1988 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational

purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, MAY 26, 1988

Morning Sitting

[ Page

4647 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Petroleum and Natural Gas Amendment Act, 1988 (Bill 30). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Davis –– 4647

Mr. Clark –– 4647

Hon. Mr. Davis –– 4648

Mining Tax Amendment Act, 1988 (Bill 8). Report

Third reading –– 4648

Motor Fuel Tax Amendment Act, 1988 (Bill 9). Report

Third reading –– 4648

Social Service Tax Amendment Act, 1988 (Bill 10). Report

Third reading –– 4648

Special Accounts Appropriation and Control Act (Bill 18). Report

Third reading –– 4648

Credit Union Amendment Act, 1988 (Bill 25). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) –– 4648

Mr. Stupich

Mr. Blencoe

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Environment and Parks estimates. (Hon. Mr. Strachan)

On vote 34: minister's office –– 4650

Mr. Gabelmann,

Mr. G. Hanson

Mr. Blencoe

Ms. Smallwood

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

Prayers,

MR. JANSEN: In the House today are some grade 7 and 9

students from Mount Cheam Christian School in the wonderful community

of Chilliwack, with their principal, Mr. Stoutjesdyk. Would you please

make them welcome.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill

30, printed in the name of the hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and

Petroleum Resources.

PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

AMENDMENT ACT, 1988

HON. MR. DAVIS: This bill, Bill 30, deals with the petroleum

and natural gas taxation regime and it simplifies the royalty

provisions. In the early 1980s royalties were reinstated in the

province. The royalties were to be calculated on a profits tax basis.

In other words, income was determined from each well; the costs

associated with production were determined; the difference was deemed

to be profit, and the profit was taxed.

This required a great deal of information, also considerable

calculation. The auditor-general, in his latest report, was critical

not only of the amount of administration involved, but also that in

some instances the tax was improperly levied or the tax was not fully

collected, and so retroactively we've had to go back and pick up the

revenue which has been missed. So both in order to simplify matters for

the industry and to simplify administration in the ministry, we've

introduced a flat-rate royalty which applies to the value of sales.

Simply put, it's a 15 percent royalty calculated on the gross value

of sales. This is a royalty. Of course, the companies also pay the

normal corporation profits taxes, but the royalty is now established as

a flat rate. It's 15 percent for gas, 16 ⅔ percent, as it was previously, on sulphur byproducts, and 20 percent on liquid products of natural gas production.

In

summary, it's a simplification of a tax regime. It will reduce

the administrative costs involved, both in the industry and in

government. It is a regime which is also, or at least has the

appearance of being, more certain and more predictable over time

because it's easily understood. It's also a regime which the industry

is now endeavouring to urge on the government of Alberta because it is

simpler to administer.

It does not reduce the income flow to the government. If anything,

the income to the government will increase. Because we have a simpler

regime we may attract more activity in the province, and because it

doesn't impact substantially the revenues of the province, it doesn't

impact on wholesale and retail rates for gas. It's neutral, in other

words.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of this bill.

MR. CLARK: I'd like to say a few words about this bill, and

start by saying I always find it curious when the minister talks about

a royalty when it's really not a royalty; it's a tax based on profits.

This may be a fine distinction, but it is one that in British Columbia

has some significance, given the history we've had.

What does this bill do? It really deals with the auditor-general's report,

which demonstrated incredible incompetence on the part of the Social Credit

administration that brought in this tax. The auditor-general found that we lost

$1.5 million in uncollected revenue. It found that there was a continuing loss

of over $600,000 annually in the first six months of the new regime. Companies

didn't like it because they didn't know how to comply: it was so complex.

Government didn't have the regulatory ability or capacity to monitor, to

appropriately collect revenue. The auditor-general clearly laid out the incompetence

and difficulty with a very complex system. The motive of the government really

is to clean up this mess and to simplify and make it easier for companies and

for the government to collect it. That is clearly laudable. I don't think

there is any problem from my point of view in terms of simplifying the procedure.

I would like to very briefly look at what has happened to natural

gas revenues in the province of British Columbia just over the last few

years. In 1981 there was $158 million in gas revenue to the province:

in 1982, $155 million; in 1983, $103 million; in 1984, $114 million.

Then what happened? The government brought in this very complex

profits-based tax, as opposed to a regulated regime, under the auspices

of the B.C. Petroleum Corporation. Then we saw revenue to the Crown —

the owner of the resource — plummet to $79 million, $59 million in

1986, and then $55.7 million in the 1986-87 fiscal year. So we've seen

a dramatic decline in revenue to the Crown as a result of the previous

regime, in terms of the royalty structure set up by the previous

administration.

This bill simplifies and clarifies the rules of the game that were

set up in 1984. What I'm saying, very briefly, of course, is that I

don't think the rules of the game that were set up in 1984 are adequate

to collect the share of the economic rent that should accrue to the

Crown as owner of the resource. I say that not out of any belief that

the industry should be overtaxed, but as the minister well knows, in

any definition of economic rent. when the government revenues have

declined by virtually 50 percent or in some cases a third since 1981,

we're in the middle — as the minister has said repeatedly — of one of

the largest booms in natural gas production in British Columbia history

and we're now at a third of the revenue to the Crown that we got in

It seems to me that the royalty structure that was brought in three

or four years ago by the previous administration has not gained for the

Crown an adequate share "Of economic rent, and that is aptly

demonstrated in the figures that I've pointed out. I think that the

abolition of the B.C. Petroleum Corporation, or privatization, as we're

going to see.... Certainly deregulation has had some advantages to

consumers, some to producers and some across the board, but there

hasn't been the same advantage to small consumers as there has been to

large industrial consumers, and it certainly hasn't been an advantage

to government.

[10:15]

If we're going to initiate projects of programs to stimulate the

industry to produce more, if we are going to be encouraging through

free trade and deregulation more exports of natural gas, one might

argue that that has certain potential benefits to British Columbia, but

clearly, as owner of the resource, the government has an obligation to

capture the economic rent which, in pure economic terms, as the

minister knows, won't impact on the ability of the sector to produce,

won't impact on the ability of the sector to raise capital and won't

impact on the ability to explore or to export, because economic rent is

a surplus revenue over and above normal rates of return.

[ Page 4648 ]

If we look at what has happened under the B.C. Petroleum Corporation

— over a billion dollars raised for the Crown in about seven years —

and you look at what's happened since this new regime of profits-based

tax has come into play, we see about a third of the revenue that we

were getting before. So this bill today clears up the incompetence that

we saw with the original legislation, the confusion, the mess

highlighted in the auditor-general's report — which is laudable. But

because it's revenue-neutral, I think it doesn't come to grips with

collecting a fair share of the economic rent generated by that

industry. I think if we're going to see an increase in production....

I just want to make one further point. One of the reasons you can go

to a flat rate tax.... Surely the original motivation of the '84

changes was to have a lower royalty or profits tax on new gas, in order

to encourage exploration. You've already got a tax royalty or a royalty

holiday for new wells that drilled up to June 1, 1989, I think. There's

a whole range of subsidies to the industry in that regard anyway.

Clearly it's not going to impact on more exploration, so that's why you

can move to this kind of system. You've already got royalty holidays in

place for new wells.

While I have no problem with this bill, because it's an

administrative one that clears up the mess that was in existence.... I

have no problem with the bill because it's really simply an

administrative change that cleans up the situation. I really do have a

problem with the amount of revenue the Crown is getting as its share of

the economic rent from the resource that we own.

One final point, and I will make this in committee stage. I note

that one of the sections of the bill — at least it appears to me —

paves the way for the privatization of the B.C. Petroleum Corporation

or private sector brokerage houses. I think, as I read it.... We'll get

into this in the clause-by clause stage. Subsection 1(

h) deals with the

potential privatization of the B.C. Petroleum Corporation and the

regulations therefore. The minister can either respond briefly as we

get into clause-by-clause or try to deal with the concern I have now.

HON. MR. DAVIS: I've attempted to explain that this

legislation simplifies the tax regime. I think the hon. member from the

opposition agrees with that. His principal charge, however, was that

the new tax regime introduced in 1984 was largely responsible for the

big drop in revenue to the province. The big drop has been caused

primarily by the big drop in world oil prices. If one looks at the

income from oil and gas received by the province of Alberta, it has

also dropped by about two-thirds.

It's a market phenomenon, if you like. Competition out there has

increased markedly. Industry in British Columbia — large industries,

anyway — now pay roughly 50 percent as much for gas as they did a few

years ago. The producer has had to take much of that shock. There's a

reduced return at the wellhead; ergo there's a reduced return to the

province from the wellhead. So it's true that revenue to the province

from natural gas, which ran at $150 million a year a few years ago, is

now of the order of $50 million to $60 million — hopefully rising from

now on. That's principally a reflection of the drop in world oil prices

and the competition in the marketplace.

Competition is still keen. Indeed, brokers from Ontario are now able

to contract in Alberta for distress gas. They are also endeavouring to

contract for gas in British Columbia. The term is "gas-on-gas

competition." There's considerable competition between producers in the

source areas, and it's this competition which has driven down the field

price and the revenue to the Crown. Prices will rise in the future,

certainly if world oil prices go up, but revenue to the Crown or the

rent to the people of the province can't rise again unless market

prices rise elsewhere or if volume of sales increases. Hopefully this

new simplified tax regime will encourage an increase in volume.

I move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

Motion approved.

Bill 30, Petroleum and Natural Gas Amendment Act, 1988, read a

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

consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Report on Bill 8, Mr. Speaker.

MINING TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1988

Bill 8 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Report on Bill 9, Mr. Speaker.

MOTOR FUEL TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1988

Bill 9 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Report on Bill 10, Mr. Speaker.

SOCIAL SERVICE TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1988

Bill 10 read a third time and passed on division.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Report on Bill 18, Mr. Speaker.

SPECIAL ACCOUNTS

APPROPRIATION AND CONTROL ACT

Bill 18 read a third time and passed on division.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Committee on Bill 25, Mr. Speaker.

CREDIT UNION AMENDMENT ACT, 1988

The House in committee on Bill 25; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

section 1.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I'm just a little puzzled as to

why lawyers who work for credit unions should be eligible to run as

directors. I know it certainly wouldn't apply to CAs, and I can

appreciate there's a difference; but I just wonder if the minister

could tell us something about the need for this change.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: All we're saying by this amendment is

that doing work for a credit union does not automatically disqualify a

solicitor, so it's more enabling.

To the point of your comparison to auditors, I would just make the

point that it's customary that there would normally only be one

auditing firm involved with a credit union or a client,

whereas in the

legal fraternity it frequently happens

[ Page 4649 ]

that numerous lawyers would be involved in a

variety of issues, some of which would be valid grounds to ensure that

they were not members or directors of a board. Other actions they might

be involved in would of themselves not be sufficient reason to bar them

from playing that role. So this is seen by the government as an

exercise in equity in that respect.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I can agree with the minister that

there would be some instances where lawyers shouldn't be eligible. What

I'm wondering now is who makes the decision. Is it up to the members at

the annual meeting, when they're electing directors? I don't think

there's any other.... He and I might select a certain lawyer as not

being eligible, but who makes the decision?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: The decision and the debate, were one to

ensue, would normally occur at the election of the board of directors —

point one. Point two, I think the hon. member is aware that the legal

fraternity itself has some pretty rigid rules regarding conflicts and

has done, on balance, a pretty representative, fair job of ensuring

that they don't violate standards of conduct in that respect. So there

are two safeguards in the system, we believe, to ensure that the

opportunity here is not abused.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

section 3.

MR. BLENCOE: We debated very briefly what we considered to be

the rationale for this bill before us, and in particular this section,

in second reading. I just wonder why the minister did not seek or take,

whatever the case, legal advice on his ability to conduct or force or

coerce — whatever you want — amalgamations of boards. Now we have

retroactive legislation before us. Our view is that the minister — at

least through one avenue, as my colleague the member for Esquimalt-Port

Renfrew (Mr. Sihota), indicated to ministry staff — really should

consider the legal questions about amalgamations of boards, and should

have the authority to do so. Maybe the minister could answer the

questions of why he decided to go ahead despite the legal restrictions

that were put to him.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I'm just delighted to join in this low-key discussion of the issue before us, Mr. Chairman; it's a pleasant change.

The legislative change that I bring forward here is brought forward

more in a spirit of an abundance of caution, to use the phrase that I

understand is popular in the trade. The hon. member, by virtue of his

Victoria constituency, would be well aware of the fact that there was a

high degree of emotion surrounding the issue of these two credit unions

and their respective futures, and, I must say from my vantage point,

much confusion about the merits of a merger, which, by virtue of the

heat of the issue, denied an opportunity for much rational discussion

in the public arena. Given the fact that the majority of those who were

more intimately aware of the situations in the two respective credit

unions felt that there was a need for change, and given the fact that

there were many factions in the local community who, for varying

reasons, had trouble accepting that basic statement of fact, it seemed

quite likely that because there might be some effort made by those

citizens who felt they had some particular purpose to be served by

frustrating the initiative, there was some feeling that we should, in

an abundance of caution, clarify the intent of the legislation.

I tell the House that we had legal opinions that confirmed that we

had full authority and freedom to force the merger. But as I say, in an

abundance of caution, to ensure that there was no confusion whatsoever

about the intent of the earlier legislation, we decided it would he

prudent to clarify government's intentions in that respect.

[10:30]

MR. BLENCOE: I'm pleased that the minister is finally

deciding, after being here for a year and a half, that he had better

show some caution. You talk about the abundance of caution; we've had a

history of issues that have not been clearly thought out by this

government. and sometimes by this minister. I'm pleased the minister is

now seeing that this Legislature does have a role to play in making

decisions for the people of this province.

I have to once again reiterate that the members of those credit

unions have a role to play too. I recognize there are times when there

may be factions. That's democracy: we get factions; we get

disagreement. The basic premise of credit unions is that the members

make decisions about the direction of their credit unions. I also point

out to the Finance minister that a vote was taken that opposed

amalgamation of the two credit unions.

We may agree or disagree on how the factions worked to ensure that

vote, but that's the nature of the credit union and that's the nature

of democracy. We would be very disappointed if the minister or any

member of this government made a habit of treading on this kind of

democratic institution when they have clearly voted and made a

decision. However, I might add that if the decision is not liked by

senior government, you move in without the abundance of caution. There

is really a question of the ability of the minister to legally force

that merger without having the legislation we have before us today.

I would conclude my remarks on this

section by saying that the

minister should think clearly about those two credit unions and the

opinion voiced by the members. He obviously took advice from certain

factions and forced an amalgamation, despite a vote taken.

Section 3 approved.

section 4.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, you certainly want to move along this morning. but to greater Victoria this bill is very important.

Interjections.

MR. BLENCOE: I'm glad to see the member for Delta (Mr. Davidson) is laughing.

MR. LOVICK: He knows something we don't.

MR. BLENCOE: That could very well be.

Without getting into the merits or the downside of the amalgamation,

I presume that the group that studied the concept of amalgamation and

obviously made their recommendation to the minister did detailed

analysis of the two credit unions and made some recommendations to the

minister on the merger. Thus far the members of those two credit

[ Page 4650 ]

unions have seen absolutely nothing to rationalize

the amalgamation. I go back to my original comments about the

democratic institution of credit unions and the members being involved

in decision-making. The members have seen nothing. They've taken a

recommendation and they've taken a forced merger, and I can assure you

there is concern about the process and the procedures that this

minister put into place.

What is the minister prepared to make public to the thousands of

members of these two credit unions? Let me qualify that. I recognize

there are obviously components that are of a financial nature, are

delicate and may jeopardize the financial capability and future of the

credit unions, and that information, obviously, couldn't be released.

But I think it would be useful to see some analysis, some

rationalization, some intelligent report, either from the minister or

the board, of why this merger was necessary. Maybe the minister could

answer those.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I think that is an excellent suggestion from the hon. member for Victoria. We will see what might be done in that respect.

MR. BLENCOE: I've very pleased we're having a useful dialogue this morning, and I look forward to some public response.

In the analysis by the minister and his staff and those who advised

him on this merger, is there in existence a business report — past,

present and future — the analysis of what the future holds for these

two credit unions and will the members be supplied with a business

report?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: There will be a public meeting held on

June 6, if I am not mistaken, at which it's my understanding there will

be much good news, issues and matters to be presented by the interim

board of directors. It's my understanding that they have made great

progress, and I am advised that the public and the membership at large

will be impressed with the development of events since the merger took

place. I am pleased to recognize the hon. member's concerns, and I do

believe many of the issues he raises will be addressed at that June 6

meeting.

MR. BLENCOE: The minister took my next question away. I was going to ask for a public meeting, and I am pleased that he is going to do that.

There are obviously lots of questions around why the merger was

necessary, and I recognize that there are some delicate issues there

that probably would best not be released — for the financial future of

the new credit union. I would hope that the minister or his staff have

done some analysis of what brought about the reason for the merger. I

don't want to go into some of the details because, as the minister

pointed out last time, there is a legal case pending.

I think there are a number of questions to be asked or analyzed

about the activities and, for instance, the kinds of loans that were

provided by Westcoast Savings in particular. That issue is not unknown.

There have been a number of questions over the years about some of

those activities. I am wondering whether we can see from this minister

down the road — maybe very soon — not only a business report and

specifics about these two credit unions and why the merger, but maybe

some recommendations on how to avoid the problems these two credit

unions got into which resulted in the merger.

I and a number of my colleagues have brought up before the question

of monitoring or supervision, better checking of activities and, when

necessary, hauling in, in the interests of the depositors or those who

participate in those credit unions. Can we look forward to some

recommendations in a global sense for better administration and

monitoring of credit unions?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

MR. BLENCOE: I would compliment the minister for his direct

answers this morning. We have waited a year and a half for such

directness, and I can assure him that we can all get on much better if

we have such directness. I conclude my remarks.

Sections 4 and 5 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 25, Credit Union Amendment Act, 1988, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Committee of Supply, Mr. Speaker.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

ENVIRONMENT AND PARKS

(continued)

On vote 34: minister's office, $260,049.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'd like to clean up a couple of things that were addressed to me by the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) last night.

I don't want to say too much about Strathcona. There were some

questions raised, Elk Mountain and a few other items. I will decline if

you don't mind, Mr. Member, until the Larkin committee is finished. If

you do have more specific questions, maybe we can get to them.

I would like to comment, though, on the noise pollution item. We

have spoken to the mining company about that. As you know, they put in

baffles. It's not successful, but we in the ministry are assisting them

in looking at other remedies for cutting down on the noise. I don't

know what the remedies are going to be, but we're advised that they

have some remedies in place.

Here they are. The work to date is a timber berm. The new work

that's coming is Styrofoam baffles, and then they will continue to

pursue the problem. It's their hope that they can carry that further.

With that said, I'll take my place and seek further questions from the committee.

MR. GABELMANN: I understand the minister's wish to delay or not to respond in very much detail to questions

[ Page 4651 ]

concerning Strathcona Park until after the Larkin

committee concludes its hearings and makes its report. My concern is

with issues that continue while the Larkin committee is doing its work.

In that respect, I would like to know from the minister whether logging

will happen at Elk Mountain in advance of a report from the Larkin

committee, so we don't find ourselves in a position where we can't

implement a report that it recommends, as everyone else has

recommended, that Elk Mountain be in the park. Similarly, the selective

logging that's going on along the road at Buttle Lake continues while

the committee is in place. To wait for the report there would mean the

logging would be done. That doesn't seem appropriate at all.

The other issue on which I wouldn't mind some general comment from

the minister is the whole question of appropriate levels of bonding for

Westmin.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I can put some more flesh to the bones of what I said, because information has just arrived,

We've authorized the cutting of another 30 to 40 trees along the

highway. The Parks branch did this authorization, as they were deemed

to be a hazard to highway users.

In terms of the Price Creek surveying, the permit for a geodesic

survey was issued in '87, and this predated the drilling application.

Of course, as you're aware, Mr. Member, the application for drilling

came later and was turned down because, as we both know, it's a very

sensitive area. I turned that one down.

In terms of Elk Mountain, there will be no logging, no extraction, until the Larkin report is finished.

On the Westmin reclamation bond, Westmin has posted with the

Minister of Finance a bond of $1,560,000 to correct any inadequacy in

the works authorized under the three permits: pumps, treatment

facilities, etc. The tailing dam is authorized by the Minister of Mines

(Hon. Mr. Davis), so I guess further questions would have to be dealt

with by him.

[10:45]

MR. GABELMANN: I appreciate the minister's comments. I

understand $1.5 million is posted. Given what I think the ministry

spent on minor reclamation activities at Mount Washington's old copper

mine.... I think $600,000 was spent there to try to prevent the

leaching of copper into the Tsolum. Given the magnitude of difference

between Westmin's operation and the old Mount Washington copper mine,

what's $1.5 million going to do? Not very much at all.

I guess the concern is that when the day comes, as it inevitably

will, that the ore body is depleted and Westmin deserts the area, it

still is the people of Campbell River's drinking-water. Is the ministry

convinced — this is an Environment issue as well as a Parks issue, not

just a Ministry of Mines issue — that the bond posted will be

sufficient to look after the leaching that may continue well into the

next century?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Good question. I just learned something

myself. If and when the mine is about to wind down, we are advised and

so is the Ministry of Energy and Mines; and then we will put in place a

further bond, a reclamation bond, but that doesn't trigger until such

time, as we understand from the mining company, also from the other

ministry, as the mine is winding down. When that's put in place we

will, working together, establish with Westmin what an appropriate

reclamation bond should be — and a program, of course.

MR. G. HANSON: I'd like this morning to take up a matter with

the Minister of Environment which is of great concern in this region.

of great concern in the city of Victoria, and that is the plan for

sewage disposal in this area.

As the minister is aware — and I've read his correspondence to

various parties. both local government parties and citizens — there

seems to be a prevailing ideology that somehow the receiving waters off

Beacon Hill Park, off Dallas Road, can be the sewage treatment plant

for this region.

What we have at the moment is a plan which I contend is half a plan.

It's pipes and pumps and more pipes into the ocean, where there should

be another part of the equation, which is the treatment plant that

those pipes and pumps are leading to.

I do not accept the contention of the engineers and those who have

argued that Clover Point can go from approximately 50 million liters a

day at present, in terms of discharge of raw sewage and other materials

from the Victoria area, to take in now, according to this plan, the

sewage of the east coast of southern Vancouver Island, of Saanich, of

Oak Bay, of Victoria, and discharge that, on a so-called interim basis,

until the remote possibility of treatment is required; and move from

approximately 50 million liters of discharge a day to 100 million

liters, which is predicated on population estimates, and so on, all of

which are hypothetical.

What I'm saying to the minister today, in his position of authority

with respect to being an advocate of water quality around the capital

city. is that this plan should have another portion added to

it. There should be a management plan required that includes the

full treatment option. In other words, the pipes and pumps don't end up

with a diagram that all these reports have, with a big red, fat line

indicating the 1,100-metre so-called deep-water outfall at Clover

Point, but rather you have a plan with the other portion of the

equation, leading to the treatment site, with a timetable, with a

commitment from the Minister of Environment that funding would be

available on the same basis that funding was available under the

Sewerage Facilities Assistance Act — which was repealed some time ago —

which provided that the province would pay 75 percent and local

government would pay 25 percent over and above 2.5 mills.

I don't buy the hypothesis that that pipe. when that outflow is

doubled, and over the next decade or two.... I hear terms used such as:

"perhaps in 20 years," or "as the need for treatment arises, then we

will start to proceed off to possibly Macaulay Point, possibly some

other site." I don't think that's good enough in 1988, given the fact

that when you look at the Iona plant cost in Vancouver and what the

replacement cost is of a facility of that type today.... I think it's

incumbent upon the provincial government and this minister to

demonstrate the leadership of a full plan, mandated through the Waste

Management Act, a waste management plan which would identify the

treatment site.... Currently Macaulay Point is DND property. There are

other jurisdictions involved with the land, both at the local level and

the federal level. I don't think it's fair to the people of this region

to give them half a plan. Clover Point has had its problems over time,

and I don't believe that the coliform, the waste, the materials. the

general level of air quality is strictly storm overflow. I realize it's

a part of it, and I realize the intentions of local government — CRD

staff and ministry officials, and so on — trying to come up with a

solution that deals with antiquated pipes and trying to rationalize

that into some system that will serve this region forever and a day.

[ Page 4652 ]

At the moment we have that rationalized plan coming to a deep-water

outfall, and I don't have confidence in the fact that the other portion

of the equation is not there. The site is not identified and available.

Those red lines on these documents don't go to a particular site with a

time line, saying that the east coast connector pumping site at such

and such a junction will be tendered and completed by such a date and

then will go to Clover Point; in other words, a step-by-step plan that

takes us to treatment, where there's a cost-sharing formula agreed to

in the same way that past plants were paid for by provincial revenue.

Even since the repealing of the Sewerage Facilities Assistance Act and

the moneys being made available in the Okanagan and other areas on that

same formula, I feel that the people of this region deserve the full

equation, the full plan, with a timetable.

The people of this region want a quality environment. As that

minister knows, this region will increase in population. It is a

desirable part of Canada. It is one of the best-kept secrets in Canada,

and over time the population will increase not only through being the

retirement community of Canada but as this develops it will become the

administrative and maritime centre. To accept half a plan, something

that on the face of it terminates in an unacceptable manner, without

the commitment of funding....

Local government is the meat in the sandwich on this. They cannot,

through their own local taxation, amortize over time or afford out of

the cash box such a facility, nor could Vancouver. It needs the

assistance of the senior level of government to provide the commitment

that Clover Point is not where it will end subject to a decade or two

of monitoring, etc. I don't think that's acceptable at all. There are

too many untested hypotheses. I don't think we should be mesmerized and

dazzled by engineering and biological studies, because, as that

minister knows, these are hypotheses. They are tested, refuted and

modified.

Clover Point, with its existing capacity, is not functioning

properly. We deserve swimming quality in terms of coliform counts

throughout this region. We are tired of posted signs — and it's not

just storms — saying "storm overflow." You start pumping 100 million

liters a day off Clover Point, and if that discharge fouls the beaches

from Ross Bay onward, why bother? They are going to spend a fortune on

things like screens to try and collect floatables, things to chew

slivers of plastic up and belch it off into Juan de Fuca Strait. It's

not biologically acceptable. I don't care whether there was an

engineering report saying that the receiving waters may be able to

accept this.

It's incumbent upon that minister to go the best available scenario

— in other words, the other portion of this map that gives a red line

to a treatment site somewhere, with a waste management-plan that

includes the commitment of provincial funding over time, not paid for

out of the cash register today but amortized, a commitment to work with

local government to create that extra portion of pipes and pumps to a

treatment plant that will give the people of this region the water

quality they deserve, that the capital deserves, that this growing

community deserves.

Given some possible events on the horizon, we want to showcase this

area in the best possible light, and we don't need twice the size of

sewage plume off Clover Point that we presently have.

[11:00]

I know the people of Puget Sound tend to be in more sheltered waters

with a little less tidal influence, etc., but they're scratching their

heads in Washington state. I've talked to metro in Washington state,

and they scratch their heads about Victoria. They can't believe that we

accept the option that because we have some tidal action and some deep

shelves off there, we can simply dump all the sewage from south island

off into an outfall, and with an overflow outfall, to dump it off

Clover Point, beside Beacon Hill Park, beside one of the most premium

urban recreational sites in all of Canada or North America.

I know it's a tough job for this minister, because we are talking

some money. But in the long run, amortized over time, it would be a

good, sound investment, because the recreational and tourist amenities

of this city will do nothing but grow. At some point we're going to be

faced with a crunch where growth, development, buildings and so on are

going to make the costs of that extra piece that I'm asking for

prohibitive. The time is now to make that other portion of the equation.

I'm asking the minister whether he will give us a commitment to work

to provide the necessary funding on a 75-25 cost-shared basis for

sewage treatment in this region, with a management plan demanded to

provide the other portion that leads to a site, to work out the details

for that site, whether it be Macaulay with the DND land — the local

councils of the Esquimalt area, etc. — or whether it should go to some

other site. But that should be done before this is commenced. Would he

discuss that with us?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: At the outset, I agree with the member's

concern, and as one who has lived off and on in the past nine years in

James Bay.... Actually, I lived for a couple of years out at Royal Oak,

but most of the time I've lived down here, so I've spent a lot of time

on Dallas Road in the evenings, walking along, and I jog down there a

bit. Quite frankly, I've never been able to....

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: At six in the morning.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Up Government Street, down Dallas, through

the park, then down where the two-kilometre sign is by Clover Point,

and then I head back into town. I live at Roberts House on Toronto, so

you can sort of trace the route there.

Back to what we were talking about. I have a bit of pride and

concern about the appearance of the area, and I have a tendency to

agree. The member essentially is asking about planning. He made the

comment that planning is vague, and he's absolutely right. I don't

think anyone would argue with that.

There are a couple of things I want to respond to, but first of all

let me say that I generally agree with the member and the concerns he's

expressing on behalf of the people who live here and those in local

government. The permit must be amended because of the increased output,

and it has not been amended yet. We haven't seen that amended permit

yet in the Ministry of Environment, but we will look very closely at

the permit and the plan when the amendment comes to us. I can assure

you that Environment Canada has a considerable concern as well. I will

do whatever I can to ensure that your concerns are looked after; I give

you that undertaking.

With respect to the funding, I must admit that right now I have as a priority in the budget for this year a lot of other

[ Page 4653 ]

problems throughout the province that my critic is

well aware of, I'm sure, and that I have to address. Priority funding

for me right now would be current problems, not ones that are coming

along.

I can further tell you that the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon.

Mrs. Johnston) and I are examining the whole system of water treatment

infrastructure and what the bill's going to be. Boy, it's going to be

expensive, because there are concerns throughout the province. There

are infrastructure problems everywhere. A lot of the older communities

which are now close to 100 years old are experiencing major

requirements for refit, redo, and we have some major problems out there

that we're going to have to address. There's no question about that.

I can assure you that we in the ministry share your concern. You're

not alone in Victoria, although you do have a rather bad situation to

deal with and one that is, as you say, difficult to tell your.... When

we talk to our colleagues in Puget Sound or anyone else who looks at

this beautiful environment and we tell them how we're handling sewage

treatment here, it is rather embarrassing to point out the methodology,

which is pretty primitive. All I can say is that I agree with you.

We'll have a chance to look at that amended permit when it comes to us;

we'd like to see a better plan as well. You, your colleagues or a local

citizens' group have the right to appeal that amended permit when it

comes, under the Environmental Appeal Board; that avenue is available

to you.

I'll just finish by saying you're absolutely right. You do have a

concern. I will dedicate what funds I can, but I have a lot of other

priorities this fiscal year. Maybe you're right: a plan that would

indicate some funding over the next series of years — five- or ten-year

funding — may be the way to go. We'll investigate that as well.

MR. G. HANSON: I thank the minister for his remarks.

Obviously his residency in James Bay has acquainted him with the

problem that we face here. It's not an easy one, but I think he would

serve not only this region but all of the province very well if he were

to do that and offer some financial assistance for funding of a plan

that would take us from Clover Point to the treatment site. I'm not

asking for $75 million this afternoon, he'll be pleased to hear. But I

think that amortized over time it would be a good investment, as I'm

saying, to start the process now and not end up barricaded into a

Clover Point situation which in time is going to cost the people of the

province a fortune to back out of.

There are many dimensions to it, and I'm not going to go into them

all today, with respect to the health aspects, aesthetic aspects,

viruses — there are a dozen different dimensions to this. Given the

time-line that exists at the moment.... Let me just check this here.

The entire east coast interceptor system is expected to be completed in

the spring of 1991, consisting of ten kilometres of pipeline and seven

pumping stations. I think we have — I hate to use the term — a window

of opportunity to begin planning that other portion, making it part of

the plan, because we do have that three-year period. If the necessary

funding was available to untangle jurisdictional problems with respect

to a treatment site and doing....

I know from talking to metro engineers, who have traveled to Asia and Japan

and examined sewage treatment facilities in Japan constructed at a level of

sophistication involving the ultimate in accentuating the positive in multi-use

recreational aspects.... Sometimes there are parks on top, sometimes there

are other activities. They're designed in such a way as to accommodate multiple

use of land.

Along the foreshore, we simply don't have the land adjacent to

Beacon Hill Park. I don't believe we have that. But we have to identify

it right away before other competition for that land and conflicts

develop. There was a Trial Island option that I don't think was ever

properly explored. I don't want to present myself as an expert knowing

whether that's feasible from an engineering point of view or any other

aspect.

The options are relatively limited now, and they're going to get

more limited over time. The money should be available so that the CRD

planning staff and the local government representatives and their

committees could, without a shadow of a doubt, know that it's going

from A to B; it's not going to stop for any length of time at Clover

Point; it's going to be a process that goes right through.

I would certainly commend the minister if he could get the project

on line and bring those levels of government and individuals together

and say: "Look, the provincial government is committed to the full

plan." We have a commitment of study and reports and engineering seed

money to begin with. That will accelerate, and we're committed to a

75-25 share when it's done. That's really what we're after.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'll just end this one by saying that the

member's comments are well taken, and we'll see what we can do. I thank

him for his input and, of course, encourage him to continue to express

his interest on behalf of his community.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On vote 34, the second member for Victoria.

MR. BLENCOE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman; nice to see you this morning.

I just want to cover some similar ground to that my colleague from

Victoria has covered. First, let me say that I recognize that the

minister in his capacity as Minister of Environment indeed has some

difficult issues to face, and priorities are sometimes difficult to

determine. Of course, what politics is all about in the political arena

is determining, balancing and playing with those political footballs or

hot potatoes. I recognize that the minister has some difficulties, and

in some areas I think he's sincerely trying to do his best. I want to

say that.

I want to talk a little bit about the Victoria sewage situation. Mr.

Chairman, you remember when you were the minister — maybe we don't want

to bring that up — that we had the same debates and you kindly actually

chaired a meeting at which we got the CRD people together and we talked

about the potential down the road for sewage treatment in this area.

For a long time this community has dealt with this issue. It has

been controversial. The whole question of dumping in the ocean has

raised the concern and the hackles of a number of people over the

years, particularly those who live in the south portion of Victoria.

The minister lives in James Bay. I know that those who live in

Fairfield and those areas have felt many times that they have become

the depository of all the toilets of greater Victoria. Quite frankly,

they're a little tired of it. They would like to see treatment in this

area.

Unfortunately we have continued to build bigger pipes and more pumping stations, and have always said: "Well,

[ Page 4654 ]

one day we'll get to treatment. One day we'll deal

with it, but for now let's build the interceptor and bring all that

liquid waste from...." My colleagues across the way from Saanich take

their waste and bring it down to the southern part of the Island and

put it off at Clover Point, and we're getting a little tired of being

the collecting basin for the liquid waste of south Vancouver Island. We

recognize, and perhaps admit, that those who are professionals — the

engineers and politicians at the Capital Regional District — say:

"Well, one day we'll start to talk about sewage treatment." As my

colleague from Victoria said, we continue to hear that: "Someday,

someday."

We think it's time now to start to put forward a strategy that

recognizes waste as a resource and waste for economic gain. There are

some economic benefits that could be derived from waste. There is

evidence of that, and I think we have to get ourselves out of the

nineteenth-century mode of thinking that we've got to get rid of it as

quickly and easily as possible — but not necessarily, in my estimation,

the cheapest way possible. And that, of course, is what greater

Victoria has done. It has dumped out in the ocean. Quite frankly, we

don't think it's befitting of this beautiful city, this capital of

British Columbia. I am sure many members have had the opportunity to

walk the beaches and see the results, and it's quite offensive.

[11:15]

I can remember as a younger man in this area being at Mount

Douglas Park one year on a picnic and I heard a young child — it's

etched on my mind — saying: "Mom, can I go swim in the water on the

beach?" The mother said: "No, the water's polluted. " I always remember

that encounter between the child and the mother: "No, you can't,

because the water's polluted." I thought that was really sad.

We now have the technical abilities to deal with that, but for

whatever reason.... I suspect the political will at the local level,

and I'm in no way putting any blame on this minister or past ministers,

because the real will must come from the local level. It has to, and

there hasn't been. Mr. Chairman, when you and I met with the Capital

Regional District, there still was not that decisive will to deal with

it in terms of treatment.

Always, though, it comes down to dollars, and that's where the

provincial government still has a role to play. I believe that the

Capital Regional District, the politicians there and the sewage

committees must have the political will — the moxie, if you will — and

the savvy to say to this region: "Yes, we are going to put in our

studies now; yes, after we build the interceptor, treatment plants will

be constructed to deal with this issue."

Sometimes I hear engineers — and those like myself, who are not

experts in this area — saying that it's safe to dump raw sewage, that

there's no problem with it. Over the years I have done quite a bit of

work on this area. One of the key biologists, Dr. Derek Ellis at the

University of Victoria, was the main consultant back in the 70s on

rationalizing dumping in the ocean. There are some key comments from

his '73 report, which I think is very telling. Even the expert

commenting about the long-range impact of dumping in the ocean off

Clover Point.... There is evidence from oceanographers that, contrary

to what some experts have said, we don't have the correct flushing to

deal with the issue properly.

I quote from Dr. Ellis's 1973 report: "We don't really know the

ultimate fate of the large amounts of wastes presently being disposed

of in the oceans...we cannot assume that the disposal of wastes into

the ocean is an efficient method of recycling, that the resources will

be returned in the form of marine food...." The system may be too

large, complex and diffuse to rely on any significant return in this

manner. Here is the expert saying," Really, I think, I suspect, and to

some degree I assume it's okay," but he is hedging the bet. Over the

last few years — and it's 15 years since he wrote his report — I think

we've had all sorts of evidence. Those who were negative on recycling,

composting and treatment have been moved with the evidence and the

technical ability that we now have the capacity to deal with these

issues in a far more comprehensive and, I think, esthetically pleasing

way.

On the point I made just a minute ago about strategy of waste as a

resource and waste for economic gain, there's something I don't think

we've really begun to tackle. Again, we've seen waste disposal as a

municipal responsibility and as part of the tax system. You put it in

your garbage can, or you do with the liquid waste what we all do — out

of sight, out of mind, and we forget about it. I use Dr. Ellis's

figures for what was the loss of useful chemical commodities that were

being flushed away. To use Dr. Ellis's 1973 figures for the loss of

nitrogen and phosphate for just one year at Macaulay Point, an

estimated $76,000 was being flushed down the sewer and out to sea at

this one outfall. This figure was based on the price of ammonium

phosphate fertilizer at $400 a tonne. I think it has changed slightly.

In addition, many tonnes of organic matter are flushed out to sea as

well. If we extrapolate Dr. Ellis's 1973 figures for the loss of

phosphate and nitrogen to include all the regional outfalls in this

area and increase the volume of sewage discharged from '73 to '86, the

value of these two elements used as fertilizer would be approximately

$700,000 per year. Obviously my figures can be disputed, but as a

general estimation or extrapolation.... There are some recoveries and

some economies that we can take a look at. That's a component that we

haven't really thought about successfully or seriously enough, and I

certainly would like to put that on the record.

I also would remind the members that phosphate rock is imported into

Canada for fertilizer manufacture. We bring it into Canada, and here we

are: the figures I've used, a conservative estimate, $700,000 per year

of the very thing we import. Further study obviously could be put into

this issue as a resource and economic gain to be derived from sewage.

In the Capital Regional District we are dumping 98 million liters of

raw sewage into Juan de Fuca and Haro Straits every day. That's

current, and now we're going to get these interceptors being

constructed to concentrate at Clover Point a doubling or tripling —

we're not sure yet — of raw sewage that's going to be put out at Clover

Point. We have to say that we don't think the natural habitat can take

that 98 million liters currently; and as we grow it will expand.

I have a letter here which was sent to me — I think the minister

kindly sent it to me — back in 1987 to Howard Sturrock, the mayor of

Saanich. I was pleased to see the minister saying — some of the

language I've heard before — about treatment: "At some time in the

future additional treatment may be required, and studies have always

recognized this. The ongoing monitoring program of the receiving

waters, sediments and biota, which is an integral part of the Capital

Regional District's program, will play a role in this determination."

Sometimes in the past there hasn't been a willingness to admit we need

treatment, and I was pleased to see the minister here recognize that in

the long-term interests

[ Page 4655 ]

of this community, treatment is going to be absolutely essential.

I want to conclude my remarks by saying — and I think my

colleague touched upon it — that the difficulty we really have for the

capital region and why there hasn't been the political will to get on

with treatment is that the capital costs are high. There's no question

about that. I might add, in terms of the property for the treatment

plant, that we do have an understanding — I don't know if the

minister's aware of this — with DND for property they currently hold

off here in south Victoria. That understanding with DND was a '72-'73

understanding that when the CRD and the province got together for

treatment, that property would become available for a treatment plant.

That agreement for purchase of that land for a treatment plant was also

confirmed in '86 and '87. I think we could get that land at quite a

reasonable price.

The costs are always what scare local governments or regional

districts. When I talk about that.... The minister referred to it and

he's absolutely correct. The infrastructure problems of this province

are astronomical. There are many communities in my travels and that the

minister has known, I'm sure, whose systems are coming to an end that

were built in the 1880s and 1890s. We've got some things to deal with,

and I know, again, it's priorities.

I believe — and I put my Municipal Affairs hat on as critic — that

we really should go back to a program we used to have before in this

province, the sewerage treatment assistance program that was cancelled

some years ago. I won't get into the wisdom of that, but I don't think

it was particularly wise. Consequently, many regions are scared of the

financial implications. This is why, Mr. Chairman, if you recall, we

met when you were the minister to talk to the local people about what

opportunities there would be for cost-sharing. There's no question that

here in Victoria, as elsewhere, we need a cost-sharing program,

provincial and municipal. It's not just Victoria. When I'm standing

here talking about my riding, obviously as Municipal Affairs critic I

have to talk about the global sense, the provincial, which is very much

in need.

I would ask the minister, with his colleague from Municipal Affairs

and whoever else would be involved, to start to consider a program like

that. That, I think, would be an impetus to the Capital Regional

District to really put treatment on the agenda. That would once and for

all allow us in this region to deal with the issue of sewerage

treatment in a proper fashion.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: There's not much I can say in response to

the member except to agree with him. His information is correct. As he

indicated, he may have some numbers and data a little out of date.

Nevertheless, it's correct. I found the recapture of nitrogen very

interesting, because we talk about recycling in a lot of other areas.

That's becoming the buzz thing.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The water tastes bad?

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, I heard you say that.

Maybe now we know why.

We hear of recycling, and there are regimes and strategies Nanaimo

is currently into a very good program, from what I can see so far.

There's going to be a major proposal coming to our cabinet by my

ministry in the next little while to do with municipal garbage, refuse

recycling, litter, pop bottles and all types of stuff. That's not

available yet. I wish I could tell you more about it, but we haven't

seen it in its fullness yet. It's regrettable I can't say anything

right now, but maybe in another month we'll have a public discussion

paper out. I'm sure the members will be interested in that.

The recapture of nitrogen and phosphates and some of the chemicals

in the sewage stream is an interesting concept, and we'll have to look

at that.

The member is right. The Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mrs.

Johnston) and I have identified the problem, and it's enormous. All

we've done is identify it. We know it's here; we've quantified it.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Oh, yes. Good grief! Old communities like

Nelson and Salmon Ann still have wooden stove pipes, from what I

understand. Yes. Good lord! It's a major problem. Cabinet and Treasury

Board are going to have to wrestle with it sooner or later and do

something about it; it's there.

There's not much more I can say, Mr. Chairman, in response to the

second member for Victoria, because he has identified a problem that

we're all aware of. He's identified it very well. All I can say is that

it's probably a good thing to have on the record, so the committee

knows what we're dealing with when we deal with the problems of the

environment and all the complications that people cause.

[11:30]

MR. BLENCOE: I will conclude. I thank the minister for his comments.

I just wonder, Mr. Chairman, if I may pose a question or an idea to

the minister. A number of us are trying to convince the Capital

Regional District to put sewage treatment definitively into their

studies and their strategies. I've already reiterated that they've

always mentioned that maybe one day hey will do treatment, but it's

never been definitive. It's never been part of the strategy. It's never

been laid out so this community knows that's what we're going to do.

I think there's more political will to do that, but I wonder if it

might be useful.... Maybe I can ask the minister this — similar to what

I did with you, Mr. Chairman, when you were the minister. If we get

close — in a year from now or whenever, when that study comes down —

and we've convinced the capital region that the community is right....

This community, by the way, wants treatment; I'm absolutely convinced

of it. They are prepared to pay more, but they are not prepared to pay

for it all.

When we get that started and the CRD has shown the political will that treatment

is the way to go, I am wondering if the Victoria MLAs were to put together a

meeting at least, to sit down with the key people at the CRD, the minister and

maybe the Minister of Municipal Affairs, just to talk over what could be possible

in terms of cost-sharing.... This is a bipartisan, not a partisan issue;

it's what is right. I am wondering if, down the road, we can get some commitment

to do that and have a good dialogue.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Sure. I'd be more than happy to; anticipate that

request and invitation.

MR. BLENCOE: I thank the minister for his comments.

[ Page 4656 ]

MS. SMALLWOOD: I had the opportunity this morning to return

some phone calls which, in the middle of estimates, is not always

something you can do. One of the phone calls was from a woman living

here on the Island who is convinced that she is dying of pesticide

poisoning. I have asked her to send information, and I will share that

with the minister. We might be able to see what we can do about the

situation.

What it really did was make me get back into my pesticide file and

take a look at some of the information I have, in the hope that we can

begin to tackle this huge problem that we in B.C. are not alone in

having.

In estimates, we can't always deal with all the material we need to,

and I try to organize the information so that we are at least able to

touch on the major issues and attempt to bring them to the minister's

attention. When we were talking earlier in the estimates about

pesticide issues, we talked about the Environmental Appeal Board, we

talked about the right-to know legislation and the whole issue of

grappling with the need for information and the need to share

information. In the last year, the minister responsible for workers'

compensation announced a system which was to come on line in October

1988, the workplace hazardous materials information system. This would

be a very important system for identifying hazardous material in the

workplace and providing data sheets for worker education programs. It

could be a mechanism to provide information for labelling hazardous

material and, I would imagine, be the database for health and safety

first aid treatment.

This, I think, is a really good system for a database for the

province in gathering information about what kinds of chemicals are in

specific workplaces. We talked about the Later Chemicals incident in

Richmond. If this system was operating properly and the government had

access to it, it would more or less give you an inventory of hazardous

material in the province.

I'm comparing the system that the minister responsible for WCB has

implemented to the system that Ontario has put in place. They not only

use this particular system, the WHMIS, but they have complemented that

system with some legislation, Bill 79, by adding hazardous physical

agents as well as hazardous chemical and biological agents. Workplace

inventories of hazardous materials are required by their legislation,

and Bill 79 provides for the public's right to know as well as the

workers' right to now.

What this is saying is that the information is there, it's available

and that the community, in turn, would have the right to know the

hazardous material in that workplace. Bill 79 also has provisions for

the right of local medical health officers to know. That was one of the

very serious realities that the people in Richmond faced with the

incident around Later Chemicals. They didn't know what the material

was. Because they didn't know, they didn't know how to treat it. Their

first response to the accident there was that it wasn't serious. They

actually went to the point of advising people to wash down the walls of

their houses.

This is a system that would give prior notice. It would allow the

municipalities, the health officers and the emergency response teams

the information necessary to have not only the technical support on

line, but the trained personnel to deal with that material. The

minister and I had a bit of an exchange around the issue of special

wastes and the kinds of industries that the minister is hoping to

encourage to site here in B.C. This is the infrastructure that I was

talking about: the right to know, the data base that allows for that

infrastructure, the emergency response, the technical support and the

health services in the community.

Has the minister been involved with the drafting of the Minister of

Labour's program? Would he consider legislation comparable to Ontario's

that would broaden the actual function of this system and make it more

available to the community? Again, I'm going to remind the minister

that while he is saying that this province is on the cutting edge of

the work done by the Brundtland report, here's another instance of

where it is important for people to have access to information and the

right to know. Very clearly, if our communities are to function

properly, then it's crucial information. I would ask the minister if he

would respond.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'd like to thank the member for the

comments and acknowledge what she said. Generally, what they've done in

Ontario is actually what we've done here, and it's been done by the

Ministry of Labour or whatever minister is responsible for the Workers'

Compensation Board and those requirements. Throughout Canada you'll

probably find that the jurisdiction inside the workplace for anything

that's going to happen in there, including the presence of toxic

chemicals, is a responsibility of the Workers' Compensation Board. The

Ministry of Environment has a responsibility for pesticide applications

and for many things dealing with pesticides, but if it deals with human

health or the workplace, it's clearly WCB.

I think if I had a priority in terms of spending on pesticide

information, or if I had an increase in the pesticide budget in this

ministry, I would not go into further freedom of information work or

everything to come into Canada, to do that type of thing — if you're

interested in what chemicals are being imported into our country and

what their harmful effects are.

I think that's their responsibility since Agriculture Canada is the

federal body permitting those chemicals, those substances, in our

country. They are the ones that should provide you, me and all citizens

of Canada with right-to know legislation with respect to how harmful

these chemicals are, what the antidotes are if we are exposed, and all

the information that we have the right to know. If I had a priority

from the pesticide control branch, that type of exercise would not be

it. I'd rather have more inspectors. I'd rather have lots of other

things. I just wouldn't see that right-to-know legislation and carrying

out the administration of that as the major responsibility. I don't

know if you are going to accept that answer, but that's the way I feel

about the problems you've posed to me.

By the way, you mentioned Later Chemicals. I had some information

yesterday and I didn't get a chance to respond to you, but we do now

have an emergency response program in place for Later. They have been

very good. They have a safety officer in place now, and they have

really carried out all of our requests with respect to the management

of their operation, how to manage themselves now and how to manage

potential problems such as the one they had a year ago. For the benefit

of the committee, Mr. Chairman, the Ministry of Environment acted very

quickly after that explosion. We found out what the dusting material

was and what was on the ground. We found a remedy which was a

high-base, high pH, industrial-strength soap and we advised the

neighbouring community to wash down with that and it would work very

well. That's all it took — a high-base or a high pH-numbered industrial

cleaner, and it worked.

[ Page 4657 ]

The member has made some philosophical statements. I don't know if

I've answered them all, but I agree with some of what she's saying. I

just think that in some cases I would have different spending

priorities if I had an increased budget. I'll leave my comments at that.

MS. SMALLWOOD: The minister is correct; I do disagree with

him. I don't think it is a big budget item to bring in a piece of

legislation — as Ontario has done — that requires this system to expand

to include some of these other important issues. It doesn't only relate

to the issue of pesticides. The minister's response indicates that he

knows full well that workers' compensation has not included the

registration of pesticide information in this system. That was the next

issue I was planning to bring up: that pesticide information is

crucial. It must be in this system if it is to cover all workplaces.

One of the direct responsibilities that the minister has taken on is

the issue of special waste. The minister has initiated a process of

siting a hazardous waste facility in the province, and I have in the

past congratulated him for doing that. I find some fault and some

problems with the approach that the minister has taken, but overall I

think it is the only responsible thing that can be done. However,

that's only part of the job. One of the important factors is

identifying the substances in the workplace — not only for the safety

of communities, which is a direct responsibility of the minister. It

helps in the issue of waste management permits, both air and water

quality. These things cannot be taken in isolation, and the minister's

approach, to deal with things in little pockets rather than looking for

mechanisms to allow him to do his job better and tie the whole process

together, I think is not only doing the problem a disservice but cannot

in any way reach the conclusion that the people of this province

deserve. Again, I would bring to the minister's attention that Ontario,

because it clearly has some very serious environmental problems, is far

ahead of B.C. in some of the legislation they have begun to deal with

that begins to put into perspective the tools the ministry needs for

its planning, for its management of hazardous wastes.

[11:45]

I hope very sincerely that this province doesn't wait until it has

the kinds of problems Ontario is faced with to bring in legislation.

Surely we can learn from what other jurisdictions are doing and make

certain that we don't have to relearn the errors. We can avoid some of

those errors. They're costly, and it's just not necessary in this day

and age to let these things go unabated.

The issue of pesticides. I raised this in last year's estimates

mates, and I want to take the opportunity to raise it again, because it

is under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Environment through the

Pesticide Control Act and regulations. At this time, the regulations

indicate that there is a need for certification. The minister has

indicated that he is looking at the pesticide regulations and has

brought down new regulations

I would ask the him whether or not he has considered my request of last year to change the certification for schedules 3 and 4.

Parathion is in

schedule 3, and at the time of last year's estimates

it was not one of the chemicals that you needed certification to spray

on private land. The owners of private a property could spray parathion

without being certified. Parathion is an extremely dangerous chemical.

The information that I have is that it is so toxic that a teaspoonful

spilled on the skin can be fatal to a person. Yet under the

regulations, this chemical falls into a category that doesn't require

trained applicators. If the minister could respond to that, I have some

further questions to do with pesticides.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: At this point, I can't. I recall the

conversation of last year, and we're having the officials look at the

member's questions right now. We'll have an answer soon on those

specific questions.

MS. SMALLWOOD: We'll go back to that one then.

Under the minister's new pesticide regulations announced recently,

the minister indicated that he was going to wait until 1992 before

requiring B.C. growers to be trained and certified for the use of

potentially toxic substances. Can the minister indicate why he's

waiting so long?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It's something we've been considering for

some time. Let's get it straight. We're not saying that this will not

take place until 1992. That has been kicked around, and I find it

unacceptable that someone would say that in a phase-in process nothing

will be done until 1992. In 1992 we expect that 3,000 farmers will be

trained and well versed in how to handle the particular pesticides that

they're dealing with. They'll be well-versed in what amounts to use and

in the total application process. That's clearly what's in place, and I

won't accept the comment — because it's incorrect — that nothing's

going to be done until 1992. The process begins now. We expect, within

three years, to have 3,000 farmers better trained in the handling of

the pesticides that they're using.

MS. SMALLWOOD: In your press release, it says that

agricultural users of about 30 pesticides will have to show an

applicator's certificate before making a purchase. However, here are

something like 5,000 pesticides used by Canadian growers. Can the

minister explain why he is only indicating the use of 30 pesticides?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That has to do with the training program.

Those ones identified are the ones that we're most concerned about and

that we know that people have to have training in when handling. Others

are far less hazardous and wouldn't really require that type of

training.

MS. SMALLWOOD: This question is somewhat related. I have an

article by a Californian lawyer about the legislation that has been

brought in to dramatically hike the fines for improper use of

pesticides. This was brought about by the issue of the aldicarb

contamination of watermelons. That is a chemical that I believe is used

cucumber contamination. Can the minister tell us whether or not he has

considered strengthening B.C. laws to take the problem into account?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: We'll check on that one. I think we've

bumped that one up in terms of its classification after the cucumber

incident, but I'll have that information for you later.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Finally, on the issue of the Environmental

Appeal Board, and again bringing to the minister's attention the right

to know information, this issue relates to Grand Forks and the cyanide

permit, the cyanide-leaching process. In a response in question period

the minister indicated that he had overruled the Environmental Appeal

Board

[ Page 4658 ]

and had changed the requirement for that permit. It

required the company to provide information to the residents as to some

very important plans that would have, hopefully, alleviated some

concerns of the community. Does the minister consider that his actions

are compatible with the kind of work he is doing with the Canadian task

force of environmental ministers and the Brundtland report, denying the

rights of communities access to that kind of information in their own

backyard?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I don't know about the question of

compatibility in terms of what I've done and the Brundtland report, but

I will tell you, Mr. Chairman, that the member's question is not

compatible with the action. I'll explain to the committee what did

happen.

There was an appeal to the Environmental Appeal Board. The

Environmental Appeal Board ruled in part of its decision that the plan

— the program — of the mining company had to be made public. The mining

company came to us and said: "This is proprietary information in terms

of our mining process. We don't want that made public. It's our

process. We've developed it, we've spent some money doing it, and we'd

like to keep that one close to our vest." We said: "Okay, we as the

Ministry of Environment, in terms of making that information public —

not the chemicals, but the plan, and the process — will investigate it

ourselves. We will not make it public." Officials in the ministry did

investigate it, and they said: "Yes, this is your proprietary process.

We are convinced that it is safe, from an environmental point of view,

and we will go against the wishes of the Environmental Appeal Board in

this respect: that we will not make that process public." I believe we

did that in good conscience. It was good law, it was good environment

and it is not inconsistent with the Brundtland report. It's just

consistent with being a good government.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Most people in this province have some real

problems when they come up against a situation like this. Coming to

grips with the reality of B.C. law and of the way the ministry

functions, they come to the realization that a company, whether it's a

mining company or a chemical company or a hazardous waste facility —

any privately owned company — can come and situate themselves right in

your own backyard, and yet because it's proprietary information you

don't have the right to know what is going on. You don't have the right

to know what is happening often not much more than 100 feet from your

back steps. Chemicals being stored on a property or an industrial

activity could and — certainly the odds are with you — will at some

point affect not only your property value but your livelihood and

possibly your own health.

There is something desperately wrong with a justice system that

protects proprietary information, that protects the right of

corporations to such information when it is of paramount interest to a

community and of crucial interest to the ability of a community to

respond to emergency problems and to respond to daily problems. There

is something very wrong with that. Not only is it within the interests

of the Ministry of Environment to try to work out mechanisms and put in

place the kinds of programs and access to information that we have been

talking about throughout the estimates.... Not only is it within your

interests to have that information and make it accessible to people out

of the very ability of communities to help you do your job.... You have

budgetary problems employing the number of staff to be able to enforce

your own regulations, but if there was access to information, you would

have a situation where other agencies and community groups would be

helping you do your job better and helping support the industries to do

their job better. It just makes practical sense. This is not an issue

of philosophy, of ideology. It's just practical good sense and good

management. It is basically what Brundtland is talking about — breaking

down some of those barriers and working together.

I hope that the minister, since he is taking some pride in some of

the work government has done, would continue to take a look at what is

happening and assess that work and point out how we can improve. If we

don't make those changes, then not only are we not going to be in step

with the rest of Canada and the rest of the world in some of the work

being done, but the costs to this province are going to be

astronomical. Those costs can be avoided, but they be avoided only by

good management now.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I agree with just about everything the

member said, except in some cases — a very few cases — the government

takes the position that they have the right to know. As I indicated

earlier, because of a proprietary process, we don't know if all the

public should have the right to know. In this case — Grand Forks — the

Ministry of Environment knows what's happening in terms of the process.

The Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources knows. We believe

the public is kept safe by that.

We know how to handle an emergency if there is one; the public knows

what the chemical is. I think it's arsenic, as you indicated, or

cyanide — something nasty. Nevertheless, all that is known. We just

felt that it was appropriate and prudent and also — from a legal point

of view — proper not to divulge publicly the process the applicant had

in place. I will stand by that. Outside of that, I agree with what the

member said. By and large, that's the way the ministry operates.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. Mr. Strachan moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:01 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright 1988, 2001, 2008: Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada