1992 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 35th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 3, 1992

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 4, Number 1

[ Page 2115 ]

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Prayers.

D. Mitchell: Hon. Speaker, I'm pleased to note that we have with us in the galleries three members of the Save Howe Sound Society. They're here today to accept the award that they've been honoured with, which is the 1992 Minister's Environmental Award. The three members of the society are Rozlynne Mitchell -- no relation to me -- Dana Taylor and Tracy Watchman. I would ask all members to welcome these three members of the Save Howe Sound Society.

E. Barnes: Hon. Speaker, I would like to ask the House to welcome a group of 46 grades 6 and 7 students from Brantford Elementary School, who are here with a number of adults and their class teachers. Would you please make them welcome.

K. Jones: Hon. Speaker, visiting with us today are 28 grade 7 students from William of Orange Christian School in Surrey, with their teacher Mr. Deglint. They have spent part of this morning in the halls of this Legislature. Would the House please join me in acknowledging their visit to the precincts and to beautiful Victoria.

F. Jackson: Hon. Speaker, it's family day for me in the Legislature. In the gallery is my wife, Nanette, and she has brought along her two sisters, Lorraine Chambers from Pritchard, B.C., and Suzanne Johnson from Drayton Valley, Alberta. All three of them were born in St. Joseph's Hospital in Victoria, so it's a kind of nostalgia trip for them. I'd like the House to welcome them back to Victoria and to the Legislature.

Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Speaker, this being Clean Air Day and Environment Week, I'd like to take this opportunity to introduce the winners of the Minister's Environmental Awards. We've seen over 170 candidates nominated for environmental awards this year -- twice as many as last year.

In the individual citizen category we recognize three recipients: Wilf Kipp of Kamloops, Wil Paulik of Richmond, and Gwen and Derrick Mallard from Victoria.

In the youth group or organization category it's the environmental consciousness class of Williams Lake Junior Secondary School; and Rozlynne Mitchell, Tracy Watchman and Dana Taylor are here on behalf of the Save Howe Sound Society of West Vancouver for its regional role as environmental watchdog since the mid-1970s and their ongoing accomplishments.

In the community or municipality category, Mayor Bill Copeland is here on behalf of the district of Burnaby, which has been selected for its many environmental initiatives to promote the concept of "Think globally; act locally."

The business or industrial category has two winners. Robert and Donna Jeal are here on behalf of Ames Paints of Victoria for successfully developing a consumer product from unused paint, thereby reducing hazardous waste. John Innes and Greg Rideout are here on behalf of B.C. Tel in Burnaby for implementing a multitude of progressive environmental protection policies for their company and for the province.

In the environmental education category, School District No. 59 in Dawson Creek.

Finally, in the communications and media category, Peter Busch of Squamish.

K. Jones: I'd like to also let you know that visiting with us today are 20 grade 7 students from Surrey Christian School in Surrey and their teacher, who have spent part of this afternoon in the halls of the Legislature. Would the House please join me in acknowledging their visit to the precincts.

Hon. T. Perry: With leave of the hon. Minister of the Environment, I wanted to acknowledge one other individual not mentioned in his list whose name, unfortunately, can't be mentioned in the House. But for the attention of other members, the hon. Speaker had a great deal to do with the distinction just awarded the corporation of the district of Burnaby, and I think it's appropriate that we recognize that.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: My ministerial assistant's parents are here in the gallery and are visiting the House and the Island from Winnipeg. I'd like members to welcome Leona and Pat McEvoy.

Introduction of Bills

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1992

Hon. B. Barlee presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Agriculture, Fisheries and Food Statutes Amendment Act, 1992.

Hon. B. Barlee: This bill establishes procedures for routing and a partial cost-recovery system for the processing of applications under both the Agricultural Land Commission Act and the Soil Conservation Act.

I move Bill 42, Agriculture, Fisheries and Food Statues Amendment Act, 1992, be introduced and read a first time now.

Bill 42 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.

FARMING AND FISHING INDUSTRIES

DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT ACT, 1992

Hon. B. Barlee presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Farming and Fishing Industries Development Amendment Act, 1992.

Hon. B. Barlee: The Agricultural Land Commission Act and the Soil Conservation Act are critical

[ Page 2116 ]

components of my government's farmland preservation program. Agricultural land is an important provincial resource, and the Agricultural Land Commission Act, through the agricultural land reserve, protects 4.7 billion hectares of farmland. The Agricultural Land Commission Act provides an application system for land to be included in or excluded from the agricultural land reserve, for the subdivision of farmland and for the use of farmland for non-farm purposes. Landowners may seek changes by making an application to the Agricultural Land Commission. There are approximately 1,000 such applications annually.

[2:15]

The Soil Conservation Act provides a permitting system for removing soil from or depositing fill on land within the agricultural land reserve. A landowner may obtain these permits by applying concurrently to the Agricultural Land Commission or to local government. There are approximately 90 such applications annually.

Before a decision is made on applications under these statutes, the commission and local governments must cooperate administratively to ensure that each matter is properly considered. Both the commission and local governments must employ highly skilled staff to review and comment on the applications. This bill standardizes and clarifies the existing application process under both statutes. Most applications are first submitted to local governments for their review prior to being forwarded to the commission. It also recognizes the existing partnership and cooperation between the commission and local governments.

It establishes the statutory basis to charge application fees and authorizes the sharing of the application fees between local governments and the commission. The sharing of fees will recognize the importance of the role that each plays in reviewing applications and the cost to them of providing that service. The fees themselves will be established by regulation.

I move that the bill be introduced and read for the first time now.

Bill 52 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

NANAIMO COMMONWEALTH

HOLDING SOCIETY

G. Wilson: My question is to the Premier, and it's in light of the comments that the Premier made yesterday denying that he had any knowledge of any connection between his government, his party and the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society. Would the Premier acknowledge that a letter written to the B.C. Gaming Commission in October 1990, in an attempt to reinstate the bingo licence of the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society, by a former director of the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society, who was then the vice-president of the NDP and as an MLA from Nanaimo.... Would the Premier acknowledge that that constitutes a connection?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I said that I would check into the relationship between the B.C. New Democratic Party and the Nanaimo Commonwealth Society. I have done that and had my staff check, and I can assure the members of this House that there is no constitutional or official status or relationship between the B.C. New Democratic Party and the Nanaimo Commonwealth Society.

G. Wilson: One wonders if the wisdom of Mr. Karl Struble, who was brought from the United States for the election campaign, is still at work among the ranks of the NDP. This has great similarity to the flawless Reagan execution of the famed Iran-Contra "plausible deniability" kind of concept.

The Speaker: Hon. member, could you state your question.

G. Wilson: My question to the Premier. He indicated yesterday that he would take action directly to find any kind of connection that there may be, and suggested that if there was a connection.... We have just demonstrated clearly, whether it's constitutional or otherwise, that there is an existing connection. There was past connection. Can the Premier tell us what he has done specifically in the last 24 hours? What specific action has he taken? Who has he asked? What documents has he reviewed to see whether or not there is any connection between his government, his party and the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society?

Hon. M. Harcourt: My staff and I have checked. As I said in my first answer, there is no constitutional or official status between the New Democratic Party of British Columbia and the Nanaimo Commonwealth Society. I can go on to say that the B.C. New Democratic Party, under my leadership and under the tenure of the present provincial secretary, has neither requested nor sought financial contributions from the Nanaimo Commonwealth Society or any of its affiliates. I said that I would check into this matter and report to the House at the earliest possible convenience, and I'm doing so.

The Speaker: A final supplemental.

G. Wilson: What we've demonstrated is a real moral blind spot here, that there is so much interweaving....

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please, hon. members.

G. Wilson: I have a supplementary question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Given that there seems to be such a tremendous blending between NDP personnel and government, will the minister confirm that Mr. Jim Woodward, whose name appeared on the bottom of a press release yesterday, is the same Jim Woodward who is a current NDP policy housing chair with the party? Can he tell us when he was hired, and what salary he's being paid at?

[ Page 2117 ]

Hon. R. Blencoe: Mr. Jim Woodward is not the chair of the NDP housing policy committee. Mr. Woodward is on an eight-month contract at $235 a day.

J. Weisgerber: A question to the Premier. Is the Premier aware that it was Dave Stupich who acted as auditor for the NDP and who signed their annual audited reports? Is he further aware that Dave Stupich was also involved with the Nanaimo Commonwealth Society and also audited the books of the Broadway Commonwealth Society, an organization which the NDP owed a considerable amount of money? Given all of these connections and the information that's been revealed over the last two weeks, will the Premier today join us in our request for an RCMP investigation into the affairs of the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society, and ask for a special prosecutor to be appointed?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I am not aware that Dave Stupich was the accountant for the New Democratic Party, certainly not in the time that I have been the leader of the party. I'm not sure how far back into the past the leader of the opposition party wants to go. I can take responsibility for my role as leader in the last few years, since 1986. Before that, hon. Speaker, I'm sure you're aware that I was not an officer, a member of the provincial council or the executive of the New Democratic Party. As a matter of fact, I was involved in a very important undertaking as the mayor of Vancouver and as a member of the Vancouver city council.

I am not aware of Dave Stupich being the auditor or the accountant for the New Democratic Party, and I may say that that question is quite out of order. If he wants to ask me a question as the Premier and as a member of the executive council -- which is what question period should be for -- I am quite prepared to answer that question.

The Speaker: A supplemental, but I would caution the hon. member that the question must be clearly within the area of responsibility of the Premier or the minister to whom it's being addressed.

J. Weisgerber: My question is again to the Premier. I think British Columbians are tired of seeing the government dance around this issue. I would refer to promise No. 3 of the NDP election platform, and it says....

The Speaker: Order, please. Hon. members, the Chair has in previous days expressed growing concern about questions that push on the limits of being within the responsibility of the people to whom they are being addressed. Clearly, to all hon. members who have the rules of question period in front of them, questions are to be short, to the point, without argument and without opinion. I will also say that so should the answers be. I'm urging all hon. members to review those limits of question period, and not to allow us to continue to stray progressively further beyond those limits.

I would now ask the leader from the third party to please state his question precisely and without argument.

J. Weisgerber: I will certainly attempt to do that.

Again to the Premier. Promise No. 3 of the NDP platform says "New Democrats welcome the Owen commission's recommendation for an independent prosecutor to guarantee the impartial administration of justice in our province." Will the Premier honour that promise and appoint a special prosecutor in this situation?

Hon. M. Harcourt: First of all, as the leader of the third party, an experienced member of this House, should know, this is not my responsibility; it's that of the Attorney General. It's not even the responsibility of the Attorney General; it's the responsibility of the Deputy Attorney General, as he should know by reading the legislation. He should also know, as somebody who was in the House when we voted on this particular bill, that there has to be an RCMP investigation, and there has to be evidence for a charge, and there has to be evidence against a specific person. None of those is present.

I think this is a way of making a very good idea, which we agreed to in this Legislature, diminished. I would urge the members not to diminish the very important innovation that was brought to the government of British Columbia by the appointment of a special prosecutor who is not decided upon by a politician -- not even by a politician with an independent role, as the Attorney General has -- but by the Deputy Attorney General and by the proper authorities, the RCMP, who do the investigation and prepare the charges. I think the member should not play fast and loose with that very important innovation that was brought to the people of British Columbia.

The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.

J. Weisgerber: Clearly the Premier doesn't understand the legislation. Perhaps the Attorney General can confirm that the purpose of a special prosecutor can be to oversee an investigation, and that one can be appointed before charges are laid and can be appointed by the Attorney General at his discretion.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: First of all, the act precisely requires that the assistant deputy minister in the criminal justice branch appoint a special prosecutor in a situation where one is required. There is not now an investigation by the police. There is not now a role for a special prosecutor or any other kind of prosecutor, and the member knows that full well.

W. Hurd: My question is for the Premier. The opposition has concerns about the 360 individual members of the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society and the $1.4 million in investments they have in this society. Would the Premier join with the opposition today in demanding that the parameters of the Hughes inquiry be expanded to include a review of all

in-

[ Page 2118 ]

dividual investors in the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society, their

individual investments and their links to members of this Legislative Assembly?

The Speaker: Order, hon. members. Unless the member can demonstrate clearly in the question how that comes within the purview of the executive council, I will end up ruling that question out of order. I ask the member again to clearly tie that in.

[2:30]

W. Hurd: Thank you, hon. Speaker. Was it not the Premier of this province who asked Mr. Hughes to investigate the relationship between the constituency allowances of individual members of this assembly and Marwood Services and the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society?

Hon. M. Harcourt: Hon. Speaker, obviously the member doesn't speak to the members of his own caucus who have been working with Mr. Hughes to put together his terms of reference. The member's House Leader has been involved in that process. Our House Leader has been involved and removed himself from that process because of the fact that it may be perceived to be some sort of a conflict, and we don't want to have that appearance at all.

We have asked that the question before Mr. Hughes be -- and this was a service not just to government members but all MLAs -- given the requirement that MLAs have to take their constituency allowances through an agent, what should MLAs do to see that those are distributed? We have asked Mr. Hughes to look at past and present practices, and there has been a letter from the Leader of the Opposition that this matter be investigated in that way.

I would think that the member, rather than addressing me as another member of this Legislature, should quite properly be having this dealt with through his caucus, and we could put this matter to rest and bring in reforms, if that is required, so that all members could benefit.

W. Hurd: My question is to the Minister of Government Services. The opposition notes bylaw 5 in the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society's bylaws, on the exercise of borrowing powers. Item (c): "To lend money to any person or company having dealings with the society or with whom the society has dealings, including officers and members of the society, and to guarantee the contracts of such persons or companies."

In light of the rather wide and possibly illegal borrowing powers conferred on this society, will the minister ask the Attorney General to freeze the assets of this society until the myriad of official inquiries have been completed?

Hon. L. Boone: As the members knows, on Monday I announced that an independent investigation will be taking place. We are currently working with the registrar to get a name and to bring forth a name to this House. That investigator will be looking into all aspects of the society, and I'm sure they'll be looking into those things as well.

The Speaker: The bell signals the end of question period.

NANAIMO COMMONWEALTH

HOLDING SOCIETY

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Yesterday in question period I took on notice a question from the member for Peace River South. The member's question was as follows: "Can the Attorney General confirm that following the 1988 RCMP investigation of the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society the RCMP recommended charges be laid? Can he further confirm that it was the then Deputy Attorney General who decided not to proceed with charges, and would he tell us on what basis that recommendation was taken?"

Because of the serious implications of the member's question, I have taken particular care in ascertaining the facts, and would now answer his question as follows:

1. The RCMP has advised us that, following their 1988 investigation, they did not -- I repeat, did not -- recommend that charges be laid. Further, a check of criminal justice branch records has shown that there is no record of any report to Crown counsel recommending charges. In fact, there is no report of any kind submitted to Crown counsel on the matter. The RCMP has confirmed that they made no such report.

2. The former Deputy Attorney General has made it very clear that he did not make any decision with respect to charges, and the question of charges was not discussed.

J. Weisgerber: On a point of order, hon. Speaker. The Attorney General yesterday did not take this question on notice. I have examined the Blues, and he did not take the question on notice. I assume therefore that he is giving a ministerial statement, and that that would allow a response from the other parties.

The Speaker: The Chair will have to examine Hansard and get back on that point of order as soon as possible.

Government House Leader on a point of order.

Hon. G. Clark: The government would be predisposed to give leave if the member wants to apologize to Mr. Hughes here in the House, if that's the purpose of....

The Speaker: With respect to the government House Leader, that is not a point of order.

J. Weisgerber: I request leave to table a letter to Mr. Hughes.

Leave granted.

[ Page 2119 ]

Orders of the Day

The House in Committee of Supply B; R. Kasper in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

ENVIRONMENT, LANDS AND PARKS

On vote 32: minister's office, $347,279 (continued).

J. Tyabji: I believe that we're still finishing off issues with regard to water under the Environment portfolio. I would like to speak with the minister today on an issue that I know is of great significance to this portfolio and to the portfolio of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. The issue that I would like to address is with regard to the Nechako River. I would like to ask the minister: is he planning to put this entire project through a more thorough review than it has currently gone through?

Is he willing to interfere in the process, through the powers of his ministry, so that we don't set the dangerous precedent of allowing a federal ruling to determine what is done with a provincial river?

Hon. J. Cashore: I have answered this question in the Legislature. We are in the process of gathering information from various parties. This information will be used to enable government to announce the process whereby we will decide on the nature of the review that is to take place.

The government has said that there will be a review; there will be a review. Government has yet to describe the nature of the review because of some very important work we are presently undertaking to gather information. We're dealing with a problem that relates to agreements that were made in the early 1950s, again in 1987 and again as a result of a federal order-in-council in 1988.

This has to be done properly. It behooves us to take the amount of time that is needed to do it well; we intend to do it well. We have to take a look at the legal parameters within which we are functioning. We have to take a look at what is right in terms of our responsibility to all the peoples of British Columbia. We have to take a look at the emerging definition of fiduciary responsibility with regard to first nations. It's an enormous issue. If I understand the comments correctly, hon. member, I would expect that you also want to see an appropriate review process take place.

J. Tyabji: I would like to know if this minister plans to allow this to go ahead, if that's what the information indicates, based on some of the submissions with regard to the Kemano 2 project. I would also like to know what the minister has in mind in terms of consultation with the aboriginal people and with one of the other industries affected, which is the fisheries industry. I would really like to know what the minister actually feels about the proposal to divert the Nechako River.

Hon. J. Cashore: If "this to go ahead" refers to a review, the answer is yes, we do plan to go ahead with a review. If "this to go ahead" refers to the Kemano completion project, that answer obviously has to wait until the results of the review.

With regard to my own personal feelings on this issue, I have deep and profound personal feelings which I will not be sharing with the Legislature at this time.

J. Tyabji: I would really like to canvass the deep and personal feelings of the minister, because he is the minister and he is to take leadership in this.

When I was referring to "this to go ahead," I was definitely referring to the Kemano 2 project. As the Minister of Environment, I think that he should definitely be putting his feelings on record.

If the consultation or whatever process he decides the environmental review is going to go through is done in such a manner that it comes out with a conclusion that this project can go ahead without serious environmental impact, I'd like to know if this minister is going to take the initiative and realize that there's no way you can divert the Nechako River without serious environmental impact, and that he would then come in and express that view. I would like to know if this minister is going to stand up and say no if it turns out that the project will go through based on some kind of wishy-washy environmental impact.

I've received numerous letters from people who say that the review process to date is not satisfactory, and that any review process that has been done in the past might come out saying that this would not have serious environmental impact. I would put to the minister that there is no way you can divert a river of that magnitude with that much importance, in terms of fisheries, water and contributions to the Fraser River, without very serious environmental impact. I would really like to know what the deep, personal views of the minister are.

Hon. J. Cashore: There's a fundamental disagreement between the member and I over the role of a leader's deep and personal feelings. In my view, especially in this circumstance, it behooves me to not be forthcoming with my deep and personal feelings. We might need an analyst in the House if I were to do that. It might end up with us having to deal with all sorts of garbage that the House doesn't want to have to deal with.

[2:45]

Seriously, hon. Chair, leadership at this point in time requires evenness and appropriateness, and the feelings of the minister should not colour the decision with regard to the nature of the review, so that justice not only will be done but will be seen to be done. Therefore it's most important, in fairness to all people, who hold varying perspectives, that the minister carry through this phase of his responsibilities in a way that ensures that the interests of all British Columbians are considered, including the users of the river, native people and those who are parties to agreements and legal decisions.

[ Page 2120 ]

Therefore, hon. member, you can come at this from as many angles as you wish. You can make statements about me and my personal feelings, and about leadership. But I will not prejudge the process that we are in the process of establishing, and there's no way that the hon. member will get me to do that.

J. Tyabji: I have two follow-up questions for the minister. First of all, has the minister been to the Nechako and talked to the people who live there about the possible impact of a river diversion? Also, is this minister suggesting that he would consider allowing the diversion of the river?

The Chair: Would the member want to continue with another question?

J. Tyabji: I would like to repeat the questions, and I would like to get an answer. The first question is very specific. Has the minister been to the Nechako River and talked to the aboriginal people and other people who will be affected? Is this minister actually considering allowing the diversion to go through? Both of them are very simple questions.

Hon. J. Cashore: Arrangements are in the process of being made for me to visit the Nechako River. I have visited with people from the Nechako at a very significant public meeting in Prince George, which was very well received. Two weeks ago I met with members of the river's defence coalition and with the Carrier-Sekani Tribal Council. I have met with Bill Rich of Kemano. I'm continuing the information-gathering, as I have said. Yes, I will be visiting the people of the Nechako, as this is a very important information-gathering phase with regard to my work.

The question that the member keeps asking sounds something like one hand clapping. I'm not going to respond to that question.

J. Tyabji: It's very obvious by your lack of response that you're considering it. So you have, in fact, answered the question.

I would like to talk to the minister about water use in general. I know that the minister has put a two-year moratorium on with regard to water exports. I would like to know what the minister's long-term plans are with regard to allowing the use of B.C.'s water: whether it will be sent out in bulk, whether there will be some kind of packaging, whether there will be some restrictions involved and whether this minister is willing to go to bat for B.C. to protect our water resources.

Hon. J. Cashore: I will answer this question, but it's out of order because it's future policy.

Interjection.

Hon. J. Cashore: Questions of future policy are out of order.

I have stated on many occasions that we are revamping the environmental legislation, and included in that is water legislation. My plans for the future of water in the province are extensive. I have said on many occasions that the present legislation is totally inadequate. It is property rights legislation; it is not water quality legislation. It does not recognize the multiplicity of uses. It does not recognize the needs of fish. It's very inadequate legislation, and even the inadequate legislation that exists does not have proclaimed

section 3, which would enable some reference to groundwater. The inadequate legislation that exists only deals with surface water. I've been very straightforward about this. Again, this is the third time this area of questioning has come up during these estimates. I have indicated that we will be releasing a paper on water, and that we expect to be hopefully bringing in legislation as soon as next spring, but it could be 1994.

With regard to the issue of bulk water exports, we have extended that moratorium for two years, which has been very solidly accepted by the majority of British Columbians with some dissenting views from some who wish to make profit on the export of water. Frankly, hon. member, I have stated publicly in speeches to water quality conferences and elsewhere that it would appear to make a lot more sense that if water was going to leave British Columbia, it would be better in the form of a value-added product rather than in bulk. I have expressed on numerous occasions....

In fact, I have been sought out by various groups such as the B.C. Wildlife Federation to give keynote speeches on water policy.

Again, I would want to note the contribution of the Klahoose Indian band on Cortes Island, which includes Toba Inlet within its traditional territory, because the research that was done by that native Indian band has been absolutely exemplary in drawing to the attention of British Columbians the fact that we almost -- during the previous government -- saw the thin edge of the wedge developing with regard to those bulk exports.

We know that trade law is a major issue with regard to this, and we have somewhat of a concern knowing, under the free trade and under GATT, that once we open the floodgates, we may not be able to close them. That's a very serious concern. That's one of the reasons we need to discuss this. But the fact is that we're now in a sense exporting bulk water from the GVRD down to Point Roberts. That's happened in 1987. There is a case of an interior stream where groundwater is being taken and transported to the United States, where it's being bottled. There are some serious, serious concerns here.

I appreciate the hon. member raising this concern. It is certainly my intent, my plan, to ensure that British Columbia has the very best water legislation in North America.

D. Jarvis: Could the minister tell me what his policy is with regard to the question that came out in the paper the other day on the transfer of water to the United States from the Columbia River, and would he mind relating whether he interprets that as bulk water or just a transfer of water, what his opinion will be, and when they are intending to make a decision one way or another? I would appreciate it if he could answer me without his usual sanctimonious grins, and that of his staff as well.

[ Page 2121 ]

Hon. J. Cashore: There are two issues the hon. member could be referring to. One is the question of a proposal that involved an inner basin transfer, which would actually see water taken from the Fraser River, diverted over to the Columbia and exported down into the Portland area. If he's referring to that proposal, I have spoken publicly and expressed opposition to it. That was in the context of a speech that I gave to a water association conference.

If he's referring to the fact that there's a low snowpack this year in the southern part of the province and the water that is being demanded by the Americans, my understanding of the status of that situation at the present time is that B.C. Hydro is currently looking into methods of mitigating the situation in particular by releasing extra flows from other dams on the Columbia system. This would allow the Americans to cut back on water releases from Libby Dam and allow Libby reservoir -- that's Lake Koocanusa -- to come within 15 to 20 feet of the full-pool level.

There's a note here that in 1988 the maximum level reached was 17.5 feet below the full-pool. With regard to this question, I would have to defer, in terms of a major portion of this question, to the Ministry of Energy, because obviously that is a related factor.

Hon. Chair, I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Hon. J. Cashore: I'd like to take this opportunity to introduce my daughter Judy, who's visiting in the precincts today. Welcome to my daughter Judy.

D. Jarvis: To the minister, I was referring specifically to the

article in the paper which said that the Americans -- according to the Columbia River Treaty -- were entitled to draw waters from the Mica, the Duncan and the Arrow Lakes reservoirs, and that they will be calling on that in the near future as they're running short of water. I don't understand all the ramifications of the Columbia River Treaty as yet. However, I believe that there's a clause in there that says that we have to give it to them, and the federal government is not prepared to back British Columbia up. Is the provincial government going to take a stand in this instance and consider that as bulk water?

Because once we start the bulk water, as you appreciate, we get into the free trade agreement, and that's going to be a deadly situation for the future of this province.

Hon. J. Cashore: In regard to that question, that was the answer I gave a few moments ago. I would encourage the member to look at that. That was an answer that I technically should not have given, because it's a question that's appropriately directed to the Minister of Labour, who's also responsible for B.C. Hydro. That is a question that is pursuant to the Columbia River Treaty. It is not a situation over which the Ministry of Environment has jurisdiction.

The Minister of Environment, however, in having announced -- as this member has acknowledged -- a process leading to a total revamping of water legislation in the province, will be dealing with interbasin transfers, will be dealing with issues of trade and will be dealing with all issues with regard to water in the province. That public consultation will inform the legislative regime that will come out of that. That is something that has been fully available. We've made that very clear.

The hon. member, in standing up and saying that he's concerned about bulk water and opening the free trade aspects, is simply stating the obvious. And it's obvious that we've stated that time and time again, both during our time in government and prior to that. It might be helpful if the hon. member would recognize that we are moving on this issue appropriately, and we're also reaching out to him and inviting him to participate in the process that we have set up.

L. Fox: I wasn't going to speak, but given that there were questions raised about Kemano 2, I wanted to talk on that very briefly.

First, I really appreciate the minister's answer that his personal views will not enter into this process. I think that's commendable and will help to meet the objectives that will be necessary through the review process. I purposely stated, when I spoke during these estimates earlier, that I believe that the Kemano 2 process has to go through a review process. I believe as well that it's not in the best interests of the people of the Nechako Valley that we play politics with this issue.

I purposely have given my commitment to the minister that I would not play politics with the issue, because it is an issue that involves many stakeholders and many interest groups. I've lived with the issue for 14 years -- and as a mayor for eight years -- and I know the complexities of it. I just want to suggest to the member for Okanagan East that the process has to be apolitical. It has to be a public process without political preferences so that everybody has a feeling when they come out of this that it was in the best interests of the people of the Nechako Valley, whatever decision is made.

[3:00]

I want to once again commend the minister, and I look forward to seeing the process and perhaps to critiquing it prior to it being made public so that I can give my input as the member for that area. If we still have differences, then I will take issue with it, but I thank the minister for his approach on the issue.

J. Tyabji: This is a funny situation, in that I feel like I should be responding to the third party statements. However, I would like the minister to know that I think there's a very dangerous precedent that could be set if we start diverting rivers.

I think the minister should know that if we are dealing with ecosystems, the environment -- in the true sense of the word -- and sustainability, then something in the magnitude of that proposal should be considered from the new perspective of ecosystem management; from that perspective on the environment rather than the old perspective, which I think is the one that sometimes took into account interests that had nothing to do with ecosystem preservation.

Having said that, I would like to know if the minister is making plans -- whether in this budget, in a five-year

[ Page 2122 ]

plan or what have you -- with regard to aquifer depletion. I am sure this minister is aware that the United States has had serious problems with their aquifers, in that they have tapped into them and in some of the states they have.... I know that in the central states they have an underground aquifer, built up during the last glaciation, that only replenishes at the rate of about half an inch a year. They're depleting it at the rate of about three to four feet per year. It will soon be dry and they will be in a very serious crisis situation with regard to agriculture and home use of water.

In southern California, for example, they're depleting an aquifer at the rate of twice our entire consumption of oil per year. They are in a crisis situation in California with regard to water. They just do not have any water.

We in B.C. have a great opportunity to prevent the depletion of aquifers so that we don't ever end up in a situation like the one in the United States. I'd like to know what this minister is doing and what his policy is with regard to aquifers and with regard to planning the depletion of the aquifer so that we don't end up in a net loss situation with regard to water.

Hon. J. Cashore: The hon. member sounds somewhat argumentative, but she's really preaching to the converted. I can keep repeating over and over again what I've already said. Our policy on water is to completely revamp all the policy on water, and aquifers are a very top priority with regard to that policy.

The reason for us having announced this very far-reaching initiative is to deal with this very pressing issue that the hon. member is referring to. So I don't think we're arguing at this point. I think there may be some discussion over the modus operandi that the member might want to have input to, but everything that she has said we are in the process of addressing.

There is a serious problem in this province with the depletion of aquifers. The fact is that the previous administration was willing to be there for all the years they were there and not address the issue.

I want to make sure you hear this, because I don't want to hear the question coming back again without you having heard it. The current legislation in the province is property legislation; it is not quality legislation. Also,

section 3 in that legislation, which would address groundwater, has never been proclaimed into law. It's property legislation, not quality legislation. We are going to be coming forward with a new water act. And again, I'm going to wait until the hon. member can hear what I'm saying so that I don't get this question again: we're going to be coming forward with a new water act. There will be a provision in the act for groundwater regulations that will enable the control of water quality aspects with regard to groundwater.

I think the most creative thing that the member can do is come on board with that process and give us the benefit of her experience, knowledge and research people, because this is something we can work together on to come up with the best possible regime for British Columbia, where we're all very concerned, for one thing, that in pristine British Columbia we have some of the most serious problems in Canada with regard to drinking water quality. It's a situation that behooves us to get working, but we need to take the time to do it right. I'm glad to know of your concern on this issue, and I'm glad to work with you on it.

G. Farrell-Collins: I've been reviewing the debates on estimates and also the debate on Bill 29, which is sort of ongoing in a continuous or parallel way with the estimates. My feeling from reviewing and watching them is that the confrontation in this process seems to be coming from the minister. The minister talks to the member for Okanagan East and tells her that she should be listening to his answers when he refuses to take the time to listen to the questions that are asked. I've heard the questions being asked, and I've seen the minister answer something way off base to what the question was.

I would ask the minister to perhaps take a more conciliatory tone. If you would like to have a non-confrontational or constructive opposition, perhaps he could listen to some of the things that are being brought forward.

In addition, last night in the debate on Bill 29 there were, I think, two very solid amendments. We are in estimates, and I intend to stick to the estimates, but the minister has made a number of comments that simply don't have to do with the estimates either. I'm merely responding to the comments that he brought up earlier.

The Chair: The hon. member perhaps would be advised to keep close to the estimates and the business at hand.

G. Farrell-Collins: The reason for these comments is that they lead into a question. I am merely responding to comments the minister has been making during the estimates.

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: We have a member sitting opposite who's talking about sexism as it relates to me talking about the comments of the minister. I think she is very much out to lunch and perhaps has an axe to grind that doesn't apply in this case. If she'd like to enter the debate, I'd more than welcome her responses on environment issues, but if she'd like to get into gender equity, then perhaps she can grind that next week when we do Women's Equality.

We've been putting forward positive consultation or aspects to the estimates and suggestions. The member has just done that again. The minister takes it as a personal attack when the member brings forward a positive contribution to this debate and these discussions. I hope that he will take a more conciliatory tone and listen to what she has to say in some of the comments that she's making.

I do have a question for the minister. Again he's not listening, so I'm sure I won't get the proper answer.

Interjection.

[ Page 2123 ]

G. Farrell-Collins: If the parliamentary secretary -- not quite in cabinet, but in waiting -- would like to engage in the debate, I'd welcome him also.

My question is to the minister.

B. Jones: On a point of order, the member chooses to engage in accusations and name-calling. If he wants to check the Blues, he will find out who the sanctimonious people are, who the guilty people are and who is out of order. We had a perfect illustration of the tenor of debate and of the patience of the minister when we saw the kind of constructive role that a member can play, by a member of the third party, in these debates on the minister's estimates.

The Chair: As the Chair, I can appreciate the comments, but I don't find that there's a valid point of order. I will state, though, that members on all sides of the House should get on with the business at hand, to make this job easier.

G. Farrell-Collins: I would like to ask the minister a question. I hope that if....

Hon. J. Smallwood: As soon as he figures out what the question is.

G. Farrell-Collins: I know exactly what the question is. I am hoping the minister will answer it. I'm trying to couch it in very clear terms for him.

There is a problem in the Fraser Valley -- of which I'm sure the member from Surrey is well advised; I've yet to hear her speak on the issue -- dealing with gas drilling and how that relates to the aquifers and groundwater. That is of great concern certainly to the agricultural people in the Fraser Valley and to the township itself -- the people who draw their water from these aquifers.

I'd like to know if the minister has done a study of the effects on groundwater by gas drilling or by drilling for any types of petroleum products and what effect that will have on the aquifers in these agricultural and municipal areas.

Hon. J. Cashore: The Ministry of Environment actively monitors any incursions that are part of the drilling process, wherever they may be in the province. That's part of the role of the Ministry of Environment. The statutory authority for that issue comes under the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.

G. Farrell-Collins: The minister talked at some length about the new policy that his government hopes to bring on groundwater and our water in general. I think that's a good direction, and I commend him for it. But given the fact that we've had a natural gas well drilled in Delta, I'd like to know, first of all, what part the Ministry of Environment played in monitoring the effect of that drilling on aquifers.

Hon. J. Cashore: I'm advised that the Ministry of Environment monitored that situation. They tested the groundwater and the aquifers carefully and found no change in that particular circumstance. That comment is not stated as advocating or not advocating drilling; it's just a factual response from the ministry.

G. Farrell-Collins: Thank you. I'm glad to hear that. I accept that. I don't assume that it's an endorsement one way or the other. I wouldn't expect that. I'm wondering if the minister could make public the results of the ongoing study that took place during the drilling in the Delta well.

Hon. J. Cashore: I'm advised that the study was concomitant with the paper, I guess, of the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. I don't have an answer at this time with regard to the release of that study. Given that legislation is before the House with regard to access of information, once it is passed into law, that would obtain, as well, in such circumstances. But I would think that the goal in issues such as that -- although I can't give a specific answer on that right now -- is that we would want, as much as possible, to release such information at the earliest possible date, because I think that's in the public interest.

G. Farrell-Collins: I accept those comments at their face value. I'm sure the minister intends to do that, and I'm glad to hear that. If we can't see the results yet or if I have to go to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources to obtain those results, I'm willing to do that. I guess what I should be asking him is if he could outline, not in great detail certainly but in a brief way, the process used and how involved that is. I don't know how involved the process is. Do you monitor a number of wells, or right at the drilling site itself?

Hon. J. Cashore: We would require consultation with specialists on staff in order to be able to answer that adequately. Senior staff have advised me that they would be very pleased to follow up on these issues with you, and provide a briefing with an official if that would be helpful. That information is available, but we don't have the technical information with us at this time.

G. Farrell-Collins: I appreciate that, and I certainly will get in contact with the members of his ministry to determine what that process is and the parameters of those studies as they're ongoing. I was not aware when I dealt with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources in estimates that this study specifically took place or even that it existed. In fact, it was quite difficult to get any sort of information in that area. I thank the minister for being as forthright as he has been.

I suppose I can obtain that information from the staff at the time of a briefing, but I am curious as to what process is planned if there are other sites that might go ahead. Certainly when we're looking at drilling, but also as far as a storage facility would go -- and they're actually using the aquifer itself to store the natural gas -- is there a different type of process that you feel should take place in that case, or would it be very similar to the drilling?

[ Page 2124 ]

Hon. J. Cashore: Under the existing law there would have to be a complete environmental impact assessment if that were to happen. And I say that's an awfully big "if."

[3:15]

G. Farrell-Collins: Just a point of clarification. Did the minister mean that before a storage facility would get ahead there would be a complete environmental impact? Do the same parameters, the same impact study apply to drilling for exploration when we're drilling through aquifers that may exist?

Hon. J. Cashore: I'm advised that the scope of the assessment would be smaller in the case of drilling an individual well. Again, we're in an area here that is, in a statutory way, that of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. It's my understanding that under the process that existed under the previous government, and which continues to obtain, if there were to be storage, there would be a very thorough environmental impact assessment if that were to be the case.

As I understood the question, it was: "if there were to be storage." I understand the question to be asking two categories of question. One is if there is to be storage. The other is where the drilling takes place. There is a less thorough environmental impact process in the case of an individual well being drilled, but when it makes that transition to say that it is no longer a project that has to do with drilling for gas or oil, this is now a project to try to find porous sandstone in which we can pump natural gas for storage in the off-season.

If that were to have happened, even under the previous somewhat contentious set of circumstances, it still would have required a major environmental impact assessment. That was already on the books, if that were to occur.

G. Farrell-Collins: With regard to drilling for exploration, there is a bit of a controversy. I'm sure you're aware of it, but I will recap it for you. The people who live in the area are convinced, for a number of reasons, by statements that are made by members of the drilling consortium that, in fact, what is ongoing in the Fraser Valley is not drilling for exploratory purposes but rather drilling for exploratory purposes in a geological sense as opposed to drilling in hopes of finding a natural gas supply.

They're exploring for geological reasons to establish whether or not it is viable to put a storage facility there. I'm wondering if your ministry is involved at all with the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources in determining what the general purpose of a project is when these applications are brought forward.

Hon. J. Cashore: We are involved in the sense of active advocacy on behalf of the environment. Again, the terms of the project certificates are not terms that we either legislate or develop. That happens within another area. I think the hon. member does make a good point that this happens often. There are probably lots of examples where you get a permit to do one thing, and it ends up that the major interest was in doing another thing. I don't know how you ever resolve that, because it would mean reviewing permit policy on a wide variety of applications.

Again, I think there is a corrective there in terms of the requirement that there would be a major environmental impact assessment if the proponent was trying to make that kind of a transition.

G. Farrell-Collins: I'd like to thank the minister for his responses. I think they were in good light.

I would ask him to keep that in the back of his mind, as this is ongoing as the requests and permits come forward for drilling in the Fraser Valley. I'm sure I will be talking to him and his staff in the future to ensure that they continue with the advocacy portion that he mentioned with regard to this issue in the valley.

R. Chisholm: When the NDP were in opposition, they were very concerned about aquaculture -- fish farming -- in this province. They were so concerned that they made demands on the previous government. I would like to read a quote from a letter from the Premier where he states: "...a moratorium on any future expansion of aquaculture until the environment and fisheries impact has been determined and appropriate regulations are in place." Are there any ongoing studies? Do you plan a moratorium in the future? Are we going to accept this industry assessment of Aquaculture: British Columbia's Future as our guideline?

Hon. J. Cashore: It is not my role to answer questions in the Environment estimates on behalf of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. That jurisdiction clearly comes under that ministry.

There's no question that as the Minister of Environment I am very interested in that issue. The question about a moratorium is appropriately put to that minister. I can tell the hon. member, though, that I have discussed this issue with the minister. It's my understanding that work is taking place within that ministry that is timely and appropriate and in keeping with the values we have expressed in the past.

R. Chisholm: A quote from a letter that you wrote, hon. minister: "We continue to take the position that there should be no further expansion of this industry until appropriate environmental studies have been concluded." Have the studies been concluded on the parasites?

The Chair: The hon. member for Burnaby North rises on a point of order.

B. Jones: Point of order. We all recognize the importance of opposition in this chamber, and I think by and large they're doing a fine job. But the minister has said very clearly that this is not in his ministry. It's as if the minister had not said that; the member continues on a subject that is completely outside his ministry. I don't know how under this vote that can be allowed as in order.

[ Page 2125 ]

The Chair: It's my view, hon. members, that the questions or comments should relate to the Ministry of Environment. I would allow a certain degree of latitude where environmental issues are affected in different types of land use decisions or water use decisions. I would hope that the member for Chilliwack would recognize that and keep his comments or questions along that line.

R. Chisholm: As I stated in the quotes from the letters from the two hon. members, Environment obviously does have responsibility in this area; otherwise they would not have responded to the letters.

A question to the minister regarding the parasites which caused the disaster in Norway: are there any studies as to whether this could happen here and destroy our fisheries in British Columbia?

Hon. J. Cashore: The Minister of Agriculture would be responsible for the studies. I have no way of knowing if this member asked this question at that time. That's when it should have been asked.

I want to clarify one thing: when it comes to the environmental aspect of aquaculture, it clearly comes under the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Federal Fisheries would also have a concern because of the potential for impacts on wild stocks. That's another agency that comes into the picture.

I would want to point out that the Crown lands portion of this ministry does have a role in dealing with the applications for tenures, but those tenure applications are subject to consultation with the Ministry of Agriculture with regard to overall policy in this area.

I do have some information coming out of the Lands branch that the member may be interested in. First, activity, according to our statistics, has reduced quite significantly, especially in the past year. The applications now processed in a comprehensive way are primarily within areas which have been the subject of coastal resources identification studies. There have been a number of existing tenures that have declined in the past two years as the industry has gone into a downsizing phase. For instance, in the finfish part of the industry there are now 171 tenures, as compared to 200 in 1990.

In the shellfish portion there are 398, as compared to 409 in 1990. Beyond that, these are simple statistical pieces of information that come from that branch of the ministry that deals with the tenures. When it comes to the policy with regard to the environmental issues that the member is raising, that clearly comes under the mandate of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I would say again that it's true that I have an interest in this as the Minister of Environment, but several ministries have an important environmental component within their mandate, and that certainly is a factor in this one.

R. Chisholm: I'd just like to clarify one thing. Is the minister stating that he has no interest in the parasites or the possible destruction of our wild stock in the province? Is that strictly the Ministry of Agriculture? Before I go on with any further questions, I'd appreciate an answer.

Hon. J. Cashore: No, hon. member. If you read the Blues of what I have just said, you'll see that I said the opposite. I said that as the Minister of Environment, I'm very concerned, and I work closely with the Minister of Agriculture, who has the lead role. Of course the Ministry of Environment is concerned about wild stocks. We have several programs that we're working on with the Steelhead Society and others towards the enhancement of wild stocks; that's certainly an active program within the ministry.

Insofar as there is a potential for the finfish industry to impact wild stocks, that's exactly what I meant a moment ago when I said, in response to a question, that I work very closely with the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I do recognize that there is a very appropriate environmental interest here.

R. Chisholm: I'll get back to the original question which resulted in this flurry. Regarding parasites that affect wild stock and destroy the finfish fishery, are there any ongoing studies at the present time with reference to these parasites?

Hon. J. Cashore: The Ministry of Environment is often in a role of advising the Ministry of Agriculture with regard to mitigating the import of stocks from other locations.

R. Chisholm: I'll refer to the catastrophe in Norway, where countless streams were sterilized to kill the parasites which developed as a result of fish-farming. Does this ministry require aquaculture farmers to carry any special insurance in case of mass infection of wild commercial stocks and wild sport stocks? What precaution is the minister taking to ensure that this disaster will not occur in British Columbia?

Hon. J. Cashore: This question should have been put to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. If it was not put to him.... As I said before, I am in constant contact with the minister, and I will be raising this question with him.

R. Chisholm: The minister seems to be confusing me as to whether he's involved or not involved.

A question to the minister. I'll quote some environmental regulations. Maybe we can get some answers for that. The environmental regulations state that fish-farms must be at least one kilometre away from native stocks. How many fish-farms at present do not comply with this regulation? If you want me to quote the regulation from MOE, Mr. Minister, I will.

Hon. J. Cashore: I wonder if the hon. member could clarify if that's a federal or provincial regulation.

R. Chisholm: Provincial.

Hon. J. Cashore: I would ask the hon. member to make available a copy of that so that we can review it and come back with an answer a little later. Could we have a copy of the regulation?

[3:30]

[ Page 2126 ]

R. Chisholm: The next question to the minister is with reference to fish hatcheries in the Okanagan. I'll quote from letters sent to me with reference to the wild stock in this province. "There were 310,000 freshwater licences issued to B.C. residents, and a further 150,000 to resident juniors who don't require licences...." There were 41,500 licences issued to non-resident Canadians. This came to a total of approximately 304,700,000 for British Columbia residents and 51,060,000 for non-residents.

[M. Lord in the chair.]

The point I'm getting at here is that we've had fish hatcheries close down in the Okanagan, and the stocks of wild fish are in decline. The fish hatchery we're talking about was the one in the Okanagan. There is now a second one for rainbow trout. I'm wondering if the minister is going to keep that one open, or is he going to enhance this fishery, considering the amount of money it brings into the province with tourism.

Hon. J. Cashore: I take it that the question is with regard to the Skaha hatchery. We've had staff in that area within the past week talking to local people about the hatchery. The position of the ministry has been that while the Skaha hatchery is desirable in this area of prioritizing our budget needs, the fact is that we're faced with reviewing our priority with regard to that hatchery in the light of costs and in the light of availability of stock from other locations.

The professional opinion of my staff is that we will be able to produce the necessary number of kokanee through upgrading the Mission Creek spawning channel and other tributaries. The function of the Skaha hatchery was simply to jump-start the spawning channel, and we feel that since last year about 94,000 spawners returned to Mission Creek compared to an average of about 24,000 over the last four years or so. It has been successful in doing so, so in a sense you could say that while it would be really great, in the best of all possible worlds, if we could continue that hatchery, it has fulfilled its mission.

So our intention is to concentrate on improving the spawning channel, and this will probably mean that we close the hatchery.

I think that the answer makes it very clear in

summary that it would be wonderful if we could keep the hatchery there. It has fulfilled its goal. We're going to watch it closely, and the need for stock can be supplied through another source.

R. Chisholm: Again we'll get back to the rainbow trout. The kokanee system did work, but meanwhile the fishery department lease on the Haase property in Kelowna, which is essential to the rainbow trout enhancement, may end with nothing done towards rainbow trout enhancement. I quote from this letter:

"It has been proven at Kootenay Lake that a good large rainbow trout fishery can inject $10 to $15 million a year into the local economy. That occurs mostly in the fall and winter, when the Okanagan needs it most. Surely that is reason enough for improved enhancement of our rainbow trout in Okanagan Lake. They did have a valuable fishery there many years ago. It was lost because the creeks were dammed for irrigation and domestic water. The fish lost most of their spawning area."

Would this not be reason enough to keep that hatchery open and enhance the rainbow trout fishery in the Kootenay?

Hon. J. Cashore: We have five hatcheries across the province that cost us $3 million. We set in order of priority the needs every year to be supplied from those five hatcheries. The first priority of the ministry is to maintain wild stocks, and therefore the issue with regard to fish other than kokanee is dealt with through the resources of those hatcheries. As I said, five hatcheries, at a cost of $3 million, is sufficient to supply the need at the present time.

R. Chisholm: Have there been any Atlantic salmon introduced to British Columbia waters?

Hon. J. Cashore: Yes. I understand that there are -- this is off the top of my head before I read this note -- two sites where Atlantic salmon have been introduced into fresh water. I believe that one is in a lake in the northern part of Vancouver Island. Prior to the election, our ministry originally agreed to allow rearing pens for Atlantic salmon in four lakes on Vancouver Island. This included Kennedy Lake and three other lakes. We have taken Kennedy Lake off the list as a result of local concerns, and I would have to say that I too was very concerned about Kennedy Lake being involved in that.

I know that it raises the question of allowing any freshwater lake to have Atlantic salmon in it. It's a question that I'm very concerned about. When we recognize that within the finfish industry Atlantic salmon has been accepted for quite some time as the major source of that fishery, and given the way in which the fry will grow much more quickly in fresh water, I think that was the basis upon which the decision was made prior to the election. The member raises an issue that I'm very concerned about.

At the present time there are three lakes where that can take place, but I don't think it's happening in all three of those lakes at the present time. The information I have is that it is not happening in those other lakes.

R. Chisholm: Might I make a suggestion to the minister? We have a large number of quarries around this province which could be utilized for fish-farming, where there would not be any chance of species like Atlantic salmon getting into our fresh waters and destroying local fisheries. My question to the minister is on the antibiotics used with the fisheries: have there been any studies as to the effect on the human species?

Hon. J. Cashore: I understand the question was: have there been any effects of the antibiotics on the human species? The answer is: I don't know.

R. Chisholm: Have there been any studies on the effects on lakes from fish-farm effluent, which can be quite substantial?

[ Page 2127 ]

Hon. J. Cashore: I'm advised that that becomes a waste management problem and is covered under regulations.

R. Chisholm: I realize that, but what I'm asking, hon. minister, is: have there been studies on what would happen to the ecosystem of that individual lake?

Hon. J. Cashore: Apart from the ongoing research, I'm not aware of any particular study that the ministry has conducted or that has been made available on this.

R. Chisholm: Referring back to the letter from the Premier stating that he wanted a moratorium, does the minister foresee or has there been any discussion of a moratorium on fish-farming in British Columbia?

Hon. J. Cashore: I said earlier that the question about the future of fish farming in British Columbia comes under the Ministry of Agriculture.

D. Jarvis: I appreciate that your portfolio covers many borders. This may not be applicable to you, but I did want to ask: have there been any moneys allocated by your ministry or is there any research going on as to the treatment and/or pollution aspect of mine tailings and acid drainage?

Hon. J. Cashore: Yes, we're involved in a joint study with Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources and the industry.

J. Tyabji: I didn't mention it earlier, but I have to commend the minister on his taste in first names for his daughter.

I would like to ask the minister about the Brenda Mines tailings pond in the Okanagan. I'm sure the minister is aware that this tailings pond has been around for a while. There is a lot of local concern. There is even a local committee that is trying to deal with this issue, but the issue has not gone away. I'd like to know what the minister sees as a plan of action for the Brenda Mines tailings pond.

Hon. J. Cashore: That's one of the many issues that I need to have a briefing note on. It's on the way.

J. Tyabji: Since we're still on the water aspect, I'd like to talk a little bit about the problems with sewage throughout the province. As the minister is no doubt aware, we still have some primary dumping of sewage, Victoria being one of the largest contributors. I'd like to know what the minister sees as a plan of action for the elimination of primary dumping -- or if he sees that as a goal for his ministry -- and the movement from secondary treatment to tertiary treatment. Does he feel that most of the tertiary treatment facilities in the province are adequate? For example, there's the Bardenpho system that we have operating in the Okanagan.

Hon. J. Cashore: From what I've heard about it, the Bardenpho system is a very good operation. It's being looked at elsewhere, including in other countries.

With regard to sewage treatment, we are working on sewage plans with regional districts throughout the province. Our ultimate goal is zero pollution, as outlined in our environmental action plan and in our discussion paper on our new environmental protection legislation. We expect to be applying the municipal sewage discharge standards appropriately. In doing so, we have to be in consultation with the municipalities and the regional districts to ensure that it's done in a way that is time managed in view of financial resources. We have to move forward in a number of areas in the province toward a much more appropriate management of sewage.

Added to that is deteriorating infrastructure, especially in major cities. As we commented the other day, there is evidence that structures built 50 years ago are falling apart. This is obviously a major issue.

[3:45]

J. Tyabji: Am I to assume that the minister is definitely working on a goal to eliminate all primary systems of sewage disposal? If so, when does he think...?

The Chair: Do you have a question, member?

J. Tyabji: Yes, I do. I was just waiting for the minister.

The Chair: Could you please proceed.

J. Tyabji: Is the minister ready?

B. Jones: Aye.

J. Tyabji: Thank you for answering for the minister.

Am I to understand that the minister is moving toward the elimination of all primary and, I would hope, secondary methods of dealing with sewer? If so, what kind of time-line does he have?

Hon. J. Cashore: The goal, where sewage is untreated, is to help the regional district and the community get to primary. Where it's primary, the goal is to help them get to secondary. The goal is to work with the communities to help them improve the situation that exists now.

J. Tyabji: It's obviously a commendable goal to be upgrading the existing methods. Does the minister see any kind of time-line for when B.C. can be on either a full secondary or full tertiary method of sewage treatment?

Hon. J. Cashore: I think that tertiary is most often in areas like the Okanagan, and a lot of it has to be site specific and related to the needs of the area.

With regard to the overall goal, it is to move as quickly as we possibly can but in consideration of financial constraints. For instance, if we're looking at

[ Page 2128 ]

Victoria, we have to recognize that there's a real problem there. If we were to decide that they have to do this in five years, the cost would be enormous. Hence we are working with the regional district, which I have met with, and we have committed our staff and their staff to work together toward the goal of identifying the best possible way of dealing with the problem and to do so by working on it together.

J. Tyabji: As the minister is no doubt aware, the Bardenpho system will take out the nutrients, but it doesn't deal with the contaminants. I have a concern -- I'm sure the minister will share this concern -- where we have systems of sewage going into a lake or any kind of closed body. If we have highly toxic products on the market that are going into the sewer system, then even tertiary treatment doesn't get rid of those contaminants.

To give the minister an example, you can have drain cleaners; you can have very toxic cleansers; you can even have non-biodegradable soaps that we're using daily. I'm wondering if the minister has thought of either a public education plan, or some way of monitoring what is available on the market.

I sent the minister, as one of the nominations for today's environmental awards, a company in the Okanagan called Samson's Soap. I sent it specifically to the minister because it's not only something that's produced in B.C. and 100 percent Canadian owned and operated, but also the whole concept is to have non-toxic, environmentally friendly and biodegradable cleansers so that anything that gets into the environment.... It's all refillable and reusable packaging as well. It's the height of minimization in terms of packaging, and also the products are environment-friendly.

Does the minister have a plan for public education for some kind of expansion of programs like that? Is he planning to promote that kind of initiative? We do have a real problem, and I don't know if the ministry's dealing with it. Even tertiary treatment of sewage is still only dealing with the nutrients and only the sewage part, and not all the other things that come into the system.

Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Chair, I agree with the hon. member. We have to be moving on a number of fronts with regard to education towards alternatives, and that one example the member gave was a good one. I think we have to find ways to positively support those who come forward with good plans, good alternatives. The environmental awards is one way of doing that. We also have our eco-education program, which is focused on school students at the present time. I know there's more that we can do in this area. I think it's a good idea. Having something, for instance, like Clean Air Day....

In a way it is a symbolic event, but in another way it starts to focus attention on the issue and raise awareness. One of the most effective things in public education on alternatives is the role that children have to play, because very often those children go home and ask tough questions; they raise the consciousness of the people at home, and then we see those people becoming more involved.

We have a lot of things that we could and should be doing in this area, and I agree with what the hon. member is saying.

J. Tyabji: I still have a very real concern about the contaminants that could be getting into local drinking-water supplies through the sewage system. I can only speak for the area that I come from in terms of a specific knowledge of what goes on. We have a body of water; it's a closed body with a 60-year turnover. There are still some traces of DDT in the sediment, because it takes so long to turn over. You've got basically a 60-year cycle just for the water, but if something settles out in the meantime, it stays in the sediment; there's very little cross-current movement.

It's like a bowl-shaped setup: you have everything from the very top, where to this day you have aerial spraying of herbicides and pesticides, going down to the orchards, where we have that method of agricultural management, getting down to the residential areas, and then at the bottom the industrial sites. And everything is outletting into the same drainage system, which goes into the lake, and the treatment that it has takes out only the nutrients. So we still have a very real problem with the contamination of basically the source from which most of the city is drawing its drinking water.

Now I recognize that the minister has had very little time to deal with the fact that none of this was dealt with in previous administrations, or at least not that aspect of it. So it's not that I'm calling him to task on the fact that it hasn't been done. But I would like to know what the long-term plan is, starting from this year, to deal with a very real problem. I know that he's got a water study, but the problem goes much further beyond that in terms of sewage.

The very best treatment that we have for the sewage system is tertiary treatment, and to me that's not adequate because it's not taking out contaminants, so whatever the sewage system is outletting into a closed body is then coming up in the drinking water. It's a loop, and unfortunately what we're outletting ends up coming back to us at some point.

I'd like to know what the minister's long-term plan is, recognizing that he may not have the money to do it right now. But there must be some plan of action with regard to the sewage outflow and what's coming out of the pipes, perhaps preventing it from getting in there in the first place.

Hon. J. Cashore: We definitely do have a long-term plan. I have met with the mayor of Kelowna and with other mayors and councillors in the area, because they have wanted to talk to me directly about some of these issues. Our assistant deputy minister will be meeting shortly with the Okanagan water board to discuss just this very issue of how we can work together to address that.

With regard to the Bardenpho system, it's my understanding that is a tertiary system and that it does remove almost all of the contaminants. I see that the hon. member is disagreeing with that, so I would expect

[ Page 2129 ]

that we'll be receiving some information that will help us relate to that, but that's the information that we have. We should remember that tertiary treatment is added to secondary treatment; it doesn't replace it.

There is also the involvement in the fifty-fifty cost-sharing process between our ministry and local government of a great deal of consultation that takes place. There are local jurisdictions, there is the responsibility and the opportunity that local people have to comment on that process, and there are the resources of the Ministry of Environment that are also available to that process.

The long-term goal, though, is to move as quickly as we possibly can in cooperation with the municipalities and regional districts to achieve the best possible quality result that we can. It is interesting to hear the concern about the Bardenpho system, because I've heard very positive things about it when I've met with officials.

J. Tyabji: There's no question that the Bardenpho system is one of the best sewage treatment facilities. I think where the concern comes in is that there's a lot of other material that's going through the system other than the sewage. As I mentioned, there are the drain cleaners and any type of household cleansers, and sometimes you get people who dump things into the sewage system, either through the storm drains or through their household sewage system. That's where you get a big concern. As I say, that's the least of the concerns compared to the other methods, in which we see all kinds of primary and secondary sewage systems outletting into the water systems -- into closed bodies.

Where I have a lot of difficulty with the sewage system is that I think it's relatively archaic for dealing with this problem considering the alternative methods available. I'm sure the minister is aware of some of these new technologies like the chemical toilets, and the systems that are built into a house so you actually have your grey water going out either to irrigate your field or to irrigate your lawn, and you have the rest of the water being processed in-house. It eliminates the need for the trunk lines and for the auxiliary lines to the house and for the sewage treatment plant in the first place.

When we didn't have the alternatives, it seems to me that the sewage system was the best possible method. But we have better methods now and we have the technology available, and because it's so much cheaper and very accessible, it can be built into the construction costs of a subdivision or the construction costs of a home to begin with. This goes back to yesterday's comments about sustainable cities and about developing a long-term plan that would redesign the way we're doing things to cut costs and to be more environmentally sensitive.

I'd like to know if the minister is considering, or if he would consider, looking into revamping the whole way we do things with regard to the approach to sewage treatment and working with the Minister of Municipal Affairs to look to some of this alternative technology -- or perhaps he's already decided to do that -- so that we can get off the old habit of going to the trunk lines and the auxiliary lines in the sewage treatment facility and build everything in-house. Perhaps you would need some small central facility for the industrial complexes or the commercial buildings, but residences themselves would be self-contained.

This would also address what many of us see as the potential for a water shortage in the future. It becomes an internal closed system, so that you're not having a net loss of water or problems with things outletting into the lake. You're actually containing everything in a house, and it fits in with the new way of doing things.

[4:00]

Hon. J. Cashore: I agree with all of those points. When we think of alternative technology.... I discovered some alternative technology at our cabin on Cortes Island recently. My son and I designed and built an outhouse. It works very well. The point that the hon. member made about toxins going into the sewer system is a very real problem. We have to look at alternative technology in addressing that problem, but, as the member said before, we also have to look at public education, because it's awfully difficult to control what happens in the privacy of somebody's bathroom.

They end up dumping a lot of discarded medicines -- or who knows what it might be. That's what quite often gets out there and causes that problem.

Another thing is that often public perceptions on some of these issues are way out. For instance, I think that some people in the Victoria area see the presence of pollutants in the water adjacent to the shores of Clover Point as an indication of a problem with the long sewage outfall, but they're wrong. It's a problem with the storm drain runoff, and quite often people don't distinguish between the existence of the storm drain and the sewage outfall.

We have a problem in the lower mainland where, during one-third of the days of the year, the storm drains with the water runoff mix with the general sewage, and of course that's an intolerable situation. I think with regard to alternatives that the Bardenpho system is sometimes seen as an alternative.

There are other systems being looked at that would actually result in some of the water being recycled into where it could be sprayed on fields and that sort of thing. Yes, hon. member, we have to be constantly vigilant in looking at new and innovative technologies, methods and model approaches to cities that are integrated on the best ecological principles.

J. Tyabji: That actually leads me to the next question with regard to spray irrigation. I know that was looked at in the Okanagan, and it is actually being done to some extent in Vernon. It seems like a good idea, but it may result in a net loss to the lake, so they're still trying to work out some of the mechanics of that. I was going to canvass you on that, but you've already more or less addressed it.

[ Page 2130 ]

I would really like to encourage the hon. minister to try to bring in as much of the new technology as possible to his new government. They are a new government, and they do have the ability to change the way things have been done in the past. I would encourage him in those initiatives.

I would also like to know if the minister is aware of the program going on in California, just south of Oakland, with regard to sewage treatment in the wetlands. They have actually increased the habitat for waterfowl and some wildlife. It's very interesting. What they've been doing is putting the sewage treatment in, and in effect it's been removing all the nutrients through the wetlands. It's been like a large filter, and it's a natural filter. They've had a lot of success, and the minister may have seen some of the television programs with regard to this.

They have more or less reclaimed the wetlands, because the wetlands were in some kind of trouble before they did this. Now they have not only solved their sewer problem and increased their wetlands, but they have also restored habitat for a lot of the waterfowl. In the lower mainland particularly we could see a lot of value in piloting a project like this with proper controls. An area like this could be set aside, and we could probably see a lot of success.

I would also like to point out to the minister, in the event that he hasn't already gone in this direction, that in areas where there is currently only primary sewage treatment, this may be a wonderful way of upgrading and also expanding the wetlands and habitat for waterfowl.

Hon. J. Cashore: We in the ministry are familiar with that example south of Oakland. It's a good process, worthy of consideration for application here in British Columbia.

I met with the minister of environment from Australia last week. I'm going to be seeing her at the UNCED conference. She has a number of innovations that have been implemented in Australia and that are most interesting, similar to the one that the hon. member just described. All of this fits into the concept of sustainable development. When that process is really operating, in solving one problem we've solved several problems because of the interaction.

J. Tyabji: I'd like to talk for a little while about food and about production methods as outlined in the guide that I presented to the minister on management methods and possibilities for composting. As I'm sure the minister is aware, we're reaching a lot of turning points in how we deal with the environment, society, food production -- the list goes on. We as a society have to try to evaluate where we want to go with things that are this critical to the functioning of society.

There are numerous concerns in the food production industry that overlap the Ministry of Environment, the Ministry of Agriculture and, to some extent, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. I'd like to find out how the minister feels about some of the management methods with regard to food production. That goes through many areas. I'd like to start, first of all, with agriculture, specifically the production methods for tree fruits, field berries, field crops, vegetables and these kinds of things.

At this stage a lot of chemicals have been used to produce food. There is a lot of concern with food production and the use of chemicals. As the minister is no doubt aware, we have concerns with regard to pesticide use in the Fraser Valley and the resultant potential problems with drinking water. I'd like that to be a starting point for this discussion. We can have a fairly far-ranging discussion with regard to production and management methods. Of particular concern is the Fraser Valley. It comes into the minister's portfolio with regard to pesticide use and the potential for problems with the water system and possible impacts on the people and animals living there.

Hon. J. Cashore: A number of these points were covered in parts of the previous discussions we've had. For instance, we had the discussion yesterday about the fact that some farms have accepted waste. It was referred to by the opposition as black-market waste. One of the ways that the Ministry of Environment is involved is in monitoring situations like that and seeking to make sure that the regime of monitoring and enforcement works so it doesn't happen.

We've also talked about air pollution in the airshed and the way pollution accumulates and goes up over our breadbasket. There's a problem of fallout in our food production area. That's another concern that needs to be addressed within the ministry's concern for air quality and how that interacts and impacts.

With regard to pesticides, we have the work that has been done by the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Environment in developing a certification program for farmworkers and for the application of pesticides. I believe that the work of the ministry has seen a reduction, as I said yesterday, in aerial spraying and also in the use of toxic pesticides. There is a goal to see further reduction take place. We have a joint monitoring program with the Ministry of Agriculture on food and milk and pesticide residues. We found that 98 percent of samples are well within Canadian health standards.

I think that part of this question is a more philosophical one about how we view the whole issue of food production in the context of sustainable development. That's a serious issue that's exacerbated by the impacts on the family farm resulting from free trade, for instance. So we see that a squeeze has been placed upon farmers. As I get into waxing philosophical about that, I get into an area that's not within my ministry. I think I should stick within the ministry.

I think the ministry does have a responsibility in cooperation with the Ministry of Agriculture and the four regional districts in the Fraser Valley, the Okanagan and the Kootenays -- wherever we have agricultural areas -- to work cooperatively toward achieving the appropriate goals. The major statutory regime site specific to farm land comes under the Ministry of Agriculture.

Hon. member, I wonder if I might take this opportunity to respond to a couple of issues that have come up previously. One is the Brenda Mines reclamation issue. This mine was closed in 1990. Since closure, the company has been actively involved in site cleanup and reclamation. The Ministry of Energy is responsible for closure and has set up a technical advisory committee and public surveillance committee to monitor the site. B.C. Lands is represented on both committees. As the

[ Page 2131 ]

mine is in the Peachland watershed, one of the major concerns is water from the site that may enter the watershed. Closure and reclamation of the site is the responsibility of the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.

With regard to a discussion we had yesterday in the House in response to a question on drinking and hunting, I replied that this situation was an offence not covered under the Wildlife Act. I thought it was dealt with under other legislation. I've since been informed that the Wildlife Act was amended in October 1985 -- the year before I arrived in the House -- to cover situations where abuses of alcohol or drugs are involved.

Section 90(1) reads: "A conservation officer or constable may, where he" -- here the language is sexist; it should be he or she -- "has reasonable and probable grounds to believe that by reason of consumption of alcohol, a person who is hunting and carrying a firearm is affected in" -- it should say -- "his or her ability to hunt or handle a firearm safely and responsibly, request that person to surrender any firearms in his or her possession and his or her hunting licence and firearm licence." You can see a little bit of editing there.

Section 90(2) provides authority to deal in a similar fashion with drugs. As a matter of interest, there have been 29 such warnings and seizures of firearms since 1985 under these provisions. I state that to correct the record.

Also, with regard to the milfoil program, staff have spoken to officials in Vernon yesterday and were advised that, according to field supervisor Greg Armour of the Okanagan Basin Water Board.... He stated that they are planning to start harvesting weeds in about two weeks' time, and Vaseux Lake's weeds are ready for harvesting now. The Okanagan Basin Water Board has not yet had a meeting since they received their reduced funding, so there's no way that they could have made a decision to stop the milfoil harvesting as of yesterday. The next meeting is scheduled for June 16, '92, in Penticton.

The water board members expressed concern with regard to the funding cutback; however, we expect that they will participate in discussions that are focused on ensuring that the program does go ahead, although the funding consideration is something that is under active review. This year the water board asked for $300,000 but received $230,000. Their funding last year was $265,000, and they apparently ran up a deficit in that year. Obviously there is a financial problem there, but that is not to downgrade the importance of the program. I believe it was stated in the House yesterday that the program was cancelled; it's my understanding that's not correct.

[4:15]

J. Tyabji: I don't have my milfoil research with me, so I can't refer to it right now. I may be able to bring that up again later, but I can certainly assure the minister that I have had discussions with the Okanagan Basin Water Board prior to bringing it up in the House. I talked to them personally. They definitely communicated to me that it had been cancelled, and certainly I remember reading that in the local newspaper. Perhaps what happened was that some members had made a decision prior to going to a meeting, so it's not an official one -- I don't know.

Going back to the statements with regard to the conservation officers or constables -- I believe that was what it said in the Wildlife Act -- am I to understand that it is a criminal offence if you are found...? Or is that just in contravention of the act, and therefore you lose your permit?

Hon. J. Cashore: It's actually a warning to the individual that they could lose the firearm. Again, it's still my opinion that in order to deal effectively with the problem of drinking and drugs and hunting, it requires more than the Wildlife Act to deal with all the possible circumstances. But certainly there is an availability there within the Wildlife Act to have.... It's really caused things to chill out. That kind of a warning, once a person has a sober second thought the next day, probably has quite an impact.

J. Tyabji: I would like to encourage the minister to follow up on his statement with regard to something stronger than the Wildlife Act. I do think that to protect those who are acting responsibly, there should be an adequate recourse for those who are in violation of what we would consider to be acceptable standards, just as we do with drinking and driving. It's just a good method of dealing with things so that it doesn't go any further. If the minister is considering bringing forth some kind of amendment to the legislation, I'd certainly support that.

I pass the floor now to our Agriculture critic.

R. Chisholm: I will give the regulations to the hon. Chair, and she can pass them to the minister after the question. Can the minister deny or acknowledge whether there are Atlantic salmon in Lois Lake near Powell River and in Georgie Lake at the northern end of Vancouver Island?

Hon. J. Cashore: I believe the hon. member is correct; Atlantic salmon are being used. I'm not sure if it's a pen or a net type of situation, but that was my understanding.

R. Chisholm: Then I go back to my original question: is there a moratorium or a study on the effects of having Atlantic salmon within our natural waterways in B.C. on either the mainland or the Island?

Hon. J. Cashore: There is no study.

R. Chisholm: Will there be a study?

Hon. J. Cashore: The monitoring that is taking place involving the Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of Agriculture could result in there being a study, but at the present time there's no plan for a study.

R. Chisholm: I will again refer to the letters that I quoted earlier. You and the Premier called for a study

[ Page 2132 ]

prior to getting elected. You've been in government six months, and this is a potential disaster.

I will quote from another document that comes out of your ministry: "In the same letter you ask for confirmation of our policy related to culturing of exotics such as Atlantic salmon and arctic char. I confirm that the Fisheries program is not prepared to accept the culture of Atlantic salmon other than those current isolated locations on coastal British Columbia."

Can you confirm to me that this will not be expanded until a moratorium has been produced in this province?

Hon. J. Cashore: The policy before I got here was that it would only be four lakes because they were trying to confine it. Since I got here, we've taken one lake off the list.

R. Chisholm: That wasn't the question, hon. minister. I'm asking whether you will confirm that there will be a moratorium before there's any enhancement to this industry in the province.

Hon. J. Cashore: Would the hon. member please clarify what industry he's referring to? I'm not sure if he's referring to a hatchery industry or to the finfish industry in the coastal pens.

R. Chisholm: We're referring to the Atlantic salmon which at present are in the lakes. It comes under aquaculture. I'm talking about an aquaculture moratorium on coastal and interior waters as to the effects on our inland waters and our shore waters.

Hon. J. Cashore: With regard to the lakes, there is a de facto moratorium in that we have said there will be no further expansion. With regard to salt water, you'll have to ask the Minister of Agriculture that question.

R. Chisholm: I will ask the Minister of Agriculture, but I ask that you get together with him to discuss this situation and propose a study. If it gets out of hand it's a potential disaster to our inland waters that will take many, many decades to rectify.

N. Lortie: I have a short question that I'd like to ask the minister before we pass his estimates -- today, I hope. It's about an issue that is very important in my community: the conservation of Burns Bog, which is a large area of 9,000 acres abutting my constituency. Many houses, including my own, overlook Burns Bog, although it is primarily in the constituency of the hon. member for Delta South. This is an ecological wonder in British Columbia: the largest dome peat bog on the Pacific coast of the North American continent. Some flora, fauna and wildlife in that area are found nowhere else in British Columbia or on the North American continent.

Does the minister have a plan to acquire, in the name of the Crown, the 9,000 acres of land known as Burns Bog? Does the ministry consider that they have a plan for at least the preservation of it -- no more development or expansion of the garbage dump, the Vancouver landfill site, in that area? Will the minister give us a time-frame when people in my community can be assured that Burns Bog will be protected in perpetuity?

Hon. J. Cashore: First, with regard to the expansion of the dump, it's the goal of the solid waste plan to reduce solid waste by 50 percent. So the ministry is actively working with the regional district towards that goal. That being achieved, it should result in there being no demand for an expansion of the dump.

With regard to the 9,000 acres that the hon. member referred to, I understand that part of the bog is also in private hands. When it comes to the issue of what the ministry might do with that in terms of acquisition and the protection of habitat, it is an area that, given its uniqueness, certainly requires a very careful review. We need to do that along with reviewing several other ecological areas in the province, which, for obvious reasons, are of great interest. People like Bert Brink, for instance, have done worthwhile historical work to draw this unique system to our attention.

As a matter of fact, it's my understanding that Burns Bog is a remaining example of the ice age. A similar setting is found only in the arctic. I also understand that it has a great diversity of wildlife.

At the present time we do not have a plan in place that deals with all the concerns that the Burns Bog Conservation Society would like to see dealt with, although it's something that we haven't taken off the table either. We're actively looking at it, along with a number of key areas throughout the province.

One point that interests me is in the context of representative landscapes. But at the present time there's a great deal of focus on the Boundary Bay area study, and that is requiring the resources and attention of government. As far as I'm concerned, Burns Bog is high on the list.

N. Lortie: I thank the minister for his response, and would just make one comment. My constituency office is right next door to the office of the Burns Bog Conservation Society, so you can see the kind of pressure that I would be subject to if I hadn't had to spend all this time in the House. When I get back there, their president, Eliza Olson, will be knocking on my door again, and I would hope that I would be able to deliver some good message about some plan.

Could the minister have his staff start working on some long-range plans for the preservation of that ecological jewel that we have in Delta, so that some day we can think that land will be safe forever -- along with Boundary Bay? And by the way, it's part of the Boundary Bay system and should be considered in the same context as the Boundary Bay study.

Hon. J. Cashore: That point's well taken. I think that is an issue we need to look at in the context of the Boundary Bay study in that it wouldn't be part of that study, but would form part of a continuum when that takes place. We should not lose sight of the interest of the regional district and indeed of the municipality. I would like to invite the hon. member to meet with

[ Page 2133 ]

officials of our ministry with a view to discussing how we might approach the Burns Bog issue. I think that would be helpful in terms of being able to report to the advocacy group in that community.

L. Reid: My questions to the minister this afternoon pertain directly to the riding of Richmond East. My questions revolve around the area of the toxic-soil dilemma that we experienced. Certainly we had toxic soil from the Expo lands being put onto the banks of Fraser River. The residents in my riding, the constituents, had tremendous difficulty with that, hon. minister, and we would wish some assurance that a similar decision will not be taken by this government.

[4:30]

Hon. J. Cashore: I agree with the hon. member with regard to the issue of toxic soil. There's an issue of the classification of soil involved. We are in the process of preparing contaminated-site legislation which will provide the ability to deal with that issue. In the meantime, a tremendous amount of work has been done among the various municipalities of the regional district so that the various communities address that issue to provide the assurance that there wouldn't be one community that would end up being the recipient of all the dumping; in other words, that Richmond would be seen as the community that would have to take all the soil that fitted into that category.

It is a category that would be classified as where there is slight contamination as compared to other soils that have major contamination. It's kind of borderline in that sense, but the concern that I have expressed in the past, and would continue to express, is that that particular site is adjacent to, I believe, cranberry-growing land. It was adjacent to food-production land, and I personally found that offensive.

When it comes to the fact that there is construction-grade soil that is constantly being moved all the way around the lower mainland, we should be absolutely sure that one municipality isn't the recipient of all of that dumping. In order to move forward with the work that has been going on in classifying kinds of soils.... I'm sure you're familiar with levels A, B and C, above level C and all of that. It gets very confusing. When it comes to construction-grade soil that is moved around the lower mainland -- which is done constantly -- we want to make sure that it's done in an appropriate way and not in a way that raises legitimate concerns about it being in proximity to agricultural land.

L. Reid: I share your concern about the proximity of toxic soil to agricultural land. The concern of the residents was absolutely in line with agricultural land, but more than that, it was sitting on the banks of the Fraser River. We do not wish.... An extensive lobby was underway in my riding. They received support from the municipal government for the riding of Richmond. However, we did not at any time receive any assurance from the government that Richmond should be treated differently because it sits below the waterline. I mean, it is the Fraser River delta.

You can make the case that it sits next to cranberries, but it also sits on the water table and on the banks of the Fraser River, which we believe cannot tolerate any further deterioration.

I would appreciate your comments.

Hon. J. Cashore: I think the point is well taken. The proximity to the banks of the river is also a concern which I've expressed in the past. It's something that we all have to look at in terms of present practices that involve the movement of soil over a wide range of areas. Our response to that has to be cooperative, one where we enable the public to participate in the kind of planning decisions that will say: "Yes, this material can go there and not here."

L. Reid: Would you be able to outline this afternoon the plans or the agreements that you have reached with the federal government in terms of how the Fraser River is going to be handled and hopefully cleaned up in the near future?

Hon. J. Cashore: Just a bit further on that earlier question, there's a committee that has been working on a soils task force report. It has involved representatives of the ministry and of Richmond and other areas. That report will be released at the end of the month. I urge you to watch for the release of that report and give us your response to it.

I believe your question was on the initiatives of the ministry to clean up the Fraser River. Is that correct?

L. Reid: It was specific to the types of agreements, if any agreements have been reached, between this government and the federal government.

Hon. J. Cashore: There was a highly publicized event last week, which involved me, the federal government and Mayor Gordon Campbell, representing municipal governments. We signed the Fraser basin management agreement, which, under the Green Plan of the federal government, enables the spending of $100 million over five years. Our estimate is that when you factor in the costs that will be expended by the provincial and municipal governments over a period of five years, very close to $1 billion will be spent in this effort. This is a very significant improvement project, which should see those funds being spent in British Columbia on issues that are long overdue.

Another component of that agreement had to do with setting up a board that would consist of three representatives from each of the federal and provincial governments and the municipalities. That board of nine will be chaired by Tony Dorcey, who is very highly qualified. He's on the faculty of UBC and Westwater Research Centre and also a member of the Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. He has agreed to head up that process. That board will be selecting a further nine members from throughout the region. There will be aboriginal representation on that board.

The board will have the responsibility of deciding how those funds are to be apportioned in the Fraser River cleanup. Obviously, when you consider that the Fraser River affects between one-quarter and one-third of the

[ Page 2134 ]

land base of the province, that is a major project. They're going to be looking at various ways of mitigating impacts on water quality and at also a preventive approach to assist in finding ways of ensuring that we don't foul our nest -- as has been said by eminent environmentalists. It's a difficult problem because of increasing population demands.

L. Reid: I thank you most sincerely for your response to that question. My next question revolves around the area of organic farming. Are there initiatives or agreements in place on behalf of your ministry to allow further research to go on in that area?

Hon. J. Cashore: Off the top of my head, I believe the short answer is no. I may stand corrected on that. If I am, I will correct that in the record. But I don't believe that the Ministry of Environment is involved in any studies or agreements on that. It could be that the Ministry of Agriculture is. I do know that on the issue of organic farming -- and this an issue that doesn't come under my ministry -- there is a question of certification with regard to a product being grown on land that would qualify for being identified as organically grown food.

Somebody could say, "Okay, I'm going to start organic farming," and then have it taking place on land where there had been pesticide application very recently. That obviously needs to be looked at. It's interesting that in my own riding, where Colony Farm exists, there has been some organic farming going on by Mr. Walter Siempelkamp, who works with the Forensic Psychiatric Institute. They took an incredible crop of organically grown potatoes off that land last year.

I sometimes think that in areas like Colony Farm, which are an island of emerald green in a sea of urban sprawl, we could see some innovative projects such as market gardens or gardens that seniors who are maybe living in an apartment could tend. Perhaps there could be an opportunity for farm animals and that sort of thing that children could go and see. I think there are ways we can find uses for our green spaces. Specifically, to get back to the question on organic farming, it's an issue that really does come under the Ministry of Agriculture.

L. Reid: I appreciate your comments on farming, because I believe quite honestly that we need to have a commitment to farming in this country, as opposed to downgrading that to simply a commitment to farmland.

However, my next question revolves around the impact of research on the future development of the Ministry of Environment. I believe there are a number of issues we could be looking at from a research base, and I'm wondering if you have any thoughts on that or if your ministry has currently undertaken any research in the area of technology which could impact on the environment.

Hon. J. Cashore: Yes, we are interested in research that impacts on technology for the environment in a number of different ways. People in our ministry are in contact with the three universities. We see an opportunity there for mutual interests. I met recently with the head of B.C. Research, another area of research that is subsidized by the province, in working in some very significant environmental technology ways.

There's the whole role of the provincial government, the Ministry of Environment and the facilitation of Globe '92 and, I hope, Globe '94, which is a major way in which British Columbia will become the Geneva of the environment on a world scale. We have the opportunity to be that kind of a setting here in British Columbia, where we still have such a marvellous environment. We have outstanding educational facilities and access to the Pacific Rim, where a lot of our expertise in prevention and crisis intervention could be made available.

When it comes to research and development, obviously there's never enough. We need to be moving on this front in a variety of ways. I understand that Maurice Strong, the UN secretary general to the UNCED, is going to be settling in Vancouver. I look upon that as a major benefit for our area, in terms of having access to his knowledge about the global situation and ways to fulfil our responsibility not only to ourselves here by acting locally, but by thinking globally. I think we really need to be drawing in a number of different connections that help us to enhance the opportunity for research.

L. Reid: If I may speak to the minister for a moment as a teacher, previous administrations have spent untold dollars on campaigns to encourage young people to enter the sciences. My hope is that the Ministry of Environment would take that into consideration and encourage ongoing research projects. I believe quite honestly that we could make British Columbia into a world-class facility for environmental research.

Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Chair, I very much appreciate that from the perspective of a teacher. As I said before -- there were some youngsters in the gallery at the time -- I think that some of the major work being done in environmental awareness is through the wisdom of children. They often have a wisdom that has passed us by. I think, in a very engaging way, their input is very significant. I appreciate your making that point as a teacher.

With regard to some of the research projects that we have been and are involved in, there's the applied science that's going into the research on the AOX issue -- the organochlorines that go out into the environment. We are actively involved in that jointly with the federal government and the industry.

[4:45]

There's research into technology, such as the R2D2 project, where we have provided some grants to innovative research in the area of recycling tires. That research has been focused on avoiding the incidence of burning tires in cement kilns, which does happen, and on finding ways to convert our tires into roof tiles, stair treads, floor tiles, traffic markers, etc. There has been a major, very dramatic impact on the tire-recycling

[ Page 2135 ]

equation as a result of programs like that. That has promoted a lot of research.

There's basic data, such as $10 million going into the budget to hire 40 full-time employees to catch up on much-needed inventory requirements in the province in fish, wildlife and our wood supply. That's baseline work pursuant to effective research. Then there's the data management such as the TRIM program in the Crown lands part of our ministry.

G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Chair, I'm sort of jumping back in here after talking to the minister earlier today. It regards another issue that has taken place in my constituency, but perhaps it's a little different. It does deal with water. It has to do with the train wreck that took place in Fort Langley in, I believe, 1986. There was a spill and an ongoing plan to clean that up. There was some controversy earlier on in the year with regard to what had been going on there. Perhaps the minister could fill us in on the status of that at this time.

Hon. J. Cashore: I know that we have had some activity in the area recently, but I do need to get a note. Perhaps we could go on to another question, and I'll come back to that.

A. Cowie: I'd like to talk about air quality. Let's take Vancouver as an example. In the morning the inversion moves up the valley towards Port Moody, and during the night it moves back out. You can see this black cloud. I wonder why we're planning to have higher density in and around Port Moody, for example, where you've got the highest amount of ozone and the highest amount of inversion going on.

I wondered if the minister has any comment on that, or whether his ministry would even want to be involved with that.

Hon. J. Cashore: If I understand the question, it's why we have the density in areas where it promotes the intensity of the pollutants going into the air. Is this relating to demographics? Is that the point the hon. member is making?

A. Cowie: At the present time there is very high density being planned in Port Moody, in the valley itself. The inversion moves up and moves back from that point. The inversion is partly natural, but it's partly caused by vehicles and all sorts of things. I'm just wondering if the minister has anything to say about that, because obviously that's part of livability. The greatest amount of ozone is in that area. I wanted to know if he had any plans or any comments.

Hon. J. Cashore: I have answered that question. This is the fourth time we've come back to the air quality issue. Very briefly, there's no question: we need to be recovering the planning concepts that were part of the livable region approach that was taken away from us when we lost the planning function for regional districts. In a sense, we're reaping the whirlwind. The member's absolutely right: we have intensity of population in areas where people do not have their vocations, so they are in the situation of having to get to work in downtown Vancouver or wherever it may be.

I think this is an area where we need to be putting some very innovative research and planning, but also there are a number of activities that we can be involved in, such as the air care program and finding ways to enable people to get out of their automobiles and into public transit. As I say, I'm being very brief on this, because we previously canvassed it quite thoroughly.

There is one project that I will mention now. I think I might have mentioned it yesterday. One of the people receiving the environment award is John Innes on behalf of B.C. Tel. He took me out to visit a satellite office in Langley. Yes, we did talk about it, because the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove also had some input on that. It's a concept of using fibre optics so people can actually work in the community where they live, and when they get back home at night they're not exhausted, and they can participate in community activities, get to know their kids better or whatever it may be.

It's unfortunate that we are taking such a long time to address some of these problems in a practical way. We have to address them on a number of fronts. The member for Okanagan East has often mentioned the concept of livable communities based on sustainable development concepts. We have a real problem in the area that you mentioned,