about it. There's a large unemployment

problem that could result from any harsh administration of the laws we

now know are necessary. We try to be flexible and work with them to try

and tighten the noose, if I may use that expression, bit by bit by bit

until we can get it under control. I don't know whether we're doing an

effective job in all areas, but that is at least the philosophy of what

we're trying to do.

There are a number of areas, of course,

that do fall within this purview. In my area the one I'm most familiar

with is the Weyerhauser pulp mill at Kamloops. It was initially allowed

to do things to the Thompson River that it could never be allowed to do

today. But I think that you, and the people that ran against me for

your party, would be the first ones to holler at me if I were to

suddenly shut down the pulp mill. It's as if I were to say: "Unless you

apply the same standards that I would make you abide by today, tomorrow

afternoon we're going to shut you down, and we're going to put 500 or

600 people out of work. "

I think that you would say: "Mr.

Minister, be a little more reasonable. Give them a little time lead.

Stay on top of them, don't let them off the hook, don't ever let up on

them, but don't at the same time bite off the hand that's feeding us by

getting rid of all those jobs. "

Basically, Madam Member,

that is the philosophy we are operating under, and I would not pretend

that we're always doing a good job, or that we're always doing the

right thing. I don't think you would ask me to do that; you would only

ask me to do my best.

MRS. WALLACE: I think that the

minister didn't quite understand the thrust that I was trying to make.

Perhaps it's because we have a different idea of what his ministry

really should be doing. But the point I was trying to make is that as

the Minister of Environment he has an obligation to do something about

ensuring that the people who are in this bind, such as Cargill Nutrena

Feeds, which can't afford to put in the kind of setting ponds that

should be in, have alternatives. Alternatives should be proposed, and

some technology, some advice should be provided to them about

alternatives. Hog manure could be converted to fulfil their energy

needs. Those are the kind of thrusts that this ministry should take.

There is the idea of running a garbage train instead of simply throwing

out money for sewage facilities which will eventually pollute our

waters. We need ideas so we can utilize, re-use and recycle that waste,

instead of spending as much money trying to get rid of it. Those are

the kinds of thrusts that I'm trying to get across to that minister. I

think his remarks indicated that he didn't quite grasp what I was

saying.

MRS. DAILLY: I want to change the course of

discussion to two other issues which concern me and a number of people

in this Legislature. I've brought up these issues a number of times

before: the leg-hold trap and the poisoning of wolves. I don't want to

keep repeating points that have been made earlier, so I want to start

off with a general comment to the minister and to his government on the

whole process by which the leg-hold trap situation has been handled by

the Social Credit government. Irrespective of whether one believes

strongly in banning them or not, I want to deal first with the handling

of the whole situation by the government.

Prior to the

election of 1975, the Social Credit Party — through the voices of some

very senior and well-known members in the cabinet, including the

Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) and the Provincial Secretary at that

time, Mrs. McCarthy — informed the voters, more or less, that if they

voted for Social Credit there would be a ban or a moratorium, at least,

on the leg-hold trap. We're now in the fourth year of the Social Credit

government, and I don't think the people who are concerned about

leg-hold traps particularly, and many others, may I say, are very happy

with the performance of the government. I think it goes beyond the

matter of the issue of the trapper, et cetera, which I'll come to

later. It's a matter of the cynicism with which this government handles

their election promises. They made a promise to eliminate the leg-hold

trap, and we are, as I said, four years into their tenure and very

little has been done. There has been no move to ban it.

The

same thing can be applied to the poisoning of the wolves. A promise was

made just prior to the last election by the Minister of Environment

(Hon. Mr. Mair). He said that he would hold back the poisoning, and he

did. But very cynically we find shortly after the election that we're

back to poisoning wolves. It is the same as with the leg-hold trap. The

height of cynicism by that government was their approach to it just

prior to the election and during the campaign. They announced, that

they would use the lottery funds in a contest to assist in finding a

humane trap. How cynical, Mr. Chairman.

For the last three

years there has been a man called Mr. Gabry who is well known now by

the minster and who has been working on a humane trap in B.C. All he

has been waiting for — for the three years of the Social Credit tenure,

from 1975 until the election was called — was some financial

assistance, which was not forthcoming. Then, prior to the election,

they announce: "We are going to have a contest. "

Later on

I'd like to discuss in another ministry the use of these lottery funds

for political purposes, which is all tied in with the manner in which

this leg-hold trap contest was announced to the public of B.C.

I know, Mr. Speaker, there are many people on the floor of this House and elsewhere who really do not believe in

[ Page 677 ]

any

banning of the leg-hold trap. I would like to see complete banning, but

I understand that there are trappers in the province who do derive a

certain amount of income from trapping — how much, I don't know, but we

accept the fact that they do. I think the minister is well aware that

all the leg-hold trap people have been asking — the association, that

is is that there be a ban or a moratorium placed on the use of those

inhumane traps by those who use them just for a hobby or who do not

need to trap for their income.

Now when the Association for

the Protection of Fur bearing Animals asked the minister if he would

consider this, the minister's answer was — and remember they were just

asking to ban it for those who do not need to trap for an income —

simply that if this ban took place it would not expedite the search for

the humane traps. My first question to the minister this afternoon is.

Would he please explain that answer? What correlation is there with the

search for a humane trap and banning leg-hold traps from people who

just go out for the sake of a hobby and then create countless hours,

sometimes weeks, of suffering for animals?

I spoke to the

minister several weeks ago about Mr. Gabry, who has been waiting for a

promised cheque. I was glad to see that the government was finally

going to come through with assistance for this man who has been working

so long without help until a promise was made prior to the election. My

question is — as I haven't heard from the minister in reply — has Mr.

Gabry received his money? Mr. Gabry certainly is a person who has spent

his whole life trying to find a humane trap, and he seems to be one of

the few people who is getting to the point where we may be able to have

a humane trap developed, but not without some financial assistance. I

think this man has given too many hours of time and, let's say, part of

his life to this project without proper government assistance. I hope

the minister will be able to assure us that Mr. Gabry has received his

money, and I hope that the financing of Mr. Gabry can continue.

Mr. Speaker, those are primarily the questions on the leg-hold trap that I would like to have answers on from the minister.

the matter of the poisoning of the wolves, again I mention what I

consider to be the utter cynicism of the Social Credit government. The

promise was made to stop the poisoning and then, shortly after the

election, we're back poisoning the wolves. I have talked to many people

who keep informing me I am a city girl, and I have no idea of the

devastation which the wolves do to cattle. I accept the fact that the

devastation is there. But, Mr. Chairman, the point is that we have yet

to find and to hear really specific documentation from this government,

from this minister, as to the actual need to poison them. The minister

has spoken in generalities....

Interjection.

MRS. DAILLY:

I hope the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) will get up on his feet later

on, instead of shouting across the floor, Mr. Chairman. It may be

difficult for us to have to listen, but it is a free place, and I'd

rather have him on his feet than shouting across the floor when I am

trying to speak.

When I asked the minister why the poisoning

of wolves resumed, he said that after due study it was decided it had

to be done. That was a pretty generalized answer. At the time I asked

him in the House, he referred to Bonaparte Plains, and I wonder if he

could be a little more specific about what was found there to bring

about this sudden decision to start poisoning again. I think all the

people who are concerned about the poisoning of wolves have minds open

enough — and I certainly have — to listen to more specific reasons for

it. But may I say I still abhor the idea that is the way the wolves

have to be eliminated, if elimination is necessary.

Mr. Chairman, I note an

article from The Province, which said: "The Province

Lifts Wolf Poison Ban Over New Evidence. " Now the interesting thing is

that Alan Murray, assistant deputy minister in charge of conservation, gave

an interview recently on the lifting of the controversial ban by Environment

minister Rafe Mair, because "new evidence was presented about the humaneness

and the use of 1080, " which is the poison which is being used.

What

I can't understand is that when the hon. minister was asked why he had

resumed poisoning of the wolves, he never mentioned the fact at that

time that after research the type of poison that was being used was

considered to be more humane. I question that, however, Mr. Chairman,

and I wonder why the minister was not able to make that announcement. I

think it might have been alleviated some of the concerns. My feeling is

— but I'm open to being corrected — that the minister was not even

aware of the type of poison that was being used at the time the ban was

lifted. Otherwise I can't understand why it was not discussed with us

at the time.

But, Mr. Chairman, to show why I'm somewhat

skeptical about the statements that the poison being used is not going

to hurt the wolf, may I just read to the House a paragraph about what

it says about 1080? It says:

"It induces in

the victim an early state of unawareness of its predicament and

surroundings, a state somewhat similar in effect to that of gross

alcohol intoxication or an epileptic seizure. And this is the point I

find quite interesting:

"Thus allegations in terms of convulsive suffering cannot

be regarded other than anthropocentric human-like

interpretation judgment...."

goes on and on with all these scientific terms that no one knows, and I

am sure for the wolf who is dying a slow death it is meaningless.

So,

Mr. Chairman, my main concern is that I understand the problem that he

does face in this area, but I must say that 1, and many people, have

become quite cynical about the way it has been handled politically. I

am very cynical about the reasons why the minister cannot ban leg-hold

traps for those people who do not need it for an income. I am very

concerned also that he has not given the public of B.C., those who are

concerned, an adequate answer as to why those wolves have to be

poisoned.

HON. MR. MAIR: The whole question of death,

whether it is animals or humans, is not a very pleasant one. It

sometimes gets a little tiresome to listen to the bleatings of people

who wear leather shoes and think they came from cows who died of old

age, who continue to eat meat and take products of animals, and yet, on

the other hand, who try to tell me that there is some difference

between an amateur trapper killing an animal and a professional trapper

doing it.

[ Page 678 ]

might well ask the question, Mr. Chairman, as to what happened with the

leg-hold trap during the three and a half years that member was in

government. Her government was faced with exactly the same problem that

mine is. She had members of this chamber, whether from her party or my

party, from areas where a great part of the community depended upon

trapping, depended upon an industry which was the original reason that

this province was populated by Europeans. Now, Madam Member, nothing

would make me happier than if those of your gender would stop wearing

furs and stop demanding the products of animals and all the rest of it.

Nothing would make me happier than if you could find some way to

immediately make up for the income of those native peoples, primarily,

who depend very heavily upon this particular industry.

the light of all that, Madam Member, I want to tell you that I am not

happy with any kind of cruel trap, and have not been. I am also going

to tell you, Madam Member, that I'm not about to carry the can for

anything that anybody else said, did or didn't do. I'm only prepared to

answer in these estimates for what I've done and what I want to do, and

I think that is only fair. If you have questions to ask of my

colleagues or your colleagues as to what they should have done, or what

you think they should have done, please feel free to do so, but don't

try and hang that on me.

In the short time I've been in this

ministry, Madam Member, I have got into the government programs a

substantial amount of money, not only for the reward of anybody who

comes up with a better answer to the traps that we have now, but also

money to encourage those people who are looking towards those ends. Mr.

Gabry has been given an amount of money — I believe it is $1,000 to

begin with. Whether he has received his cheque or not, I'm not able to

tell you. I've asked for it; I've requested it. Whether it has gone I

can't tell you because I quite honestly don't know, But he will be

encouraged and so will others.

But to suddenly end an

industry that was the foundation of this province, and do it overnight,

without doing something to help those people rehabilitate themselves,

or indeed to find some solutions to the problems that you have raised,

I think would be grossly irresponsible on my part. It is interesting

that within a day or two of you asking these questions about the

leg-hold trap, your member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell) was asking me what

I was going to do about traplines tat have been taken away from native

peoples.

Now, Madam Member, I'd like to speak just for a

moment to you about the wolf problem, because I think it is quite

evident that you're under some misapprehensions. I am going to, if I

may, Mr. Chairman, at the close of these remarks, table with you

directions that I have given to my staff on the predator-control

situation, and also a study entitled Pesticides Used in Wildlife Management Programs .

I would urge the members opposite that have concerns on this problem to

read these documents and to take a look at them and decide for

themselves whether or not the programs that we are putting in place

are, under all of the circumstances, reasonable solutions to the

problem.

Let me just dwell on the wolf problem for a moment,

and let me remark again that there is never going to be anything

pleasant about killing anything, and certainly nothing pleasant about

killing animals such as wolves and coyotes. Let me also tell you that

while the wolf has a very honoured place in the animal kingdom, and

will always be protected, as far as I am concerned, in this province,

he is indeed a predator when he comes into contact with man. Let me

tell you, Madam Member, that while the wolf has a great many redeeming

features, the wolf is nevertheless a predator and we have been

subjected to a great deal of unmitigated garbage about him over the

last few years, particularly from those people who entertain, rather

than write history, particularly such people as Walt Disney and Farley

Mowat, who are great entertainers but lousy historians and lousy

botanists. As long as man doesn't interfere with the wolf and his

habitat, then nature takes care of itself.

I'm constantly

told that if we'd only let nature take care of itself, everything would

be all right. That would be true if we weren't there to intervene.

Unfortunately, when we intervene, we add a new source of food for the

predator when he has knocked down the herds of the food that he usually

preys upon. So instead of naturally dying out on his own — and this is

the unpleasant part of Mother Nature — Mother Nature allows the wolf to

knock down herds of deer and caribou and then allows the wolf to starve

to death because he doesn't have any food. Then the caribou and the

deer build up again. Instead of that cycle being tolerated by man, we

add a new dimension, domestic animals, which means that the wolves no

longer starve to death as Mother Nature intended them to do when they

were deprived of food, but have a fresh food supply.

we're put in a very awkward position. Either we decide that we're going

to allow the wolf to continue to prey upon domestic animals, thus

encouraging domestic animal losses — but still keeping down the losses

of the ungulates — or we provide a degree of protection to the rancher

and the pioneer farmer in the areas where he comes into contact with

the wolf.

I want to tell you that the program that we have

developed is going to provide a measure of protection for the rancher

and the farmer in that part of the country where they have come into

contact with the wolf. Let me also tell you that does not mean we're

going to do anything like destroy the wolf, anything like eliminate the

wolf; and I won't even guarantee that we're going to provide full

protection for those people that are in that position. But we are going

to have a predator control program which, only in those areas where

that contact is made, will keep the predator down to a reasonable

degree to support the rancher and farmer. This will not mean any

diminishing of the wolf population in the province of British Columbia,

Madam Member. This does not mean that we're going to poison the wolf

out of existence. This does not mean that we're going to drive him out,

as has been done in a country that I think you're familiar with —

Sweden. A party similar to yours certainly was in power for all of the

years that they eradicated the wolf. We're not going to do the same

thing they've done in the continental United States, where you can

count the number of wolves on one side of one hand. We're going to have

a wolf population with numbers in the many thousands. But we are going

to provide a measure of protection to those people who rely upon the

cattle industry, the sheep industry and other domestic animals for a

living in the pioneer areas of the province.

I hope that provides you sufficient answer on government policy.

MRS. DAILLY: I can see that the minister and I will not come to any agreement on this, because he has a very glib

[ Page 679 ]

tongue

— I don't recall one specific answer to any of the specific questions I

gave him. As far as I'm concerned, I am not satisfied with his answers,

and I'm sure that the people out there who share my concern will not be

satisfied.

Mr. Chairman, I do want to point out that this

minister, with his glib tongue, also has a tendency to put down women

MLAs in this Legislature. I want to say right now that I resent....

Interjection.

MRS. DAILLY:

I've been in here long enough to feel that the women and the male MLAs

should be treated exactly the same. We have members across the floor

who refer to "female members." This member referred to "bleating,"

which I don't think he would have used with a male member. This member

said that only women are the ones.... I'm supposed to talk to my women

friends about not wearing fur when all we have to do is look around and

see how many males are covering themselves with furs today.

Now

to some people this may seem an unnecessary comment. But I want to say,

Mr. Chairman, that women in this Legislature have come a long way in

achieving what we consider equality on the floor of this House.

Comments like that minister's are inclined to set us back, and I resent

them.

MR. HOWARD: I know how impatient hon. members

opposite are to hear what I'm about to say, and you don't know how much

I appreciate the attention that you're paying to me.

The

question of the leg-hold trap and the banning of it or the moratorium

on it — is really a very burning issue out there in the urban areas,

and I'm sure that it would do those people who live in the cities, who

have such a heartfelt concern about the leg-hold trap, good if they got

out a little bit in the country and really saw what was going on. This

doesn't indicate any great difference in philosophy on this question.

What it does reflect, I think, is that there is a lack of information

on the part of a lot of people, most of whom live in the cities, who've

never seen a trap in their lives or a fur-bearing animal in their

lives, except in somebody's fur shop — and they get excited about that.

But, we've got to pay some attention to the fact that trapping is a way

of life and a part of the way of life of a great many people in this

province, that trapping is sustenance to a great many people in this

province.

If we look at it in a straight capital investment

way, over the years a lot of people in this province have had a lot of

money invested in leg-hold traps, and in many instances their

livelihood depends upon them. In many cases it's part of a cultural

inheritance to people, some of whom, for a variety of reasons, do not

now trap, but in their respect for their inheritance and their past,

trapping is pretty fundamental to them. It shouldn't be just pushed to

one side because of the clamour of groups who, really, I don't think,

with respect, have much appreciation of what's involved.

I've

talked with different people over a period of time who are partial to

the moratorium on the leg-hold trap. Many of those I have spoken with

are ardent sports fishermen. I usually pose this question in a

roundabout way: "What do you think about being out there fishing?" Many

of them almost drool at the mouth at the prospect of tossing a line and

a hook out into the water and catching a spring salmon or a trout or a

steelhead on the end of that line. They just glory in.... It's almost

an orgasmic experience....

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh! Order!

MR. HOWARD: So they say! So they tell me!

HON. MR. MAIR: Are you too old to remember, Frank?

MR. HOWARD: ...to be able to dangle.... [Laughter.]

Interjections.

MR. HOWARD: We all know that fish are neither mammals nor warm-blooded.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Perhaps members should just be cautioned that we must be guided by our own conduct in this House.

MR. HOWARD:

Some of the same people who are so emotionally uptight about banning

the leg-hold traps are the greatest supporters of the idea of standing

out in the middle of a stream and torturing some poor fish on the end

of a line for an hour or two at a time, just for the sport of it. I

can't put those two together in my own mind as being compatible. Once

that proposal comes from individuals I've spoken with, I say: "You get

your act straight about where you are on torturing animals, and I'I go

along and talk with you about it. Otherwise, forget about this nonsense

of banning the leg-hold trap." I'm not partial to banning it until that

point in time where something better comes along. That's where we are,

and that's where most of the trappers are as well. They say: "You come

along and show me something which will be better than the type of trap

that has stood the test of time ever since the Hudson's Bay Company

owned this province. You show me something better than that and as

effective and as efficient as that. You deal with me on the question of

my capital investment in my traps, and I'I go along with you. You can

ban the leg-hold trap, and good luck to you."

Apart from that, and until that time, I for one don't want

any part of it. I don't think it should be a part of a tremendously

serious debate in this House either. It may well continue to be, from

the point of view of people who have to reflect an urban concept and an

urban understanding and a city-folk type of approach to it. But so long

as that proposition is put forward, then I think the counter

proposition has to be put forward as well, to give some balance and

some meaning to what it is we should be trying to do with respect to

this matter.

I'd also like to talk very briefly about the

Salmonid Enhancement Program. There is a bit of difficulty

constitutionally about this whole question of fisheries. I don't know

if it's clear in anybody's mind where federal jurisdiction stops and

provincial jurisdiction start, or if there is a stop and a start place,

or if it's just an overlapping. I'm inclined to think that is the case

and that it has not come down to any sharp division about the

constitutionality of doing certain things. I hope that does not ever

come about. If we end up in the hands of the courts and they determine

that if you build a fish ladder it is the provincial government's

because it happens to be federal jurisdiction, then we will injure

[ Page 680 ]

further the whole process of our attempts to increase fish stocks in this province and in this country.

The

province is involved in expending money, as I understand it, under the

authority of the Fisheries Act of the province for stream clearance

programs and for restocking purposes as well. One of the things which I

think is not commonly understood is that in many instances we are

taking the taxpayers' money to rehabilitate streams, to clear

obstructions from them and to bring them back to a point of

productivity in salmon runs, and that the decline of those streams was

caused by the action of the government itself in spending money for

other purposes.

Take, for example, the Department of

Transport — or the Department of Highways, as it used to be known. It

was common practice, and probably still is to a certain extent, in this

province to go ahead blithely, in putting in new highways or rebuilding

highways, to establish culverts in salmon-spawning streams without

regard to the injury that may have been caused to that salmon stream.

We destroyed a number of salmon streams in this province by that

process, and spent public funds doing it. We are now spending public

funds correcting the situation.

Just eastward from Terrace a

few miles there's a small program — it's probably completed right now —

involving the building of a couple of small fish ladders up into a

contained pool to raise the level of the stream up close enough to the

level of the bottom of a culvert that the Highways department put in

order that salmon could get up the stream, through the fish ladders,

through the pool, into the culvert and on to the other side where the

spawning grounds were. That was a stream that will have to be

rehabilitated, and we're spending this kind of money doing it. Probably

the greatest injury ever caused, in a total sense, to salmon streams is

by the forestry industry, with the agreement and endorsement of the

Department of Forests over the years. We have had, I think, in a few

instances, a rather supine federal government in terms of preserving to

the fullest extent they could the question of fisheries.

had an instance a number of years ago — and I only cite this as an

example — where a logging company here was digging up gravel out of the

bed of a salmon river in order to build their logging roads. This was

raised with the federal fisheries people at that time. Their response,

very, very regretfully, was that they felt the federal government could

not do anything about it, because land was a subject matter that came

within the jurisdiction of the province, and the gravel under the

bottom of the river that was being dug up was in fact land. Therefore

it was outside of the jurisdiction of the federal fisheries people.

That was the answer received from the federal department of fisheries.

The digging up of the gravel continued. And it is continued and is done

in a number of instances.

We had a situation not too many

years ago when the provincial government itself, in a conflict with the

federal government, seized some logs owned by a timber company and in

fact drove those logs or towed those logs down a spawning river in

defiance of the position of the federal Department of Fisheries. The

response of the federal government and the federal Department of

Fisheries was: "Oh, we can't do anything about that, because we, the

federal government, can't challenge the provincial government. It is

the Crown and we are the Crown and one cannot sue the other." As a

result, another salmon stream was injured as a result of a specific,

deliberate act on the part of the government. The minister at the time

who engaged in that activity was Ray Williston.

Forestry

access roads, logging companies themselves, Department of Highways,

mining access roads — wherever the provincial government, the parks

branch, may be involved in dealing in some way with nature out there

and where there are spawning grounds involved, they are able blithely,

as I understand it, to get their own way and do their own thing without

regard to salmon protection.

I know the minister says, as I

understood it, that his department is an identification department that

says: "Here we identify a certain situation or a certain set of

circumstances and somebody else should deal with them." But I would

like to see the minister's department, and whoever is the minister in

charge of that department, have complete and final authority to

determine whether or not provincial projects are going to go ahead

without having first got clearance and permission under the Fisheries

Act and from the minister in charge of fisheries in order to ensure

that those salmon streams and those spawning beds and those creeks and

those rivers and lakes are preserved and protected and are not injured

by other departments of his government. Otherwise, we have a

continuation of the rank stupidity of spending taxpayers' money to

build highways and destroy salmon-spawning grounds and then spend

taxpayers' money a few years later to rehabilitate those streams, or

the stupidity of seeing the same thing happen with respect to the

Forest Service.

An ounce of prevention in this area would do

a world of good. Perhaps at a future time the minister might want to

consider something of this nature in a positive light and take unto

himself that supreme authority or have cabinet give him that supreme

authority. I see him beating his chest there about that. You've got my

support if you get that kind of authority. It would be good stepping

stone for the minister for that point in time, I gather in the

not-too-distant future, when he may be having his eyes upon becoming

the Premier of this province — I mean in this parliament. The more sort

of things that he can establish to his credit in that regard, the more

support he's going to get from credential delegates to that leadership

convention that I gather might be coming about fairly soon.

Apart

from all that it would be a darned good move if the minister would take

that kind of positive approach, and instead of just being an identifier

of problems, he could be a preventer of them as well.

HON. MR. MAIR:

I make it a practice never to covet jobs that are filled ably and

filled well, so I'm satisfied to stay right where I am, thank you very

much.

I'd like to thank the member for Skeena. You didn't

bleat, so I won't call you bleating; you did exactly the opposite. You

gave some pretty good, practical advice, I think, to a great many

people who are perhaps what might be called "condominium

conservationists." The mousetrap is the closest thing they've got to

the outdoors, and it gets a little tiresome once in a while, when

you're trying to make some accommodations of very, very difficult

problems, to be faced by the arguments.... I don't mind the arguments

being from people who have not had other experience, but I do mind when

they're from people who have a mind set against anybody who has had

other experience.

I'd like to make the comment, too, Mr. Member, that because you did not deal with the comments on wolves, I'm

[ Page 681 ]

going

to take it that you don't disagree too much with the program that we

have, or what has been suggested by your predecessor in your

constituency when he made many speeches in the House. If I'm wrong in

that assumption I'm sure you will tell me.

I'd like to speak

just for a moment about the Salmonid Enhancement Program, but not at

very great length. It's a new program, and as with all new programs

it's going to have birth pains and problems attendant upon it that

nobody could really predict.

Very briefly, let me give you

just one example. The federal government, along with ourselves, have

agreed to help enhance the steelhead runs. What we've done in a couple

of rivers in the northern part of Vancouver Island, for example, is

very materially enhance the steelhead run, only to find out that

they're intercepted at sea, and that the enhanced steelhead never get

back into the streams to the sportsmen for whom they were intended.

These are some of the things that we're going to go through, some of

the things that an uncharitable person might say sometime amount to a

waste of money and effort, and things that should have been predicted.

But I think that as with all things that are as new as this, we have to

make allowances and I think the program is going very well.

There

is a great deal of cooperation, and I'm very happy to tell this chamber

that when I met with the Hon. Jim McGrath four or five weeks ago, we

agreed that even though he had the virtual supreme authority over the

question of fisheries, with some exceptions, he would not make any move

respecting the British Columbia fishery without not only consulting me

but asking my advice as well. The first opportunity he had to avoid or

to fail to live up to that obligation came yesterday. I'm glad to say

that he called me to ask about a problem that was strictly within his

jurisdiction, and said: "Do you agree with the position I'm taking?" It

happened that I did, and he's gone ahead and done it. I'm grateful for

this kind of an indication of the relationship which I think will

continue.

I quite agree with the member that we have done a

great many things in the past to our environment, including the

streams, that can only be called sinful. It's been done by forestry;

it's been done by industry; a great deal of it has been naturally

caused. A great many of the streams that we rehabilitate on an ongoing

basis have got the way they have through natural causes, but I hope to

goodness that we have learned that we've got to make decisions with all

of the impacts on the environment in mind when we make them. I think

that we've gone a long way towards that end. I think we've got better

cooperation not only within ministries of our own government in the

province, but also intergovernmentally with the federal government.

It's by no means perfect; we've got a long way to go. A lot of problems

are going to come up; a lot of probably unpleasant confrontations are

yet to happen. But I think we've come a heck of a long way, and I think

we're making good progress.

I think the one thing that the

member may not know perhaps he does.... You were talking about the

question of jurisdiction over the gravel underneath streams and rivers.

The problem — and I remember this case well because one of the lawyers

was a friend of mine — was that the definition under the old federal

Fisheries Act was not sufficiently wide to allow fish eggs to be

considered fish, and that's why they lost their case. That's now been

changed with the new Fisheries Act, so they now.... If they don't have

jurisdiction over the river bottom, they certainly are exercising it,

and I'm not quarrelling with that. So I thank the member for the

comments that he's made.

I have just one final comment. I

didn't want to imply in my answers to any of the members opposite, but

particularly the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace), that we

wouldn't deal with people who were transgressors against our pollution

laws. Sure, we'll deal with them. We'I take them to court, we'll fine

them, we'll do those sort of things. But the point I was trying to make

is simply this: we would be very much handicapped if we could not deal

with them until we had found a solution for them, and had given them

that solution to take care of their problems. It's for them to find the

solution, or perhaps another government to find the solution. It's for

us to identify the problem and deal with it in a punitive sense, and

that's what we do.

MR. HOWARD: The specific case I

was talking about vis-a-vis the land and the gravel and the fish did

not have anything to do with eggs, and whether or not eggs were in fact

fish. The response given to us was that under the British North America

Act that land was the exclusive jurisdiction of the province, and the

Fisheries department in Ottawa considered their case to be that was

land and they couldn't touch it, which I thought was extreme stupidity,

really. But that's what happened here.

MR. GABELMANN:

Mr. Chairman, most of what I intended to talk about during these

estimates has been touched on, so I don't intend to take too much time.

The first thing I want to say is that last night at the close of my

comments I complimented the minister on his deportment in the House. In

a sense I'm a bit sorry that I did that last night, because of the

comments and the attitude that he expressed earlier today about women

in this House. He may not agree with me that he was being irresponsible

in his behaviour and his attitude, but that's very much my feeling, and

I've been sitting here getting quite angry about it.

I do

not think members in this House — on either side of this House; it

comes from both sides — refer to "the hon. male member" or "the hon.

gentleman member," but we talk about "women members" for some reason. I

wish we would quit that, Mr. Chairman; I wish we'd treat all members in

this House equally. And I wish we would stop using disparaging and

put-down comments when members express genuinely held views. We may

differ, and we may differ within our own caucuses on issues, but it is

irresponsible and not in the best interest of this Legislature or the

politics of this province to respond in disparaging and in put-down

ways. To talk about women buying furs is colossally misleading. Men are

buying more furs than women these days — it's a fact. So to single out

women in that respect is nonsense. The fact that I happen to agree with

the minister about people talking about leg-hold traps who wear leather

or eat meat is irrelevant. The fact is he was dealing with people who

hold those views genuinely and who represent urban constituents who

hold those views genuinely, and they have a right to put that point of

view forward without being put down.

I had wanted earlier to

talk at some length about the need in British Columbia for a ministry

devoted to fisheries, so that we have someone in cabinet standing up

against the Minister of Forests when those two resources come into

[ Page 682 ]

conflict.

But other members have made the argument that the fisheries are not as

well represented as they should be. I just want to state my position

very clearly. I believe there should be a full minister in cabinet who

has the responsibility for fisheries and very little else, so that when

we do come into conflict in resource development in this province there

is a clearly identified minister in cabinet who can stand up for the

interest of the fisheries in this province, and we do not now have

that. It seems that every time there is some conflict the Forests

ministry wins.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Estimates

do not afford the correct time, for discussing which members should be

members of the executive council nor which areas of responsibility they

should have. However, the administrative responsibility of the

particular minister in question is open to discussion.

MR. GABELMANN:

I want to leave the general comments alone and turn to a particular

problem relating to an estuary in my constituency. It's the Campbell

River estuary, and the minister should be quite familiar with this

problem.

First of all, I should say there is a proposal by a

corporation to do some coal mining in and around Campbell River, as the

minister well knows, and there are some very serious environmental

problems with that are being studied now by various agencies. I think

the ELUC secretariat is involved in some studies related to leaching of

the coal, the iron pyrites and the high sulphur content into the

Quinsam, Campbell and Oyster rivers. I don't want to go into too much

detail about that.

There are also studies, I understand,

into the way in which and routes on which this coal would be

transported to tidewater, and where on tidewater it would be loaded for

export. I want to leave that alone for the time being because I know

the studies are underway.

What I do want to ask the minister

to comment on specifically is the question of the Campbell River

estuary study. In the week or so after the minister was appointed the

member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) wrote asking for release of the Campbell

River estuary study, which had been completed some months before that.

You were appointed in December, I believe, and it had been in your

possession some time before that. The member for Comox sent the letter

on December 15 last year, to which there was no reply. She wrote again

on January 16 of this year, to which there was a reply from your

secretary saying that it would be brought to your attention — that was

on January 19. On March 8 the member for Comox again wrote to the

minister, Mr. Chairman, asking whether the Campbell River estuary study

report could be made public, at least to the Legislature — again, no

reply. I sent a letter to you, Mr. Minister, toward the end of June of

this year, again asking that the estuary study report be made public.

It's been in the hands of the ministry now, presumably, since September

or some time around that part of last year, or maybe earlier, and I

wonder why the report can't be made public.

It's very

difficult for me, as the MLA for the area, to properly represent my

constituency and to do my job properly if I don't know what's going on

in terms of those studies — I know that reports have been presented —

so that I can comment intelligently on the issue. It is very difficult

to do that when we are not in possession of information that, in my

view, should be public information. I think you were saying something

earlier to the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) that, in your

judgment, reports should be made public. I acknowledge that there is

always some delay, but I don't think there needs to be the delay of

eight or ten months that there has been in this case.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: I've been told I'm lucky that it's only that long. I gather there are others that are longer.

The

other small point that I want to mention is the whole question of

groundwater. A number of people in my constituency who have had wells

on their property — some in municipalities and some not — are now

finding that the areas are being built up and the neighbours are

putting in wells and drying up the wells that have been there for many

years. As I understand it, the one

section of the Water Act that might

have given some power has never been proclaimed, even though it has

been on the books for 20 years. I wonder what plans the minister has to

deal with the whole groundwater issue, which is a real problem — at

least in my constituency.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

HON. MR. MAIR:

I'm not going to apologize to the member who thinks that I made some

sexist remarks, because I think that's a question of intention on my

part. Since I had no intention to do so, I don't plead guilty. My

remarks were directed to mostly leather shoes and the use of skins of

animals, and I happened to be talking to a lady at the time. I've

always thought she was a lady — never had any reason to doubt it

whatsoever. So I spoke to her in terms of ladies wearing furs. If it

had been you, I might have asked you about your muskrat coat or your

raccoon coat or whatever you may have.

On the Campbell River

study, Mr. Member, we will be releasing that report within 14 days. I

apologize to you and to the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) for not

answering that mail. I really noticed for the first time yesterday when

I was reviewing the study that I did have a list of unanswered

correspondence. I don't think I have your letter as yet, but I have got

the letter from the member for Comox. I owe her an apology and I'm

pleased to extend it to her. I ought to have answered that earlier; it

was simply an oversight.

Now somebody else wants to ask me a

question. I'll get the answer to the second part of your question,

which I'm just getting from my deputy.

MR. HANSON:

The subject I would like to raise with the minister has been touched on

by a number of my colleagues, but I would like to elaborate on it a

bit. I would like to start by telling him a little story.

Once

upon a time there was a federal Fisheries cabinet minister by the name

of Romeo LeBlanc who was visiting British Columbia and had never seen a

salmon spawn. There was a former Recreation and Conservation minister

here in British Columbia who was an excellent trap shooter and who

decided to take Mr. LeBlanc to the Adams River. As a result of that

experience, there was spawned a new idea, which was the signing of the

agreement which culminated in the 200-mile limit. That's the good news.

From that point in time, from 1977 to the present, it has

[ Page 683 ]

been

a disaster, because, like many experiences we have had in the

management of our own resources, the sad facts are that our fishing

industry is largely foreign owned. We experienced monopoly control

prior to that point, but we had never experienced foreign control of

our fishing industry.

When the 200-mile limit was

established, many of us had hope that for the first time we would start

to manage a food resource which is of great importance to our future

because we are limited in the amount of agricultural land and limited

in the protein we would be able to develop and grow on the land. We

have an abundance in the sea, if properly managed, for the benefit of

all of us. But from 1977, when the 200-mile limit was established,

until June of 1978, an excessive number of processing licences and

buyers' licences were issued to non-Canadians.

Up until

June, the licences, regulated by the provincial government, were issued

to non-Canadians. With credit, finally the penny dropped and that

particular procedure was changed so that the processing and buying

licences would go to Canadians. However, the licences continued to be

issued. No courage was shown on the part of the provincial minister

charged with the responsibility of looking after our fisheries.

Notwithstanding the jurisdictional disputes, it does state that the

province may issue the processing licences. I think that they could

have, if they had the courage, added on to those regulations conditions

that would have guaranteed the employment of jobs here in British

Columbia for British Columbians.

They could also have taken

action to ensure that processing would mean more than freezing in a

block of ice, or popping out herring roe, or simply freezing and

shipping in the round to a foreign country for the jobs in that foreign

country, as is done in Britain and Japan with our herring. We have the

possibilities with this minister to take action on the issuing of those

processing licences. I was very pleased with his comments that when the

UFAWU was here making representation on behalf of one group of

fishermen in this province, he did suggest and issue a moratorium on

the issuance of processing licences.

There are a couple of

facts that I'd like to bring to the minister's attention that I think

are very relevant to the points I am trying to make. There are two

articles in Canadian Business .

One, which was in March 1979, says: "Net Profits: The New B.C. Gold

rush. Japanese demands of a 200-mile limit are creating instant

fortunes on the west coast. To get rich quick, go fishing. "

There

are some interesting facts in this

article and I would just like to

relate a couple of them to the minister. One is that Canada has now

become the world's largest exporter of fish. We export more fish in

dollar value than all of our softwoods in this country. I'm not talking

about British Columbia, I'm talking about Canada. Of all the softwoods

and all the iron ore, fish is the number one export. Our exports equal

three-quarters of our catch and will approach $2 billion by the early

1980s.

Earlier, my colleague here was talking about the

protection of the streams and the Salmonid Enhancement Program and so

on and so forth. But whose benefit is it for? Why are we spending our

taxpayers' money when we don't have control at the other end to ensure

that the jobs are here for British Columbians and the fish, the

necessary protein for future generations and for ourselves at the

present time, are guaranteed? The export of fish is rapidly becoming

British Columbia's largest export. We account for 37 percent of the

national total. There are very few fish boats built in British

Columbia. The nets are imported from Japan. The technology involved in

the electronics used in the marine industry is also imported from

Japan. So it's a classic staple trap. We're exporting raw materials and

we don't get the jobs. We import all the materials and manufactured

goods that we need from abroad. The thing is shameful Mr. Minister, and

I would hope that at some point someone will have the courage to amend

those processing licences to ensure that the regulations are changed

for the benefit of this province.

I want to talk about the

Pacific shellfish program which was talked about in this article. Dr.

Richard Beamish of the Pacific Biological Station in Nanaimo thinks

that the west coast production could triple in ten years with proper

care and some cooperation between the provincial and federal

governments. There is an explosive demand all over the world for our

shellfish, shrimp, clams, crab and oysters. I realize that there is

some experimental work going on in the marine resources division of

your ministry, but it is not enough. I have had some discussions with a

member on your side of the House, the member for Central Fraser Valley

(Mr. Ritchie), who is interested in the self sufficiency potential that

our province has in marine fish resources. I understand that he is to

some extent involved in it.

I don't think we have to have

too much creativity to see that shrimp farms, crab farms, clams and so

on could quite easily be viable up and down our coast, and certainly on

Vancouver Island, for the benefit of my riding, which could be the

centre for the administration of the 200-mile limit, in conjunction

with Prince Rupert and perhaps Alert Bay. We need the jobs here in

Victoria in the fishing industry, clean high-technology jobs that your

colleague, the Minister of Education, Science and Technology (Hon. Mr.

McGeer) has alluded to and apparently has some commitment to. I

mentioned to him that I had hoped that he would encourage that.

Also,

by way of history, in 1969 the landed value of B.C. fisheries was $47

million, with a wholesale market of $83 million. Last year the landed

value reached $200 million, with a wholesale value of $400 million.

Now

I see the minister sitting back in his seat. He's anxious to get rid of

his estimates and relax and be done for it for another six months until

the election.

HON. MR. MAIR: Nope. I'm happy as a clam.

MR. HANSON:

There are great possibilities. I've said it a number of times, but I've

yet to see any commitment on the part of any minister to really grab

this possibility. I'm sure that little trap shooter, the stocky little

fellow who was looking over the bridge on Adams River which goes

through your riding, who was showing Romeo LeBlanc the way, would have

intervened in some way for the benefit of British Columbians. I am

absolutely confident of that. He wouldn't have let us, as your

predecessors, who had responsibility for this.... He said all the way

through the election campaign: "It's a federal matter. I can't do a

thing about it." You have at least put the moratorium on the processing

licences. He could have done that in 1978.

HON. MR. MAIR: The Adams Rivers is not in my riding.

[ Page 684 ]

MR. HANSON:

The Adams Rive fish run through your riding. I'm sure you won't allow

uranium exploration around the Adams River that may jeopardize that run.

hope the minister will prove over the next few years that he's going to

take action on this. We do not have a Sacramento Valley in British

Columbia. We are capable of getting food for the present and the future

from the sea and also, with proper management, from crops adaptable to

the interior of the province; with hydroponics; with use of off-peak

hydro power for greenhouses, et cetera. We can use our imagination and

creativity to extricate ourselves from relying on other areas of the

country and the continent that will not be able to guarantee our food

supplies in the future.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I

won't take long. I have just about four or five or six issues I want to

draw to this minister's attention, as quickly and concisely as I

possibly can.

The minister is familiar with a problem of a

small enterprise in my riding. It's the historic community of

Craigellachie, where the last spike was driven, completing the railway

in 1884. The problem is that this chap has developed a small tourist

enterprise called Paradise Valley Resort.

HON. MR. MAIR: I saw them again on Saturday and we're going to review the file again — for the third time.

MR. KING:

Did you? Good. I hope the minister looked at the terrain. The permit

for the establishment of a small trailer site has been withheld on the

basis that the land is subject to flooding. One needs only to look

across the highway, which runs adjacent to the property, to recognize

that both the highway and the Canadian Pacific Railway main line are

some six feet higher than the property they allege might be flooded

from the stream beyond the highway and the railway. Obviously if it's

going to flood that property, it's going to inundate the railway and

the highway. It really doesn't make any sense whatsoever in practical

terms.

If the minister looks at the topography of the

terrain he will recognize it's highly inconsistent and doesn't make

sense to withhold the licence from this individual. Beyond that, Mr.

Chairman, there are established residential premises at the same

elevation, and on property adjoining the one in question. If they are

subject to flooding, there is no record of it over the past 75 years. I

would seriously request that the minister review that application.

The

other matter I wanted to ask the minister about relates to the question

raised by my friend and colleague, the second member for Victoria (Mr.

Hanson), with respect to the uranium exploration permit that has been

granted in the Adams River, which is now in my riding also. My riding

is very large. Mr. Mander went to work on my old riding. In

consultation with Gerry, he extended it a great, great deal.

Mr.

Chairman, I'm not going to repeat the reasons for concern. The

importance of the salmon fishery in the Adams River run is evident to

everyone in British Columbia. I'm not sure what the minister can do

about it, but I would ask that he monitor that situation — which I

understand was granted by the federal government — very, very closely

and express the concern to the federal authority from the environmental

point of view and the fisheries point of view as to allowing any

uranium activity whatsoever in that highly sensitive area.

The

third point I want to raise is the infamous proposal to divert some

water from the Shuswap Lake into the Okanagan Lake system. That

business simmers away under the surface. I think it is fair to say that

there is a great deal of concern by local agencies and local people

that idea has not altogether been abandoned. I submit, clearly and

unequivocally, that proposal makes absolutely no sense at all. I would

deeply appreciate it if the minister would care to reinforce my

attitude for the record, so that I might translate to my constituents

the commitment from the Minister of Environment that he would oppose

any such plan.

The Revelstoke Dam water licence has been

hashed over, particularly by me, many times in this House, and I'm not

going to belabour it again, other than to make the very narrow point

that relates to the minister's general area of public participation and

input — for the public into these kinds of deliberations.

When

the public is coming up against an agency such as the B.C. Hydro and

Power Authority, which has at its disposal all of the technical

resources, funds, data they are able to develop through surveys and

reports over the years, which they do not always release to the public

— at least with any lead time in advance of the hearings — it makes it

an exercise in futility and a sham to claim that there is an

opportunity for any real public input into those kinds of decisions.

It's essential, in my view, particularly when it's a Crown corporation

which is being funded through the tax dollars of the people who want to

make submissions and perhaps oppose, or to some extent control, the

type of development that is being proffered — that they get an equal

break, in terms of some funding to retain hydrologists, soil experts,

engineering consultants, and perhaps some legal advice. I'm not sure

that's the best approach, but in some cases it can be useful, as far as

the legal advice is concerned. For specialist assistance, the people

deserve to be at least on somewhat of an equal footing with the agency

they are trying to come to grips with and to develop public interest

in. As it stands now, it is a complete David-and-Goliath kind of

approach, where the public has no real opportunity whatsoever to affect

the outcome. It's pretty much a stacked deck. I think the government

knows that as well as we do. I urge the minister to do something really

meaningful in terms of a public commitment to provide funding before

any major dam construction or other river diversions and things of that

nature are approved.

The public does have some real and

valuable information. The public does have a valuable contribution to

make in terms of planning the environment for all of our sakes and for

future generations. It is a narrow view to assume that all of those

people out there who are concerned in the body politic awesome kind of

quacks who are simply out to create waves. That's not so. There is

valuable input to be solicited from the public, and it should be

encouraged and facilitated rather than discouraged.

Point

number 5 — I'm going through these in very capsulized form. I could

spend some time discussing each one of these points, but I'm

constraining myself admirably. Princess Louisa Inlet and Chatterbox

Falls — a highly sensitive area, beautiful environment — contribute

heavily to the tourist attraction of this fair province of ours. Is the

[ Page 685 ]

Minister

of Environment talking to his colleague the Minister of Forests (Hon.

Mr. Waterland) with respect to the proposed logging of an admittedly

fairly small portion of this Princess Louisa Inlet area? I believe it's

about 600 acres, and I understand that it's on private land. I would

like some response from the minister in terms of what kind of

conclusions he and his colleague have arrived at for making sure that

logging exercise is monitored and all of the multifaceted-use

considerations are adequately safeguarded.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that where you live — in Chatterbox Falls?

MR. KING:

Some people say I'm a bit of a chatterbox. I believe, Mr. Chairman,

that you're sent down here to represent the constituents who happen to

live in your riding. Far better to be a bit of a chatterbox than to be

a frozen bump on a log and never participate in the debates, but simply

rubber-stamp all of the government initiatives through your

partisanship and through your lack of concern for the constituents you

are supposed to represent. So be it.

The last point I have

is with respect to a lake in the Enderby area named Gardom Lake. It's a

very small lake. I don't think it is named after Garde Basil; I think

it got its name through some other more historic purpose than that. But

in any event, apparently an individual has purchased private land on

the perimeter of that lake, is constructing a home, and is flying his

aircraft in and using the small lake as the base for his aircraft.

The

thing is that the lake has federal restrictions, I believe, that

prohibit the use of any gas- or petroleum-operated motor vessels on the

lake. Therefore I find it difficult to understand how it can be used as

a seaplane base, not withstanding the fact that it has other

implications to the neighbours of the individual in terms of the

tremendous noise involved and the wash that is created from the plane

landing and taking off.

I would appreciate it if the

minister would have a look at that situation to see whether or not he

can bring any legitimate influence to bear through his department.

HON. MR. MAIR:

Mr. Chairman, to the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King), I met

with the Wilkinsons, his constituents, last Saturday. I'm going to

review the file again, and I assure him of that. I also will, if my

estimates ever end, get up to his constituency and take another look at

that property. The last time I was there it was for a purpose not

totally connected with my ministry, and I was looking more at fish

hatcheries.

The uranium permit question on the Adams River I

answered, I believe, quite fully in a question posed by one of your

colleagues, Mr. Member. I would urge you to look at the answer because

it was specific as to what exploration was allowed and the controls it

is under. If that isn't sufficient, I'll be very pleased to try and get

further information for you.

The question of the Shuswap. I

was rather surprised to hear the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke revive

that issue. I'm downstream from him, as you know, and if that were ever

to become a reality, the impact upon my constituency and my

constituents would be as great, if not a great deal greater, than on

his. I can assure him that I have no intention of allowing that to

happen, if I have anything to say about it.

The question of

the Revelstoke Dam and the procedures. I spoke some while yesterday on

what I think are some of the things we have got to do on projects of

this, sort.

Your question, I think, was primarily directed

towards funding of groups. I'm not in a position — I'm sure the member

knows that — to commit the government to any course of action in the

future, but I think some evidence of where our thinking is at is in the

Bates commission on uranium exploration, where we have provided a good

deal of funding.

I'm getting a little punchy here. I had a tooth fixed today, and it's bothering me.

Princess

Louisa Inlet. I'm probably one of three people at least in this House

who have ever been there, and they include the Minister of Forests

(Hon. Mr. Waterland), the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon.

Mr. Chabot) and myself. I happen to have a great and abiding love for

that area. I spent a great deal of my time as a boy up in that area,

and the first job I ever had on my own away from home when I was about

16 years of age was up there. I'm hopeful that we can work out

solutions to that problem. I want to stay on top of the situation to

assure that we can. You'll have a better crack, I suppose, at finding

out when my estimates are over and the next one comes on, because he's

the man you're going to have to talk to about that. I understand from

his visit that he thinks the matter can be handled to the satisfaction

of all.

The question of Gardom Lake. The restrictions

imposed on watercraft are imposed by us — that is, the fish and

wildlife branch. I don't know whether we can extend that to aircraft. I

think it is kind of interesting. It would seem to me it is no longer an

aircraft once it's on the lake. In any event, I assure you I'I look

into it. I think that's rather a serious question.

On my

favourite little lake to fish, Six-Mile, I was surprised to see

water-skiers coming at me one day, and the lake can't be half a mile

long. I'm very sensitive to this sort of thing, so I assure you I'll

look into it.

Going back to the second member for Victoria

(Mr. Hanson), I'm concerned about the foreign investment in the fishing

industry, Mr. Member, through you, Mr. Chairman. I would observe,

however, that the fishing industry in British Columbia has been

foreign-controlled almost since the very beginning, if you are prepared

to accept British control as foreign control, and I certainly hold that

if you wish — particularly when you consider the American ownership

that has been on the coast for years and years.

I don't

think there is any question in anybody's mind that there is an

excessive amount of foreign investment in the industry. One of the

problems is that we don't know how much it is. I gave an answer to

questions in this House a week or so ago, an indication that we intend

to find out what it is and find out just what the parameters of the

problem are, and we're going to do so.

The question of

licensing. Philosophically I suppose I have to answer to you that the

free market ought to take care of the problem of the multiplicity of

licences; but I'd also have to say that I don't agree with that myself,

because unfortunately there are two intervening factors which interfere

with the free market system. One is the question of policing the

resource itself, and the taking of fish and the buying and selling of

them, and making sure that the rules

[ Page 686 ]

are

obeyed. That's a very difficult thing to do and it's outside of our

control. The second thing is the whole problem of high-grading offshore

to the great detriment of the onshore processors, particularly to the

people who work in those plants, and the social problems that creates.

As I said to you earlier, Mr. Member, I can't give you any specific

answers. I can only assure you that I am very concerned, as you are,

about the whole problem. My ministry is looking into it on a

high-profile and high-priority basis.

The question of

Pacific shellfish. I agree also that's a very exciting prospect. I

think that's one of the most exciting things we have coming on stream —

not just the shellfish, but also the whole question of aquaculture. I

think we're going to find a difference in people's tastes now that the

Third World has decided that it's tired of being starved to death by

the rest of the world. I think we're going to find that there's going

to be a great future for all the aquaculture schemes that are coming on

stream, including the shellfish that you've talked about. The only

disagreement I would have with you is that I think that the prospects

are even greater than you say. I think, for example, that we're looking

at ten times the oyster production as we have now. I don't think we've

got enough money set aside for it at this point; I don't think anybody

really anticipated just how big a thing this was going to be. But I

agree with you that in the years to come it's going to be an enormous

thing, and I share with you your enthusiasm and your optimism.

MR. KING:

I just wanted to make the observation and I thank the minister for his

response — that when he goes up to my riding on his next visitation, I

hope he's more successful in his objective than he was on his last

visit.

MR. DAVIS: I want to say a few brief words on

a matter of conflict, although the conflict is more apparent than real

— the conflict between industrial development on the one hand and

environmental protection on the other. I personally feel that good,

sound, long-term economics are consistent with the fullest possible

protection of our environment. Certainly, good engineering is going as

much as possible with the grain of nature. So I really don't think

that, if we're wise in organizing our affairs, we'll make economic

decisions and engineering and technical decisions which do not in

conflict with good environmental practice.

I think that the

job of the provincial Ministry of Environment is basically to protect

the environment, and that it must do so with all possible expertise and

all possible energy. I simply ask that its Pollution Control Board, for

example, be reasonable and above all be definite in its rulings. Unless

it's reasonable and definite in these rulings, it's going to make it

very difficult for industry to plan ahead and conform with sound

environmental measures.

Basically, the new types of

standards that are being set up are standards which say that any

activity must be within the assimilative capacity of the local

environment. The local environment must be able to assimilate the

pollutants that are being discharged by the industry in question — they

must be well within its assimilative capacity. The Pollution Control

Board is saying they must be within assimilative capacity, but not

where within that capacity. It could be anywhere from zero pollution up

to that capacity. That capacity is measured in various ways. The

assimilative capacity of a local environment, for example, is of the

order of one-thousandth of that level of pollution which has ever been

known to affect human health. Any discharge for a matter of hours on

any day in the year which approaches that approaches the assimilative

capacity of the environment. Again, any discharge which would have any

measurable effect, any significant minor effect on local plant life, or

wildlife or other life also exceeds the assimilative capacity. I'm all

for our standards being within that assimilative capacity, but being

specific, so that the industry in question knows how it has to perform,

knows what plant it has to install, and knows what additional operating

costs it will encounter.

If I can be quite specific, the new

guidelines or new objectives that have been announced for large

industries in this province — industries of the character of smelters,

refineries or power plants — say that the discharge of sulphur dioxide

must not be more than 0.8 parts per million for more than a few hours

in any day in the year. That, presumably, is the assimilative capacity.

But the Pollution Control Board says that the requirement could be 0.2

parts, or could be less than 0.2 parts per million. Those industries

planning new facilities really don't know whether they have to plan for

the maximum allowable of 0.8 or more likely some figure halfway down to

0.2 or indeed 0.2 or less, and the difference in cost is fantastic. The

difference in operating cost is considerable, and often it may mean the

difference between that industry proceeding and that industry not

proceeding. My impression is that this relatively novel approach we're

adopting in British Columbia of announcing ranges as opposed to

definite standards is designed more for the convenience of the

Pollution Control Board and the administration of the pollution control

branch than it is for industry which will create new jobs in this

province — industry which, if it can be economic and keep its costs

down, can also help us to control inflation. I believe that we have a

problem here.

I know that the minister — certainly his

advisers — will tend to say: "Well, we need flexibility. We will have

to protect some of the old industries we have. But these new standards,

the new guidelines, the new objectives don't apply to old industry."

They apply to new industry; they apply to new developments, and I hope

that it is possible for this administration to be much more definite as

to what the requirements will be. Make them tough, but be definite.

Make them difficult to attain, if that is necessary in order to cover

all the possibilities and remove uncertainties, but nevertheless be

definite, or we're not going to have the kind of investment and new

jobs and new facilities we so badly need.

British Columbia's

approach in many ways is unique; it's purist, really. It only takes

biological considerations into account; it is concerned really only

with the environment. It doesn't allow for such concepts as the latest

working technology. Other administrations have, for example, said:

"Well, in a particular industry there is a clean plant somewhere in the

world or somewhere in this country. Put in that kind of plant and

equipment and that's good enough."

That is not the approach

in this province. The approach is essentially a biological and medical

one. It pays little or no attention to the latest clean-up technology.

At the national level it may make sense to require, as far as federal

standards are concerned, that the latest clean-up technology be used.

But here the often tougher requirement of meeting

[ Page 687 ]

the

biological standards, environmental standards, set to the needs of a

particular locality must override and must overrule if the latest

working technology doesn't meet standards. We require even better plant

and equipment and operating techniques.

But I think it is

important if we're going to have the highest standards in this country,

the highest standards on this continent, that we be definite as to what

those standards are. I urge the minister, and certainly through the

minister and his board, to give