1980 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 32nd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, JULY 30, 1980

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

3611 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions.

Validity of B.C. Place Act. Mr. MacDonald –– 3613

Alleged Pollution of Salmon Streams. Mr. Lea –– 3613

Alleged Dumping of Radioactive Waste. Mr. Lauk –– 3614

Maplewood Poultry Processors. Mrs. Wallace –– 3614

Ocean Falls Corporation Contracts. Mr. Lockstead ––

Committee of Supply, Ministry of Environment Estimates (Hon. Mr.

Rogers)

On vote 75: minister's office–– 3615

Mr. Hyndman

Mrs. Wallace

Ms. Sanford

Mr. Rogers

Mr. Howard

Mr. Lea

Mr. Nicolson

Ground Water Licensing Act (Bill M124) Introduction and first

reading. Mrs. Wallace –– 3637

WEDNESDAY, JULY 30, 1980

The House met at 2 p.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

MS. SANFORD: I

have guests from Comox who are visiting the precincts today. I would

like the House to join me in welcoming Harry and Elsie Dougan and their

children John and Mary.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr.

Speaker, there are a number of visitors from my constituency here

today. Would the House please welcome Guy Rose, from Quilchena; Trevor

Jeans; Bob Halbar, who is a former resident and presently lives in

Vancouver, I believe; Tim Bailiff; Jean Anderson; Harry Stran; and

someone we all know, Len Marchand.

MR. LAUK: Mr.

Speaker, the last time my mother visited these galleries I was sitting

on that side of the House. She came over here because she heard a

rumour that the government was about to fall and she wanted to be in on

it. I hope, out of courtesy, the Premier doesn't disappoint my mother.

I'd like the House to welcome my mother, who is here, and my cousin,

Nancy Page.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I'd ask the

House to welcome two guests of mine today, Mr. and Mrs. Chubatty and

their two youngsters from Coquitlam.

MR. REE: Mr.

Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I'm the secretary of the Select

Standing Committee on Public Accounts and Economic Affairs and I'm

asking for some sort of a clarification. I understand that a committee

of this House cannot sit while the House is sitting without leave of

this House. I'm advised that this morning members of this House sat in

what they alleged to be a committee of the Select Standing Committee on

Public Accounts and Economic Affairs, and they inquired of witnesses

and carried on other proceedings of that committee without leave of

this House. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate some sort of

clarification from you as to the validity or otherwise of this alleged

meeting that took place this morning.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Hon. members, as you are aware, the House has no knowledge of what

happens in committee. Nevertheless, I have before me a ruling of

Speaker Dowding on a circumstance of very similar occurrence. I will

quote from the statement of Speaker Dowding on March 29, 1973. Part of

that statement reads: "Thus our committees must seek leave to sit while

the House is in session." No such leave was granted in this particular

case.

I will endeavour to return with a further statement on the matter for guidance of members of the House at a later time.

MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, perhaps you could also advise me, as Chairman

of the public accounts committee, as to the requirement of the House Leader

when setting the business of the day to perhaps observe some courtesy and some

normal requirements of telling chairpersons of standing committees when he intends

to call the House together at 6 o'clock, thus giving the chairpersons of

committees an opportunity to seek such leave. Indeed, in this instance, perhaps

the House Leader could have asked for leave himself at 5:50 p.m. yesterday.

If it troubles the House greatly, perhaps we could ask for leave now, Mr. Speaker,

and then we can clear the whole thing up once and for all.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Thank you, hon. member. To the second member for Surrey: is there a

motion to put before the House other than perhaps...? I would

appreciate some guidance from the member.

MR. HALL:

Mr. Speaker, I'd be pleased to receive an invitation from the House

Leader on the government side to sit down and discuss with him the

calling of the Public Accounts meetings in the mornings if he's going

to continue calling morning meetings.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Hon. members, I have indicated that I will return with a statement for

the guidance of the House. I have given that undertaking. I also have

the statements of the second member for Surrey to consider.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, the opposition was fully cognizant of the fact that we were going to be sitting this morning. Everybody knew that.

MR. COCKE: At 6 o'clock last night.

HON. MR. GARDOM:

Oh, no. Everybody was cognizant of the fact that we were going to be

sitting this morning, and we did sit this morning. It was perfectly

open to the opposition to request leave this morning. It would have

been granted, but they didn't request it. Our members could have

requested it too; it would have been granted.

Interjection.

HON. MR. GARDOM:

In response to the hon. Leader of the Opposition, who suggests that we

ask for leave now, if we continue to sit in the mornings and leave is

requested for committees to sit, the leave will be granted, subject of

course to availability of ministers and so forth.

MR. KING:

Mr. Speaker, just as a suggestion for your guidance in considering this

dilemma, I would point out that it is indeed possible to ask for leave

retroactively to authorize this committee, in precisely the same way

that yesterday we passed retroactive legislation providing a salary to

the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan). Mr. Speaker, I suggest to

you in all sincerity that if it is possible to recompense a minister

six months retroactively, then it should be quite possible and within

the authority of the House to extend retroactive authority for the

committee to sit.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you for those comments, hon. member.

MR. LEA:

I may have misunderstood but when you were reading Mr. Speaker

Dowding's ruling I believe it was said that permission had to be

received to have a committee meeting during session. Does it say

"session''?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: For the member's clarification, the reading is: "Thus our committees must seek leave to sit while the House is in session."

[ Page 3612 ]

MR. LEA: What does "while the House is in session" mean, Mr.

Speaker? Does that mean while we are in session or while we are sitting?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon member, the statement is there for the member to....

MR. LEA: Yes, I take it that it mean session. We are in session and

we have been ordered while in this session by the House to sit in those sessions

in Public Accounts. We have been ordered to do it. To do otherwise would have

been in contempt of this chamber,

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please hon. member.

MR. LEA: I'd like to finish my point. It does not say that we cannot

meet while the House is sitting; it says we have to have permission while the

House is in session. We are in session while the parliament is in

effect, and we are here at the call of the government and the House. To do

otherwise we would have been in contempt. but we were going to be lenient

and not charge contempt of the members who didn't show up. We are in session,

we have been ordered by the House to have Public Accounts, the time was set

by the committee; the members of this side showed up; the members of the other

side didn't, and I think we'd be better spending our business finding

out why they didn't.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. At this stage, we are clearly

entering into a debate. I feel that the Chair has received sufficient representation

from both sides to conclude the matter. I have undertaken to come back with

a statement for the guidance of the House. I shall do so. Hon. members, I must

at some point conclude what is becoming a debate. I have asked for members'

indulgence at this point.

MR. HALL:

I ask leave to move the following motion: that for the remainder of

this session standing committees of this Legislature be empowered to

sit during morning sittings while the House is in session.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Order, please. Before entertaining the point of order by the House

Leader and calling again.... I believe I did hear some noes. But at the

same time, I feel, to be fair, we should hear from the House Leader of

the government on the motion that was proposed by the member of the

opposition.

HON. MR. GARDOM: It's a very reasonable

motion but the reason that the government is not prepared to accept it

at this time is that it's one that....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. GARDOM: Let me finish, if I may. Please, you fellows. Come

on, you guys, just take a deep breath.

It's

a very reasonable motion, but the reason we can't accept it at this

time is that it's something that has to be decided as the days proceed.

It might well be possible to have these meetings when the House is in

session, but if we have ministers in estimates, or ministers on bills,

where time has to be occupied in here with those bills, it's not

possible for them to staff the committee. If we could organize the

business of the House effectively to have the committee sit, we would

very much like to do it. I hope to be having a meeting with the hon.

House Leader of the opposition this afternoon to discuss this very

topic.

MR LAUK: The House Leader is engaging in nothing short of

jiggery-pokery. It is a way in which the House Leader can manipulate a

defeat of the public accounts committee and what it was designed to do.

That is pure and simple. We have called for night sittings; they have

refused night sittings. Now they are sitting in the morning and

destroying the effectiveness of the public accounts committee by so

doing. Now they will not pass a motion that is perfectly reasonable —

they admit — because they want to continue to play their game. I say it

should be challenged. It is nothing but pure Machiavellian manipulation

and you know it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Hon. members, the motion before us is that for the remainder of this

session standing committees be empowered to sit during morning sittings

while the House is in session. Shall leave be granted for the motion?

Leave not granted.

MR. LAUK: Division.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: There can be no division on that aspect.

now have reached the point where I ruled that there could be no

division on what had just taken place. The challenge will be that that

ruling is challenged, which is in order. Shall the ruling of the Chair

be upheld?

Mr. Speaker's ruling sustained on the following division:

YEAS — 28

Waterland

Nielsen

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Brummet

Ree

Wolfe

McCarthy

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Mair

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Mussallem

Hyndman

NAYS — 24

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

King

Lea

Lauk

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Hall

Passarell

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Barnes

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

[ Page 3613 ]

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Oral Questions

VALIDITY OF B.C. PLACE ACT

MR. MACDONALD:

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Attorney-General. Is he aware

that the government has power to refer a proposed enactment, even if it

hasn't been passed by this House, to the court of appeal for

declaration as to its validity?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the member is asking for legal opinion. He knows what the law is. The answer is yes.

MR. MACDONALD:

I have another question then for the Attorney-General. In light of

section 6(3) of the B.C. Place Act, which would give the government

power to spend money outside of or beyond appropriations of this

Legislature.... In other words, a blank cheque can be drawn on the

public purse without reference to the Legislature. Has the government

made a decision to refer this

section — with its awesome powers, if I

may say so, and totally unprecedented — to the Court of Appeal of

British Columbia for a declaration as to whether it is in accordance

with our constitutional usages and whether in fact it is or could be

valid?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LAUK: I have a question to the Minister of Finance on the same topic.

Has the government decided under that

section to impose any limit on the amount

that could be expended by the board of B.C. Place, which includes Paul Manning

and group?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I think you've got the groups mixed up, but go ahead.

MR. LAUK:

Has the government decided to limit the amount expended under the

proposed

section 6(3)? If not, will the minister be intervening before

this bill is debated?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I

would look to you for guidance. Frankly, I think this discussion would

be more appropriate at the time the bill is debated.

MR. LAUK:

On that point, I am asking whether the government has decided to limit

the amount and if it will indicate so before we debate the bill. That

is perfectly in order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is a fine point, hon. member, but the question will be in order as far as that aspect goes.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Again I would suggest that debate on the bill is the appropriate time, as far as I am concerned.

MR. BARBER: Answer the question.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, the arrogance of that answer.

MS. BROWN: You're not challenging the Speaker are you?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I take offence. Once again the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke

(Mr. King) has accused me of arrogance. I believe that if the debate had occurred,

then I would attempt to assist the hon. members opposite, but the debate has

not yet occurred, sir.

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order related to this question, I would refer

the Speaker and the Minister of Finance and the Attorney-General to the nineteenth

edition of May,

chapter 29, page 754, entitled: "Matters Requiring the Queen's

Recommendation, Moneys to be Provided by Parliament." I am asking you, Mr.

Speaker, to give a ruling as to the appropriateness of these questions refused

now, particularly in terms of limitations as instructed under May in terms of

public expenditures. I ask you to give us a ruling as to whether or not we can

indeed, by proper parliamentary procedure, proceed with this bill without

the House being told what an expenditure limitation is, because I can find no

precedent anywhere in the Commonwealth for such a blank cheque of a bill without

a limitation.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. The Chair will undertake that on behalf of

the member.

MR. LAUK: To the Minister of Finance. Has the government made a commitment

to the B.C. Place as to amounts that can be and will be expended under that

section?

HON. MR. CURTIS: To the best of my knowledge, those matters are currently

under discussion.

ALLEGED POLLUTION OF SALMON STREAMS

MR. LEA: On July 16 the Attorney-General advised the House that a stay

of proceedings was entered in the Bellas case because

section 31(2) of the

Fisheries Act provided a statutory defence that the logging complained of was

approved by the federal minister. What proof did Crown counsel have that

the federal minister approved of logging in such a manner as to cause the bank

to slide into the salmon stream?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to take that question

as notice.

MR. LEA:

On a new question, the effect of Crown counsel's entering the stay was

to deny the plaintiff, Mr. Bellas, his day in court. If the statutory

defence was available to the Crown, the judge was quite capable of

ruling on that point in accordance with the evidence presented. Has the

minister reviewed the instructions to Crown counsel that where the

Crown is the defendant, no stay should be entered, so that every

British Columbian shall have the right to justice before the court?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the stay was properly used in that particular

case. No such instructions have been given.

[ Page 3614 ]

MR. LEA:

If, as the Attorney-General has stated, the federal minister approved

the sliding of the dirt into the salmon stream, has the

Attorney-General taken this up with the Minister of Environment (Hon.

Mr. Rogers) for the Minister of Environment to check and see why the

federal minister deliberately okayed the pollution of the streams and

Riley Creek on the Queen Charlotte Islands?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not discussed the matter with the Minister of Environment.

MR. LEA:

Has the Minister of Environment supplied any evidence to the

Attorney-General or his staff that the federal Minister of Fisheries

and Oceans or the federal Fisheries department deliberately okayed the

destruction that happened at Riley Creek?

HON. MR. ROGERS:

Mr. Speaker, the matter referred to took place some time ago. I'll have

to check my records and get back. I take the question as notice.

ALLEGED DUMPING

OF RADIOACTIVE WASTE

MR. LAUK: I have a question to

the Attorney-General in his capacity as the representative of the great

constituency of West Vancouver–Howe Sound. The federal Ministry of the

Environment has revealed that the University of British Columbia dumped

radioactive wastes one mile off Point Atkinson between 1948 and 1965.

Apart from the fact that we know that the hon. Attorney-General glows

in the dark, what representations has the hon. minister made on behalf

of his constituents to secure the safe recovery and disposal of these

canisters?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I would

refer the hon. member to the electoral boundary maps, and he would find

that it's not within my constituency.

MR. LAUK: They change so often in secret, Mr. Speaker, that I wouldn't be aware of it.

I'm

astounded that the Attorney-General knows the exact place where the

canisters were dumped, however, and I would like to know how he could

have that information unless he was there at the time.

refer the same question to the Minister of Environment. What

representations has the hon. minister made on behalf of all of us to

secure the safe recovery and disposal of these canisters that have been

reported dumped?

HON. MR. ROGERS: Just as soon as

this revelation was made, we made inquiries of the federal government,

because, as you know, they are the people that authorized disposal in

the first place, and we have yet to hear back. Once again, it goes back

quite some period of time. I have spoken to staff in Ottawa, and have

asked them to let us know as soon as possible (

a) where the dumps took

place and (

b) what efforts can and will be made to recover the

radioactive wastes.

MAPLEWOOD POULTRY PROCESSORS

MRS. WALLACE:

Yesterday I asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he received any

federal-provincial funding of the turkey processors to buy Maplewood.

The minister said he was not aware of the proposal. That was 24 hours

ago. Has the minister now checked with his officials to familiarize

himself with the federal proposal?

HON. MR. HEWITT:

Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any proposal by the federal government

with regard to federal-provincial funding for the acquisition of

Maplewood by the turkey growers.

MRS. WALLACE: Well,

Mr. Speaker, could I ask the minister whether or not he has checked

with the officials of his ministry to ask them if they're familiar with

this? Surely he talks to his staff.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

Yes, I talk to my staff. I had a call from the Hon. Eugene Whelan at

6:30 last night. At that time Mr. Whelan advised me that he was hopeful

that he could make an announcement this Friday with regard to the

Maplewood plant. Mr. Whelan did not indicate to me or advise me of — or

request of me — any joint federal-provincial funding for the

acquisition of the Maplewood plant. That's going right to the source,

Madam Member, not to my staff.

MRS. WALLACE: The

minister still hasn't answered my question. Could I ask the minister if

his reluctance to answer this question stems from the fact that he is a

bit disconcerted that the federal minister is accomplishing what he

failed to do, and whether he is he still hoping that Cargill will get

control of the Maplewood plant?

HON. MR. HEWITT: The

question is somewhat argumentative. My staff is fully familiar with the

problems of Maplewood, as I am. The federal minister is hopefully in a

position to make an announcement on Friday. What that announcement will

be I have no official word as yet.

OCEAN FALLS CORPORATION CONTRACTS

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I have a question to the Minister of Industry and Small Business. Is the Ocean Falls Corporation still negotiating with the Los Angeles Times to reach an out-of-court agreement or settlement on that breach of contract?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: In answer to the member's question, he's assuming certain things which make the question out of order, as far as I'm concerned.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Order, please. Hon. minister, you may either decline to answer or

answer, but the order of a question is determined by the Chair.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, the question is based on an incorrect assumption. Therefore I'm not going to answer it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That answer is in order.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I've never seen such arrogance in this House, in

my many years here, as we've seen displayed by that minister over there.

[ Page

3615 ]

The question, in my view, is in order. Knowing that negotiations are

proceeding, I want to know if a settlement has been reached and how

much that settlement is going to be for. It's a very simple question

and even he should be able to understand that, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Hon. members, the temperament of both questions and answers is most

mandatory at this particular period of our day, as in the entire day.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

Mr. Speaker, I resent the member calling me arrogant, because he knows

I'm the easiest member in the Legislature to get along with. However,

I'll take the question as notice.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT

(continued)

On vote 75: minister's office, $152,422.

MR. HYNDMAN:

Mr. Chairman, as I was saying briefly before 12 o'clock, I'm happy to

have the chance to join in these discussions on the estimates of the

Ministry of Environment as a government member. I'd like to comment on

a number of topics and initiatives which the Ministry of Environment

has undertaken in the last year which have not so far been commented on

in debate.

I'm pleased to see my friend, the member for

Alberni (Mr. Skelly), the official opposition critic on the

environment, back with us today. I took some exception to one of the

remarks he made — I believe it was Thursday last. If I heard him

correctly, he stated that as far as he could see there is not a single

person on the Social Credit benches today who is concerned about the

quality of water, air and land. I want to take exception to that and

for the record, Mr. Chairman, remind him that indeed there are as many

members on our side as on his concerned about water quality, air

quality and land quality. The Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair), for

example, is a very ardent conservationist and an outdoorsman. The

Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) is similarly a

very keen outdoorsman. The member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet)

is one of the accomplished river guides of northeastern B.C.

my own case, Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to match my record of

involvement with environmental causes with that of the member for

Alberni. In my case, having been one of those who helped to found the

B.C. Steelhead Society and the Pacific Salmon Society and one of the

early people involved in the fight to save the Skagit, I do take

exception to the suggestion that nobody on the government benches cares

about the quality of water, air and land.

Mr. Chairman, it was of course the present government who instituted the moratorium

on uranium mining and uranium exploration in British Columbia. I don't think

a government that didn't care about the quality of water, air and land would

have instituted that ban. The Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers) today

was certainly a part of that decision. It was this government, Mr. Chairman,

which instituted the Purcell Wilderness Conservancy. Again, I don't think

a government unconcerned about the purity of water, land and air would have

done that, and this Minister of Environment was part of that decision. In short,

Mr. Chairman, I think it's a rather unfair assertion to suggest that members

on one side have some monopoly on concern about the environment, and the government

doesn't.

Mr.

Chairman, the members in opposition had an opportunity in this province

from 1972 to 1975 as government to display to the public of British

Columbia their concern about environmental matters. They're not easy

matters. I think any Minister of Environment is in the difficult

portfolio of having to consider environmental concerns in the face of

demands from colleagues in terms of jobs and business development and

the needs of all of us as human beings. As the Minister of Environment

so properly said on Thursday afternoon: "It is all of us as individuals

who pose the greatest threat to the environment today." But let us

remember in fairness that while members opposite were in government, it

was their party that proposed, for example, a possible steel mill at

the site of the Qualicum River. It has been the opposition party which

has proposed a chemical plant on theSun shine Coast. It is the

opposition party which has proposed an oil refinery near Merritt. It

was the opposition party — then government — which presided over the

greatest piece of environmental desecration ever seen in this province,

which was the Dease Lake extension undertaken by B.C. Rail. It was the

group on your left, Mr. Chairman, who acquired Ocean Falls, an old pulp

facility drastically in need of mechanical overhaul, and didn't invest

the money.

I think we can conclude fairly that any Minister

of Environment is in a most difficult portfolio. This world is not

black and white. It's not absolute. Members in opposition on this floor

are not the only ones concerned about the environment, and that is what

the facts show.

We heard about Port Alice this morning. I

think it was the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) who took the

present Minister of Environment to task about Port Alice. It is

interesting to review what happened at Port Alice when members opposite

were in government. Here is a headline of August 17, 1973, from the Colonist

when members now in opposition were in government, responsible for the

environment. The headline reads: "NDP Unsure in Environment Protection

Field." Here is what the story says about Port Alice:

"It was interesting to hear resources minister Robert Williams'

endorsement last week of the B.C. Pollution Control board decision that took

the heat off Rayonier Canada Ltd. and its Port Alice pulp mill for the next

three years at least. Williams admitted that because of an easing up of the

controls, especially the one dealing with oxygen levels in the inlet, the government

was taking a calculated risk with marine life or what's left of it in this

polluted waterway. But he got angry when a newsman asked why the government

was willing to take such a calculated risk."

That is part of the record about Port Alice when members opposite were in government.

I say, it is not easy to reconcile the pressures for any Minister of

Environment. Again, from the time members opposite were in government,

February 8, 1974, a headline in the Vancouver Sun : "NDP and the Unions on Collision Course." The story reads:

"Organized

labour and the provincial government are on a collision course over

environmental protection, a Victoria-based consultant claimed here

Thursday. 'The B.C. government is committed to the

[ Page 3616 ]

environment, but 95 percent of its money and a lot of its support

comes from the labour movement,' he said. 'It will be interesting to

see how they reconcile the needs of the environment with the needs of the labour

movement. They are on a collision course.'"

The point, quite simply, is that any Minister of Environment is in a difficult

portfolio facing challenges, demands, a constant cry for compromise. It's

not accurate, it's not fair, and it's misleading to the public to suggest

that only one party in this province has a concern about environmental matters

and one other doesn't. That is wrong.

May

I turn to a number of the initiatives and matters dealt with by the

Ministry of Environment during the last year and comment on them. They

are topics which, in many cases, have not been commented on by

opposition spokesmen, and I think they are important and deserve some

comment.

I think to begin we have to once again take a look

at the continuing Skagit Valley situation. I want to congratulate the

minister for his continuing stand in support of making every effort to

save the Skagit Valley. In particular, I think all those in B.C.

concerned to save the Skagit were heartened by the minister's statement

yesterday when he said: "I am certainly not going to be the minister

that allows them to flood the Skagit Valley as long as I have the power

vested in me to stop them from doing so." That is in healthy,

constructive contrast to the chief opposition critic who, if I read the

Blues correctly, has called upon the government to abrogate the law — I

think he used the word abrogate — to disregard the law and the 1947

legislation of this Legislature, the Skagit Valley flooding act. I

don't think the cause of saving the Skagit is going to be enhanced by

those who advocate flouting the law as the opposition critic did

yesterday.

I think this minister is taking the correct

approach, exhausting every avenue he sees for saving the Skagit. It is

interesting that the Seattle Post-Intelligencer

had a recent editorial, on Thursday, June 26, commenting on the latest

American court decision which appears to affirm the right of Seattle

City Light to flood the Skagit. Notwithstanding that the latest court

decision gives the American position a leg up, this is what the

editorial said in the last paragraph:

"The

newest court decision makes conditions ripe for profitable

give-and-take on both sides. Seattle has the better hand now, but

British Columbia has the electricity that could head off the flooding

and what can be a longer, perhaps nastier, dispute between friends.

Both sides can profit by putting ultimatums aside and bargaining in

fairness for an equitable solution."

I think it is

instructive that even a Seattle newspaper, in the wake of that court

decision, would have the balance and the maturity to still call for

some effort to negotiate a settlement, in effect saving the valley — an

approach which the minister says he is taking; an approach in contrast

to the suggestion of the opposition critic, who says we should abrogate

the contract and the law.

I think these estimates should record some ongoing appreciation by the people

of B.C. to some of those in the public who are working hard to save the Skagit.

David Brousson, a former member of this assembly, is one of those key figures

who has spearheaded the fight to save the Skagit. I want to congratulate him

and extend to him the thanks of many British Columbians for his ongoing efforts.

Additionally, Ken Farquharson, the president of the ROSS committee, has been

vigilant in his ongoing volunteer efforts to work and deal with governments

at all levels. Ken Farquharson deserves continued appreciation and encouragement.

And Mr. John Fraser, the Member of Parliament for Vancouver South, is, I think,

to be congratulated for his work while a federal minister on his continued work

to help save the Skagit.

would indicate to the minister that although his fisheries and

conservation officials may not yet have received news of it, there is

an important new committee being formed to assist with conservation

planning on the Skagit. That group is informally called the Skagit

Anglers' Committee. It is being formed this summer. Mr. Bob Turner of

Delta, Mr. Bill Turnbull of Abbotsford, Mr. Dan Hutchinson of Mission

and Mr. Larry Smithson of Vancouver are voluntarily seeking to get

together all of those who fish in any form the Skagit River and its

tributaries, including the Sumallo. They hope to convene a gathering of

those interested this fall, and then to approach your ministry in the

hope of providing their knowledge, experience and assistance in working

with your officials, regardless of the future of the Skagit, to help

plan a preserved future fishery on the Skagit and its tributaries. I

hope they will receive a welcome, cooperative and understanding

reception.

One of the other things that is important this

year, that the Ministry of Environment has done and that deserves

commendation, is the establishment of the Conservation Trust. This year

the ministry has set aside $1.25 million — and will do so on an annual

basis — to acquire sensitive ecological lands for the purpose of

preserving them for long-term public benefit, in a manner perhaps

similar to the work now being done by the National Second Century Fund.

I think the Conservation Trust initiative of the minister is an

excellent one. He and his staff deserve commendation for it. It's an

important signpost as to the emphasis placed by the ministry on the

need to obtain and preserve these ecologically sensitive lands.

The

National Second Century Fund itself also deserves some strong words of

thanks from the people of British Columbia. I was pleased to see the

minister himself commend them in his remarks the other day — in

particular, General Bert Hoffmeister, the chairman of the National

Second Century Fund in B.C., General Paul Smith of Parksville, and Ted

Wilkinson, Q.C., of Vancouver. They are three of the very active

members of the National Second Century Fund board. Just recently, on a

long-term nominal lease basis, they gave 223 very valuable acres at

Silverhope Creek to the provincial government. The minister, for his

part, is committed to establishing a long-range fisheries management

program there to bring back the sport fishery, including particularly

the steelhead. That's an item of congratulation.

I have

estuary and the efforts by the National Second Century Fund to acquire,

preserve and hold safe a fairly substantial parcel of land in that

important estuary. The ministry has been helpful in moving negotiations

along. I just want to underline to the minister and his staff that I

think many citizens are hopeful that there will be ongoing work between

the Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of Lands, Parks and

Housing on the one hand, and the National Second Century Fund on the

other, to obtain and safely preserve in the hands of the National

Second Century Fund

[ Page 3617 ]

that

40-acre parcel, which, as the minister knows, is adjacent to a smaller

eight-acre parcel recently acquired by National Second Century Fund

from Aquilla Holdings of Parksville.

Some miscellaneous

items that the ministry has been dealing with over the last year, I

think, are most worthy of comment at this time. I don't think so far

members have mentioned one of the most important initiatives taken by

the minister, and that was the imposition on Vancouver Island of the

steelhead catch and release program early last spring. I must say that

as a steelheader I was one of those who initially had my doubts about

the wisdom of this move. I certainly saluted the courage and the

forthrightness of the minister in receiving advice from his staff about

dangerous signs in the depleting stock of steelhead on the Vancouver

Island streams and in instituting a program for the balance of the

season under which bait was banned, only artificials could be used,

barbless hooks were necessary, and everything was catch and release. In

my experience that program has been a resounding success. There has

been a reduction of fishing pressure on the streams. Those who would

fish steelhead only, and constantly, for the table have disappeared.

For example, in the Cowichan River there has been an absolutely marked

increase in the visible number of fish available to anglers. In my

experience the streamside chit-chat of the anglers is that people would

far rather have the thrill of returning the fish, and have better

action and greater sport to look forward to — all the while helping the

steelhead come back — than a system under which our steelhead stocks

were continually threatened. So I say to the minister that I think his

judgment, in hindsight, was absolutely correct. It was a courageous

move, and I salute him for doing it,

A few words on

conservation enforcement in the eastern Fraser Valley. A number of

areas up there require conservation enforcement. I spend some time up

there, and in my experience Mr. K. Kedding, the new fisheries

enforcement officer who succeeded Jack Delair, has been really getting

around and doing a first-rate job. For example, he's been doing a good

job of creel census checks on the Skagit River and in Ross Lake. He

tells me, Mr. Minister, as you probably know, that when the fishing

season opened down there there were about 2,500 B.C. anglers. It's a

big job for Mr. Kedding to do, but it's important that he be out.

couple of major construction programs are going on. There's about $10

million worth of highway construction on the Hope-Princeton this

summer, right alongside the Sumallo River, which is an important

tributary of the Skagit. I'm just delighted to find that Mr. Kedding,

on instructions from the ministry, is doing regular conservation checks

of that work to ensure that the contractor is proceeding with

appropriate environmental safeguards. Similarly with respect to the

ongoing construction of the new Coquihalla highway. I'm pleased to see

not only that Mr. Kedding is out regularly checking on that, but that

the highway contractor has been required to have biologists or

conservation officers on site doing virtual regular weekly reports on

approvals of the work as it goes forward, and in some cases requiring a

very detailed rebouldering of stream bottoms to protect the steelhead

fry and the fish coming back. That's the kind of sensitive attention to

stream management problems that we should be seeing and we are seeing,

and I think it's worthy of congratulation.

Fish and game

licences. Some months ago the minister caused a step to be taken that I

think is one of the most important in recent years in terms of fish and

game management. That is to increase the commission paid to our tackle

and hunting shop operators for the fish and game licences they sell.

That's important because in many cases those small business people who

run fishing tackle shops and hunting shops are the key link to visitors

who come to buy a licence and head for our streams or our hunting.

They're the ambassadors of this province, and they are the guides

behind the counter who will give visitors a sense of how we fish and

hunt, and how we do it. I think it's fair to say that the average

sporting goods store operator is losing money when he takes time to

stop and sell a fish and game licence, fill it out and talk to the

visitor a lot about our regulations, explaining them, and the benefit

of our fish and game resource. I don't think sporting-goods operators

seek to make money out of that exercise, but to the degree that they

aren't able to serve other customers and that overhead time is taken,

it's important that they at least break even. The step to increase the

commission to them is a very positive one and recognizes the value and

the benefit that all of those people behind the counter play in passing

on to visiting fishermen and hunters our sense of how we'd like them to

fish and hunt, and hopefully to obey good fishing and hunting ethics.

terms of the upper Fraser Valley — and I've written the minister about

this, as he knows — there have been problems in the supply of hunting

tags and fishing licences. The eastern Fraser Valley is really the

first stopping place for many of our American friends who come up

through Washington state and hit British Columbia. often heading to the

interior or the north. They'll hit Chilliwack or Hope and come in for

the licence right away. If it's a busy weekend, often the licence or

tag supply can run short. As I understand it, the government agent in

Chilliwack is where they look for refreshed supply and sometimes, I

gather, the mails and so forth have meant that supply may have been

interrupted. So I repeat my suggestion that possibly the ministry can

estimate ever more generously about the demand and keep the stock and

supply up.

The milfoil weed problem has been a continuing

concern to many in British Columbia. I think many members have noticed

in the last year a marked increase in the number of the milfoil

inspection stations which this minister has established. I'm impressed

by the fact that the inspectors on site are doing a very thorough job

in flagging vehicles who may be requiring inspection. They aren't just

sitting in a trailer beside the road hoping that people coming by with

boats on trailers will turn in and have the prop and hull inspected.

They're out on the road watching the vehicles and if somebody who

apparently should stop isn't, they're trying to flag them in. I think

it's a very constructive initiative. Although that's a horrendous

problem, it's a step in the right direction. It's important to see that

some of our very popular lower mainland lakes, like Cultus Lake, have

inspection stations to inhibit and prevent the growth of that terrible

problem.

Mr. Chairman, one of the big functions of the

Ministry of Environment that the public may not realize is the mapping

function. The production of maps can be of great value to our citizens,

campers, hikers and sportsmen. I gather that the minister has something

underway in terms of an initiative to do some fresh and updated mapping

and has recently produced, for example, a brand-new — the first one in

some years — map of the whole Manning Park area showing the latest

improvements in the hiking and camping facilities and trails. It's just

a first-rate production. It's long overdue. It's going to be a real

assist to growing numbers of lower mainland people, particularly

first-time hiking and camping families who are setting out. I hope that

program will continue.

[ Page 3618 ]

Fishing

derbies are an ongoing summertime talk of many who are concerned about

salmon stocks in British Columbia. There are arguments pro and con.

This minister has had the courage to stand up and take a position on

the topic of derbies. It would have been easy for him to say: "Well,

that's a saltwater matter. It's not my jurisdiction." I salute him for

having the courage as a minister to stand up and state his opinion on

the question of derbies. It's nice to see a Minister of Environment not

always ducking behind the jurisdictional aspect of federal-provincial

matters.

The lower Dean River is an important recreational

resource to British Columbia. As the minister and many who follow the

Dean know, there has been a revision to the question of the rules of

the Dean this year with some, as I understand it, increase in the

powerboat ban on the lower river. As I understand it, the policy has

been to perhaps increase the powerboat ban to some degree and to

perhaps increase the number of access trails to the river. That's

raised, I gather, a fairly serious but mature debate as to what degree

some of our precious natural-run rivers like the Dean should be made

fully and easily accessible versus leaving some of our rivers a bit of

a challenge to get to, with the result that there is less pressure. I

simply want to underline my concern to the minister that after this

first season on the Dean that policy should be reviewed. I do think it

important that, as the minister has promised, there's going to be a

long-range management program for the area. But I do want to echo an

important viewpoint, which is that the long-time guides up there have

undertaken a very responsible and mature approach to the management of

the very precious steelhead resource. They have encouraged

catch-and-release fishing and artificial-only fishing. They are as

concerned as anyone to see the river preserved and protected. I hope

they will be fully consulted on an ongoing basis about future

management plans for the river.

If I may, I'd like to quote

a very brief paragraph from a letter I received in March from Mr. Rob

Stewart of the lower Dean River lodge, who, I think, in anybody's book

is one of the prime preservers and protectors of the Dean River and has

probably taught more conservation and switched more people to fly

fishing for steelhead from hardware and bait than anybody in British

Columbia. He said this:

"There is a very real

value to the type of guided angler and carefully managed fishery that

we have tried to protect. Until this value is recognized and the guide

is recognized as a legitimate resource user, we will continue to be

gradually eroded out of business. When that happens the Dean will

become another has-been once-great river. "

My strong plea

is that with respect to this and other areas your staff do not overlook

the positive and voluntary contribution to good conservation practices

that have been made over the years by some of our professional guides.

They should be consulted and borne in mind.

A similar

example of this has been on the Babine River and the well-known trout

fly fishery there, not the steelhead fishery. People like Einar Madsen

of the Norlakes Lodge.... I was pleased to see that the ministry

reviewed the regulations initially proposed for the upper Babine this

year and upon review realized that it would be a mistake to bring in

the originally intended rules and maintained the rules of some previous

years on the trout fishing, which I think has been the sensible thing

to do.

Very briefly, if I could toss out some thoughts and

concepts which I hope the minister and his staff will consider in the

year ahead, the Whistler-Pemberton area is a tremendous, largely

untouched fishing and hiking area. As we see the concentration and

growth of primarily winter but to some degree summer recreation there,

I hope some ongoing attention will be given to preserving and

maintaining the sport fishing stocks we have there,

The

Thompson River concerns many people in the fish and game movement. I

hope the ministry will continue to monitor the developing concern about

the future of the Thompson. I personally hope we can, at some stage

soon, have a massive municipal-(city of Kamloops)-provincial-federal

effort to save the Thompson and bring back the absolutely pure water

quality that we all used to know.

I am hoping the ministry

might look even closer at the kind of steelhead propagation program

Washington state has developed. The cost-benefit ratio there is very

much on the benefit side.

I am hoping that in the area of

the Queen Charlotte Islands' Riley Creek kind of conflict in fishery

and forestry management the ministry might sit down with the Ministry

of Forests and try to improve the current stumpage formulas

which, as I understand them and the set-offs they allow, don't build in

much of an incentive for those forest operators who will build roads

and bridges to a first-rate environmental standard.

closing, there is one other bouquet that I think should be advanced on

behalf of hunters, fishermen and sportsmen in B.C. The B.C. Wildlife

Federation has a big job to do. They do it responsibly and well. I

understand they enjoy excellent lines of communication with this

minister and I hope that continues.

HON. MR. ROGERS:

The member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) is out of the House but I

did undertake to try to get some answers back for him on Robson Bight,

which is at the mouth of the Tsitika with one particular spot on the

map, the name of which I didn't know. However, over the lunch hour we

have done some checking. As he pointed out, it is an area used by

whales, especially killer whales, for their sun-basking in the time

they loll around in this relatively calm water. Our ministry staff and

the people from Fish and Wildlife would most certainly be opposed to

any industrial development or any use other than recreational use in

that particular area.

My colleague the second member for

Vancouver South (Mr. Hyndman) brings up a number of points. I hope

nobody thinks I wrote that speech and gave it to him, because obviously

I didn't.

AN HON. MEMBER: It was too good.

HON. MR. ROGERS: All his speeches are good speeches. I can't say the same thing for yours but I will say that for his.

The

Conservation Trust Fund. In a province where 96 percent of the land is

owned by the government, it always seems to be a curious factor that

the government, through its agents, wants to buy back some of that

remaining 4 percent. That is really only because the areas we are

looking at, which are so very critical in terms of habitat, have in

many cases already been taken and are in private ownership. I am

approached on a daily basis by people like the National Second Century

Fund and others, the B.C. Wildlife Federa-

[ Page 3619 ]

tion,

who say that this small piece of critical property which would really

be of benefit to the environment is something we should acquire. I am

delighted that through the Conservation Trust Fund we are able to do

that. I should point out that when we do acquire it one of the first

things we do is we like to keep people off it because although most

people know what to do and how to behave in these remote and often

sensitive areas, the few who don't spoil it for the many.

The

steelhead ban on Vancouver Island. I guess I must have received 200 or

300 letters after I made that decision. Divers from the fish and

wildlife branch have actually spent time in the middle of January in

wetsuits in the river itself counting the fish going by. When they came

to see me and told me what their concerns were, I had absolutely no

qualms about going along with their recommendations. Interestingly

enough, there wasn't a major decrease in the number of anglers going

out fishing; there was just a decrease in the numbers of fish being

taken home or no fish were being taken home. Steelhead fishermen

traditionally are not people who go just to get the fish. In fact, they

go more for the sport than anything else, and the catch and release

program seems to have been very effective.

You mentioned

conservation enforcement. I'm delighted that the conservation officer

in Hope who knows who you are stopped you when you saw him and asked

you for your licence, and I hope that when he sees me he stops me and

asks me for mine. One of the things we're trying to do with all of the

staff people is to get people, regardless of their role within the

ministry, to be aware of what other things are happening in the

ministry so that, for example, our conservation officers aren't just

dealing with fish and wildlife or game problems, but they're dealing

with pollution problems and waste management problems on a sort of

first-aid basis, until such time as they can alert someone else in the

ministry. This hasn't been the case in the past, but it's certainly

becoming more involved today.

Fishing licences and tags are

definitely a problem. We have dealt with government agents; I guess

we're going to have to spend a little more time determining where the

big buys take place. I had representations from the vendors, the people

who have sporting-goods shops, primarily, that they needed a greater

commission — and when you look at the very minimal commission they got

and the time that it took them to fill out the licence, I have to agree

with them. We have had an order-in-council which has increased that

and, to this end at least, we have some satisfaction. But we do have a

problem with getting tags. We also have that problem in the Kootenays.

The member for Kootenay (Mr. Segarty) has brought that point to my

attention on several occasions, and we're going to try and see what we

can do about it this year. It's difficult because, of course, every

year tags are sent back from other areas of the province where they're

just not sold, and it's a logistical problem. I suppose it's something

we could put on a computer at some time.

I would like to

look at the possibility of issuing five-year licences for hunting and

fishing so that those anglers and hunters who renew every year could be

looking at buying a five-year licence with a returnable clause, of

course, in case of transfer or death or something like that. But for

most hunters it's a once-a-year thing. Then, instead of spending too

much money on paperwork, we could spend a little more money on some

research, and perhaps put the licence onto a plastic tag which they can

keep in their wallet like a credit card and put a hole in it and then

hang it around their neck on a piece of leather like they do when they

go fishing, because occasionally the whole wallet goes down the drain

when they're out there in the middle of the river, only because they

have to carry this flimsy piece of paper — it's a problem. Anyway,

we're looking at that.

The milfoil situation. They're not

only checking for milfoil; they're also checking for live bait. You'd

be interested to know that, because the transfer of live bait between

lakes has become a real problem. If bottom fish are released

inadvertently or advertently into some of the small rainbow lakes, they

tend to wipe out the rainbow stocks in fairly short order.

Fishing

derbies. I really have nothing against fishing derbies, but the point

has been made by federal Fisheries and the Salmonid Enhancement Program

people that the chinook salmon stocks on the west coast are endangered.

They're not endangered to the point that we're not going to allow any

fishing of them, but this tends to be this one particular fish that

some of the derbies aim at. Places like Gibsons Landing have a dogfish

derby, which is really beneficial, because you get rid of a nuisance

fish and you also have a lot of fun. The trouble that I have with the

chinook is that the federal government is very close to putting a

20-inch or 50-centimetre limit on this fish because of the reduced

stocks; they're going to go after the commercial fishermen. I think if,

before the problem gets to a point that they have to enforce it, people

on a voluntary basis would consider taking the other species when they

go fishing, it might be of benefit to everybody. It could well be that

in the not too distant future the feds will put a ban on this

altogether, and I just express my concern. Well, I guess I didn't need

to say anything and I would have got less flak, but I still think I did

the right thing, and I know people in the staff agree with me on it.

The

lower Dean River is a continuing problem. It's such a good fishing

place that some of the best fishermen in the world come to the lower

Dean and, like all fishermen, they can't keep anything quiet. One of

the fishermen who came last year wrote an

article in the New England Journal of Fishing ,

which circulates around all the doctors' offices between Boston and

Washington. As a result of that, instead of keeping his little secret

quiet about this wonderful place in British Columbia where you can go

steelhead fishing, we get a continual onslaught and the thing

constantly grows. So people worldwide.... It's like visiting Ngongo in

Tanzania, you know — once you've seen it, you've got to tell somebody

else about it. Well, in Ngongo, fortunately, you can handle quite a few

visitors, but the Dean has a fairly limited capacity. With the fact

that there is a small airstrip at the mouth of the Dean, its

this pristine jewel of fishery, this very best place in British

Columbia to go steelhead fishing, is becoming more and more publicly

known, and access is not very difficult. By commercial airplane you can

fly to Bella Coola, and to get from there to the Dean River is a

relatively simple thing, and more and more people go. It's going to get

tougher, and we're going to have to consider how we look after the fish

in this particular area. Boats are a problem.

Yes, there

have been a couple of guides who have been in there a long time and

they're great fishermen and great sportsmen. but my position is that

the people in this province who pay the taxes have the first crack at

everything. If we're going to split it down and say, "Well, okay, the

tourists draw a lot of dollars and they're of great benefit to the

province,"

[ Page 3620 ]

that's

well and true, but the freshwater fisheries resource is the property of

all the people, and I've got to manage it and try and come up with

solutions that are workable between the two.

Whistler-Pemberton

area. If we get the opportunity to expand our hatchery program at

Abbotsford, which I'm hoping we can do in the next year, then we'll be

able to supply Whistler and Pemberton from the Abbotsford hatchery.

There is just an insatiable demand for hatchery-raised fish to be

released in all of the areas immediately adjacent to the lower mainland.

have had the meeting between me, my ministry and Forests on Riley

Creek. That has already taken place, as you suggest it should.

The

Thompson River. I can only join with the broad statement made by the

Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair), speaking as the MLA for Kamloops,

when he said that there just has to be a time come in this province

when we stop using the rivers of the province as a sewage system. The

city of Kamloops and the Weyerhaeuser plant at Kamloops continue to

dump — admittedly with permits and all the legal requirements — into

the North Thompson River. The latest permit that we have from Kamloops

would appear to be the straw that broke the camel's back. This is the

one that has got everyone from Savona all the way down to Hope and

beyond upset and saying, "Now is the time to come to a stop," and it is

for that reason that I have insisted that Kamloops look at the

alternatives that are available to them, including disposal for land on

irrigation, and also pumping it into the ground.

It's a

serious problem and we have always.... Our communities grew up, in many

cases, along the sides of rivers, and as a result of doing that they've

used the river to discharge their effluent. Well, we're all polluters,

because just by living and breathing every day we all produce a little

bit that goes in there. It has always been convenient. Kamloops is

going to grow, but the capacity of that river to absorb effluent is not

going to grow, and the long-term objective has to be to get all the

sewage systems out of the rivers.

The city of Vernon has

probably got the.... It's an expensive system but probably the most

ideal one, in terms of their disposal of liquid effluents. So I think

that answers most of your questions. I think there are other members,

Mr. Chairman, who would like to ask questions.

MRS. WALLACE:

This has been a very interesting exchange. I'm almost inclined to say:

"Will the real Minister of Environment please stand up?" We know that

the Minister of Environment didn't write that speech given by his

seatmate, because if he had written it he would have given it. It

sounded much more like a speech from a Minister of Environment than did

the run through the telephone directory that that minister gave us the

day his estimates opened.

I just would say to the Minister

of Environment, through you, Mr. Chairman, that I hope for his sake the

Premier wasn't listening to today's proceedings on his loudspeaker,

because if he was, his job may be in jeopardy. Certainly his seat-mate,

the second member for Vancouver South (Mr. Hyndman), has been known to

be the Premier's messenger boy before this. All I can say to the

minister is that with friends like that, who needs enemies?

least I'm glad of one thing: that the old precedent of backbenchers in

the government getting up and making some remarks during estimates has

been revived. I just wish that the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) were

in the House, because I've just been waiting for him to get up in these

estimates and talk about the Kemano II development.

MR. BARBER: He said he would, but he's never in the House.

MRS. WALLACE:

Yes, he's been talking about it a lot in his constituency, Mr.

Chairman, and he's been talking about all the great things he was going

to do down here about the Kernano II project. Not only is he not in the

House — and very seldom in the House — but he certainly hasn't seemed

to have anything to say. Maybe he's out getting his speech together. I

look forward to him coming in and talking about the Kemano II

development during these estimates.

Mr. Chairman, I want to

bring to the minister's attention something that has really become of

extreme concern to me, particularly in these last few months. It's

something that has been going on in this province for a long time, and

is now coming to the fore on a lot of fronts. That, of course, is the

use of wood preservatives, particularly PCP — pentachlorophenol — and

TCP.

We've had a lot of notices in the press recently about

these kinds of things happening. In the press this morning I noticed

conflicting statements from B.C. Forest Products spokesmen. One is

saying that PCP is harmful but not TCP. Another representative of the

same company is saying that TCP is just the same thing. I would suggest

that probably the person who's working in the lab who said they were

much the same thing, in that they both release dioxanes, is closer to

being correct.

We've had shutdowns in my constituency at

Youbou. We've had shutdowns out here in the Victoria area over this

thing. It's something that is coming to the fore, and it's something

that this Minister of Environment is going to have to take it stand on.

It is not good enough to just sit back and say: "We're doing all the

checks and regulations, and we've measured that there are six cubic

metres of waste a day." That is not good enough. The thing we have to

have this minister do is spearhead a movement to ensure that there are

some safe limits set, and if something is unsafe that alternatives are

found for that particular thing. That is the responsibility of that

minister. He talks about being a service ministry, and if that is all

he conceives his job as being, then he is doing a disservice to the

environment, because the environment has to be the prime consideration.

the PCP, the Workers' Compensation Board have sent out some fairly

lengthy detailed instructions relative to its harmful properties, again

confirming my former statement that tetrachlorophenol and

pentachlorophenol have similar chemical and biological properties.

"As

members of the phenol group they are lipid solutions and will readily

penetrate intact skin. They have a characteristic odour. Their volatile

component will irritate the respiratory system and once in the lung

will be ready to be absorbed through the lung tissue. If ingested, the

material will be rapidly absorbed through the digestive tract. Contact

between the phenol materials and the eye tissue may result in severe

eye damage. The material, left resident on skin, will cause skin

irritation."

This is all from a letter from

the Workers' Compensation Board to the manager of a small lumber

company on Vancouver Island. It is written by a Mr. Luck, who is an

industrial hygienist.

[ Page 3621 ]

"If

the material penetrates into the bloodstream it will exert an effect on

the liver, kidneys and central nervous system. Exposure to large

quantities on a short-term basis or continued exposure to moderate

quantities on a long-term basis" — I would ask the minister to be

particularly cognizant of that; a longterm basis and small quantities

are just as harmful as major doses — "will result in permanent liver

and kidney damage. Prolonged exposures may, over time, induce allergies."

Then

Mr. Luck, the industrial hygienist, goes on to set out the precautions.

"Wear rubber gloves. Wear rubber aprons. Wear long sleeves. All sources

that liberate an aerosol material must be controlled. Prevent

ingestion. Prevent eye contact. Protective equipment must be worn." I

am reading that to point out to the minister that not only is this

material produced in six cubic metres — or whatever it is — by a

certain mill, but it is also a harmful material.

The workers

in this province are the guinea pigs, because we really don't know what

harm there is. I have a great thick file, kept by the workers at the

Youbou mill where this PCP was in use, of the various kinds of

complaints they had had over the years. Whether or not they are related

to PCP, nobody knows. It is sold, of course, under many names:

Woodbrite, Diachem, Prematox, Penta Plus, Diatox, Pentol, etc.

One

of those companies, Diachem, saw fit to write a service report. This

had to do with welding on equipment that had been subjected to this

particular chemical. It talked about the high temperatures produced by

torch-burning and welding and said that this can cause these chemical

substances to decompose into a variety of breakdown products, some of

which are extremely toxic. Yet this ministry is allowing this substance

to be burned, uncontrolled, with things like chlorine, which is a very

poisonous, heavy, dense gas — to come off this substance when it is

burned — with no apparent concern.

I have another letter

from Diachem, this one to a local logging company on Vancouver Island.

It is signed by Conrad J. Titler, president of Diachem. It is written

to Pacific Logging Company. It says: "Dear sir, a dangerous hazard

exists in all sawmills using anti-stain chemical solution. Incidents of

injury have been brought to our attention." That company was

sufficiently concerned to write to the people who were using its

product — in an attempt, I guess, to cover their own backs — to tell

them that this was a hazardous product.

Another interesting

document I have here is a document from the federal Department of

Agriculture — I think it's the food production and marketing branch —

Ottawa, Ontario. It's a memorandum to registrants of pesticides and

chemicals. It's very interesting, and it outlines the suspension of

pentachlorophenol for use as a wood preservative in the interiors of

chicken houses. This was in January 1979. It's recommending that the

use of pentachlorophenol be suspended as a wood preservative in chicken

houses, and as a disinfectant or insecticide for mites and so on in

chicken houses, and be limited in leather-tanning operations. Then it

goes on to say:

"The above action, as well as

some proposed actions, were the result of several recent incidents in

Canada of poor feed conversions, increased flock mortality and

undefined disease syndromes associated with intensive poultry

operations, as well as a musty taint problem in chicken meat, all

linked to various uses of chlorophenols."

That

is a draft memorandum, and I don't know of it ever having been

publicized. As far as I know, when a farmer goes to buy lumber to build

a chicken house there are no restrictions about using wood that has not

been treated, and I doubt if any farmers have ever seen that

recommendation.

These are the kinds of things that are

happening, and they relate to the environment. Just doing studies and

tests, writing letters and quoting figures isn't going to resolve the

problem. The minister tells me: "Well, we have restrictions; we can

only move...." He's not just an errand boy, an office boy or an account

clerk; he's the minister. He's the minister responsible for

environment, and if he doesn't have the powers he needs he'd better go

to cabinet and get them. When he sends me letters that tell me....

Well, first I read in the press that one of his officials in the

ministry says there's no PCP in a stream. Then I get a letter from him

dated June 20, which tells me that there were traces of PCP in the

surrounding weeds in the stream, and 150 parts per million in the

particular tank-car that I was concerned about at the time. Then I get

another letter from him dated July 17, with different figures. When I

send a sample off to a lab in Vancouver — incidentally the figure on

lead, not PCP, in the second letter, and the sample that I had tested

was .011 milligrams per litre, which I understand is the same as .001

parts per million — I get a letter back from the sample that I sent off

that shows there were 0.4 parts per million. You know, you can prove

anything with figures, and apparently that relates to the environment

as well as anything else.

My suggestion to this minister is

that he takes a good long look at the extent, usage, methods of use and

the disposal of pentachlorophenol and its related products around this

province. When he recognizes the degree to which we're being subjected

to that substance or similar substances, perhaps then he will be

sufficiently concerned to take some steps to ensure that a safe

alternative is found. Of all the people in this province he is the

person most responsible for protecting our environment, even more so

than the corporations that are using this. He has to take the lead; he

has to show the way. If he doesn't do that, certainly we're not going

to find it happening in British Columbia.

While he's doing

that he should have a look — he may already have done this, but he

hasn't told anyone if he has — at the Cowichan estuary and the

Ladysmith Harbour, and some of the tests that have been taken there —

where there's a lot of log storage, a lot of wood treatment and a lot

of mills — for the PCP content in those waters. My understanding is

that some of the reports that have been done have indicated that there

is an increasingly greater amount of pentachlorophenol showing up in

both those waters.

On a slightly different tack I want to

talk about pesticides and the spraying programs that are being

undertaken in the province. Certainly the regional district in the

Cowichan Valley has been very concerned about the railway spraying. I

know the minister hides behind the fact that he got the railway people

to change from one pesticide to another. It's not too long ago that we

thought DDT and 2,4,5-T were okay. I think we have to look at these

things as....

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: Yes, they still think 2,4-D is okay. You know, we really have to take an elimination process.

[ Page 3622 ]

have to look at alternatives. There's very little being done in regard

to alternatives. I wish the Minister of Agriculture were in the House,

because I don't often give him a compliment; but I'm going to give him

one today. I think that the B.C. Ministry of Agriculture is the only

official organization in all of Canada, let alone B.C., that is

contributing towards the work being undertaken by Dr. George Puritch at

the Pacific Forest Research Centre, where he's working on insecticidal

soaps, the old tried and true remedies, if you will. But he's finding

the answers and getting results. There's even a company established now

to use what were formerly waste materials in this biodegradable spray

for forests, and he's working now on something that will control carrot

rust fly, so it's getting into the agricultural field. I'd like to

compliment the Minister of Agriculture for making funds available to

assist that research. But I'm just a little bit shocked that the

Minister of Environment probably doesn't even know it's happening. I

wonder whether or not he cares, or if he is more interested in simply

telling us which chemical is least hazardous. There have to be some

alternatives. We have to start looking at these things.

Bromacil

has been used by the railway, apparently over a great period of time

and in great quantities. The Chairman may remember that I displayed in

the Legislature a five-gallon can which I found, marked "crush and

bury," and yet there are dozens of those cans just dumped down beside

the railway track. The Minister of Environment tells me: "Well, that's

not my problem; that's a municipal problem." If that's not an

environmental problem, Mr. Chairman, I don't know what is. That is an

environmental problem, when you're having a harmful, hazardous chemical

not even treated with the degree of safety that the company outlines;

and certainly companies are inclined to be as liberal as possible in

any of their instructions — liberal in the amount to be used because

they sell more that way, and liberal in the dangers that are involved,

because they don't want to frighten people off from using their

chemical.

This is a note: metabolism and excretion of

bromacil in the milk of dairy cows. It was written by Donald Lisk and

Walter H. Guttenman. It talks about the drift of applied chemicals onto

croplands such as pastures as being common. This study was done of the

amount of bromacil excreted in the milk of dairy cows exposed to from 5

milligrams to 30 milligrams of bromacil in their feed. The amounts

found were astounding. Also, it's interesting to note that the people

who wrote this came to the conclusion that those amounts would not be

uncommon for a dairy cow to consume in an area adjacent to where

bromacil was used.

Bromacil is a harmful chemical. In fact,

there was a recent report that came out on the use of farm chemicals.

This was published June 13. It indicated the validity of health safety

tests on chemicals conducted by the Industrial Biotest Laboratories of

Northbrook, Illinois. The chairman of a federal committee on pesticides

said: "Spot checks on chemicals tested by IBT have shown many of the

company's results to be questionable." IBT was charged three years ago

in the U.S. for faking tests on chemicals.

The point I'm

making to the minister, Mr. Chairman, is that as long as he leaves this

up to the company, or up to the supplier, those kinds of things are

going to happen. The only way we can have a thorough study and a real

understanding of whether or not those chemicals are safe is if we, as

citizens who are going to be affected by them, undertake to make those

tests and do the kind of tests that that federal body was doing. It

found, in fact, that the commercial lab hired by the companies had been

faking tests. That's the kind of thing that minister has to face up to;

that's the kind of thing he has to find some answers to, and not simply

quote us which is the most toxic.

The thing that climaxed my

desire to talk about pesticides in this committee was the fact that I

got a letter from the minister on July 23 in response to one I had

written to him regarding the use of 2,4-D in the Cowichan Valley. This

is the 2,4-D that is going to be sprayed around by his colleague, the

Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland). The Minister of Environment

wrote to me in reply and said: "This committee wholly feels that the

use of 2,4-D in the rather limited areas near Duncan will not result in

any adverse effect to the natural environment." Then he goes on to say

that for my information he is telling me how I can appeal. For his

information, Mr. Chairman, I know how to appeal and I am appealing and

I have appealed. Why should a private member be left to defend the

rights of the citizens of this province against the spraying of 2,4-D

in the area of their drinking water and the water they swim in and have

the minister say: "Well, we think it's okay but if you don't like it

you can appeal."? That is really not standing up for the environment.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Seeing

as you are a new minister I want to just briefly reiterate my concerns

relative to the lack of controls on groundwater. I've gone through this

with the previous ministers of Environment and I hope the minister is

aware that there are no controls on groundwater. This is one of our

still rather unpolluted resources, but it is a fast-disappearing

resource. We are certainly not using it well or wisely. People who are

dependent on groundwater supply, as are the district of North Cowichan

and the city of Duncan, face the likelihood of an industry coming in

and drilling wells which could completely drain their supply. There are

no controls to prevent this. There are no regulations. Indiscriminate

well drillers can tap groundwater and it can be left running, which is

a waste of that resource. The more holes we punch in that layer that

separates groundwater from surface water, the more our polluted surface

water is draining into the groundwater. I know the ministry has been

working — they tell me they've been working — for years and years to

produce some kind of legislation that could be used to control this,

but nothing happens. It has gone on now for the five years since I've

been bringing this matter to the attention of the House. I have

discussed the question at great length with the members of the B.C.

Water Well Drilling Association, who share my concerns because they see

what's happening. I understand they have been attempting to work with

the Minister of Environment and the water rights branch, but I don't

see anything on the order paper to indicate there are any results. The

only thing I see on the order paper is my intention to introduce a

bill, as I have done in previous years. From the minister I see nothing

at all.

Of course, it wouldn't be a speech for me in

Environment if I didn't deal with the Cowichan estuary. The minister

has expressed his concern about it taking so long. It certainly takes a

long time when you have a predetermined answer and are trying to find

some justification for that answer. I am convinced that that is exactly

what has happened with this particular report. I am convinced because

we keep finding that the terms of reference are changing.

Order-in-council

[ Page 3623 ]

calls for a mandatory submission of an environmental impact statement

assessing the development proposals. Yet a recently published excerpt

from the report says the development is to be determined by the

adaptation of one or more log management plans. That is a complete

departure from the original terms. Certainly there has always been — I

thought — an agreement that we were trying to keep that estuary for

log-handling of logs only related to industry in that estuary as much

as possible. When I found out just recently that we had a ship loading

raw logs for Japan out of Westcan terminals — shipped in from Lake

Cowichan, incidentally, where they are crying for logs for manufacture

— I was more than concerned. I've been concerned about the logs in that

harbour for a long time. I have here a couple of pictures. They were

taken on April 5 of this year from Knipson Road, if you know where that

is, up on the north bank overlooking the harbour. There are two shots

and they show that estuary just completely covered with logs. I would

like to send them across to the minister for his consideration.

This

has gone on for five years now. If that minister really is as committed

as he used to tell me he was when he sat on this side of the House —

not in our party — and talked about keeping his boat at Cowichan Bay

and how concerned he was about the fishery there; if he had one iota of

that concern left, now that he's sitting over there as a minister, and

if he has any spunk at all, he'll do something about that task force

report and he'll do something to ensure it isn't the kind of thing I've

indicated — something that's being prepared to come up with an answer

that's already predetermined — because that's not the way to go. We

have a very valuable fish resource in that Cowichan estuary. It could

be by far the most valuable one on the Island and it's been allowed to

deteriorate. There is the minister who could return that estuary. He is

the man who is in the position to say whether we are going to retain

the estuarian qualities of that Cowichan Bay or whether we're going to

blacktop it and fill it with logs and leave it solely for industry. It

is a very fine line; any more industry in there and there is no return.

I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your patience. I see the red light is on.

HON. MR. ROGERS:

You've certainly identified a number of problems, ones that keep me

awake at night and ones that I worry about on a virtually daily basis.

But I'll try not to be frivolous with you for one moment.

PCP and TCP and other wood preservatives are a worldwide problem, not something that is local by any means.

MRS. WALLACE: We don't want you to solve the world's problem; just solve B.C.'s.

HON. MR. ROGERS:

No, I know you don't want me to solve the world's problems, but I would

like to tell you that it isn't something that's only recently been

identified. There is a substantial difference between sodium

pentachlorophenate and sodium pentachlorophenol. The phenol is the much

more toxic of the two. The product is still licensed for sale in

hardware stores. It is available anywhere you go. That is something I

find difficult to rationalize. I have asked the federal government why

they allow it — they are the ones who license it. The problem has been

identified. There is, as you know, a federal-provincial task force, on

which two people from my ministry have been sitting for over a year, to

try to identify alternatives as well as what the hazards are.

You

have documented some of them very well. But Mr. Tom Horn and Mr. Barry

Manna of the ministry are both involved in this federal-provincial task

force.

Wood preservatives. I don't know that the lumberyards

of this province have been notified that they shouldn't be using them

in chicken barns. But if they shouldn't be using them in chicken barns,

I'm a little bit suspicious that they probably shouldn't be using them

anywhere near where people live — like on patios and decks, which is

the area where children are exposed to it. If you have an internal

memorandum which they have not had the foresight or courage to release,

maybe we should follow it up, and I'll undertake to do that. I would

like to know, because if that is the case.... Most of these woods go

out; some of them are cut up and used to make children's toys, and

small children chew on them. The problem is there and it is very real.

It is not one we are ignoring by any means, but we have great

difficulty in setting down standards, especially in the disposal

problem that your colleague, the second member for Victoria (Mr.

Hanson), talked about the other day.

While, admittedly, when

these chemicals are burned they are destroyed, we don't know enough

about what comes out of the top end of the stack. We license the stack

for discharge of certain chemicals, but we don't know until we do a

test on it. In the Victoria one, for example, it was assumed that they

would burn hog fuel and oil. On the basis of that they were given a

licence, but they are burning additional things. We have to determine

what comes out. Coincidentally — which may help to answer some of your

questions, second member for Victoria — an air-monitoring program for

that particular stack had been programmed some months ago. It goes into

effect on that stack on August 11, to determine just exactly what it is

that comes out of it other than the salt and other things that normally

come out of it. It may mean a change in permit; it may mean a

cancellation of permit; it may mean a change in what we allow them to

put in. But each permit is quite specific for that particular purpose.

You

mentioned a difficulty with sampling data, and you submitted some data

to a laboratory. We have essentially the same difficulty. One of the

reasons we're pretty particular about finding this kind of data is that

in many cases the next thing to do is to take the information to

regional Crown counsel and lay charges. Regional Crown counsel will

throw us out of their offices and we'll be thrown out of court if we go

there without conclusive data that can stand up in court. That is why

the whole method of sampling and the gathering of evidence is rather

like a police report — they don't just take evidence and submit it;

there is a proper procedure for doing that. I don't know what else I

can do to explain that. You have found different sources. There are

specific sampling methods. I would be prepared to send you the

information on how that is done, if you like.

Pesticides.

I've said before, and I guess it's worth repeating, that on private

property there are no regulations on the application of pesticides.

MR. HANSON: Why not?

HON. MR. ROGERS:

It would be virtually impossible to police, that's why. It would mean

that we would have to have somebody monitoring every farm, every

vegetable garden and everything else. Canadian Pacific Railway, through

the E&N Railway, advised my office that they are going to start to

spray with a certain chemical. As a matter of courtesy they

[ Page 3624 ]

just

advised us. I was, to say the least, a little bit annoyed. We sent them

a strongly worded telegram saying we would ask them to cease and desist

and wait and at least reconsider and use the chemical roundup, which

they did do. But once again, they weren't even obliged under our

existing regulations to advise, although they have undertaken to do it.

There

is considerable work going on in using other forms of removal, but the

mechanical methods that are used present a serious fire hazard. The

analogy has to be there, though: what if your neighbour, wherever you

live, is a bad citizen and chooses to ignore the regulations that are

on the can? Unless there is a watercourse on their property, we have no

right to act on it. Now if there is a watercourse, we can go in and be

effective, but we can't just on a regular piece of property. We don't

have the staff nor would I envision a chance of ever getting the kind

of staff we'd need to enforce the use of pesticides on a province-wide

basis. It's a phenomenal job, and I think if you consider the number of

people, pesticides and herbicides, you'd probably agree with me,

although maybe you wouldn't. I don't know if we agree on too much.

British Columbia has the toughest regulations in Canada right now on

the use of pesticides. I said something the other day — I don't know if

you were in the House. We use 41,000 pounds of 2,4-D in this province

and they use 8.5 million pounds in the Prairies.

MRS. WALLACE: How many acres are they treating?

HON. MR. ROGERS:

There are an awful lot of acres in the Peace River country as well when

you look at the statistics. Yes, they're treating an awful lot of

acreage, but does that make it any safer to use it on the Prairies than

it does here? It is, to the best information we have, the best

available today. Hopefully we'll come up with a less toxic, more

effective pesticide.

MRS. WALLACE: What are you doing about that?

HON. MR. ROGERS:

What am I personally doing? What are we doing in this ministry? We have

a budget to do some research, but this research is being done by

Agriculture Canada, by chemical companies, by all sorts of other

agencies as well. What we have to do, which is probably more important,

is to license the applicators and the vendors so that we get away from

the system that we have now where people use excessive quantities. If

they figure one gallon per acre is going to do the job effectively,

they'll certainly kill everything with two. We have overuse of

chemicals, which is very much a problem.

I'm sorry you're

insulted about my remark about someone throwing a can that has

something written on it out the side of a car beside a road and that

it's not a local garbage problem. It is a local garbage problem. It's

also a problem for our ministry if that can happens to contain certain

chemicals. But once again, I can't tell you where that thing came from.

We don't have that kind of a police force. I wish we did have that kind

of a force so we could go back and stop those people, but we don't. I'm

sure you know that.

Groundwater. There are areas in the

United States and there are areas in Canada where groundwater licensing

does take place. I'm going to tell you something that you've heard

before and that is that the terrain in British Columbia is such that

it's very, very difficult to license groundwater. There are areas in

this province, for example, like the Gulf Islands, which are so short

of water and for which water is so critical that we're looking at the

possibility of groundwater licensing right now. We're working in

cooperation with the B.C. Water Well Drillers Association and the

people in the ministry, and I've been into their shop in the ministry

and looked at how they monitor the maps. They monitor the flow of every

single well, for example, in the Saanich Peninsula. If somebody draws

from another well they can.... It's all going on computer and it

requires an enormous amount of data collection.

The Cowichan

estuary. Let me assure you right now that there is no predetermined

answer. We did not accept the challenge of doing that and neither would

the staff of the Secretariat accept the challenge of saying: "Here is

the answer; now you find the solution." These pictures of logs, I can

assure you, are the very problem that I see and foresee. The decision

to allow Doman to build his mill there was made during the time your

party was in power and I think perhaps you probably realize and admit

now that it wasn't the right location and they shouldn't have been

allowed to do it, but nonetheless they were allowed to do it.

MRS. WALLACE: Yes, but they have rules to live by.

HON. MR. ROGERS:

Well, they do have rules to live by, but we're trying to make stricter

rules with an accommodation of the existing plant. As I say, we are

very close to the final draft and release of that report. At that time,

if you think that the results that we recommended are a part of the

predetermined thing, then I'll let you stand up and say it then, but I

don't think you will agree with your earlier statement. However, I'll

stand by that.

I wasn't aware of the log export operation,

and again that's a question that could be best addressed to my

colleague, the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland). But if there

is a dry-land haul and loading onto a ship at the Westcan terminal

there, then I can't find a criticism. If they're dumping it into the

estuary and then towing the booms around the estuary and hand-loading

it onto the ships that way, then there are other ways that that can

certainly be handled. Certainly, if they're bringing logs out of the

Cowichan to load them on a ship to go to Japan, we don't have to drag

them through perhaps the most sensitive and critical area on the whole

lower end of the Island, and I would certainly agree with you there.

really wish I could tell you that we had some simple solutions to the

pesticide problem, but we just don't. We are constantly revising the

data base that we have on these matters. If I were to come out and — I

don't have the legislative authority to do it anyway because, as you

know, it's a federal matter — allow the banning of 2,4-D, I'd have your

agricultural community on my back, the likes of which I wouldn't

believe.

MS. SANFORD: During the discussion on these

estimated expenditures a number of the MLAs have given their assessment

of the performance of the current Minister of Environment. I have to

concur with most of what has been said concerning the administration of

his responsibilities in that portfolio. I think the minister has been

ineffective; I think he is a weak minister; I think he is one who is

being pushed round by his cabinet colleagues. I think he is quite

prepared to be pushed around by his cabinet colleagues; otherwise he

would not remain as the Minister of Environ-

[ Page 3625 ]

ment

for the province of British Columbia. He gets shunted aside, stomped on

and pushed under. It doesn't matter what the issue is, his cabinet

colleagues always win out over this Minister of Environment. It

indicates that he either does not have the interest of the environment

at heart or he does not have the stamina to stand up to his cabinet

colleagues.

The Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) finds

this humorous. Maybe over in West Vancouver they don't have the same

kind of environmental problems that most of us in the rural parts of

the province recognize and see on a day-to-day basis. Let me give you

an example, Mr. Attorney-General, of why I made those preliminary

statements with respect to the activities of this particular minister.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: You don't know what you're talking about. I've got a bigger rural area than you've got.

MS. SANFORD:

Well, why on earth aren't you up on your feet talking about the

environmental issues that affect that area? He's sitting there

accepting it. He's probably won out over the minister on any

environmental issues that arise.

Let me explain to the

Attorney-General, as well as to the Minister of Environment, about an

issue that was raised earlier this morning which exists within the

constituency of Comox. It is an absolute disgrace, Mr.

Attorney-General, that the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon.

Mr. Chabot) awarded the rights to Mac-Blo for a log dump in the Buckley

Bay area. It is an absolute disgrace. The Minister of Environment was

involved in the discussions relating to this particular lease

application, but he was ineffective, Mr. Attorney-General. The Minister

of Lands, Parks and Housing won out. The Ministry of Environment

personnel opposed the application by Mac-Blo; the people within the

lands branch opposed the application. It was only the Minister of

Lands, Parks and Housing himself who approved Mac-Blo being granted the

right to dump logs in that oyster-growing area.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

When

I checked with the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing officials after

I received the press release indicating that Mac-Blo had been granted

that right, the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing officials said:

"Oh, no, they haven't." I talked to the person who is responsible for

granting oyster leases in this province. He's the one who handles all

those applications and grants those permits. He said: "Oh, no, you are

misinformed." I said: "Well, I have a press release on my desk that has

been issued by the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing." So, Mr.

Chairman, I think that the Attorney-General will now see that the

Minister of Environment has been very ineffective in terms of dealing

with that particular lease application.

Let me give the

Attorney-General a few more examples of what this lease application

means. The Baynes Sound area is one of the best oyster-growing areas in

the world, I would like to report to the Attorney-General. But what do

we do when we have Social Credit government in this province? We allow

log dumping to take place in the middle of that oyster-growing area,

over the objections of the Lands officials and the Ministry of

Environment officials as well. What will the company do? They will

bring in five acres of landfill — that's good for oysters you must

admit, Mr. Attorney-General.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I won't admit that!

MS. SANFORD:

In addition they're going to be dredging ten acres of the seabed in

that area — that's good for oyster growing as well. I suppose. The

Minister of Environment should not have allowed this to happen. He

knows he has the support of the Lands officials and his own officials

concerning this particular application but he lost out to the Minister

of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot). He knuckled under. He

gave way.

There are going to be six dump-truck loads a day

of debris into the water in the Baynes Sound area as a result of this

application. That doesn't help oysters very much. I have been in

support of the oyster lease application on this particular area since

January of this year. In fact, I've written to the minister indicating

my support because there was an application for a lease for oyster

growing in that particular area prior to the one submitted by Mac-Blo.

But the oyster growers got shunted aside and Mac-Blo, thanks to the

Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing, received the right to dump logs

in that particular area. It is an area which has been used over the

years for log dumps and in the past there has also been coal dumped in

that area. Finally, after eight years, the area was returning to its

natural state so that oysters could be grown. But oh no, we're going to

have more log dumping. Certainly there were alternatives available to

the company. The Lands officials will verify that if the minister is

not aware of it.

In 1976 or 1977 the provincial marine

resource branch and the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans did

a study on the existing booming in Buckley Bay. They indicated that the

area was ready for oyster growing again. But that is not to be under

this government, when we have this Minister of Environment taking care

of the environmental concerns.

You might be interested to

know that this morning the minister indicated: ''Well, they weren't

very enthusiastic about this project but yes, I knuckled under." In

addition, in his discussions with the Lands people on the particular

issue he states: "We stressed our point reasonably well but, oh, yes,

we knuckled under and allowed this particular log dump to go ahead over

the preference of the oyster growers of the area."

The other

interesting thing about this particular issue relates to a letter that

I received from the Minister of Environment dated July 23 in which he

states that the final decision was left with Mr. Chabot with respect to

whether or not this oyster lease was going to be granted. Certainly

that is understandable, but in the meantime the Minister of Lands,

Parks and Housing indicated to me that it was a joint decision made by

the Minister of Environment and himself. This letter indicates that the

decision was left with Mr. Chabot. The letter is dated July 23 and the

letter states: "A joint press release from Mr. Chabot and myself is

currently being prepared." The letter is dated July 23 but the press

release making the announcement is dated July 9. You must be far behind

in your department, Mr. Minister, with respect to your correspondence

as well.

This press release is a sham. It parades under the

guise of being an announcement about a moratorium. Really it is an

announcement about the fact that Mac-Blo has been granted the right to

dump logs in the Buckley Bay area. I think the minister knows that it

is a sham. If I were the Minister of Environment I certainly would not

have allowed my name to

[ Page 3626 ]

associated with this press release in any way, shape or form. He has

indicated to us that he's not happy about the decision. Why on earth

would he let his name be placed on the press release making that

announcement? It is a disgrace. Maybe he was ordered to. Do you think

he knuckles under that much, that he would be ordered to allow his name

to be placed on this press release? I don't know.

Very

quickly I want to raise two other issues. One relates to an issue I

have discussed personally with the Minister of Environment concerning

the E&N Railway and the problems related to sprays. The minister

was just dealing with pesticides. The herbicide sprays that are used

along the E&N Railway are of great concern to people along the

tracks. I think partly it is because of the fact that the member for

Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) was just mentioning. We have had so

many bad examples of the extensive use of 2,4,5-T and some of the other

products that are now prohibited in Canada. People are concerned. The

minister may think that this product is perfectly safe and there is no

problem with it and on and on but people don't see it that way. People

are concerned and I say they should be concerned. The only thing I am

asking is that the Minister of Environment come up with some way of

informing the public when a company like the E&N intends to spray

up and down the right-of-way along Vancouver Island.

appreciate that the present laws do not require the E&N to make

representations to government or to announce to anybody that they are

going to be carrying out a spray program. But when you have people

literally running up and down the tracks trying to chase the machine

pumping out the herbicide, saying, "Please don't pump along my yard

because I've just planted the garden, or because my well is near the

tracks," then we have a situation that is intolerable, Mr. Chairman. I

think that the Minister of Environment must come up with some

alternative way of ensuring that people are at least informed that this

spraying is going to take place.

One last issue that I would

like to raise very briefly with the minister relates to the fish

hatchery at Qualicum. I'm sure that the Minister of Environment is

aware of the problems that have existed at the fish hatchery as a

result of the logging operation that was done along the Qualicum River.

No doubt he's had discussions with the federal Environment people. I

know it's an issue that has been raised in the House of Commons on a

number of occasions. At the moment there is a plan for a subdivision to

go in along the banks of the Qualicum River which will further

deteriorate the water quality in that river and have a possible harmful

effect on the fish hatchery at Qualicum. There have been

representations made to the minister or to the government with respect

to the possibility of purchasing that land so that a subdivision can be

prevented at this stage and further deterioration of the river can also

be prevented.

HON. MR. ROGERS: I thank the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) for yielding the floor.

the matter at Buckley Bay. Perhaps my words aren't strong enough. The

meeting lasted for a couple of hours. Staff of the marine resources

branch were there, as well as myself. I have no idea what the position

of the lands branch staff is. We went there to listen to the proposal

put forward by MacMillan Bloedel. We had reservations to start with.

They were able to satisfy both me and the officials of the ministry

that the program they had put forward and the proposal they made would

be adequate and safe. On that basis, the Minister of Lands, Parks and

Housing and I made that release. I know it didn't meet with your

particular approval; I'm not surprised about that.

The

moratorium that was announced on any further releases — again, it is

the one that was jointly released. We get about 300 to 400 letters per

day in the ministry. I occasionally find that situation when we

inadvertently.... The mail goes out.... That's just a problem that I

guess is going to happen on a day-to-day basis.

I must point

out that 2,4,5-T is one of those poisons which in Canada is only sold

by permit. We don't allow the sale in British Columbia. We just will

not allow a permit. But it's used in other jurisdictions. Because

people have to come to us with permits, we just won't approve it,

unless it's for a specific scientific purpose.

One of the

things we are considering doing which will accommodate those people who

have a problem with not just the E&N but other railroads is

insisting that large corporations who wish to apply pesticides receive

a permit. This would allow the farmers and householders to remain

outside of the permit thing, but would bring into the fold, if you

will, the CNR, CPR, BCR, Hydro, Hydro rights-of-way, and of course the

E&N, as it's encompassed. So we're trying to find a way to say we

have to know what they're doing, but at the same time not being overly

zealous with the farmer, because it presents a problem. I think that's

the kind of solution that we're going to find.

The Little

Qualicum River. I was there and opened a hatchery the day after I was

made minister, so I wasn't totally up to date on all the things that

were happening. We are aware of the problem, but it is private land. It

is either going to have to be a matter of expropriation, or again a

question you could put to Lands. I've talked to federal Fisheries about

it, and I'm aware of their concern. It's a joint federal-provincial

project as far as the Salmonid Enhancement Program is concerned. I'm

aware of that concern, and I thank you for it.

MS. SANFORD:

Did the minister say that the government was considering purchasing or

expropriating the land now being proposed for a subdivision? He did

mention expropriation — I don't know whether he meant the land that I

was referring to — to prevent further problems.

HON. MR. ROGERS:

If I said expropriation, that's not the correct word. We're looking at

purchasing the properties. But the problem is not in just those

particular properties; it goes all the way up to the head of the river.

However, the investment in that particular hatchery — actually, it's an

enhancement channel, not a hatchery — is pretty fantastic. There's no

point making all the investment in a SEP program if you're just going

to chuck it out the window by having pollutants from farther up the

river.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I am going to deal very briefly

with three issues that I know the minister is reasonably familiar with.

I would like to have some reply on record regarding these issues.

The

first issue involves the proposed mining venture on Gambier Island. The

minister has answered my questions on this matter previously in the

House. The answer was yes, he does have in his possession studies that

were carried out by his ministry and the Environment and Land Use

Committee, the Howe Sound Committee, etc. So I know that the Minister

[ Page 3627 ]

Environment is very, very much involved in this proposed mining venture

on Gambier Island. The fact is that exploration work on Gambier is

still proceeding. I have received literally hundreds of letters and a

huge petition. I don't recall the number of signatures on that

petition, although there are relatively few permanent residents on

Gambier. There are 700 part-time summertime residents, plus the island

is used by literally thousands of children over the summer months. For

most of these people from the lower mainland it's their only contact

with wilderness areas. They are sponsored by various church groups

throughout the province.

The fact is, I feel that the

minister is really not taking a strong enough stand in cabinet, because

if by some miracle the exploration work proves up an ore body of high

enough quality to operate and open a mine on Gambier Island, the mine

will almost certainly proceed after the investment of literally

hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars in that particular

area. The Islands Trust has taken a very strong position against the

proposed mine on Gambier Island. The Islands Trust, by the way, is not

being supported by the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander

Zalm) in its efforts to stop the exploration work for a mine on Gambier.

won't go through all of this mail I have and everything else, but I

will quote one portion of the

summary of the study, "Gambier Island

Recreation and Visual Analysis Study," which the minister received

around the end of February of this year. It says: "Gambier Island could

be to the lower mainland what Stanley Park is to Vancouver." That

pretty well puts it in a nutshell. If a mine on that very small,

delicate, fragile island is allowed to proceed, that will be the end of

another of the Gulf Islands here in British Columbia, particularly one

that is located so close to a population of 1.5 million people in the

lower mainland. Of course, there are literally thousands of boaters who

utilize the bays and coves on the island as well, particularly over the

summer months.

So I'm asking the minister now to take a

strong stand in cabinet, because we know the Minister of Energy, Mines

and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland) won't. He'll allow the

mining and exploration work to proceed. So I'm asking the minister now

to take a strong stand in his own cabinet. Stop the exploration work

before those people who have already invested thousands and hundreds of

thousands of dollars invest a great deal more money in a venture that

may not proceed — that should not proceed, in my view.

want to make it very clear and for the record that we on this side of

the House are not opposed to mining — not by any stretch of the

imagination — but somewhere there has to be a saw-off point. And where

is that point? The Gulf Islands? Do we wreck them all with tunnels,

mines and things, or do we preserve them for future generations? That's

the question. I feel that the government has a very deep and grave

responsibility here. I'm going to be raising this issue again in the

debate of the spending estimates of the Ministry of Energy, Mines and

Petroleum Resources. I've raised it under Municipal Affairs. But as the

minister responsible for the Environment, perhaps the minister would

just go on record with an answer to that particular question.

The

other question I have is.... I won't go into a lot of detail again, but

the minister is very much aware of the proposed Cheekye-Dunsmuir

transmission line. It's going to have a horrendous effect on the

environment. That line is now currently under construction. It will not

likely be stopped in any event. So I'm not asking the minister to halt

construction on a line when it is the responsibility of Hydro and the

Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources anyway, but I do want

the minister to recognize the effects that that line is going to have

on the environment of theSunshine Coast and some of the Gulf Islands.

There

is still a very strong protest movement. I believe it is quite a small

group of people now, because the majority of the people on theSun shine

Coast, although they were originally opposed to that transmission line,

since the line is now under construction, have accepted the fact that

the line is crossing it, that it is going to be going through that

area. The protest group that is still working against this line is

trying to point out to the public of British Columbia that aside from

all the environmental problems such as the use of herbicides on the

500-foot right-of-way, the fact is that the government currently does

not seem to have any control over B.C. Hydro.

There was a

report called the Shaffer report which report suggested that the

government, before proceeding with that particular transmission line,

should carry on proper public hearings, a proper environmental study

and proper financial analysis. None of those things were really done.

There were no real public hearings. There were a number of public

meetings. The minister was good enough to come into my riding several

months ago and attend a public meeting. He handled himself quite well,

I must admit. The end result is that the line is proceeding and it may

not be justified. It probably isn't, not at this time, anyway. I am

wondering if the minister could discuss, for the record, the proposed

Cheekye-Dunsmuir transmission line.

Last but not least, once

again we have a minister who is very much acquainted and familiar with

one aspect of his ministry which is very vital to my riding; fisheries

and mariculture. It just so happens in my particular riding that we

have some of the best mariculture areas in all of the world, in my

view, and certainly in all of British Columbia. We have one particular

area called Okeover, near Lund, British Columbia. It is about 22 miles

north of Powell River. It is probably the finest potential mariculture

area in British Columbia.

Some months ago the ministry

announced that they were going to construct an experimental mariculture

station, which they finally decided to construct somewhere near

Qualicum, as I understand it. That is an area that is being depleted;

it is getting more polluted every year. Mariculture in that area is

being reduced. They had the opportunity of putting that experimental

station in Okeover — the finest area — where forestry have closed their

operations. We have wharves and buildings. The whole thing is prepared

and ready to go on-site right in the area. Yet the decision was made to

construct that experimental station somewhere else. I don't know if

this is correct; if not, the minister can correct me and I'm sure he

will, but I am told that the reason they decided to construct that

experimental station in an inferior location was that they had to take

an extra ferry to get to the Powell River area. The minister shakes his

head and I will accept his word on this, but the fact is it is one of

the reasons I was given.

More than that, the Ministry of

Lands, Parks and Housing — in this case Parks — is proposing a huge

park. The mariculture people and most of the residents of the area are

opposed to it. There were a number of public hearings on the situation.

The regional district has come up with an approved plan — approved, at

least, by the people affected — with five alternate sites for this

huge, monstrous park that the Ministry

[ Page 3628 ]

Lands, Parks and Housing is proposing. Yet it appears, although a final

decision has not been made by the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing

(Hon. Mr. Chabot), that this park is going to go ahead in Okeover, a

delicate area for mariculture, which in my view must be preserved.

am once again requesting — as I have done by letter — that the Minister

of Environment protect that area for mariculture purposes for future

generations. That area will still remain open to the public. People

will be allowed to boat, fish, have access to the water and all the

rest of it. None of those recreational values will be precluded by the

regional district proposal which has been approved by most residents in

the area. But for goodness' sake don't let them proceed with this

monster of a park. Stand up to the Minister of Lands, Parks and

Housing. Don't let him proceed with that park in that fragile area, Mr.

Minister.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Chairman, starting at

the bottom, I guess, in my notes, it is a demonstration farm, not an

experimental farm. Because the great majority of the growers are in the

Baynes Sound and Denman Island area, that is the decision we made.

The

reason we wanted to do that is that that is the area, in the immediate

term, of greatest increase in cultured oyster production. I took your

argument and discussed it — because I know both areas reasonably well —

with staff. But the problem is that while Okeover has a great future

potential in terms of the people that are struggling to make it in the

oyster business right now, we want to try to run a demonstration farm

as close as possible to where they exist. Some of them aren't

struggling. Some of them are doing very well, but others need more help

and instruction. Since this is the only area in Canada where it is done

on any kind of commercial basis, that is where we decided to locate.

are currently working on an arrangement with the Ministry of Lands,

Parks and Housing to have them turn over to us all the oyster leases

and oyster lease areas in the province, because it really isn't an area

where they have any expertise in any event; it is a pretty specified

area. The thing Okeover Inlet has that other areas don't have is that

it's an ideal area to go to tray culture and string culture, where the

oysters are immersed in the water for a greater period of time. The

oysters at low tide aren't growing, and that's the whole name of the

game. I hope we can come to an agreement with Lands, Parks and Housing

as to what goes into Okeover Inlet, because the highest and best use of

it, with no question at all, is to go to mariculture.

That

public meeting. I was hanged in effigy, but the meeting was really

there to discuss the location of the line as it went between the

Malaspina substation and where it crossed Agamemnon Channel. Subsequent

to that meeting, a group of the citizens who were involved in that

meeting came to see me. They said: "We think there is a dog-leg you

could take around that small lake that's up on the top of a hill behind

Sakinaw Lake." I made arrangements for them to meet with Mr. Nash of

Hydro, and we've even managed to better refine it. As you will

appreciate, the decision had already been made.

If there was

ever a case in your riding for why the government's energy policy for

complete justification needs to go through, that's the case right

there, because of the great argument we had from members, from Carl

Risingmore at one end of the spectrum — and I think you'd agree he's at

one of the spectrum, whatever that is — to the other end. The cabinet

had been convinced that the justification is there, and I concur in

that, but I think the public needs to be convinced, and that's one

thing the Energy Act is going to do.

The only Gulf Island I

know of that it is actually going to cross is the one I think you were

once a resident of, and that is Texada Island — well, and Nelson Island

as well. There is no question that that is already in place.

Gambier

Island. Remember that there was once a mine existing in the Gulf

Islands, in comparatively recent times too. They had an open-pit mine

on Saturna Island, Saturna Lightweight Aggregates, as little as five

years ago. It went out of business because of the market. Your

suggestion is that we don't allow people to go look in certain areas.

We have never defined that area. We never did draw a line and say: "You

can't look for minerals here and you can't look for minerals there."

What we did say was that you can't look in a metropolitan area and you

can't look beside someone's home. As you know, if a rancher from the

Kootenay country has 1,500 acres and someone wants to go and explore on

their property, under the Mineral Act that is there. That is the risk

people take. I am sure the people who are looking on Gambier Island

know very well that they take a phenomenal risk in not being able to

meet the mineral mine guidelines.

I just can't find a way of

retroactively coming along and saying, "You've looked but now you can't

look anymore," because,