1981 Legislative Session: 3rd 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)

THURSDAY, JUNE 4, 1981

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

5987 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

An Act to Establish an Institute of Native Indian Languages for British Columbia (Bill

M204). Mr. Hanson.

Introduction and first reading –– 5987

Oral Questions

College funding. Mr. Lauk –– 5987

Mr. Hanson

Mr. Lockstead

Job training programs. Ms. Sanford –– 5988

Ms. Brown

Gas poisoning at Can-Cel plant. Hon. Mr. Heinrich replies –– 5989

Urea formaldehyde in B.C. schools. Hon. Mr. Smith replies –– 5990

Ministerial Statement

British Columbia Arts Festival.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 5991

Mrs. Dailly –– 5991

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Human Resources estimates. (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy)

On vote 118: direct community services and administrative support ––

Mr. Hall

On vote 121: community projects –– 5994

Ms. Brown

On vote 122: GAIN programs –– 5994

Ms. Brown

On vote 124: building occupancy charges –– 5994

Ms. Brown

On the amendment to vote 124 –– 5994

Ms. Brown

Division on the amendment to vote 124

On vote 125: computer and consulting charges –– 5995

Ms. Brown

On the amendment to vote 125 –– 5995

Ms. Brown

Division on the amendment to vote 125

On vote 125: computer and consulting charges –– 5995

Ms. Brown

Mr. Nicolson

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

On vote 76: minister's office –– 5996

Hon. Mr. Rogers

Mr. Skelly

Mrs. Wallace

Tabling Documents

Agreement between British Columbia Place Ltd. and Canadian Pacific Ltd. (Marathon Realty).

Hon. Mr. Rogers –– 6012

THURSDAY, JUNE 4, 1981

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I

would ask the House to welcome two visitors in the gallery today: Mrs.

Rose Mytko of Richmond, and Mrs. Anne Reddick of Surrey.

HON. MR. WOLFE:

Mr. Speaker, seated in your gallery today is none other than Mayor

Michael Harcourt from the city of Vancouver. I would ask the House to

make him welcome.

MR. DAVIDSON: Mr. Speaker, visiting

with us today on the floor of the Legislature is a very good friend of

mine, who is here with his wife, who is in the gallery — Dr. Julian

Amos, who is, among other things, the minister for primary industry,

the minister for the environment, minister for water resources,

forestry and fisheries for Tasmania. I would ask the House to give this

member of the Labour Party a very warm welcome to British Columbia.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

Mr. Speaker, seated in the gallery this afternoon is a past member of

the House of Commons in Ottawa, who served as a Member of Parliament

for some time. He was also a very well-known open-line host in the

province of British Columbia; he is now an independent businessman. I

would ask the House to welcome John Reynolds.

MR. SPEAKER: I recognize the hon. member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. LAUK: I rise under.... Could I just have my standing order book? I want to refer to the actual number of the standing order.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it standing order 8, hon. member?

MR. LAUK:

It is standing order 8, Mr. Speaker. Thank you. Obviously one can

perceive that that is the proper standing order. I'm delighted the

Speaker agrees with me. "Every member is bound to attend the service of

the House, unless leave of absence has been given him by the House."

The reason I point that out is that a breach of the standing orders has

been taking place over the last several days that I wish to see

corrected.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the first

member for Vancouver Centre has on previous occasions reminded the

House of standing order 8. I think we would remind the hon. member

again, as we have so many times before, that attendance in the House is

considered to have taken place if the member is present in the

precinct. The Speaker is powerless to determine from this vantage point

whether or not that has taken place.

MR. LAUK: On a

new point of order, Mr. Speaker, I know that standing orders as set out

here in this red book apply to this Legislature. I would like to know

what group of standing orders applies to the legislature presently

underway in the city of Vancouver.

MR. PASSARELL: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Please state the matter briefly.

MR. PASSARELL:

I raised this question of privilege on June 1, 1981, and I seek the

same consideration that was granted the Minister of Lands, Parks and

Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) on May 29, 1981, eight days after the

petition I presented in this House on May 21, 1981.

question of privilege is that the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing

accused me of misleading the House with the Windy Bay petition. He has

not tendered an unqualified withdrawal or apology.

If Your

Honour finds that I have a prima facie question of privilege I intend

to move the following motion: that a special committee of privilege be

appointed to consider the matter of the remarks of the Minister of

Lands, Parks and Housing made in this House on May 29, 1981, that the

member for Atlin misled the House upon presentation of a petition, and

that the said committee report its findings to the House — the said

committee to be composed of eight members to be named by the special

committee of selection — and that the committee so appointed have the

following powers: namely, to have all the powers and privileges of the

Legislative Assembly under the Legislative Assembly Privilege Act.

MR. SPEAKER:

This matter appears to have grown out of a matter which we dealt with

yesterday. We will take this under advisement to see whether there are

new facts that have arisen and will bring a decision to the House.

Introduction of Bills

AN ACT TO ESTABLISH AN

INSTITUTE OF NATIVE INDIAN

LANGUAGES FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA

On a motion by Mr. Hanson,

Bill M204,

An Act to Establish an Institute of Native Indian Languages

for British Columbia, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be

placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of

the House after today.

Oral Questions

COLLEGE FUNDING

MR. LAUK:

I have a question for the Minister of Education. The effect of

government funding policy at Cariboo College has been a shortfall of

$845,000 and an announced cut of 13 full-time faculty positions. Has

the minister decided to take steps to increase the funding to Cariboo

College to maintain services at the 1980-81 level?

HON. MR. SMITH:

Mr. Speaker, the funding increases for that college were something in

the neighbourhood of 19 percent. It is virtually impossible for all

colleges which undertake new programs, as this college has, to carry

out all its old programs in the same way it did the preceding year.

That means that colleges and college boards who are sovereign in the

matters have to decide what their funding and program priorities are.

The result is that in some cases some colleges have not been able to

carry out all their existing programs.

[ Page 5988 ]

The

member opposite also knows that the funding of colleges — the

allocation of funding for colleges — is done by three councils, and

that they allocate the funds that the Legislature appropriates. They

give those funds to the colleges through the councils and that produces

the global budget. The minister does not have funds available to

supplement those budgets. But in the case of Cariboo College and some

others who have come to see me, I am meeting with the boards and

representatives of these colleges and examining the budgeting

procedures that were used. The member well knows, Mr. Speaker, that the

funding allocations are done through three independent councils.

MR. LAUK:

Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. It is clear, from talking

to the three councils to which the minister has referred, that they say

that they haven't got enough money to allocate according to their

responsibilities. The buck has to stop somewhere. I'm asking the

minister: if your councils — they're your councils, as you appoint them

— are of the view that they do not have sufficient funds to adequately

budget for all colleges and their requirements in the province, has the

minister decided to take emergency steps to provide adequate funding?

HON. MR. SMITH:

I generally communicate with the councils directly, and not through the

first member for Vancouver Centre. A 19 percent increase in college

operating budgets, which the Legislature appropriated this year under

my estimates, is one of the largest increases in post-secondary

education in North America.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker,

I have a question for the Minister of Education regarding Camosun

College here in Victoria. One effect of the underfunding of the

colleges is the possible elimination of 15 to 20 faculty positions,

mainly in the second-year transfer programs. In view of the fact that

our participation rate — the number of people attending post-secondary

education — in British Columbia ranks sixth in all of Canada, and in

view of the essential role of Camosun College, what action has the

minister decided to take to redress this problem?

HON. MR. SMITH: Certainly not to appropriate the decision-making role of the board of Camosun College.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

At Malaspina College there have been cuts of 12 full-time-equivalent

positions and 10 support positions. Has the minister decided to make

funding available to restore these 22 jobs at Malaspina?

While

I have the minister's attention, I might remind the minister that one

of those positions that have been cut is an instructor for the mentally

disabled people. This is the year of the handicapped. I would think

that the minister would pay special attention to that particular

program.

HON. MR. SMITH: I think it's my day, Mr. Speaker.

understand that a delegation from Malaspina was going to present that

information to me. I'm not aware of the last piece of information about

that position. I'll look into that.

MR. LAUK: Mr.

Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Education. The effect of

government cutbacks in the colleges is that essential programs to

provide skilled people for British Columbia are being lost. For

example, I've raised Cariboo College — the carpentry program with 200

students has been cancelled; welding and electronics have been cut back

by 20 percent; the correctional officers' program has been cancelled.

In view of the findings of the Ministry of Labour critical trades

survey that millwrights, heavy-duty mechanics and so on are in short

supply, has the minister decided to take steps to provide funding for

expansion of college programs that allow unskilled British Columbians

to take advantage of the job opportunities predicted by the government

for projects like northeast coal?

HON. MR. SMITH: The answer to the question, Mr. Speaker, is yes.

MR. LAUK: If yes, what steps is he taking today to meet the requirements?

HON. MR. SMITH:

Mr. Speaker, the details of those steps will be laid before the

assembly in due course. I think my friend opposite knows that a

specific sum of money was appropriated for critical skills training by

the Legislature and will be earmarked for new programs. There are new

programs being developed in the various colleges that he, in fact, has

mentioned. There are initiatives that have been undertaken this year,

not just through my ministry but also through the Ministry of Labour,

to address critical skills shortages. That is something that we have

been aware of for some time.

MR. LAUK: I have a

supplementary, Mr. Speaker. It is clear then, by the minister's answer,

that he is starving the current programs in colleges by saving money in

his little giveaway fund. Has the minister decided that, rather than

give predictable budgets to colleges, he is going to reserve funds, so

that he can personally, at his own discretion, give out grants like

Marie Antoinette?

MR. SPEAKER: The question is argumentative, particularly in its

preamble, but the germ of a question is there.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, the member, as usual, is intoxicated with the exuberance of his own verbosity.

JOB TRAINING PROGRAMS

MS. SANFORD:

I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Mr. Ron Basford advises

that excluding apprentices and the salaried journeymen who will be in

supervisory positions, the northeast coal project will be short between

920 and 1,200 skilled people by 1984. At a time when half of B.C.'s

unemployed are between the ages of 15 and 24 and are unskilled, can the

minister confirm that the programs undertaken by government to

alleviate that problem are totally inadequate, and that the government

will continue its policy of importing skills from elsewhere on an

as-needed basis?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I believe the

figures to which the hon. member refers arose as a result of some

research which I had done by people in the Ministry of Labour. We

identified that there is a shortage in specific areas. It's

acknowledged, and no one is going to deny it. The program which has

been put in place has provided a substantial increase in apprentices.

As a matter of fact, it's working out to be about 100 a month. Right

now the critical shortage of seven specific trades was identified at

about 1,400 when the

[ Page 5989 ]

study

was conducted. Over half have been on the program which was introduced.

Prior to September 1, the date on which it went on stream, there were

something in the order of about 520. I don't want to be pinned down on

the exact number, but it was certainly over 500. We're moving in that

direction.

I think you will also find that the second phase

of the critical skills shortage studies indicates that by 1984 there

will be a substantial shortage — something in the area of 4,000 to

5,000. That's something which we are addressing. I think we've met with

some success. Frankly, I thought that maybe that matter would be

examined during my estimates.

MS. SANFORD: Can the

minister confirm that the present program is totally inadequate in that

between 920 and 1,200 skilled people will be required by the northeast

coal project by 1984?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: There are a

number of areas from which tradesmen will come. One big problem we

encountered was that there has been almost total reliance on offshore

skills. We are addressing that problem. I think you will find that it

will have been answered when those mills come on stream.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

Sure, there's a shortage now; I don't deny it. To the member: do you

think that we train 1,000 or 1,200 tradesmen and then suddenly go out

and look for work for them? That was the whole purpose of the program.

AN HON. MEMBER: You can't do it by firing instructors.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MS. SANFORD:

The minister posed a question to me. He wanted to know if I think that

so and so and so and so. I'll let him know what I think. I think his

program is totally inadequate.

MS. BROWN: My question

is to the Minister of Education. Graduates from the community

health-service worker program usually find employment at Tranquille, in

Kamloops. As a result of inadequate funding by the government, this

program has now been cut by 50 percent. We have been advised by the

personnel department of Tranquille that they are presently placing

advertisements in Ontario for staff. Has the minister decided to take

steps to restore full funding to the community health-service worker

program at Cariboo College?

HON. MR. SMITH: That is one of the programs at Cariboo College that I will be reviewing with the board of that college in the next week.

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

Yesterday there were a number of questions asked by the member for

Comox (Ms. Sanford) and the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard). I wonder if

I can have permission to answer those questions.

MR. SPEAKER: Please proceed.

GAS POISONING AT CAN-CEL PLANT

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

The first question was: "Can the minister confirm that 49 workers have

been stricken by some degree of sickness....?" We're referring to the

pulpmill in Prince Rupert. Mr. Don Vinoly of the boilermakers' union,

who was contacted today, confirms that since April 2, 1981,

approximately 49 workers who are members of his union have sought

medical attention as a result of inhalation of noxious gases. The

company reports that since March 21 there have been 66 reported cases

of illness related to gas. Of these, ten required some sort of hospital

attention.

The next question asked was: "Can the minister

confirm that there are only two meters in operation, and that they are

not manned constantly?" The answer is that the mill has ten

Bendix-Draeger gas-monitoring units, of which four are in use at any

one time while the others are being regenerated. These meters are ready

every hour around the clock. In addition, the mill has and utilizes

hand meters for gas testing. I am told that by the pulp industry this

standard represents very extensive monitoring, certainly more than

meets the WCB requirements.

The third question was: "Can the

minister confirm that several of the workers stricken by gas found it

necessary to fly to Vancouver for treatment?" Of the ten workers who

required hospital attention, three were kept overnight for observation.

All reported hospital attention took place in Prince Rupert. However,

since most of the boilermakers who booked off the job are from the

lower mainland, and since most, if not all, returned to the Vancouver

area after they booked off, it is possible that some of them may later

have sought hospital treatment there. That is what the union advised

them to do. None found it necessary to fly to Vancouver expressly for

treatment, as the question implies.

The fourth question was:

"Is the WCB taking action with respect to methyl mercaptan?" The WCB

has been testing this and other pulpmills in British Columbia for

methyl mercaptan over the last two years. Before that time there was no

appropriate testing method for the gas. The WCB has visited the Prince

Rupert mill five times in the last two years — three times in the last

two months — testing for methyl mercaptan. They report that there has

been no reported overexposure to methyl mercaptan in the last couple of

months. Acceptable levels for methyl mercaptan were reviewed by the WCB

a year and a half ago. As a result of a thorough literature search,

public hearings and input from all parties involved, the acceptable

level was set at three parts per million. The previous level was 0.5

parts per million. This compares with the acceptable level in the U.S.

of ten parts per million. In sum, the methyl mercaptan has been

recognized as potentially dangerous for some time. The levels have been

carefully monitored, but there have been no real incidents of exposure.

The

other question was: "Can the minister also confirm incidents of

asbestos poisoning on the same job site, which were reported to the

WCB?" No such incidents of asbestos poisoning occurred. The mill is in

the process of modifying its number 4 recovery boiler, which dates from

1965. In the process a fair amount of asbestos was removed from tubing

at the bottom of the boiler. In the course of its inspections of the

mill, the WCB became aware of the asbestos and reported it to the

people at the mill. On May 22 the board issued a compliance order for

cleanup of the asbestos. The mill immediately hired a local contractor

to undertake the cleanup.

[ Page 5990 ]

WCB

inspections on May 24 and May 25 determined that the cleanup was

unsatisfactory and that the process was creating more hazard than it

was alleviating. A new contractor — Power Vac from Richmond — was

hired, and they recommence cleanup procedures as of today, June 4. I'm

told the job will take ten days. Meanwhile workers have been instructed

to wear breathing apparatus and protective clothing when working in the

affected areas.

Never did the asbestos levels exceed

permissible concentrations. However, once the presence of asbestos

became apparent a number of workers did notify the nursing station that

they had been exposed. They apparently did so for future reference.

Mr.

Ron Dennis, inspection supervisor, and an industrial hygienist have

gone to Prince Rupert today to investigate the progress of the

asbestos-cleaning. They will also be observing gas-testing for

chlorine, chlorine dioxide, hydrogen sulphide and sulphur dioxide. Mr.

Dennis will be reporting to the board, and also directly to me, when he

returns on Monday.

The union's response to the whole problem

was not withdrawal of services. Rather, they advised workers that they

are not required to work on a worksite they deem unsafe. After a visit

to the mill by Mr. Don Vinoly and other union representatives on May 3,

and discussions with management, it was agreed to give the boilermakers

a temporary layoff while the company undertook corrective procedures.

Workers returned to Vancouver. The crew flew back to Prince Rupert on

May 25. There was a further gassing incident on May 29. This resulted

in another temporary layoff of two weeks' duration. This was agreed to

by all parties. The union suggested to mill management that additional

monitors be hired, that a qualified person be set in supervision of

them and that the shop steward be included in arrangement to make the

place safe.

The company now plans to: (1) double the staff

of gas monitors, thereby increasing the frequency of readings;

(2) assign two senior technical people to inform workers about what's going

on and keep a check on the gas situation; (3) engage Dr. Leach of the

B.C. Research Council to do a complete gas analysis of the mill,

including gases other than those they now monitor; (4) engage Chemetic,

the firm which designed and installed their gas-burning system to do a

thorough check; and (5) retain a member of the local medical community

to keep a check on gas conditions and workers' health.

Emergency

training and procedures to cope with gas are now in place for all crew

in the mill to guard against worker exposure. Alarms and sirens are

also in use.

MR. LEA: I ask leave to make a statement.

Leave not granted.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, may I have leave to answer a question which was asked of me on June 1?

MR. SPEAKER: Was it in question period?

HON. MR. SMITH: Yes, it was.

MR. SPEAKER: Please proceed.

UREA FORMALDEHYDE IN B.C. SCHOOLS

HON. MR. SMITH:

On June 1 the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) asked me if there

had been other examples of urea formaldehyde in the schools that have

been brought to my attention. He asked me more specifically if the

school board in Kamloops was notified that ten of the kindergarten

demountable classrooms in that district are insulated with urea

formaldehyde, and what I was doing to protect the welfare of students.

looking into that, it appears that those ten demountable classrooms

used as kindergartens were all tested by the public health inspector

and that no findings of urea formaldehyde gas were found in any of

those structures.

MR. LEA: I rise on the same point

of order that I raised yesterday, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday I pointed out

to Your Honour that every time we ask leave on this side of the House

to make a statement, the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr.

Chabot) says no. I would like Your Honour to consider this.

After

the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) made a statement today in

regard to the health and safety for workers in my riding in the

pulpmill in Prince Rupert, I think it could have been assumed by the

Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing that I was going to make a

statement in regard to the minister's statement. What is happening, Mr.

Speaker, is rather than using this Legislature for the benefit of the

people of this province, in my opinion, the Minister of Lands, Parks

and Housing is using it for cheap political games. That's all he's

doing.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I ask you to privately see the

minister and ask him whether he intends to do this for the term of this

parliament. If so, we cannot waste our time.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please. Hon. members, when leave is requested, it is because of

a desire to seek unanimous consent of the House. Whenever unanimous

consent is denied the standing orders provide for no powers for the

Chair to determine why leave is denied. It simply means that one

member, for any reason and for reasons many times known only to

himself, wishes not to give unanimous consent. As a result, no

statement can be entertained at that time.

Had the member

wished to respond to a ministerial statement, he would have been able

to make a response by right. But when a minister simply answers a

question taken as notice in question period, that right does not exist.

MR. LEA:

Mr. Speaker, I understand that your hands are tied by the rules and

that you have to adopt what you're doing in the House. What I'm asking

Mr. Speaker to do is to somehow or other review that specific rule with

whatever is the appropriate committee, so that there can be fair play

in the House and so that the people of the province can be served. I

believe that if it's allowed to remain the way it is, then we can see

what happens to a rule that was set up for a specific purpose and is

being used for a different purpose.

MR. SPEAKER: An

adequate remedy is available to the member for exactly that purpose. A

substantive motion can be placed on the order paper with a proper

motion to have it committed to a committee, as he suggests.

MR. HALL:

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, what we've got here, in my view, is a

circumvention of the practice of the House, namely question period.

What is happening here is that in an attempt to make question period

more meaningful, the cabinet members have asked and received permission

of the House to make lengthy statements answering questions asked

during question period outside of the question period. That has always

been given. We've agreed that we shouldn't use up a great deal of time

in those lengthy answers. But once that permission is given and an

answer is given by a cabinet minister, that precludes a supplementary.

[ Page 5991 ]

That's

what the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) and I find offensive: the

chance to immediately question that minister on a piece of information

that he has brought to this House. The remedy is very simple. Either

we're going to have all the answers during question period or question

period will be destroyed by this government. It’s as simple as that.

That's what this government is leaning towards. That's what's behind

their move. I want to serve notice on this House that everybody

realizes that's the game this government is up to.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a ministerial statement.

MR. SPEAKER: Please proceed.

BRITISH COLUMBIA ARTS FESTIVAL

HON. MR. WOLFE:

Mr. Speaker, I make this statement on behalf of the Premier. Before

making the statement I wish to introduce some special guests in the

gallery who are here for the purpose of participating in this important

announcement. I ask leave.

Leave granted.

Interjection.

HON. MR. WOLFE:

Mr. Speaker, I'm sure the member would not want to deny me the

opportunity to introduce some guests in the gallery who are associated

with this announcement, because they are fully familiar with who these

people are and who they represent. They are Mr. Norman Young, chairman

of the British Columbia Arts Board; Mr. Gary Rupert, president of the

Association of B.C. Drama Educators; Mr. Barry McDell, president of the

B.C. Music Festival Association; Anne Marsh, president of Theatre B.C.;

Robin Wood, principal of the Victoria Conservatory of Music; and Wally

Leigh, vice-president of the Greater Victoria Community Arts Council.

Every

member of this House knows that this province is most rich in almost

every possible natural resource, but one resource, the talent of our

artistic community, is certainly one of which we are justly proud. On

behalf of the Premier I'm pleased to say that in an effort to further

promote that talent I am announcing the first British Columbia Arts

Festival, a major showcase of provincial talent sponsored by the

province, aimed at stimulating enthusiasm for and participation in the

arts at the community level and providing an opportunity to recognize

the contributions made by our citizens in the artistic community.

This

festival will be unique in Canada. Its development is a reflection of

the quality of the arts in our province and the contribution it makes

to all of our lives. This first British Columbia Arts Festival will be

held in Kamloops in June 1982. It will feature performances in music,

theatre, dance and the visual arts, with participation from every

region of the province.

Mayor Latta of Kamloops has given

his assurance that his city will do everything possible to set high

standards for future host communities, and I know personally that

Kamloops has all of the right facilities to help make this first

British Columbia Arts Festival a tremendous success. In essence, Mr.

Speaker, the festival will do for the amateur arts what our British

Columbia Games have done for amateur sport in British Columbia.

Although

it is a major undertaking and requires the assistance of hundreds of

volunteers, the result will be a celebration unparalleled in our

country. The government is very grateful to the artists and the

volunteer organizations who worked for many years to bring the arts

community to the point where a festival of this kind is justified. The

festival will be a culmination of their efforts and will involve them

in providing a prestigious stage for displaying the very impressive

results of talented British Columbians.

I might say, Mr.

Speaker, that this new program sponsored by the province in no way will

intrude on the present festivals of these various societies which take

place; we only want to ask them to coordinate in one place and at one

time, to have one exciting activity take place in a festival of the

arts. So there is a great deal to be done before June 1982, and if all

aspects of the amateur arts community participate in the festival, it

is estimated that some 100,000 British Columbians will be involved. I

have every hope that this unique project will become an annual event —

an ongoing opportunity to foster and promote the interest and talent of

our people,

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of

the official opposition I want to say to the Provincial Secretary that

we're very pleased to hear of the proposed festival. We also want to

add our congratulations on the work being done by the B.C. Arts Board.

I think there have been many athletic festivals in this province —

which we all endorse — but I think too often we have forgotten about

the importance of the arts. I think we all know that the measure of

civilization of a province and its advancement are really determined a

lot by the attention that's paid to the arts in it. I want to assure

the Provincial Secretary that the NDP opposition will be glad to

cooperate in any way they can to make this a successful festival.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCES

(continued)

On vote 118: direct community services and administrative support, $85,100,643.

MR. HALL:

Mr. Chairman, just before the lunch hour we were about to discuss the

review and the comprehensive audit that had taken place over the last

12 months in the ministry's operation, particularly in the delivery of

the income assistance program. The operation that takes place is using

the expression "the income-assistance environment." The fact that this

audit is the first comprehensive audit of its kind and one which will

no doubt be examined throughout the length and breadth not only of this

country but in many of the Commonwealth parliaments.... The public

accounts committee was fortunate in having expert testimony coming from

people who in effect lived in the ministry's ambit during that audit

and who have now left the employ of the auditor-general, have gone back

to the private sector and are doing other kinds of works, but who came

back to give testimony to the public accounts committee. In the report

by the auditor-

[ Page 5992 ]

general

we're finding a number of serious criticisms of the administration of

the income-maintenance program. I want to tell the minister that there

was general agreement in the committee with the word picture that was

put forward by my colleague the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr.

Levi). That word picture from the minister's memory was an inverted

pyramid of some $750 million based on the shoulders of this mythical —

but at the same time real — financial assistance worker representing

the minister's line staff. The problem is to distribute the $750

million in the income assistance program as properly as it can humanly

be done.

What we found is that more and more money is being

spent by more and more people and more and more mistakes are being

made. There's been a human inability to establish criteria to measure

the efficiency of the program. Only now after this comprehensive audit

— I'm very optimistic about the future — would it be possible to start

to look at sensible criteria to establish parameters and benchmarks

that we can measure from one year to the other as to how we are

performing in terms of our administering one of the most important

ministries of government.

Let's look at some of the salient

criticisms that were made. One dealt with the quality of information

that comes to this Legislature. If we're to believe in what we're doing

at the moment — that is, voting money — one of the most important

things.... I'm not too sure whether the Chairman and I would agree that

this sometimes boring exercise that takes place in the middle of an

afternoon here has got the relevance it should have; certainly it does

not to visitors who pop in from time to time. The kinds of money that

are going through this budget of $7 billion are now — Mr. Chairman,

you'd be surprised to know — reaching $3.7 billion of simple transfer

payments without the kind of audit other than audit for rectitude and

correctness or any other kind of audit going on at all. It's escaping

the kind of scrutiny that I think the Canadian public is asking for.

The

first criticism simply says that the minister's procedures for

measuring efficiency do not provide management and the Legislative

Assembly with reliable and complete information about the efficiency of

the administration of the income-assistance program or the

effectiveness of the control system. That's the first criticism and one

that those of us who've had offices and have tried to maintain some

kind of contact with the community have been worried about for years.

Criticism

number two is that the ministry is going to have to devote further

substantial effort to ensure the effectiveness of operating control

mechanisms supervision, written guidance to personnel, training, audit,

quality control and implementation of accounting and control systems

for payment. Again there is a cry for improved training and improved

control. It's something that I mentioned in my comments to the minister

on her salary vote. I'm sure it's true to say that those of us who

receive calls — both personally and through our constituency assistants

— have the impression from people asking for advice and for direction

in the welfare field that this is a frequent problem.

third criticism deals with the amount of income assistance which is

paid in error because of mistakes on the part of either employees of

the ministry or on the part of claimants. The ministry often uses this

error rate as an indicator of performance. Another ministry performance

indicator is said to be too general to be useful in analyzing the

overall efficiency of the program. The very criteria the ministry uses

to establish its own control features is said by this comprehensive

audit to be not at all useful. In other words, you've got to throw away

the book and start all over again looking at what we should erect as

the benchmarks or the signposts as a control feature. We are, as I say,

giving more and more money to people in the form of allowances without

any of these kinds of realistic measurements taking place.

The

fourth criticism was touched on by the member for

Maillardville-Coquitlam, who noted that the minister could also provide

information in its annual report which would assist the Legislative

Assembly in gaining insight into the minister's performance —

historical information covering several years, comparing and analyzing

resource utilization. It goes on to talk about what the annual report

could or should do.

May I depart for one second by pointing

out that I am erecting a table at the moment to show that we have 20

ministries with annual reports. I want to show the House when we

received those annual reports, how we receive them after the estimates

are dealt with and how we never get an opportunity to look at the

annual reports before the estimates come before the House. In my view,

we're treated in a cavalier fashion in this House by the House Leader

(Hon. Mr. Gardom) or somebody in terms of the production of annual

reports.

In actual fact, rather than assisting legislators

to do their work, there are road-blocks put in the way. I make no

charge against this ministry at the moment. I'm not saying that this

ministry is part of that report. As I said, I will depart from my

thoughts on this, but I will talk about annual reports at another date.

I think that if we're going to do our job properly, we have to have

information. I can't understand why information isn't tabled the way

it's supposed to be and the way it always was as long as I've been in

the House. It should be done properly and in time for estimates. We

should be able to read the annual report, get on with analyzing

estimates and come up with proper contributions when we're on our feet,

armed with facts and figures given to us by the minister's office.

What's going on is shoddy behaviour, in my view.

Going back

to this ministry, in the comprehensive audit these auditors found that

the extent.... This is one of the most serious criticisms because it

repeats what I said the other day. The report says: "We found that the

extent of day-to-day supervision...is not consistent from one district

to another." When I said this the other day, the minister came back at

me a little later on and asked why I didn't phone her up and say this.

Why didn't I give her some examples? Why didn't I send her a letter? I

use my colleague's word — she "querulously" asked me why I hadn't given

her this information.

I didn't need to give her the

information. She's had auditors working in her own department. This

book has been available to her for some time. I'm sure she knows that

the story varies from Coquitlam to Surrey. I don't think she's the

minister she really is unless she knows that. She's been around. I

don't want her to try and kid me by saying that the fact that I haven't

sent her a nice, little note — a little, perfumed billet-doux — to tell

her that I think the decisions in Surrey are a little bit tougher than

the decisions in Coquitlam is why she didn't get on to it. I think she

knows that. That's borne out by paragraph 8.145 on page 71 in the

comprehensive audit by no less a personage than Erma Morrison. She

points out that the extent of day-to-day supervision is not consistent,

nor are the manuals consistent, nor are the day-to-

[ Page 5993 ]

day

decisions consistent. That's been one of the problems. Go back to the

word picture that my colleague from Maillardville-Coquitlam produced in

the first place — having this $750 million inverted pyramid based on

the shoulders of the one financial worker, who has the job of

administering this program.

We pretty well had total

agreement in the committee, and we got a great deal of agreement from

the senior staff in both the office of the comptroller-general and the

ministry.

I'm not going to take up the time of this

committee and deal with electronic data processing. I think it's in a

mess. I will say not much more than that except that I think most of

the electronic data processing plans are in a terrible mess. I think

most of the B.C. Systems Corporation advice that this government has

had in the past two or three years has been bad. And I think that when

we come to the votes and the discussion on B.C. Systems we'll again

review the auditor-general's report as it affects the ministry. Let me

say, however, that the electronic data processing

section of the

comprehensive audit of this ministry only confirms our suspicions, and

we'll deal with that later on.

"Accountability

for costs related to developing projects was unclear, particularly when

the B.C. Systems Corporation became involved." That is one of the

better sentences quoted from the report. I wouldn't be too tough if I

said it was a mess.

One other thing I'd like to to say about

the report is a personal note, not one that's shared at all by ministry

officials or the auditor-general herself. It's something that I take

exception to. There was a large discussion about the fact that,

although there is a tremendous amount of money expended in the form of

social assistance payments, although we've got all these problems of

accountability, and although we've got all these problems of poor

control, there has been and continues to be an assumption of fraud. I

don't know whether I'm overly sensitive. I certainly don't want to see

anybody defraud anybody. I don't want to see anybody tell untruths and

get away with it; I don't want to see anybody get what they're not

entitled to. In this report we debated why that assumption was made. It

was made in a different way, and I think we're tackling it from two

different points of view. The comprehensive audit was looking at it

from a point of view of controls, from the hard, cold idea of

bookkeeping. I think some of the MLAs on the committee were looking at

it from a more humanistic point of view. Nobody was questioning for a

second that there should be controls. But I certainly question the

basic assumption that somehow there is an attractiveness about fraud. I

think the word "attractive" was used in the report, which I found to be

a little unfortunate. We examined that part of it. We talked about

materiality. We talked about what is allowable or what amount of

discrepancy is understandable that could be occasioned by mistakes,

fraud or honest error. We were told it was a certain percentage; yet,

according to the last figures received from the ministry, it's less

than that materiality figure normally contained as being significant by

auditors.

Similarly, when we look at tables of the very

claimants who have appealed decisions against the ministry, we find —

and it's to somebody's credit — that most of the decisions are in

favour of the claimant. That's the other side of the coin. It would

appear to me as though — and I'm using the words to describe my

argument in a silly way — the minister was defrauding the claimants.

The last two significant studies of any consequence are from the

Vancouver Resources Board and from the U.K., which showed that

underpayments equalled overpayments. Now I don't suggest for a second

that we satisfy ourselves by saying that as long as it balances at the

end of the day — Jones got a dollar and Smith got $10, and they both

should have $5.50 — everything's okay. I do say that there seems to

have been this assumption. I find it unattractive.

Lastly,

may I say to the minister: what it does show in this whole report is

that the training required — and we've looked at the job descriptions

for financial workers and social workers — for the people on the job

shows, I think, that we've got to really put the emphasis on training,

recruitment and administration, making sure that we've got the very

best people to do this exceptionally difficult work.

Many of

the MLAs whom I've spoken to — both in committee and privately in our

own caucus and, from time to time, in the government caucus — have

become a little bit bothered that sometimes our offices, which are

supposed to be extensions of our presence here, are becoming extensions

of Human Resources offices. I really do feel that that should not be.

I'm

also bothered by the tremendous number of applications I see coming

through for courses, books or work to do with welfare rights. That's a

symptom of the system not working too well, and a symptom of the

underlying problems which this report touches on. I think it is a very

important day when a comprehensive audit of a ministry comes down. I

think it establishes a benchmark — one which I think, as I said this

morning, the ministry is to be congratulated on. It gives us a

benchmark to work on, but there are very significant and serious

criticisms. However, I would not be fair if I didn't say, having seen

the listing of the recommendations, that the ministry has agreed to

meet the vast majority of the demands of the auditor-general. If I

hadn't said that before, I certainly want to say it before I sit down.

That augurs well for the future, no matter what the stripe of the

government and no matter what the name of the minister. It augurs well

for the future of the underprivileged, the dispossessed, the poor

people and the unfortunate people who are temporarily out of pocket —

as they say in the old country — together with the permanent lists of

the people on social allowances.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

I want to very quickly respond to the member who has just taken his

place. I appreciate his comments on the innovative new auditing

procedures.

I really want to make some objection to a

statement he made in almost lumping our ministry in with that group of

people who have been describing income-assistance recipients as

fraudulent. Of course this ministry has constantly said that the people

who take income assistance in the province are an ever-changing group

of people. We have proven by research in our ministry that 30 percent

of those people who would apply for income assistance today will be off

income assistance within three months — all on their own. A further 30

percent will be off income assistance in the following three months —

all on their own. We have constantly said that our system is based on

trust. And it is. We have constantly said that we cannot put a system

into our administration which is based so very much on the auditing

improvements — one that the member was perhaps suggesting — that it

would take the humanity out of the system. We hope that will never

happen. But this business of "fraudulent" recipients is one that our

ministry doesn't support and people in this government do not support.

There is no evi-

[ Page 5994 ]

dence to say that there is extensive fraud and there is no justification for saying so.

also want to have you read —I will not quote it in full — page 54 of

the report of the auditor-general, where the auditor-general herself

recognizes that the operating environment of income assistance poses a

major challenge for executive and personnel. But it also gives credit,

in the second paragraph, to the managers in our headquarters and in

operating locations who "have taken major steps to administer their

programs more efficiently by introducing computer-based systems,

adopting a more formal approach to allocating resources among regional

and district offices and implementing certain organizational changes."

would also like to ask the member, who has a very keen interest in this

subject, to please take a look at page 91, where our ministry agrees to

the reorganizing of our staff to provide and establish a strategic

planning branch for all the management of the ministry. If also says,

further, that work is already underway to develop a comprehensive

operational plan.

Until my predecessor in this job, the

first member for Surrey (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), who is now the Minister

of Municipal Affairs, put controls into the ministry in terms of an

inspection program, some kind of accountability was very much lacking

in that area. I'm pleased to tell you that I think that system is a

good system of prevention. It has worked well in that regard.

appreciate the member's concern. We all share the concern for improved

control at all levels, at all times. We're all working towards that. I

would like to assure the member that that's happening in this ministry.

Vote 118 approved.

Vote 119: services for families and children, $103,554,638 — approved.

Vote 120: health services, $72,947,243 — approved.

On vote 121: community projects, $26,409,217.

MS. BROWN:

A question about interim funding for community groups such as the

Victoria Rape and Assault Centre. The ministry has made a commitment to

handle their interim funding until their funds come through either the

Ministry of the Attorney-General or the Ministry of Health. They are a

couple of months behind. They haven't been paid, and their workers

haven't been paid. This is a hardship on them. Can we get some idea as

to when that interim funding is going to come through?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I'd be pleased to look into that for the member.

Vote 121 approved.

On vote 122: GAIN programs, $467,150,397.

MS. BROWN:

Just a couple of questions. The special dietary allowance of $20 a

month and the pre- and post-natal diet allowance of $25 a month have

not been increased for some while.

Also, I'll add my

comments to those of the member for Surrey (Mr. Hall) concerning the

auditor-general's report. It dealt specifically with this vote, and the

findings were that the ministry was in chaos and its administration was

incompetent. I would like specifically to draw attention to and read

into the record page 54, 8.57, page 55, 8.60 and 8.61, page 56, 8.69

and 8.7, page 57, 8.72, 8.73 and 8.76, all of which support the

statement I have just made about the chaos and incompetence.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

I will not accept the last statements made by the member, because I

have worked with this ministry for almost two years now. I am very

proud of the administration and management of this portfolio. I want to

say that the auditor-general's report, like all reports, and

justifiably so, is to point out any improvements that can be made. I

think there are enough statements in that auditor-general's report that

statement for statement we can match them with any the member for

Burnaby-Edmonds would like to pull out of that report to try to

discredit the people, management and administration of this ministry. I

do not accept that. In fact I don't think I've ever worked with a

better group of people dedicated to serving the people of British

Columbia in not only a humane but a very efficient manner. We're

pleased to work with the auditor-general, and we will continue to work

with the auditor-general. We volunteered to work for this kind of

accountability because of the reputation the deputy minister in this

ministry has for good organization and good management. I won't accept

those kinds of comments, on behalf of my staff, and I hope if the

member has an opportunity to speak again to this vote she will

apologize to the staff in that regard.

MS. BROWN: I want to quote from the auditor-general's report, 8.56:

"We

have concluded that while the ministry has certain basic information to

base its resource allocation process on, until such time as a number of

key areas are substantially strengthened the ministry's procedures for

measuring efficiency will not provide management and the Legislative

Assembly with the reliable and complete information about the

efficiency of the administration of the income-assistance program or

the effectiveness of its control systems." I do not believe the

auditor-general uses the word "substantially" lightly.

Vote 122 approved.

Vote 123: special programs for the retarded, $60,615,917 approved.

On vote 124: building occupancy charges, $21,601,000.

MS. BROWN: I would just like to move a motion, Mr. Chairman, that vote 124 be reduced by the amount of $4,032,000.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment appears to be in order.

On the amendment.

MS. BROWN: The only reason that I'm reducing this vote is because I'm returning it to last year's figure.

[ Page 5995 ]

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

Mr. Chairman, I would say that of all the workers in the government

those who work in the Ministry of Human Resources perhaps over the

years have had a need, if you like, for quarters that at least receive

those whom they serve in a very humane and effective atmosphere. This

vote that you have before you, which will be voted on and has been

increased by just less than $4 million this year, is a vote which will

see the upgrading of some of our offices and places to accommodate

people who will require privacy. They will not have the privacy now

because of the growth of our services and our communities. It also adds

space for those clients we serve — the very clients that the member for

Burnaby-Edmonds says I hear once a year from — in terms of giving

privacy to single parents with their children, and to senior citizens

who come in and ask about services, and to those who don't get involved

in actually being recipients but who come into our offices to inquire

on behalf of others.

I also have a very strong commitment to

make sure that those of our people who are very hard-working and

dedicated in the work that they do and who give very much in terms of

their own output and commitment and in personal involvement in their

jobs should have a good place to work. I really would recommend that

both sides of the House would vote for the total amount as it's in the

estimates today.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 21

Barrett

Howard

King

Lea

Lauk

Dailly

Nicolson

Hall

Lorimer

Levi

Sanford

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Barnes

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

NAYS — 27

Waterland

Hyndman

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Richmond

Ree

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Mussallem

Brummet

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the

Journals of the House.

Vote 124 approved.

On vote 125: computer and consulting charges, $6,458,500.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I would like to move another motion, that vote 125 be reduced by the amount of $1,094,500.

If it's in order, I briefly want to say two things.

On the amendment.

MS. BROWN:

Last year this minister received from this House permission to spend

$5,364,000. As of January this year — ten months — she had spent only

$2,954,554. Even if she continues at the same rate of spending, she

will not be able to spend more than about $3.6 million. Therefore I

find it unreasonable that she should be asking for an increase of over

$1 million, especially when the auditor-general said in paragraph 8.226

of her report: "Accountability for costs relating to developing the

project was unclear, particularly when the British Columbia Systems

Corporation became involved.... " Also paragraph 8.78 says: "Our audit

showed that there have been significant procedural deficiencies both in

the initial decision-making process and in the controls used to manage

the project" — in talking about computers.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

A few minutes ago there was some discussion on control, efficiency,

accountability and responsibility in terms of the income assistance

vote as well as others. I think there is no question that the computer

aids, which can be used so effectively in this ministry, will pay

tribute to the very thing that the member for New Westminster (Mr.

Cocke) asked. The reduction of this vote — I can certainly get the

details on the expenditures — is not serving the best interests. I

would support an increase in it, because I know some of the plans that

our ministry has in this regard.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 20

Barrett

Howard

King

Lea

Lauk

Dailly

Nicolson

Hall

Lorimer

Sanford

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Barnes

Brown

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Levi

Passarell

NAYS — 25

Waterland

Hyndman

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Richmond

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Curtis

Phillips

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Mussallem

Brummet

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

On vote 125.

MS. BROWN:

Before we close this ministry, I just want to register my

disappointment at the fact that the government, in its traditional way,

has used this ministry, which is supposed to be dedicated to the

service of people, to hide and to overpad its accounts and to put money

aside which should have been used for services to people. Instead of

that, the money is being hidden under computer and building occupancy

charges. As a result of that, the opposition has been

[ Page

5996 ]

forced to introduce motions calling for the reduction of over $5 million in this ministry.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. member, we are on vote 125.

MS. BROWN:

As in all other ministries, we recognize that the government is

deliberately padding its accounts. We are appalled that the government

would have used the Ministry of Human Resources to carry on that

despicable act.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, on

vote 125, the member for Burnaby-Edmonds reduced the vote because, in

her words, we have not spent the vote. She is now, in these words she

has just given to the House, accusing our ministry of padding a vote

and underspending dramatically. I didn't think it was important at the

time, but I think, because this member will perhaps go outside and say

erroneous...

Interjection.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Are you getting more than seven people at a meeting, Mr. Leader of the Opposition?

Mr.

Chairman, in this vote 125, computer services are for family and

children's services. The ministry's in-service management group is

developing a computer program for such things as the tracking of

children who used to get....

MS. BROWN: That's not true. You're padding the vote.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

Well, this member for Burnaby-Edmonds, who is supposed to be the critic

for Human Resources, doesn't even know what is going on.

MS. BROWN: I know what you think you're going to do with it.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I guess the child-abuse registry....

Interjections.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, do you think you could get the House in order?

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please, hon. members. I think the cross-debate has gone on long

enough. We each have an opportunity to speak in this debate. Right now

the Minister of Human Resources has the floor, and other members will

be afforded an equal opportunity.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

Mr. Chairman, on vote 125, the member is accusing the ministry of

underspending, and the development in phases.... The money required is

built up when the staff require it and then is spent at the time the

program is put in place. That is why the $2 million that the member

mentioned earlier in this vote has been spent in January. There will be

another expenditure when the other plans are in place, as is common in

votes of this kind. It does not mean that we are underspent — as she

would like to leave that impression with the House — by some $3 million

on this vote. Those things which this addresses — the tracking of

children, the child-abuse registry and the various other programs in

our ministry which serve the family and children's services — are very

important for this vote. I would like to ask the House to pass vote 125.

MR. NICOLSON:

For the benefit of the minister, last year this House voted in good

faith for almost $5.5 million. At the rate at which it is being

consumed, it is now revealed that the money asked for was way in excess

of actual need. Yet this year you're asking for another huge increase.

What you're really asking for this year is an increase of about 80

percent over what is actually going to be spent. That is padding. There

might be a few new worthwhile projects going on in there, but they're

not going to add up to millions of dollars. That's the difference we're

talking about — padding the books so you can create a surplus.

Vote 125 approved.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT

On vote 76: minister's office, $218,076.

HON. MR. ROGERS:

In order to prepare myself for this year's estimates I took the

opportunity of reading the remarks that were made last year at the

conclusion of my introductory remarks. As my critic has been the critic

for Environment much longer than I have been the Minister of

Environment, he always informs me, and in fact my predecessors, that he

really doesn't want to hear, once again, of all the programs we're

undertaking in the ministry. He'd really rather we get on with the nuts

and bolts of it.

I want to start off with some of the

programs we've highlighted in the last year, where I think we've made

some excellent progress and where we're working towards trying to solve

those environmental problems we've had with us for some time.

Perhaps

the program with which we've had the most success is our program on the

Fraser River. The Fraser River Task Force, which in this year's budget

has been made a permanent task force, had an excellent success rate in

its six months of operation last year, culminating in over 75 charges

being laid against illegal operators on the river. At the same time the

Fraser River Estuary Study, which is a joint federal-provincial study,

is going to try and determine what the best and safest environmental

uses of the entire estuary are. This particular attack is on the area

of the province which has suffered the most environmental damage in the

past and is subject to the most abuse.

I get reports from

helicopter pilots that have been chartered by this ministry and by

federal Fisheries. We work closely together with them and the

environmental protection service of the federal government. They have

found a remarkable number of violators that they knew were there

before, just because of the amount of people looking. There are some

strange repercussions. One of the companies that is involved in waste

disposal in the lower mainland has had to buy a couple of new trucks,

because he's got some new customers that weren't going to come his way

without a little persuasion from this ministry. We've made some good

progress there, and there's still a long way to go. Because the task

force will actually end up being a permanent force, we anticipate

having a much closer control on any of the work in the ministry.

Mr. Chairman, the two gentlemen who are coming into the chamber now are Ben Marr, who is my deputy minister

[ Page 5997 ]

and

needs no introduction, and Gary Watson, who is the legal counsel for

British Columbia Place. They will be assisting me as we proceed through

these estimates.

I'd like to briefly talk about the Habitat

Conservation Fund. I recently announced that Dr. McTaggart-Cowan had

agreed to head up the Habitat Conservation Fund, which, along with the

$1.25 million which is made available from the Crown Land Fund, will be

involved in land acquisition of critical wildlife habitat in various

areas throughout the province. The first several pieces of property

have been identified. I had hoped the first one would be available and

actually purchased before my estimates. We give a list to the Ministry

of Lands, Parks and Housing once that list has been approved and they

go about the business of acquiring that land. I'm told that at the

present time they're in the final stages of negotiation. The first one,

the Redfish Creek property, is in the constituency of Nelson-Creston,

and in which the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson), who is here,

may be interested. It's a small piece of property but one that's highly

critical. That was the one that was identified by our ministry as being

most critical, and those are the kinds of things we expect to do with

this one.

In addition to that there is an impost fee of $3

we put on this year's fresh-water fishing licences and also the hunting

licences, and that will be used for a habitat enhancement fund. Those

funds, along with the funds from the habitat conservation fund, will be

used in working in areas of the province where, with a relatively small

amount of money and a concerted effort by local game clubs and people

within the ministry, we can make an enormous difference in terms of

habitat enhancement.

On the fishery side, with today's

headline in the papers it is a little distressing. Members may be

interested to know that the provincial government has been raising a

chinook in their Loon Lake hatchery, which was opened up not very long

ago. I just recently spoke to the head of the fisheries department and

I'm advised that this particular tragedy is caused by the cottonseed

oil which is apparent in the fish. It only attacks one of the species

of the salmonid, and that is the chinook; it doesn't affect the trout,

but nonetheless it has had a devastating effect on our one hatchery

that's involved in salmonids and also the joint SEP for hatcheries as

well as the federal hatcheries. I point out that Roméo LeBlanc and I,

who have now met six times in the last year, recently opened the

Puntledge Hatchery in Comox on northern Vancouver Island. Hopefully,

when they get through this problem with food, we will have a big

increase in their production. We will be opening two other hatcheries

this year. One is the Site 1 hatchery, which I will be opening at the

end of this month. This is a project totally paid for by B.C. Hydro,

and they should pay for it. But it's being operated and administered by

the fisheries branch of the Ministry of Environment. And there's the

Loon Creek Hatchery, which used to be an interim hatchery. I stopped in

to see and officially reopen this hatchery about three weeks ago.

There is still a massive increase in the fishing effort in the province, and

no matter how many fish we turn out there seem to be more fishermen. I suppose

it's a function of more people having more time off, or more people just

finding out about the joys of going fishing. We continue to produce the same

number of fish or increase the number of fish, but the number of people who

are angling, and their effort, has gone up substantially. I'm advised that

the average fisherman catches 1.2 chinook a year, and some people are as productive

as 300 a year. I'm not quite sure that I even got my 1.2 last year, and

I'm going to endeavour to get at least one this year, having purchased licence

number 00002 after the federal minister bought licence number 00001 when we

recently opened Puntledge.

Interjection.

HON. MR. ROGERS: No, I just have a fishing licence, Mr. Member.

Recently,

at the suggestion of the marine resources branch, I have approved an

oyster demonstration farm in the Baynes Sound area where we will be

constructing a demonstration farm for people wanting to get into the

industry to learn some of the new techniques that are available in

terms of raft culture and line culture. If we are successful in doing

that it's my intention to restock some of the public beaches. The last

natural spatfall that occurred in British Columbia was in 1958;

consequently the oysters which appear on the beaches of British

Columbia are mostly getting on in years and are very large in size.

Unless we have remarkable weather conditions we won't have a recurrence

of that, so it's our intention to start stocking some of the public

beaches with new oyster seed collected in Pendrell Sound and oysters

raised at our demonstration farm.

The provincial emergency

program had an extremely busy year, starting off in November with the

floods in Bella Coola; and the floods that took place throughout the

rest of the province over the Christmas period; and in this last year,

Squamish, Pemberton. Hatzic Prairie, Hope and others — areas in your

riding as well, Mr. Chairman. I think we have done an excellent job,

considering the times we find ourselves in, in dealing with people who

have just been flooded out. I had the unfortunate experience of going

through at least a few dozen houses where the water was up to the

windows. I don't know what the government can do to help people in the

immediate time after the flood, other than the things we did do. In the

long-term process, we have started a program within the ministry to try

and identify all the floodplains in the province. To that end, my

colleague the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr.

Hyndman) is working with the real estate boards, because we find that

while the same house may be flooded three or four times, it very seldom

has the same owner three or four times. We think that if the real

estate industry is as good as they say they are, they wouldn't mind

having their agents informed of where the floodplains are so that

potential buyers at least know the danger they face when they purchase

a home on a floodplain. I think it should be a mandatory feature, so

that the buyer knows of that particular danger.

In addition

to that, we are doing a survey of all the areas in the province that

are subject to flooding and which can be protected by riverbank

protection. Obviously a very substantial amount of money is involved in

doing riverbank protection, but we think it is very worthwhile. Loading

rip-rap onto the sides of riverbanks is not a particularly attractive

program in terms of public image, but in terms of protecting peoples

homes and lands I think that in the long term it's very necessary. I

don't know how, with all the other problems inherent in government, you

can go and ask for $200 million or more to do the riverbank protection

program. I can think of a whole host of other people who would find

other ways of doing it, but one of the things we have not known in the

past and that we are trying to determine now is the scope that we

[ Page 5998 ]

have

to look at. It virtually hits every area of the province, and I would

hope that when the report is brought forward to cabinet it will be

favourably received. There will have to be a five-, seven- or ten-year

program. It certainly couldn't be done any quicker than that. There

aren't the skilled people available to do it, and of course the budget

amount is substantial. But we have areas where we can almost predict

the flood is going to come. It's not pleasant, but I think government

has an obligation to do it. The federal government has been somewhat

cooperative in certain areas, but they have decreased the amount of

dollars on the Fraser River and also extended the time, which in

essence, with inflation, has done the same thing.

I'm sure

there'll be a lot of questions during my estimates on the Cowichan

estuary. The Cowichan estuary study recommendations are currently being

implemented and coordinated through Ken Lambertsen, who is with the

assessment branch of the ministry and now has a storefront office in

the Duncan area and whose job it is to go ahead with those

recommendations. There are still difficulties with the Cowichan

estuary. I'm sure there will be more detailed questions as we go along.

If there was ever an estuary that had every possible player from the

CNR to the National Harbours Board, the Coast Guard, the provincial

government, lumber industries, the federal Fisheries, the native people

and the local people that are concerned, it's the Cowichan. Mr.

Lambertsen is a very competent individual. I hope that with his

expertise and with the efforts of the rest of the people in government,

we can finally resolve that problem.

I note that in last

year's estimates there were a whole host of questions on Quinsam coal.

I would like to talk just briefly on Quinsam coal and what the status

of the Quinsam coal situation is. You will recall, Mr. Chairman, that

that is the coal-mine proposed on the Quinsam River not very far

outside of Campbell River, which in last year's estimates was a project

jointly proposed by Weldwood of Canada and by Lusgar. During the last

year Lusgar dropped out of that particular consortium, and it was

carried forward by Weldwood through the stage two process of the coal

guidelines steering committee. They have recently been informed by me,

as the chairman of the Environment and Land Use Committee, that their

stage two recommendations are not acceptable because of studies that

were inadequate and also because of the fact that they had failed in

one of the stages of the stage two guidelines: the one that requires

them to have local interest and participation. It's fairly clear to

anyone who has been to the Campbell River area that the particular

coalmine there is in an area which is considered to be — and is —

extremely sensitive environmentally. They're not prepared to let it

proceed until such time as all environmental questions are answered.

Certainly there are a number of them that haven't been answered.

Western

Mines is one again. Dr. Furnival was in my office this morning. That's

the latest meeting that I've had with Western Mines. As members may

know, they have proven up substantially new ore bodies and would like

to expand their mines. They've been instructed by the ministry to

examine new areas of tailings disposal. In 1966, when the mine was

first proposed, disposal of tailings into the lake seemed to be a

reasonable sort of thing to do. It's no longer considered a reasonable

sort of thing to do. In addition to the fact that they wish to expand

their mine, the mine certainly isn't playing out by any means. I've

forgotten how many millions of dollars' worth of ore they have left to

get out of the mine if they wish to get it out. So we are insisting

that they go through the mines guideline steering committee, which will

require public hearings and all of the other things that go along with

that. I'm advised by Dr. Furnival, who heads up the consortium at

Western Mines, that they have dry-land tailings disposal and enclosed

water system already in the design stage. They are doing some work on

it. I wish they'd started that three years ago. I'm sure other members

may wish they'd started it even sooner than that. Nonetheless, that's

where we are, and we are making progress there.

I'd like to

update the members on the Skagit River situation. I still maintain my

position that I would be thrilled if the one thing I could accomplish

as the Minister of Environment is to see that the Skagit River Valley

situation was finally put to rest. Last fall we did make public all of

our correspondence between Seattle City Light and the provincial

government and submitted our findings, including all of our

correspondence to the IJC just prior to the defeat of Jimmy Carter.

When Ronald Reagan was elected I thought that the IJC might have gone

unnoticed, as it's a fairly minor committee in terms of the committees

that the President of the United States has to deal with, but that was

not to be the case. In fact, all of the American members, including the

longtime Republicans who were members of the IJC, were sacked by the

incoming President. At the present time, they do not have a chairman or

even any American committee members. Really, the Skagit is on hold, as

it has been for so long. I suppose having it on hold is positive

because it certainly means that the inevitable is not happening, which

I hope is not the inevitable. In fact, I think that our case is pretty

good and looks pretty strong. Certainly we have no difficulty getting

all sorts of support in the United States and on this side of the

border. It's one of these things that's certainly not national in scope

and one where we think there is excellent support for our position of

saying that things shouldn't have been flooded in the first place, and

no further flooding should take place into British Columbia. The power

that would be generated there is relatively cheap power, but it's also

relatively minor. When you consider that the urgency in 1942 was

because of the bombing of Pearl Harbor, and they still haven't built

the dam, I think that urgency has more or less passed.

Trapping

is one item that was brought up last year. We have an update. I'm

pleased to report real progress. This year at the Wildlife Federation

convention I was able to pass out the rewards, made possible through

the lottery grant, for humane traps developed by inventors; one was

from New Brunswick and the rest were from British Columbia. The

federal-provincial humane trapping committee will be meeting next month

in Edmonton and will be making recommendations. It is my hope and

expectation, and I think that of most members of the committee, that

following that meeting there will be a substantial reduction in the

number of legal devices used in trapping wild animals in this province.

I think all members would greet that with thanks. The trappers have

been most cooperative, as have the people who developed the traps.

There still remains some difficulty with the dog species — wolf, coyote

and others — for which they haven't been able to develop a satisfactory

alternative trap, but it has been developed for almost every other

species.

There are now just over 100 conservation officers.

Three-quarters of them have now gone through the Justice Training

Institute in Vancouver, which has been of great assistance to them in

their jobs. I think there are one or two more courses yet to go through

the institute. The training has really improved their effectiveness in

the work they do regularly.

[ Page 5999 ]

Lastly

on the Ministry of Environment, assistant deputy minister Geoff

Simmons, who is known to almost everybody in this House — to anyone who

has ever had to deal with flooding — is retiring on June 30 after 27

years of service; that, added to his wartime service, brings him up to

a pensionable age. I know that members will join me in wishing him well

in his retirement. He is presently going through the process of passing

his duties on to others in the ministry.

About 90 percent of

my personal time is spent on the Ministry of Environment; about 10

percent of it is spent on the other thing for which I'm responsible,

B.C. Place. I cannot table documents in committee, Mr. Chairman, but at

the close of this afternoon's committee session I will be tabling

documents relating to British Columbia Place and our agreement with CPR

and Marathon.

The project was very much in the embryo stage

when it was announced here last year. In the last year we have made

remarkable progress, which has, I think, been pretty well covered in

the press and on television. We came to an agreement with Marathon

Realty for the transfer of land on the north side of False Creek. After

going to a contest period, the board announced that Phillip Barratt, a

Vancouver consortium, coincidentally the same consortium that built the

Coliseum in Vancouver, was awarded the design contract. They have

designed a 60,000-seat amphitheatre for Vancouver. This particular

structure is a parabolic ellipse in shape. I think it will serve all

the many facets for which it is intended.

Of the companies

that bid on the construction of the project.... In view of the

difficulties incurred in other stadium constructions not only in this

country but also in the United States, we decided that we would go for

what is known as a guaranteed maximum-price contract. The contract was

awarded to Dillingham Corp., which coincidentally is an offshoot of the

company that built Empire Stadium in 1953. Anyone who has been to

Vancouver recently can see that the work has already started. In fact,

we have had some difficulties. The difficulties have been about

environmental matters, which I suppose is just as well, because we were

able to get onto them right away. The project is underway. The Premier

laid the foundation stone two weeks ago. I think it's something which

we can all be proud of.

The remainder of B.C. Place is still

in the planning stage. We have to determine how much land is required

for Transpo '86 and how we want to develop the rest of the property.

The board of directors of B.C. Place and I feel very strongly that we

would like to address the most urgent problem in Vancouver and make

housing for people. When you are describing housing it's very difficult

to put labels on it; as you drive around, you can't look at a house and

say that it's a social house or that it's this or that kind of house.

We describe it as housing for working Canadians — it's certainly not

exclusive housing, by any means — to include a portion of what is best

described as social housing.

At the present time there is a

good working relationship between the people at B.C. Place and the

people in the city of Vancouver at city hall. I'm advised that our

president met with the mayor recently. I think things are working out

quite well in that regard, although I'm sure there will be some

questions on that.

So, Mr. Chairman, with those few brief

opening remarks, I would welcome the comments of my critic opposite —

didn't we have an enjoyable time on the Royal Hudson ? — or anyone else who cares to participate.

MR. SKELLY:

I appreciate the minister's change in tactics, strategy or whatever —

at least a change in performance in his introduction. Last year he

walked around the ministry and kicked the tires, and that was about it.

Since we've changed Ministers of Environment so often in this House —

and we haven't changed the critic yet, as far as I know — I've heard

that speech so many times before that I actually criticize the minister

for giving it.

The minister mentioned a trip we both took to

Squamish last Sunday, and I saw the minister take

part in an

axe-throwing contest. I figured that maybe I should bring two axes into

the House; we could set up some targets and we could settle these

estimates between myself and the minister within about 30 minutes. I'll

bring that up in caucus tomorrow and get right back to you, Mr.

Chairman.

Before I get into the estimates themselves and the

material I have prepared on estimates, which should take up about 28

hours of House time, I want to say that I just received a phone call

from Greenpeace — and I believe the minister has also received the same

phone call. It says that on Saturday a steamship will be arriving at

Fraser Surrey Docks, the MV Pirella ,

which is scheduled to unload 149 tonnes of uranium yellow cake from

Brisbane, destined for Port Hope, Ontario, by way of the Canadian

Pacific Railway. The uranium was loaded in Brisbane. Because of a

labour strike in that area — the longshoremen in Australia refused to

take

part in the loading of uranium, as the minister may be aware — and

as a result of a work stoppage, the ore was loaded secretly into 12

containers containing thirty-three 45-gallon drums of uranium ore.

The

minister is aware, as I am, of the number of accidents that have taken

place on railways recently and especially of the danger of transporting

anything like that on the railway system that we have through the

Fraser Canyon. I am wondering what action the minister plans to take

either to halt the unloading of that uranium ore or to prevent the

transportation of it through the province of British Columbia to Port

Hope, Ontario. Mr. Chairman, this province has a moratorium in effect

on uranium mining. I believe the reasons for that moratorium are valid

and that in order to protect the health, safety and environment of

people in this province, we should not mine uranium in this province.

The same, to my mind, applies to the transport of uranium, and

especially the transport of uranium from other countries. We shouldn't

be imperiling the people of this province and endangering the

environment of this province with the problems of the Australians. As

far as I'm concerned, the minister should take action immediately to

have the Pirella diverted from British Columbia ports and not to have that uranium transported across Canada.

have recently been made aware of the fact that uranium refined in

Canada is shipped to countries such as Argentina, which has an

abhorrent record as far as human rights are concerned, to Rumania and

even, in fact, to the Soviet Union, who supposedly is our enemy in

defence terms — and here the Canadian government is shipping processed

uranium to the Soviet Union. I am asking the minister now, Mr.

Chairman, what action he plans to take to have that uranium shipment

diverted from British Columbia ports and to prevent the shipment of

that uranium across this province.

HON. MR. ROGERS:

Well, Mr. Chairman, I must admit the message from Patrick Moore has

only come to me as well. I might remind the member that uranium

substances come

[ Page 6000 ]

under

Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. We do not have in this country a manifest

system for the transportation for hazardous goods. It's one of the

things that has been a joint federal-provincial problem for a long

time, and the current federal regulations require that they be shipped

in a container which doesn't leak. I would suppose that kind of

regulation — that it doesn't leak — should apply to almost every

container. It hardly seems adequate. There is no escort required or

anything else. I will undertake this afternoon, after estimates are

through, to contact the federal people who are responsible for it. But

I'm not sure that there is any power that the provincial government has

to interfere with the port activities of this province, nor that there

is any power that I have to prevent a railway or, for that matter, a

federal agency from doing these things, as far as I know. As I said,

the matter has just come to me so perhaps if you'd like to continue

with other things in the meantime, we'll deal with this later.

MR. SKELLY:

No, I didn't expect that the minister would be able to take action

immediately based on information which he and I have just received. But

I am concerned that this kind of thing would be allowed to happen. The

province has a stated policy with respect to uranium mining. That

policy should apply across the board to transportation, to storage and

to everything. I don't think it's sufficient to excuse the way those

substances are transported in this province by saying that the federal

government has jurisdiction in this case. There are many areas in which

the federal government has jurisdiction, and this province has

challenged that jurisdiction to the extent of withholding taxes due to

the federal government on natural gas. What I'm asking is that the

minister take the strongest possible action to prevent the

transportation of this substance into British Columbia by ship and

across British Columbia.

Mr. Chairman, I had planned to

approach the question of the minister's estimates in fairly general

terms to begin with — policy terms and budget terms — and then to go

into specifics as time moves on.

First of all I'd like to

discuss the issue — and it is an issue of the Social Credit policy with

respect to environment. As far as I'm concerned, the government has a

lack of understanding for environment. This is reflected in its lack of

concern for environmental issues. It's also reflected in the status of

this minister within the cabinet. I'm not criticizing the minister

personally on this but the status of the minister's office within the

hierarchy and cabinet. As far as we can determine from this side of the

House, this is definitely a junior minister and ministry. We would like

to see the policy of this government changed to elevate the status of

this minister. I'm not referring to the person occupying the office. I

wouldn't do that. I'm referring to the status of the office itself. It

should be elevated from a junior status to a more important position

within the hierarchy of ministries.

I think one of the

problems with the Social Credit environmental policy is that their

other policies are in such a shambles. For example, on this side of the

House we can't see a comprehensive industrial strategy which this

government has for the province of British Columbia. When you talk to

officials from B.C. Hydro or the Ministry of Energy, Mines and

Petroleum Resources, they seem to be waiting for companies to develop

ideas in the province. Somebody thinks they can set up enough capital

to develop a methanol plant or somebody has made some statements that

there are enough natural gas reserves to ship liquefied natural gas to

Japan.

Almost out of a rumour mill, industrial developments

are kicked around in the province. Whether they're aluminum smelters,

methanol plants, LNG plants, fertilizer plants or pipelines, there's no

real comprehensive industrial strategy for the province. This, of

course, weakens the minister's ability to handle the environment of the

province. Without an industrial and development strategy for the

province, of course, there can be no sensible environment policies.

There's

also no sensible energy strategy for the province. What came down to

this Legislature and to the public of British Columbia last February is

really no energy policy at all. Nothing has been done in a

straightforward way to implement even the few policy statements that

were outlined in the booklet with the sun setting on the province of

British Columbia. Very little is available in the way of a

comprehensive strategy, as well, in the province. This makes it

extremely difficult for the Ministry of Environment to operate within

any kind of comprehensive framework.

As we see it from this

side of the House and as the public sees it, the industrial policy and

the energy strategy of this province is very much the same as it was

back in the 1940s and 1950s, when such fiascos as the Skagit Valley

agreement, the Industrial Development Act, the Kemano II agreement and

even the Wenner-Gren fiasco were entered into by previous Social Credit

governments and also by the parties that ultimately made up the Social

Credit Party. It seems that whoever takes a look at an area of

resources in the province, that area is considered by the government to

be up for grabs. Anybody who has any kind of pie-in-the-sky or vague

notions of developing that gets a good hearing from the government.

They get a hearing from the government, it makes the news and they set

up committees within cabinet and the civil service. That seems to be

the way that industrial and development policy in the government is

developed. It's kind of a catch as catch can, ad hoc system. As far as

we're concerned on this side of the House, it hasn't really changed

since the 1940s and 1950s. As a result, without those kinds of policy

statements reflecting in industrial development and energy policy,

there can be no sensible environment policy in the province. In fact,

there isn't.

My first question to the minister is: what has

he done to really enunciate an environment policy for the province? I

realize that he is working with a fairly difficult group, which has

limited understanding of terms like "environment" and "ecology." On

that side they don't seem to understand the definition of the word

environment as it relates to living things, or of the word "ecology" as

it relates to the relatedness and the interdependence of living things

with their environment.

In fact, the Socreds almost define

as negative anything that has to do with environment. Any time I make a

speech across the floor about energy efficiency or environmental

policy, I take a look at the Minister of Industry and Small Business

Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) and he starts to turn beet-red, his

nostrils flare, he snorts and blows and starts pawing his feet. He

looks like a Kentucky senator getting into a field of cornflakes. He

begins to shout at me: "You're against everything, you commie pinko!"

MR. CHAIRMAN: There's a lot of colour here. Perhaps we could get back to vote 76.

MR. SKELLY: We're dealing with an understanding of the environment. Unfortunately, that's the kind of thing that

[ Page 6001 ]

the

minister has to deal with in his own cabinet — that basic lack of

understanding of and lack of concern for issues of environment and

ecological relationships. The result of this attitude in the Social

Credit cabinet, as epitomized by the Minister of Industry and Small

Business Development, is that we have made some severe and serious

mistakes over the years with respect to the way we've treated

environment and environmental policy.

As a result, we have

an inadequate view of what constitutes the jurisdiction of the Ministry

of Environment. We have an inadequate assessment of what the values are

of the resources that come under the jurisdiction of the Minister of

Environment. We also have a vague and inadequate rule of law in this

province with respect to the environment. I'd like to cover each of

those things individually.

I've made the suggestion before,

but I think this is the first time I've made it in the Legislature.

What are the fundamental things the minister should be concerned about?

I listened as the minister was making his introductory remarks to find

out if the minister was really going to give us a comprehensive kind of

policy analysis and tell us what his ministry has done in the last year

and what they plan to do in the coming years to implement this policy.

couldn't even find a basic understanding of the kind of cohesiveness of

the department. He went from the provincial emergency program to the

diking program to acquiring habitat to the Cowichan estuary. It was a

scattergun approach. It was even less cohesive than walking around the

department and kicking the tires. What we were looking for on this side

was a more comprehensive approach.

MR. SEGARTY: The do-nothing strategy.

MR. SKELLY: Similar to the policy followed by the member from Cranbrook (Mr. Segarty) in his treatment of his riding, Mr. Chairman.

I'd

like to discuss the resources that the minister is dealing with. In my

opinion, and I believe it's the opinion and policy of this party,

environment concerns itself with three basic resources. They're what we

call the life-sustaining resources: clean air, pure water and

productive land. Without any of these basic life-sustaining resources,

life could not exist or continue on this planet. They are the most

important resources any government or minister is called upon to deal

with. In terms of the fact that they sustain life, they are the most

important resources in this province. That's why I'm concerned that the

Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland)

or the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) may be considered a

senior minister to the Minister of Environment.

We can

always do without forest exports. We can always find other industries.

We wouldn't like to. It would totally disrupt the province, but we

could do it. We could always do without mining or probably even without

energy, as the present government looks at it. It would be extremely

difficult, but we could survive. But without pure air, without pure

water and without productive land, that's it — it's all over. That's

why I'm concerned.

When the Premier first set up the

Ministry of Environment back in 1976, out of the former Ministry of

Lands, Forests and Water Resources, it was probably the best thing that

he ever did in his administration with respect to environmental

jurisdiction. He combined jurisdiction over air, land and water in one

ministry. Unfortunately, I suppose, after that the Premier began to

take his own advice. He took jurisdiction over lands away from the

Ministry of Environment and placed it under the jurisdiction that is

incompetent to deal with it even as a real estate operation. With that

stroke the Premier totally undermined the effectiveness of the Ministry

of Environment. We're concerned about the lack of jurisdiction over

productive land. I know the minister has some difficulty even managing

his ministry under the present circumstances, but what we require in

this province is combined jurisdiction over those three life-sustaining

resources. Jurisdiction over Crown land should be restored to the

Ministry of Environment. It's an absolute necessity.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll remind the hon. member for Alberni that we are discussing the administrative actions of the Minister of Environment.

MR. SKELLY:

The second thing I'm concerned about is the value that we attach to

those life-sustaining resources. It's a basic principle in the

marketplace that every free enterpriser on that side should understand.

An undervalued resource ends up being misallocated or wasted. In this

market economy that we have, if you underprice one resource with

respect to another and there's a question of choice involved where

someone in that marketplace can select one resource over another, he'll

definitely take the undervalued resource. That results in a

misallocation or waste. Every free enterpriser should understand that

basic fact. I'd like to ask the minister a simple question: what do we

sell water for in this province? For industrial use or domestic use or

energy use. We know that the minister recently raised the price of

water to B.C. Hydro and other energy utilities such as West Kootenay

Power and Alcan. So we know that there is a cost attached to the energy

use of water. What the government is basically doing is selling that

kinetic energy — the difference between the energy value of water up

here and the energy value of water down there — and attaching a cost to

that characteristic of water. But what about the life-sustaining value

of water, Mr. Chairman? What cost does that sell for in the province of

British Columbia?

Here's an example. When Amax sets up a

mine in Observatory Inlet in the northern coast of B.C., it dumps

tailings into the inlet. I don't think we're questioning in this House

or anywhere in the province that the dumping of tailings degrades the

marine environment to some extent. I think the argument is about the

extent. Even to the extent that Amax degrades that environment, what do

they pay to the people of B.C. for the loss of that life-sustaining

characteristic of those seawater environments that have their

life-sustaining abilities degraded to that extent? What does Utah Mines

pay for the tailings they dump in Rupert Inlet on the north side of

Vancouver Island? From reports that have come out of that area we know

that Utah Mines has degraded the marine environment in Rupert Inlet and

far beyond Rupert Inlet on the north end of Vancouver Island. What does

Utah Mines pay for degrading the marine environment of the province of

British Columbia on Vancouver Island and for reducing its

life-sustaining capability from its potential before Utah Mines came

along to its potential life-sustaining capability now? As far as I can

determine from my research, the cost is nothing. They are required to

pay nothing for the life-sustaining capability of the marine

environment of this province. It appears to me from that statement that

it's the policy of the Social Credit government to allow polluters to

[ Page 6002 ]

degrade

the seawater environment of this province free of charge to reduce that

life-sustaining capability. That's what I'm concerned about.

What

about the freshwater resources of this province? The minister talks

about the Fraser estuary and how he's set up a task force to enforce

the Fisheries Act, the Pollution Control Act and other statutes in the

Fraser estuary. But enforcement is the tail-end of the problem. When

everybody has done the damage, then you can go in and make sure that

they only damage to the extent that they should have or you can charge

them for going beyond that.

Let's go back to the first

principles. What does the city of Kamloops pay for dumping its sewage

into the South Thompson River? How much does it cost the city of

Kamloops to buy a permit to degrade the life-sustaining capability of

the Thompson River by dumping its sewage in there? How much does it

cost Weyerhaeuser to dump something like five, seven or nine times as

much into that river to degrade its life-sustaining capabilities? And

remember that that river is a part of one of the most productive

fisheries systems in the world. According to the minister's own studies

and reports, it produces $86 million, wholesale landed value of

fisheries, in this province every single year it flows. And what does

the city of Kamloops or Weyerhaeuser Corp. pay the people of this

province, who own that common property resource, that water, that fish?

What do they pay for the right to degrade that river's life-sustaining

capability, to degrade its ability to produce that value of fish each

and every year? As far as I can determine, they pay nothing, Mr.

Chairman.

What does the Greater Vancouver Regional District

pay to dump sewage into the Fraser estuary? What do they pay in

exchange for their permit to degrade the tremendous life-sustaining

value of that estuary? It's immense; it can't even be quantified.

Estuaries are where we all began, Mr. Chairman. I mean, those are some

of the richest life-producing areas on the globe. Each and every one is

precious. What does the Greater Vancouver Regional District pay? What

do private dumpers pay? What do they pay for landfill sites that leach

toxic chemicals into the river? What do they pay to degrade the

life-sustaining value of fresh water in this province? They pay

absolutely nothing.

Under Social Credit, I don't believe

that we charge enough for our forest resources. Under Social Credit, I

don't believe that we charge enough for our mineral resources. I

certainly don't believe that we charge enough for our energy resources,

and I think the Social Crediters agree with me on that — that not

enough is being charged for our energy resources in the province — and

they would like to see Canada raise the price of petroleum to the world

price. So they don't believe that we charge enough for our energy

resources either. In their ad hoc policy that they developed last

February they say that we should charge the replacement cost for our

energy resources to the extent that we're able to do that and still

satisfy the consumers, without causing problems for the consumers.

believe that when you don't charge enough for the resources — for

example, for northeast coal — you're betraying the electorate. You're

denying the people of this province the revenues that could be used to

provide goods and services, government services such as health care,

hospital care and the social services available from Human Resources.

It's a betrayal of the electorate if you undersell or underprice those

commodities, because you're depriving the people of the province of

those goods and services. But for this province to underprice

life-sustaining resources, Mr. Chairman, is criminal. It should not be

done at all, because you're depriving future generations of their

ability to live and to enjoy the environment to the extent that we do

now. By underpricing those resources you're wasting them; you're

causing them to be wasted at a greater and greater rate.

So,

Mr. Chairman, I've committed myself in estimates this year, as a result

of negative criticism from Social Credit to make only positive

statements and suggestions to the minister. The first of my positive

proposals to the minister in these estimates is this. I'm asking the

minister about charging the full value of these life-sustaining

resources to those who would degrade the value through

pollution-control permits or through other means. What is the

minister's position with respect to that policy? What is the minister's

opinion with respect to the present values being charged for

life-sustaining resources? In my opinion, the cost of those resources

should represent to the government the cost of rehabilitating those

resources over time.

To the extent that we lose the

life-sustaining capability of the sea water at Amax, say, or Rupert

Inlet, or of the fresh water in the Thompson River and the Fraser

River, as a result of the granting of those pollution-control permits,

we should charge the life-sustaining capability lost over time and use

it either later on, as they do in reclamation for mines, or use it to

purchase habitat elsewhere to mitigate for the losses in those rivers —

if that's possible. Remember that we're talking about life-sustaining

resources.

If we charge an adequate amount for those

resources, let's look at the possible implications. The implications

are this. Say you told Amax that you are going to charge them $50 a

gallon for the life-sustaining capability lost as a result of their

tailings dumped at Observatory Inlet in Alice Arm. It would change the

economics of tailings disposal to this extent. It might make land

disposal of tailings economically more attractive to the company,

because now you're charging the full value of the sea-water resource.

It will change the economics so that Amax will then make a choice.

"Before we were getting the sea water for free. Now we have to pay the

full value. Now the land disposal of tailings looks much more

attractive." The economics change because we're charging the full

replacement value of the resource.

What about in Kamloops or

greater Vancouver? We look at a sewage disposal plant such as Iona or

Annacis Island, the Kamloops sewage disposal system or the Weyerhaeuser

system. If we said, "For the damage you do to the Thompson River under

this pollution control permit we're going to charge you the cost of

rehabilitating that river to its original life-sustaining potential,"

then Kamloops and Weyerhaeuser will say: "Oh, the economics have now

changed. It's now more economic for us to go to land disposal of sewage

or effluent from the industrial plant." It changes the economics and it

changes the quality of the choices those companies have to make in the

marketplace.

What the minister is doing by underpricing

life-sustaining resources is forcing companies, cities and individuals

to make choices which pollute and degrade the land, water and air in

this province. By underpricing those resources you're forcing people to

make the wrong choices with respect to the environment. I'm asking the

minister to simply change the price, thereby changing the economics,

changing the quality of the choice and developing a better system of

pollution control which will force industries, municipalities,

communities and individuals to make better choices with respect to

pollution.

[ Page 6003 ]

The

same applies to sanitary landfills. I can recall writing to the city

engineer in Vancouver five or six years ago and asking him:

"Why

are you applying for land down in Burns Bog or somewhere, where it's

obviously going to cause problems? It's got a high water-table, it's in

a deltaic area, and there could be flooding problems. There are

obviously going to be toxic chemicals washing out of the site into the

river. Why don't you go to incineration or resource recovery? Why don't

you go to some other form of solid waste disposal, where you could, in

fact, recover the value of metals, paper and that kind of thing, the

energy value of garbage, and even the composting value of garbage for

soil conditioners, as they used to do in the Los Angeles sewage

treatment plant?"

I got a letter back from him that says:

"The government sells us land so cheap that we cannot afford to develop

a system that is non-polluting." That's the key to this whole question

I'm trying to raise with the minister.

The key to pollution

in the province is that if we sell life-sustaining resources so cheaply

that municipalities, individuals and industries cannot refuse, then you

as a government are responsible for the creation of pollution in this

province. I'm asking the minister to respond to a suggestion that we

raise the cost of life-sustaining resources to encourage less pollution

and better treatment of the environment.

HON. MR. ROGERS:

Well, you make some very good points. But let's start off with first

things first. When I became the minister, after having discussions with

people in the waste management branch and in pollution control, the key

issue, the one that was far more critical than others, was the handling

of toxic wastes, the really critical stuff. Some of the toxic wastes we

were handling were not manifested, and we didn't know where they were

being disposed of. Some of them were being disposed in a non-approved

method, and some were being disposed of without pollution control

permits. It's been my policy, and therefore the policy of the ministry,

that we attack the key points first — that is, the ones that give us

the most susceptibility to environmental damage. You make a good point

in saying we should charge for pollution control permits. I remind

people that if by 11 o'clock in the morning they haven't personally

polluted, they should consider something in their diet. We're all

involved in it, whether we're in Kamloops, Alberni, Prince Rupert or

anywhere else that we have to live. We all contribute to the problem.

We're all part of it. Aside from personally polluting, we have people

pollute on our behalf. People painting your car or whatever else

they're doing are getting involved in it as well. So it's a global

thing. I would like to suggest that you read the latest issue of Harper's

magazine, which makes some interesting suggestions about how you charge

people for permission to pollute. Perhaps you have read that article.

One of the things that I have endeavoured to do is on land values

specifically. We often hear the expression that land in the north in

some cases is nothing but useless moose pasture. Well, if it's nothing

but useless moose pasture, then what exactly is a moose worth? It

doesn't cost us anything, other than the cost of a Fish and Wildlife

biologist, to look after that particular piece of habitat. Yet when

we're looking at alienating that land for a stump ranch or any other

kind of development, since the land is not currently in regular use by

man we dismiss it as being totally useless.

At my request my

staff have been developing what this raw land is worth in its natural

state, what it can support. We have never put a price on wildlife, and

I wouldn't want to put a price on wildlife from the standpoint of

selling the wildlife, but from the standpoint of establishing what that

land is worth when we come to arguing whether that land should be

alienated for other uses. Quite often someone goes to an area of

relatively remote wilderness and wants to try his hand at something

else on the assumption that the land is of no value the way it is now.

Of course wildlife is immensely valuable, and people will pay for the

privilege and pay substantially for it.

I have no quarrel

with the suggestion that we should charge people for polluting. I have

a little difficulty in deciding that we would charge people a different

rate for polluting in different areas because of the area they happen

to live in.

As you know, the Kamloops task force is mandated

right now with the challenge of trying to find an alternative way of

disposing of the effluent in Kamloops. On Kamloops, you're incorrect in

one thing. The city of Kamloops' discharge and Weyerhaeuser's discharge

in gallonage are close to being the same. The difference is that the

Weyerhaeuser discharge has about ten times the amount of phosphorus,

which is the main pollutant we are concerned with in the river. But

that really doesn't solve the problem, because getting the phosphorus

out just brings you to the next most common chemical in the river which

we would like to remove. It doesn't just start in Kamloops. It would

start at the very genesis of each and every one of the rivers, whether

or not they happen to be ones that people are living along. I don't

know where we could come to.

I can see charging for

pollution control permits and charging on a poundage. It would

certainly reduce our problems with sanitary landfills, because the cost

of disposing of refuse through sanitary landfills is there. We do have

a mitigation program in some areas. That mitigation program is in

effect at Revelstoke right now. The hatchery I spoke of earlier at Site

1 is strictly a result of mitigation that B.C. Hydro is paying for. We

haven't charged for that in the past. I don't think it's a bad

suggestion.

We did raise the price for water for Hydro. I

still think it's way too cheap. There were a few squeals when we raised

it. We have a whole host of charges. You asked what we charge for

water. You don't really want to know in specific dollars and cents; you

want to know why we don't charge enough for it and why we don't insure

it. The fact is that there is a whole host of rates, depending on who

is using it for what — whether it's agriculture, food or anything else.

It is probably our most precious resource. Judging by the fact that

we're in the first week in June and having fresh deposits being made on

our soil, we’re going to have some more of it. Nonetheless, it’s one we

should look after.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

most places in the world the philosophy of the government is to allow

the waterway to be polluted and to purify the drinking water. We've

never taken that stand. We've taken the stand that all the water should

be pure and that we should purify the discharge. People who come to

visit from Europe and other jurisdictions are astounded that we're

still hanging onto this philosophy that all the water should be pure to

drink and that you shouldn't have to purify the drinking water, other

than to check that it's just tuned up to the last little bit. You

[ Page 6004 ]

don't

have to go very far south of here — Los Angeles or someplace — to get a

glass of water and you'll switch to Perrier or mountain spring water

without any trouble at all, because they've allowed their water to get

polluted to the extent that they have to improve it with purification

programs. It's an expensive way to go. It's been going on in this

province long before this government, your government or the government

before that, as to just how water was managed.

Airshed management is another one. Have you read the

article in Harper's ?

I can see exactly that. Several of the critical airsheds have come

along and said, "That's the maximum we're going to accept and there's a

price for it," bringing the levels down based on that. But there is

some progress, you know. In Trail, Cominco is getting close to the

grand opening of their major expenditure in reducing the smoke

discharge in Trail. They've come down a long way from where they were

in the past.

We're not really allowed to discuss

legislation, but some of the philosophy is reflected in the Environment

Management Act which is certainly before the House, which I don't have

any trouble upholding. I might tell you that it's got great support in

cabinet. You make me out to be a junior minister, but just for your own

information — I know you didn't have the privilege of being in your

government's cabinet — we don't have junior ministers that I know of.

Nobody wears a tag. There's a chairman. Everybody gets to speak up and

say their own piece around the table. I will tell you that out of

cabinet — of course I can't say what happens in cabinet — I get the

Minister of Industry (Hon. Mr. Phillips) quite exercised at times

standing up for my side of the argument. I don't lose very many. I

think there's an impression that it's me against everyone else in the

cabinet.

MR. LEA: No, we wish that was the case.

HON. MR. ROGERS: That isn't the case at all. In fact, I think that our record in environmental awareness is excellent.

to some of the things that you have said about planning, B.C. Hydro is

a good example. They came out with that coloured brochure about a year

ago with all the places in the province that they were looking at maybe

developing a hydroelectric project. We could absolutely squander our

entire budget playing "chase me Charlie" following B.C. Hydro's crews

around to see what they were looking at. They're looking at thermal

power here and a dam here and a dam there. We don't have the money in

our budget, nor do we think it would be worthwhile. They look at all

sorts of projects and get all the local people upset, and then they

decide it's not economical. So we wait until Hydro comes forward with

their application, as they have in Hat Creek and others, before we get

involved. They seem to have more money to spend going out and doing

some studies. We take them with the grain of salt with which they're

printed.

I want to just touch on hazardous goods transport,

because that was one of the things you touched on earlier. Ninety

percent of the goods that are travelling from the province that are

hazardous goods are not waste. Regretfully, we only have authority over

hazardous wastes. Only 1 percent of the goods that are actually

transported are ones that are classified as hazardous wastes. I have

been working with the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr.

Fraser) on the subject, and it's one of great concern. We just don't

have a manifest system.

You mentioned transportation of the

yellow cake. We don't know right now what's in every boxcar. In the

open-top gondola cars it was coal or woodchips, but you don't know what

is in containers or in tank cars. Often I don't think the driver knows

what's in the tank car. He's just transporting the goods. In the case

of transporting yellow cake, that's one that's been brought to our

attention. You become more and more aware of this as you have to deal

with some of the problems. I see trucks going along and I don't think

anybody knows what's in them. I'm sure the shipper knows what's in

them. Many of them are common carriers, and they carry some kind of a

manifest system, but we don't have an adequate thing. I had a very

unfortunate experience of losing a friend of mine who was flying a 707

that was carrying hazardous cargo that was improperly stored. Even in

international transportation we don't have a sufficiently good manifest

system for the transportation of hazardous good