1988 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, MAY 26, 1988

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

4659 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Committee on multicultural policy. Mr. Barnes –– 4659

Carter-Ward case. Mr. Sihota –– 4659

Mr. Harcourt

Long-term-care user fees. Hon. Mr. Dueck –– 4661

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Environment and Parks estimates.

(Hon. Mr. Strachan)

On vote 34: minister's office –– 4661

Ms. A. Hagen

Ms. Smallwood

Ms. Edwards

Mr. Sihota

Mr. Long

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Transportation and Highways estimates.

(Hon. Mr. Rogers)

On vote 67: minister's office –– 4680

Mr. Lovick

The House met at 2:08 p.m.

MR. VANT :

It gives me a great deal of pleasure to welcome to the Legislature two

very distinguished constituents from the great Cariboo constituency.

Today in the members' gallery we have Mr. Jerry MacDonald, editor of

the Quesnel Cariboo Observer ,

the best weekly newspaper in British Columbia. Also we have Mr. Richard

Wright, the president of the Friends of Barkerville Heritage Society,

who is a historical author and columnist and one of the characters that

helps bring Barkerville alive every summer. I know the House will want

to give both these gentlemen a very warm welcome.

HON. MR. REID : I would also like to add my voice of welcome to Richard Wright and Mr. MacDonald.

Also

a guest in the House is a former member who saw the error of his ways,

left the confines of the New Democratic Party, went out into the real

world and became a car salesman — I think he's the richest man in

Victoria — the former MLA, Graham Lea. Would the House make him

especially welcome.

MR. MILLER : I should have to add my voice after that last introduction and say: "Thank you, Graham."

stand to introduce a woman from Victoria, Miss Edith Bartram, who in

addition to being a big help to my colleague from Esquimalt-Port

Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) in that she volunteers to work at his office, has

also been a big help to me. She is my mother-in-law, and I'd like the

House to make her welcome today.

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

Hon. members will recall that about a month ago Alex Stuart and others

were in the Legislative Assembly and were introduced with respect to a

major waste disposal initiative taking place in Nanaimo using Swedish

technology. In our presence today are two of the gentlemen representing

the Swedish manufacturers, and I'd like the House to please give a nice

Canadian, British Columbia and Victoria welcome to Mr. Lennart

Sivertsson and Dr. Jan Bergstrom.

MS. A. HAGEN :

Visiting in the House today and in Victoria are two residents of the

Burnaby North riding, Anne Smith and Dorothy Caddell, who are doing

research on women in political life. I'd like the House to join me in

welcoming them.

MR. CRANDALL : I would like to advise

the House that a very good percentage of B.C.'s artistic talent

yesterday gathered in the great Columbia River city of Kimberley to

open the 1988 B.C. Festival of the Arts. I would like to take my hat

off to the city council of the city of Kimberley, the economic

development commission and the hundreds of volunteers who have gotten

together to put on the Festival of the Arts for British Columbia.

MR. SIHOTA : Now that my good friend from Prince Rupert has managed to

get himself in the good books of his wife, his mother-in-law and his predecessor,

let me also convey my appreciation of the fact that Edith Bartram is here

today and joining her in the gallery is another volunteer in my Esquimalt office,

who coordinates all the activities there. Would the House please join me in

extending a warm welcome to Elizabeth Woods.

MRS. GRAN :

Visiting Victoria today and in the House is Dr. Stanley Fenton and his

wife, Margaret. Dr. Fenton is one of Canada's leading rheumatologists.

He is the former owner of the Langley Times

and is chairman of the pharmacy committees for the Royal Columbian and

Maple Ridge Hospitals. Would the House please make them welcome.

Oral Questions

COMMITTEE ON MULTICULTURAL POLICY

MR. BARNES :

I'd like to ask a question of the Minister of Tourism, Recreation and

Culture. Inasmuch as we are on the brink of a major breakthrough in the

province, the minister made an announcement earlier this month that he

was going to appoint a council of individuals throughout the province

who would come back in about 60 days and advise the government on

possibilities for the creation of a multicultural policy. I'd like to

ask the minister how that is going. Who are the members? What criteria

did he use in selecting these people? Is the public aware that this is

happening? It is a pretty exciting idea. I just want to make sure that

it is taking place.

HON. MR. REID : Yes, it is taking

place. We solicited from all the ethnic communities around the province

nominees for committee appointments. We have selected 20 at the moment.

The final number may be 20, but the terms of reference and the

mechanics for the activities of the committee are just being refined

now. Within 30 days, the announcement of the structure of the members

will be announced, plus the terms of reference and the criteria for the

committee's activities.

[2:15]

CARTER-WARD CASE

MR. SIHOTA :

A question to the Minister of Finance. It relates to one of the largest

scams ever on the Vancouver Stock Exchange, namely the Carter-Ward

case. It was astonishing to discover yesterday that the minister seems

to know so little about the situation. It now comes to light, Mr.

Speaker, that even today the Vancouver Stock Exchange and its brokerage

firms are earning commission and revenue from individuals and companies

directly linked in with the CarterWard scam — the same brokers, the

same houses, the same accounts.

Question to the minister,

who has done nothing to date: when does the ministry intend to take

action against the brokerage houses and the individual brokers involved

in the Carter-Ward scam? It has been three years since you've known

about it, Mr. Minister. When do you intend to take action?

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

The hon. member certainly has a fixation on this subject. I would

remind the hon. member, as I repeated yesterday, that there are

individuals associated with the Carter-Ward situation who are presently

involved in a litigation in the province of Ontario. That's point one.

[ Page 4660 ]

Point two: the president of the Vancouver Stock Exchange has publicly said

that he and his board of governors are reviewing the evidence and the circumstances

surrounding the Carter-Ward issue, and as a consequence, the issue is in their

court.

The member errs gravely. Were he to read the legislation, he would be

aware that the issue he refers to is one that is properly addressed by the VSE

board of governors, and there is a public statement that they are doing that.

If the hon. member believes it is in the public interest for politicians to

intrude into those areas prior to there being a proven evident claim that they

should — that is to say, the self-regulating organization is not able to perform

the duty — I can tell him that while that may be a socialist philosophy, it

certainly is not a free enterprise philosophy.

This

government believes that the board of governors of the Vancouver Stock

Exchange is prepared to act responsibly and will do so. This government

believes that the board of governors of the Vancouver Stock Exchange

acted appropriately, given the fact that the issues around the

Carter-Ward matter were the subject of ongoing litigation that has

taken months to conclude.

Mr. Speaker, before I intrude on your patience any further, may I just lastly

make the point that the issues around the Carter-Ward matter occurred a number

of years ago, and that the remedies that are in place now are far different

than the remedies that were in place then in terms of the regulatory authorities.

Furthermore, this government has dramatically increased the funding and the

staffing levels at the Securities Commission. Finally, as a consequence of those

steps, we have a far closer liaison with the board of governors of the Vancouver

Stock Exchange. I am confident that they will rise to the obligations that they

hold in terms of ensuring that any actions that can and should take place as

a consequence of the Carter-Ward situation do in fact take place.

MR. HARCOURT : The Minister of Finance doesn't seem to understand

the importance of this. He keeps trying to imply that the minister is able to

continue to go after the veracity of the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr.

Sihota), saying that he's going on a vendetta levelling broadsides. The

member has been referring to the judgment of Madam Justice Southin, and we are

still waiting for the minister to respond.

The

Madam Justice said that there were 21 brokerage houses and 179

accounts. It was not a scheme capable of execution without a lot of

brokerage houses involved, and I would like to ask the minister to stop

pushing it off to other people. I would like to ask him when he is

going to exercise his lawful authority to bring some stability to the

Vancouver Stock Exchange. Instead of having Peter Brown having to bring

this to his ministry's attention, Mr. Minister, when are you going to

move on this?

HON. MR. COUVELIER : It's appropriate that we should have this kind

of a discussion during question period, and I'm delighted for the opportunity.

The hon. Leader of the Opposition is absent from this House so frequently that

I can understand that he would not have heard earlier responses I gave to this

issue while they were raised during my estimates. The

first point I'd like to make is that attendance might be a better

indicator of interest in the subject on the part of the member.

After having made that point, let me remind the hon. member, in case

he hasn't read the Blues — because he certainly wasn't here to hear it

spoken in person — that if there is any serious desire on the part of

members of the opposition of this government to improve matters on the

Vancouver Stock Exchange or to correct any past abuses or errors, those

opportunities have been provided amply by my open invitation to discuss

these matters out of the public arena where a full and frank discussion

can be held regarding the degree of examination taking place, the names

of the individuals that might be involved in that exercise and the

final results that might flow as a consequence of those discussions and

examinations which I have repeatedly said are being pursued as required

by legislation and as prudence dictates. We must all be cognizant of

the fact that due process must be followed. It is easy for these

members, in the sanctity of these halls, to make these wild allegations

on the basis of street talk or else privileged communications which the

proponents know full well could not be used in a court of law without

violating confidences and exposing themselves to charges of abuse of

privilege.

As a consequence of

that, given the sensitivities around the matter and the fact that I

cannot possibly respond to these issues publicly for fear that they

would be printed by the media and therefore jeopardize the legal rights

of individuals who are entitled to due process.... As a consequence of

my inability to do those things in a public arena, I have said

repeatedly — and let me tell the Leader of the Opposition that I have

made that a public offer outside the hall and inside these chambers —

we are prepared at any time to sit down and discuss privately any

privileged information that members of the opposition may have about

specific dealings on the Vancouver Stock Exchange.

Because

they have never taken the opportunity to share that information with me

and rather have taken these opportunities to grab momentary attention

among some observers, I have to wonder what the motivation of raising

the issue is. I have to wonder whether the motivation is purely and

simply to get a headline or to try to improve the matters that they

constantly complain about regarding the operating style of the

Vancouver Stock Exchange. In the absence of any positive offer of

support or methods to seek improvements, and in the repeated raising of

these issues for the purpose of attracting some momentary attention, it

strikes me that the motivation behind the initiative is crystal clear.

If there is any real desire to improve things, then I invite members of

the opposition to share whatever privileged information they have with

me so that I can respond to it appropriately. But to the suggestion....

MR. SPEAKER :

Order, please. Would the minister take his seat? I would remind members

of standing order 47A(

b) and I'm going to read it to both sides:

"questions and answers shall be brief and precise, and stated without

argument or opinion." The Chair allows some leeway, but I think that on

both sides, the questions and the answers are extremely long and

argumentative. If the questions were shorter, I'm sure the other side

will make sure that the answers are shorter, and we can get more

questions and answers into question period.

MR. HARCOURT :

Mr. Speaker, the minister has still not said what action he's going to

take, and he can't hide behind the courts. Madam Justice Southin has

made it crystal clear that he should be acting. This is the biggest

scandal in the stock exchange history; he's had three years to act. The

courts and the regulatory bodies have said very clearly that they

cannot restrict trading. You can, Mr. Minister.

[ Page 4661 ]

would like to know if the Minister of Finance is prepared — as Ontario

had to do after the Windfall oil and gas situation in 1964 — to call a

legislative committee so that we can clean up the financial affairs as

they relate to the Vancouver Stock Exchange and the financial community

in this province. Are you prepared to set up a legislative committee to

do that task?

HON. MR. COUVELIER : The hon. members

opposite don't seem to have heard what I've been saying to them. They

have attempted to do so much damage outside the tent, any sane person

would wonder why they would welcome them inside the tent.

The

assumption you are making is that there will be no consequences as a

result of the Carter-Ward verdict being handed down. You are making

that assumption, and you are trying to create the impression that I

have some obligation to step in at this point.

I've said it

before and I'll say it again: the matter is presently before the board

of governors of the Vancouver Stock Exchange; they are reviewing the

situation. They are the appropriate people to take any action, if

action is deemed necessary. You should read nothing into failure to

respond to the moment, other than the critical necessity for due

process to be followed. You make a gross error of assumption, and you

do great damage to the public reputation of the Vancouver Stock

Exchange by making these allegations which you know are premature and

at the moment, in my opinion, totally unjustified. You make some

assumptions which are improper.

If you have any inquiries

to make, I suggest that the hon. members make a phone call. They have

told the House that they are on a first-name basis with some of these

principals. Why don't they pick up the phone and make an inquiry to

find out the exact state of affairs? I think if they did, they would

understand the truth of what I'm telling them now.

Interjection.

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

Mr. Speaker, I'm told that they have. They could not have. They

absolutely could not have and still asked the question. I am telling

the hon. members opposite that these matters are in the hands of the

Vancouver Stock Exchange board of governors, and they are reviewing it.

Are the hon. members telling me I'm misleading the House?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please. Will the minister take his seat.

You

cannot shout other questions across while the minister is answering, or

we're going to end up with a House that is totally unruly. If the

members would allow the minister to answer his question — which I think

he's done fully.... I will accept the next question.

MR. SIHOTA :

If there is any damage being done, it's by this minister not taking any

action. That's the whole point here. We have a minister, Mr. Speaker,

who doesn't understand his responsibilities. The exchange has known

about this situation for three years. This minister, if he was on top

of his portfolio, would be asking the exchange why they haven't moved

for three years.

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please. Has the member got a question?

MR. SIHOTA :

The question to the minister is this: has the minister ascertained why

the exchange has sat on its hands for three years with respect to the

Carter-Ward situation and why it hasn't taken any action whatsoever?

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

As I have said repeatedly to this House, the Vancouver Stock Exchange

board of governors and the Securities Commission people have been

obliging the investigations that were unfolding in a proper court of

law. Now that that issue has been resolved in that arena, it is

appropriate for matters to progress to their next stage.

would remind the House of the irresponsible statements that have been

made by previous members of the opposition. It doesn't take much of a

memory to remember certain comments — irresponsible comments, I might

say — made about the Bank of Commerce by a member of the opposition,

which had grave consequences in the marketplace, just as these comments

we've heard this afternoon are irresponsible.

LONG-TERM-CARE USER FEES

HON. MR. DUECK : I would like to answer a question taken on notice.

May 24 the member for New Westminster (Ms. A. Hagen) asked me about

continuing-care user fees. I would like to clarify that the daily

charge of 85 percent of the combined old age security and guaranteed

income supplement instituted on May I this year will not be changed. As

stated by my colleague the hon. Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr.

Couvelier) in his response to you, B.C. is third best in Canada for

minimum disposable income of seniors living in facilities.

The

user fee increase does equate to an annual increase of $912.50 for all

seniors. However, as was announced in the budget speech, those on

OAS/GIS are now recipients of GAIN for Seniors. Therefore, for the

large majority of our long-term care residents, their annual income

will have been reduced by $324, not $900, as the hon. member claimed.

Also, this group will not be required to pay any MSP premiums.

[2:30]

The

increase quoted by the hon. member in relation to income testing is

speculation. The ministry has announced its policy in relation to

income testing; however, I have said in the past a number of times that

there will be a ceiling on this fee equivalent to the current cost of

personal living expenses incurred in residential care. The residents

will not pay for the medical component.

The policies under

consideration at this time would ensure that only those who can afford

to are expected to contribute further toward their personal living

costs, costs that might be expected if the person were living

independently at home. As for the home support user fee, the 77 percent

of the clientele who currently do not pay user fees would continue not

to pay them. Actually, there will be some good news here for some

clients, because the number who pay fees will decline. Overall, fewer

clients will pay user fees for homemaker services than do now.

Orders of the Day

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

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

[ Page 4662 ]

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

ENVIRONMENT AND PARK S

(continued)

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

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

I'm pleased to see that the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr.

Sihota) is here, because I'd like to speak about Botanical Beach for a

minute and give you the anatomy of a park deal.

First of

all, I will read into the record a letter written under the title

"Legislative Ledger," signed by the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew,

giving his

interpretation of Botanical Beach, a new park. He writes:

"After

a year of lobbying, the Minister of Environment and Parks finally

agreed to my demand to make Botanical Beach a provincial park."

This,

by the way, was written in April, I would think, because I've had it on

my desk for a little while. He goes on to say how hard he worked, and

he says:

"While the ministry was thinking about Botanical Beach,

the province settled the Moresby Island fiasco, and a part of that deal involved

the government giving up property near French Beach to the logging interests

at Moresby. "

French Beach, he had suggested, should have been used in a swap for Botanical

Beach. Then he goes on to generally take credit for the whole initiative.

set the record straight.... I wouldn't accuse the member of misleading;

that would be inappropriate. But perhaps we can give the committee the

facts.

First of all, the first notice we had of this was in

June 1987, which is when "A" Team Logging came and made it known to us.

They were quite up front that they were going to log the area back of

Botanical Beach. Writing to us was not the member for Esquimalt-Port

Renfrew but Mr. Samuel Cook, a Victoria resident and private citizen,

Mr. Ray Nestman, a regional director for the Port Renfrew area, and

Bert Hoffmeister, one of British Columbia's and Canada's noted

environmentalists; he's of the Nature Trust. Many others joined their

voices to the list, and our diaries do not indicate any representation

made by the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew.

Secondly,

with respect to the curious comment about exchange of lands with

respect to French Beach, that does not exist. There is no connection

there. There was no exchange of timber at French Beach for any of the

loggers affected on South Moresby. The connection there is totally

fabricated or could not exist in any way.

I just thought I

would put that on the record, because I know the member wants to take

credit for his initiative — I guess when you are a new MLA you like to

do that type of thing — but in fact the credit has to go to Derek

Thompson of the Ministry of Environment and Parks, who did the

negotiating and first got this issue up to the cabinet level, and, as I

said, Sam Cook, Ray Nestman and Bert Hoffmeister. I think that should

be on the record to point out who has the correct story and who hasn't.

MS. A. HAGEN :

It would have been helpful if I had been able to follow the two members

from Victoria this morning on some of the matters that I want to raise

this afternoon, but regrettably I had a group that I was meeting with.

So we are going to be going back to some matters relating to sewage

treatment centres or facilities and also some environmental issues

coming out of garbage disposal. My comments will be very specifically

related to my area. I certainly think that the comments that I will be

making will have significance not only in my own riding but in the many

ridings that border on the Fraser River, which in lower mainland terms

is sometimes called the Fraser River trench, a term that I hadn't

really thought of. I thought of that more as something that might be

applicable in Prince George, but there is in fact a kind of trench

there that is created by that wide river delta and the mountains that

surround us.

I think I'll start with some comments about

the Annacis Island treatment centre and some of the problems it is

having with sewage treatment. I'm not sure of its age at this time —

about ten years possibly. At the time it was instituted there was

concern that it was only doing the most basic of treatment, a concern

that has continued to this day.

It's a system that's often

overloaded and that often breaks down, and certainly communities

downwind are very much aware of that situation when the incinerator is

not functioning as it should. The odours are really very pervasive. In

fact, one person said to me that the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr.

Reid) should be concerned about that because the new Fraser Bridge

passes just about over that treatment centre. As people are coming in

on sunny days, they are likely to get a waft that they're not used to

in the lower mainland. I think we have a number of concerns not only

for people who are living there but for people who are travelling

through.

I want to pursue the matter that the second member

for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) raised around treatment facilities and the

improvement of sewage treatment facilities as an economic measure. It's

something, Mr. Minister, that I'm sure that you and the Minister of

Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mrs. Johnston), who has some interest in this

region that I'm speaking about, could have some very effective dialogue

on.

The Iona treatment centre does, in a small scale,

actually capitalize on some of the byproducts of sewage treatment

through some methane manufacture. I don't know how extensive that is,

but we do have a bit of modelling of that, and certainly the

development of treatment facilities that would enable the manufacture

of methane and the manufacture of fertilizer are ones that appear to

have some very significant economic benefits.

Look at the

importance of the Fraser River. For hundreds of miles, in fact, it is a

primary fishery resource and transportation resource, and increasingly,

too, a recreation resource in our area. The need for some additional

treatment facilities in this very major treatment plant is something

that we could and should all look forward to.

One of the

issues that's been raised is around the use of a fertilizer from this

particular area. There are a high number of industrial pollutants that

may very well be either officially or in a clandestine way a part of

the material that goes through any treatment plant on the Fraser. But

it's my understanding that the use of fertilizer in forest management

is one that we could very well use. We have but to look right now at

what's happening with the extensive chemical use of fertilizer rather

than use of organic contents. We have but to look at the Prairies,

where because of the lack of organic content that soil is now blowing

away. Certainly the use of organic fertilizers in our forest industry

would be one very useful kind of development for us to consider.

I want to ask the minister whether his ministry, in cooperation with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, is look-

[ Page 4663 ]

ing

at some of the infrastructure around sewage disposal toward a much more

comprehensive treatment system with the aim, in fact, of improving the

environment and at the same time bringing economic benefits to the

province in the way of jobs and in the way of byproducts that could be

very advantageous to communities and to various industries in the

province.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : I thank the member for

New Westminster for her comments and her observations. I advised the

committee this morning, Madam Member, and perhaps you didn't hear. The

ministry has been working for some time now, well before my time and

well before the time of the current administration, in terms of it

arriving at a new comprehensive plan for the waste management sewage

stream. I have seen a preliminary presentation of that at cabinet. As a

matter of fact, it came to ELUC. I can't tell you much more at this

point until it's gone through cabinet. It's coming soon. It's imminent.

First

of all, let me give you, I guess, a bit of background. As I understand

it, we began in '86, maybe even in '85, writing to all city engineers

and that level of person involved with the waste management, and

finding out what they did, how they treated, what their expenses were,

and what their whole program was. That went on for some time. That

information has been coming in, of course, and is being collated. We've

gone to all the other agencies who are concerned about the waste

management system. The pop bottle dealers, the beer bottle people and

everybody covered under the Litter Act have had input to us. So we've

done some extensive work and are at the point, within in a couple of

weeks, of presenting a position paper publicly. It will go, of course,

to that whole constituency — all the city engineers and interested

groups. Outdoors Unlittered and the B.C. Wildlife Federation are

interested in this and, of course, the commercial people such as the

soda pop distributors, the beverage people and the beer people. There's

a very large community out there that's interested, and we will be

sending that plan of ours and looking for input.

I want to

put on the record now that when we send our report out, it will clearly

be a discussion paper. We want to tell them what we think ought to be

done, and then we want to get input back so we can arrive at an

appropriate plan. In this discussion paper we're not casting anything

in stone but in fact listing more responses from the various agencies

who are concerned with this. As I said, it's local government, industry

and, of course, the locally interested groups: Outdoors Unlittered, the

B.C. Wildlife Federation, the nature clubs and everybody. There are a

lot of people who are really interested in improving our environment,

and it's good to see that support.

In terms of your area,

Madam Member, there's not much I can say specifically with respect to

New Westminster, except that I am advised that the GVRD is also doing a

major redraft of their operating plans. We're not totally aware of what

stage they're at, but they are discussing the whole thing now and

apparently will be presenting to the Ministry of Environment and Parks

their plans for the future and ways of addressing the problems they

have now. I could, I guess, solicit more information on that study for

you now or at a later time if you wish, but I'm advised that it's

coming soon. That's all I can say about it at this point.

[2:45]

MS. A. HAGEN :

We look forward to that discussion paper, which I think you said would

perhaps be tabled within a couple of weeks, or as soon as that.

Apropos

of your comments regarding the GVRD and their drafting of a position

paper on some of the issues that are particularly under review, could

you just comment briefly on the relationship between the work they may

currently be doing and your own ministry's broader framework of waste

management discussion, which will be addressed in the paper you advise

us will be tabled in the very near future?

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

A good question. The GVRD's is essentially a liquid waste management

plan, so it's dealing specifically with sewage and the odoriferous

problems you mentioned earlier.

Our scheme is to deal with

the whole waste management stream: everything from beer bottles, pop

bottles and household garbage to recycling, such as curbside sorting

and that type of thing. We notice that although this type of recycling

and curbside sorting has been spasmodically tried in North America for

the last 15 years, we're getting to the point where it's becoming quite

a positive story and quite a positive attitude change in the minds of

people; it's becoming very popular. Delta is into this. We have 14

communities, Delta being the latest on stream to do curbside sorting

and to play its part as municipal government to try to eliminate or cut

down on the waste stream, the amount of landfill required and all the

other expenses a municipality has, and to try to recapture a bit of

money from recycling.

With all that information in place,

we will have this discussion paper out and it will deal with everything

we have to deal with in the waste stream — everything that would, say,

impact on a landfill. What's happening, of course, is that the landfill

costs are going very high, and now we're into the situation where the

GVRD has to export to Cache Creek, which is not very popular at Cache

Creek and has caused me some political problems. So we just have to

consider better methods. We reckon that by recycling paper, aluminium,

glass and all the recyclables, we can cut 20 percent out of what goes

into the landfills. The only thing left would be the wet garbage, which

is appropriate for landfill. It will cut down on the need for that type

of landfill. Of course, as landfill costs go up, we'll have to get into

more incineration projects similar to what we have in Burnaby.

there's a whole regime being developed and, I think, a whole different

mindset coming to bear in the 1980s. Probably by the year 2000 we'll be

burning everything, generating steam and doing all sorts of things that

we hadn't even considered in the 1980s.

MS. A. HAGEN : There are two questions rising out of the minister's last comments.

Just

to get back to the liquid garbage, it goes into the Fraser, which is a

provincial resource in relation to our fishery and to recreation. I'm

still not clear whether the minister is acknowledging any

responsibility lying with his ministry regarding sewage and sewage

treatment. I'm gathering from his comments that the report he is going

to be tabling is mostly to do with solid waste, if you like, rather

than liquid waste.

I'd like you to clarify, Mr. Minister,

what responsibility and role your ministry has to play in liquid sewage

disposal. I know that it's a major GVRD responsibility, but in the

broader context, the Ministry of Environment must have some regulatory

responsibilities here. From a funding perspective, the Ministry of

Environment and, as we both acknowledge, the Ministry of Municipal

Affairs have an

[ Page 4664 ]

interest,

because most of these major systems are developed with shared funding —

federal, provincial, regional and municipal. That's one question coming

out of the comments.

On the matter of waste disposal and

recycling, can the minister give us some indication of whether these

plans involve stimulation of the use of these waste materials in

economic and byproduct productive ways? Are we looking at curbside

recycling, for example, and other methods being channelled into

recycling of these products and into industry or productive economic

activity? A comment on that would be appreciated.

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

We have a couple of questions there. In terms of the liquid waste

management plan being put forward by the GVRD, we don't know what it

says yet, but I approve it. That's our responsibility. We also ensure

that the public has adequate opportunity to review what GVRD wants to

do. We insist on that, and until we have seen the plan, there's not

much more we can say at this point on their new proposal, but it is our

responsibility as the provincial government agency to review the GVRD

plan as well as anybody else's.

That's our relationship in

the scheme of things in the Greater Vancouver Regional District,

although with the GVRD, it performs some of the roles that the Ministry

of Environment would normally do in other areas. For example, they do

air monitoring and other work for us, just because of their size and

the economy of scale, where you wouldn't have that in other regional

districts. The CRD doesn't have that function, for example, and neither

would regional districts in other areas. But because of the size and

the economy of scale of the GVRD, we use them quite a bit.

Their

relationship to us in terms of the liquid waste management plan would

be the same as any other municipality’s: they present the plan to us,

we have a good look at it, review it, and if we see some deficiencies,

we make our comments known to them. If we reckon that there should be

further public input, if we note that there might be an odour, we think

that they should present that to the people who would be affected and

do all those things that senior government ought to be doing. At least

we think we're doing all the things that senior government ought to be

doing.

As to recycling, I really can't say much yet on how

we're going to lead, by way of an incentive. In other provinces, other

countries, I think, and other ministries of environment — Ontario being

one, in the Mississauga effort that I heard about — the senior

government or the ministry paid for the curbside blue boxes for

sorting. That was 100 percent of the cost that they looked after. There

might have been other incentives that they led with to ensure that the

recycling effort was effective.

Glass now has a recycled

value; paper certainly does. Belkin, if I'm not mistaken, has just

added a third machine in Vancouver to recycle newsprint. Aluminium beer

cans have a remarkable value: they're about $1,600 a tonne now. With

that value to it, it's something that can fuel and economically drive a

recycling industry. The value of garbage is going up and up and making

it more economically viable. We're dealing now not just with the

spasmodic efforts made in the mid-sixties but with very major

industries in terms of recycling.

We predict that probably

within five years in the lower mainland, in the populated area where we

have the economy and density of scale, we'll be recycling half a

million tonnes of household garbage, which is a considerable amount.

MS. A. HAGEN :

I'm somewhat disappointed, Mr. Chairman, not to have been able to get

from the minister some greater acknowledgement of the responsibility of

the Ministry of Environment to stimulate a more extensive sewage

treatment system. That may be coming from the GVRD, and I acknowledge

that it may be a part of the proposal. What I'm looking for from the

minister is greater commitment to that kind of treatment, with the

Ministry of Environment taking a lead there. I haven't heard that in

the comments. Perhaps it's been implicit, but it certainly hasn't come

through to me in the comments the minister made. I'd really like to see

that kind of leadership coming from the Ministry of Environment,

because it's a matter of leadership and of funding and of R and D.

Mr.

Chairman, I want to move on to another topic just briefly, and that is

the matter of air quality control. As the minister knows, in the last

several months a major new waste disposal facility — an incinerator —

has become operative in the Fraser River trench area. I can see it from

my window, and I watch it with considerable interest and some

trepidation. We have been told that this incinerator has been built to

very high standards and with very up-to-date technology. I don't

pretend to be an expert in all the things that go into this. So my

questions are very much those of a layperson, but I think these are the

questions that people are asking and seeking to have some knowledge and

reassurance about.

As I understand it, the technology used

in this particular incinerator uses a very simple means of removing

acids through the use of limestone and then a vacuuming process to take

the particulates out of the air. What I'm not very clear about — and I

haven't been able to get very solid answers about — is what happens to

chemicals being burned in the incinerator.

For instance,

plastic is a very major component of waste, and I understand that

dioxins are among the byproducts of the burning of plastics. We all

know there are many things that go into the garbage that perhaps

shouldn't go into garbage. I'm not very clear that there is an adequate

monitoring. I know, for instance, that dioxin emissions are monitored

very seldom — I've been told, only twice a year — and the information

about those chemicals and other emissions is in fact not available to

the public. The monitoring being done, as the minister has noted, by

the GVRD is not made public.

Mr. Minister, your pollution

control board must have issued some permits for the operation of this

particular plant. I'd like to have some observations from you about the

kind and frequency of monitoring that is taking place and access to

information by the public so that they may get answers to their

questions and concerns. This particular stack wafts its way right up

the Fraser Valley trench and into literally hundreds and thousands of

backyards and homes in the greater Vancouver area.

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

I enjoy this stuff, Madam Member, because I didn't do much science in

school; it had a tendency to put me off my lunch. But now that I'm in

this ministry, I'm quite enjoying it.

In terms of the

incinerator, to begin with, we did the pre-testing — what we call

base-line testing. We sampled soils before the incinerator was fired up

so we knew what the ground was like, because anything that's going to

be produced by this incinerator will be something added. So we take the

ground prior to the incinerator being fired up, and we test; we take

soil samples all around the area. We monitor

[ Page 4665 ]

that,

so we know what we're dealing with, prior to the incinerator being put

in place. Now that we have those baseline results, and the incinerator

is fired up and working, we are going to do post-testing on a regular

basis.

[3:00]

Dioxins are a

concern; there's no question about that. We have the knowledge that at

1,100 degrees Celsius the dioxins will be burned. As a matter of fact,

one of the tests to quantify that was done in a recovery boiler in a

pulp mill in Prince George. We know generally that at 1,100 degrees

Celsius we are eliminating dioxins. If we know that to be a fact, then

we don't test for dioxins much anymore. What we do is continually

monitor the burn. We know that if we have continual monitoring of the

burn — calibrating the stacks is what it is called — and if the

temperature is always 1,100 Celsius or higher, we're eliminating the

dioxins. Once you have established the remedy, you don't really have to

monitor for the dioxins; you monitor for the procedure. As long as the

process is carried out correctly, we feel pretty safe that we are

eliminating the element we want to get rid of.

In terms of

access to that information, I don't see why we couldn't put a public

knowledge regime in place to indicate times when we may have been out

of compliance or to indicate what we're finding from our post-testing

in terms of soils. We know it's state of the art; it has a state of the

art permit that we have put in place — very sophisticated — and I

wouldn't have any problem with making good, accurate information

available.

MS. A. HAGEN : I'd like to follow that up with the minister in correspondence so that we could see that happening.

One

final question on this matter. This has provided a basis for some

further discussion that I may want to engage in with the minister

through communication. You mention baseline testing of soils. Has there

been any consideration of baseline testing in terms of health? In a

sense this is, as the minister has noted, a state-of-the-art

incinerator and in that particular area we are concerned about any

potential damage that might occur around health. This would have to be

a longitudinal study; there is no question about it.

Has

there been any consideration of doing some of that testing so that

there could be a follow-up for the benefit not only of this particular

project but for any further projects that might be considered in other

parts of the province, or, in fact, in other jurisdictions altogether?

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

It would be pretty tough — and this is probably not an answer that is

going to be acceptable to those of you who live in the area — to

monitor for any impact of that incinerator on the health of the people

in the area because there are so many other factors — automobiles, for

example — that are going to cause you more problems than that plant. I

don't know if we could ever get a handle on what that plant is going to

do outside of what we're doing now.

If there was something

significant in a circumference of so many miles, and it really stood

out as statistically significant, then we'd have to have a look at it.

I think, given the variety of pollutants that are in the area because

of many other sources, that type of testing would be difficult to do.

Let me put it this way: the incinerator is far cleaner than a lot of

other things you have there in that area, cars just being one of them.

MS. A. HAGEN :

I can't resist; the minister gives me the opportunity. Perhaps the

minister would make one final comment around continuing concern about

industrial pollution in the Fraser River. I don't have specific

examples to cite in our discussion today, but the whole issue of the

control of industrial pollution along that river is just a

long-standing one that a number of organizations monitor very closely.

It's coming back full circle to the first questions I was asking around

the Annacis treatment plant.

We've got some pretty exciting

examples of what has been done in other jurisdictions to improve really

dirty, dirty — not to put you off your lunch — rivers. That is a very

beautiful river. There are many changes occurring along that river in

terms of its mixed use not only for industry but housing. Of course, it

is a major river as far as our fish resource is concerned. I must

confess when I go down to the dock and pick up my annual stock of

oolichans, I sort of wonder about my own lunch a little bit at times.

What's happening there? What are your concerns? What are you doing

about it?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : First of all, just for

a little bit of light humour, a lot of the brown stuff you see in the

river this time of the year is my riding. It's mud from Prince George

and it's good, healthy Prince George mud.

The Fraser River

in the New Westminster area has been a concern for some time. I guess

the most notable initiative we've taken would be the banning of the

anti-sapstain chemicals, which was an initiative taken last September

by this ministry and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, where we

told the sawmill people, particularly the people in your part of the

province, that they had to change from the PCBs to other approved

chemicals, and they had one year to do it. That's in place now. I guess

that's our most significant effort in terms of discharge into water. We

monitor that all the time from all the sources who have permits and we

try to ensure that those standards are maintained.

But to

answer your question about our initiatives, I think the anti-sapstain

one was the most significant because there was without question a

significant fear that there could be danger to the health...a concern

about the increase of PCBs in the food chain — that is, the oolichans

and other sand crabs, and that type of animal that inhabits the sludges

and the river banks. We noticed that, and we had to bring that change

into place. That's something that has been put in place. As we monitor

and discover other elements in the water and we discover their sources,

such as in this case the sawmills, we will be bringing those

corrections into play.

MS. SMALLWOOD : I just have

one little question to follow up on the comment of the member for New

Westminster (Ms. A. Hagen) about the Fraser River before turning the

mike over to our other member who wants to talk to you about

privatization in parks.

My question has to do with the

Canadian heritage rivers system. This is a program that.... I've got a

status report here for April '88: "The objectives of the CHRS are to

give national recognition to the important rivers of Canada, and to

ensure long-term management which will conserve their natural,

historical and recreational values for the benefit of Canadians now and

in the future. "

The information I have is that B.C. has

refused to participate in this program. Can the minister give us any

information about that, about why B.C. has refused to participate? It

would seem that such a program may help focus some of the attention

that the member for New West-

[ Page 4666 ]

minister was talking about and the needs around the Fraser River, for instance.

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

The CHRS is the Canadian heritage rivers system scheme. It's never been

really apparent to us what the major benefit of this would be. We're

still looking at it. We're not closing the door on it, but I think we

want some more information and maybe a bit more study to really tell us

where the benefit of indulging in this program would be.

MS. EDWARDS :

Mr. Minister, I want to bring up first of all the issue of the Columbia

River Treaty and the reservoirs in British Columbia, most particularly

the Koocanusa reservoir and the problems that are being created for the

recreational users of that particular sometime lake.

The

Columbia River Treaty, as we have said before, was signed on the basis

that its major benefits would be for power generation and flood

control. On that basis, both the U.S. and Canada, but Canada in

particular, put together a number of reservoirs, filled the reservoirs,

destroyed some good farmland and made a number of sacrifices that we're

not going to go into. The point is that those sacrifices and the losses

that were required in order to create the Columbia River Treaty dam

system were sold on the basis that the reservoirs would create a major

and valuable recreational resource.

The problem is that

this recreational resource is currently under threat. I have asked you

before — and you have responded to me — about what the parks branch has

done and mainly about what the British Columbia-Canadian entity has

done, which is B.C. Hydro, and I simply want to review. The fact of the

matter is that with the reservoir way below its normal level, it may in

fact not even be a reservoir in most of the part of Canada that it

normally inhabits this year. In fact, we may not get much beyond the

river with the mud flats on both sides, and so on and so forth.

know that you have probably been in receipt of a number of requests

from people because of the problems it's creating, particularly for the

parks branch. I'm going to talk about more of them in a minute, but

right now I will simply outline that there is this major pressure, this

demand on that lake, that cannot be met, that will be met in other

years or may not be there in other years. In fact, you may not be able

to supply the recreational resource by stocking surrounding lakes this

year. You may not be able to supply the recreational needs within the

province and within that area.

What I've been able to get

the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Reid) to do, I would ask that you

might do as well: to commit that you will contact the Canadian entity,

B.C. Hydro, and tell it — Hydro does the continuous negotiating on the

management of that water resource — that as a minister and a

representative of the people of British Columbia, you believe that the

recreational resource should be honoured and recognized and should be

considered when decisions are being made by B.C. Hydro when it consults

with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; and besides that, to commit to

setting up a system with B.C. Hydro whereby the managers of the

recreational resource itself will meet on a regular enough basis with

the people making the decisions about the water level in the

reservoirs, so that they can make the managerial decisions required in

the threat of low water and various other situations that could come

up. I don't think drought is the only problem that could come up, Mr.

Minister; there could be other situations.

There has not

been good communication between the managers in Hydro who do the

day-to-day or month-to-month managing and who know what the water level

is going to be in the reservoirs. They have not consistently, in any

way — formally or even informally — been telling the managers of the

resource, which certainly includes your parks people, that there are

likely to be, or that they expect there could be, some problems. That

is why this particular year of low level came upon people with some

surprise,

whereas the Hydro people and the engineers in the States knew

that it was likely to be a low-water year.

[3:15]

I wonder if the minister would make the same commitment that the

Minister of Tourism, Recreation and Culture has made: to contact B.C.

Hydro, saying that you, as the minister, would consider it valuable and

useful that they take into account the recreational value of those

reservoirs when doing their planning, and that they set up a system

whereby they would be in regular enough contact with the managers of

the reservoirs. The managers would know, along with the Hydro people,

all the events that could happen to impact on the management of the

reservoirs.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : For the benefit of

the committee, I'll just bring in some general background on this Lake

Koocanusa. It's a hybrid term standing for Kootenay, Canada and the

U.S.A. The member was the first one to tell me of this and I thank her

for that. It's a bit of knowledge that I was not aware of until the

member told me — with all the briefings we get and everything.

any event, it was created when the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

constructed the Libby Dam in 1973. It has terms and a method of

operation. As a matter of fact, Tom Johnson, my deputy minister, is on

the permanent engineering board, a board of engineers that sort of

supervises what B.C. Hydro and the American equivalent are doing. It's

a bit detailed, Madam Member, but I'll have Tom send you something on

how they work and what their management scheme is. It's a program of

water levels negotiated six years in advance. It's part of the whole

Columbia River Treaty and something that we are stuck with.

The

member raises a real concern, and as the Minister of Environment

responsible for fish and also for a good, clean environment, it is a

concern that I have as well. We are advised, though, that the reservoir

is 30 feet above the minimum level, and that's all we will be drawing

this year. We are not generating any power from it; we are just keeping

enough water there to maintain fish flows. This has been a difficult

year because of snow factor and higher-than-expected power demands, but

we are still well within 30 feet of the minimum licence requirement, so

I believe we are okay. I do acknowledge the member's concern and that

of the people who live in the area. I wish there were more I could do

about it.

I will undertake to have the member given the

terms from Mr. Johnson, our member on the permanent engineering board,

so she can understand the relationship between that board, the American

operator and B.C. Hydro. That, in written form, may better explain how

things work, and the fact that they are giving permits on their levels

on a six-year basis. It's just not all that easy. It's not something

that, standing in this House right now or sitting in my office as

minister, I can address immediately, but I'll provide the member with

as much information as I can, take her concerns

[ Page 4667 ]

to heart and advise the committee that I understand clearly the concern that she has.

MS. EDWARDS :

I have been studying for a number of months, and I followed the

development of this treaty dam and the reservoir and the whole thing at

the time it was built. I have a fairly clear idea, I believe, about how

the decisions are made. I know that it's in the treaty that the two

entities, the one for the U.S. and the one for Canada, must put forward

every year a five-year plan so that it will follow into the sixth year.

I know all of these things. The problem is that the treaty designates

that the major uses shall be power generation and flood control. I am

not asking that the minister take that away. That is the main reason

for the Columbia River Treaty dam system. Flood control is another

concern, partly in the Creston area but mainly in the U.S. The

situation is that there is some other generation that can be done over

and above what was originally planned. Of course, the U.S. and Canada

do that planning on a five-year basis. They also do some short-term

sales, which they decide approximately each year or sometimes in a

shorter time.

Why they are making those decisions, Mr.

Minister, they are not now required to consider the recreational value

of the reservoirs. I am asking that the minister tell B.C. Hydro that

for your ministry, you would like B.C. Hydro to consider the

recreational value before it makes some of those decisions that are

optional decisions. Many of the residents in the Libby area, in Montana

and in Idaho have been making exactly this case to the U.S. Army Corps

of Engineers. In fact, they have had very good commitment from the Army

Corps. The Army Corps has extended boat launches so that they will be

down to the reservoir this summer; they have accepted that recreational

function.

I know that somehow or another this recreational

function is probably going to end up, in this country, in the hands of

the ministry. What I'm asking is for a process whereby the management

ministries know a bit ahead of time, which they don't know now because

they do not meet regularly with that.... There is not a formal

structure for passing that information back and forth. I'm also asking

that the minister make clear that he wants the recreational value,

which was the basis for telling the citizens it was a good idea.... It

is a value, and B.C. Hydro should consider that in their planning. I'm

told by various people in the Corps of Engineers that they are

sometimes even more willing to recognize a recreational value than B.C.

Hydro is.

This is not a big step, but it could lead to a

consideration for the recreational value, which then perhaps would not

be in such an emergent situation as it is this summer.

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

First of all, the management has two clear responsibilities: power and

flood control. Those are the only two items they can deal with. They do

discuss fish and try to assist each other in fish. We could negotiate

for a recreation water benefit, but it would be very expensive. Water

does have a price to it, and I don't know if the taxpayer would be

willing to spend that recreational dollar to ensure that there was

always recreational water. That would be very pricey water and water

levels from time to time.

In terms of the work the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers does in helping build boat launches and that

type of thing, that's admirable. I don't know if we'd want to

anticipate that. It's a good suggestion, but we may have other uses and

priorities for spending in British Columbia. One can applaud the Corps

of Engineers, but then one has to remember the United States doesn't

have medicare either. Everything has a saw-off, depending on the fabric

of your society.

In terms of the discussion, the member has

a good point and I agree with that. Probably B.C. Hydro, which does

know a year in advance what the levels are going to be, should be

persuaded to give the residents some notice. I think that's a good

suggestion. I don't have any problem with that at all, and we'll look

at that. We can't change the level, but we can certainly be a bit more

courteous — or Hydro can be — and we'll make that suggestion. As I

said, Mr. Johnson is involved with this. I'll bring that up as well,

that letting the residents know what the water levels are going to be

is a courtesy they could extend to you. They have that knowledge a year

in advance. It's not hard to arrive at, and there's no reason why you

shouldn't have it. I'll accept that part of your concern.

MS. EDWARDS :

Thank you, Mr. Minister. I think your managers need it too. Of course,

it's always dependent on the precipitation too, but the actual amount

that will be drawn down and that they expect, I think, should be given

to the managers regularly. It's not just your ministry; there are a

number of other ministries who should be involved and who should know.

might also point out to you that to suggest that Hydro can only deal

with power generation and flood control is to ignore that tiny fraction

of a percentage, I guess, that could be considered.... Even in the

treaty there are some clauses where you can make some consideration for

consumptive use, which means the use of water for domestic, municipal,

stock, irrigation, mining or industrial purposes. If B.C. Hydro can

consider those particular functions.... Sometimes they are not allowed

to, but there is a clause where it can, under certain circumstances, be

considered.

The

preamble to the treaty says it is for the

greater wealth and happiness of our respective nations and that the two

treaters are desirous of achieving the development of resources in a

manner that will make the largest contribution to the welfare of the

peoples, etc. Because of that kind of thing, and also because of the

various notations throughout the treaty which talk about notes which

can be exchanged simply between the two.... It's not that simple; I

don't want to oversimplify it. All I ask is that one step would be for

you, as a minister, to tell B.C. Hydro that the consideration of

recreation as a value is something that you, as a minister, would

support.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : I'll be more than happy

to do that, Madam Member. I'll be more than happy to ensure that

courtesy is extended. I can't force anything on the agreement though.

It's a 30-year agreement. We'll do whatever we can in terms of

jawboning and asking the participants to be courteous, give advance

notice and think about other concerns than just power and flood control

and the other items they may negotiate. That's as far as I can go, but

I do welcome your input, and I think you've made a very good point.

MS. EDWARDS :

I simply would say that I don't really think you would be pushing it

beyond what the treaty can do. If that is the feeling of this

government, I think they can do that.

One of the circumstances this summer is that because of the low water there's going to be even more pressure on the

[ Page 4668 ]

Newgate

area, which is currently an unmanaged area. There has been an

application, which I understand was approved by the divisional

management committee this morning and is on its way to your office, for

the establishment of a Newgate park. All the minister has been able to

do this summer is to put in two toilets. At one meeting I was at with

residents, B.C. Hydro thought they might be able to put in another

pair, because the largest part of 18,000 campers who use that unmanaged

area.... It will probably be less this year because of the low water,

but there are thousands of campers who come into this unmanaged area.

There they are with no particular place to put their campers. They

don't have a water source, and these will be the only toilets for

several thousands of them. Last year people couldn't walk into the

woods for human feces, there was vandalism, the residents were bothered

by people wanting to use the phone and wanting to borrow gasoline, and

all-terrain vehicles were ripping up the hillside. It has been quite a

mess.

The citizens are extremely anxious that there be some

resolution on this. As I understand it, since it's been approved by the

divisional management committee and is going to.... Do you know if it's

on its way? Can I take some good news back to the residents of Newgate?

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

By all means, yes. The area is going to be designated as a class A

park. We're building a boat launch. It's not going to do you much good

if the water's low, but we are building a boat launch and some

campsites, along with sanitary facilities to accommodate the fishermen

who wish to access the reservoir. I understand the fishing is

excellent. That's the extent of our plans for this year for Newgate.

[3:30]

MS. EDWARDS : You said this year?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : Yes.

MS. EDWARDS : Excellent. I'm very pleased about that,

go to news that isn't quite so good, I have had a number of phone calls

and people coming up to me on the street after the long weekend. Many

of the campsites in our area were virtually unsupervised over the long

weekend. I tried to find out why that was so, because people were

phoning me particularly about the Koocanusa campsite, which was one of

the major problems. People were parked all over the parking lot; there

was vandalism, and one of the picnic tables was burned. In other

campgrounds there were facilities that some of the citizens had built

themselves in the days before they were even classified as parks, and

they were up there feeling extremely angry about the lack of

supervision. I understand there were beer cases on the beaches and so

on.

I'm told the reason is that the ministry is at skeleton

staff, that in fact no fees were collected for these parks over the

long weekend, and that there will not likely be any collections of fees

— except for this extremely small skeleton staff — until perhaps the

July 1 weekend. Could the minister please explain what happened, and

why these campsites are going basically unsupervised?

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

We're going to be starting a self-regulating — that is, the honour

system or pay-in-an-envelope — system beginning today or in the next

day or two with full staffing, as the member has indicated, on the July

1 weekend.

MS. EDWARDS : You say "staff," Mr.

Minister, but I believe that it is permittees operating the campsites.

Is that correct? It's certainly not staff.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : It will be a contractor, but that's a person.

MS. EDWARDS :

Excuse me, I take "staff" to mean members of your staff, but that's not

the case. So you're going to have an honour system. You don't have the

facilities for an honour system right now, do you? I presume that

someone will have to have envelopes. Are you going to have them printed

and get them out and have locked boxes, and people can put them in by

tomorrow or the next day or by the weekend? I ask you that as a

question, but I will go ahead anyway. In fact, what I see here is a

major problem with the campsites.

One of the private

operators near the Koocanusa campsite was extremely angry because he

feels that had the campsite been supervised, a number of people —

obviously way beyond the reasonable limit that should have been taken

at that campsite — would have gone to his campsite. Perhaps he will

contract to do the other; I have no idea. But right now, not only are

we having the campers and the tourists angry, but we've also got the

private operators — who you say are going to be all very happy with

this move — now angry at the province and at what's happening.

what's happening there, Mr. Minister, is that we have a skeleton staff.

In fact, I understand — and this comes from your ministry — that there

will be a cut of 140 FTEs this year in your ministry. A senior

administrator told me that the 140 are nearly all because of

privatization of the park sites and early retirement. Is that correct?

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

It probably is. I can verify that in a moment. Yes, that sounds about

right. We are privatizing the services to.... That's right, a decrease

of 142 parks and outdoor recreation — to a total of 69. So a little

under half of that number you've given are a result of privatization of

the parks. Those services will be contracted by the private sector. By

and large, as you and I know, there is the collection of fees, the

pickup of garbage, the provision of firewood and doing the various

things that people do to maintain a nice campground. I think they can

be done very well by the private sector.

MS. EDWARDS : Are any of the early retirement people going to be replaced? If not, I would ask you to elaborate on why not.

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

We've got some numbers. There's no question that the early retirement

offering generally throughout government was very well subscribed to,

and a lot of us have ministries that look like Swiss cheese. We're

filling in. We filled in immediately in our case with those people who

are immediately essential to the safety and well-being and proper

operation of the ministry. Conservation officer service, for example,

was up to full strength just as quickly as possible and is at full

strength now, with all transfers and placements being made to ensure

that the service went uninterrupted.

[ Page 4669 ]

terms of the early retirement people that we have confirmed, there are

109. Out of the people to be replaced, there are 52. The rest will be

looked after by privatization or other initiatives.

MS. EDWARDS :

Perhaps the minister would explain to me how the privatization in

campsites is going to work. How are these permittees going to be

contracted?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : It's a pretty

straightforward program. It's been in place since 1983. Of the 208

campgrounds, we have, I think, 158 or 156 that are privatized now in

terms of their services. Really, I don't think, unless the member has

specific questions about what we do when we.... A park pretty well

operates itself. It's the park that is the selling feature.

What

the ministry provides is maintenance such as garbage pickup,

maintaining the picnic tables and all that type of thing, providing

firewood, taking out the garbage. It's really a service sector to the

campground. That's simply done by a private contractor as opposed to a

government employee. We believe those employees with the parks service

are better suited to management and supervision roles and ensuring that

the contractor is being supervised and is doing the job properly. Those

are the types of key staff and core staff that we want to keep, and the

other services can quite handily be done — and according to our

information is more efficiently done — by the private sector. That's

what happens. It's really not new.

I know there was a story leaked to the Vancouver Sun . It struck the Vancouver Sun

by surprise that we were doing this type of thing. In fact, they had to

admit later that we've had privatization in the parks systems since

1983 and it's quite a significant operation.

MS. EDWARDS :

First of all, it has been suggested to me that what is happening is not

the same thing that's been happening since 1983 in the parks. The kind

of contracting out there was a service contracting-out. Now what you've

got are permittees who will have, as I understand, a permit for two

years' operation of the park site. They will do that by bidding on a

contract. I don't know what kinds of protection there are in that

contract. At the end of two years, they will have the option to bid on

another three years, which gives them five years to be permittees to

operate this site in our parks. As I understand it, that is quite a

different thing from contracting out services. Despite what we may

think of contracting out services, this is a brand-new thing.

If you're surprised at the Vancouver Sun

and that I, when I brought this issue up in this House, was surprised

that you were thinking of privatization at the time that you were, and

you said you hadn't made a decision, and then we discovered that the

tenders were called back in April, that they will all be tendered out

by the end of June and that in fact you expect a whole private system

to be in order by the first of July, I have to ask you what kinds of

protection there are for the users and for the owners of those

campsites that there will be reasonable access to the parks and

reasonable maintenance of the facilities. I understand that the

ministry is building more and better campground facilities. They are

installing showers and those kinds of things at various campgrounds

before they hand them out to the permittees.

Perhaps the

minister could be a little more clear as to what the value is in this

for the campers and for the owners of the resource?

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

I'll take a bit of time here and we will also send the member a sample

contract, because she makes a good point. Here are the principles that

are adopted by the parks branch and have been adopted by me and that

will be the principles we will apply for this type of privatization.

They will be adhered to quite stringently because the parks are not

going to be sold. The owners of the parks are the people of British

Columbia, and we have a responsibility to that shareholder. I will read

you the 12 principles that we did adopt, because they are significant

and I think will maybe allay a lot of fears.

"Provincial

parks are designated and managed to preserve particular places of

natural beauty and historical value which are of lasting importance to

the province of British Columbia for the inspiration, recreational use

and enjoyment of the public.

"B.C. Parks,

under the authority of the Park Act and the minister, is the agency

responsible for the management of all matters concerning the park

system.

"Preservation of park heritage values

is the ultimate management priority, and in the event of a conflict

those values take precedence over the provision of recreational

development and services."

Heritage values — to repeat — take precedence over recreational development and services.

"The

private sector may be invited to provide facilities and goods and

services in provincial parks for public recreational use and enjoyment.

If, in the opinion of the minister, such private sector involvement

results in the maintenance or enhancement of desirable recreational

opportunities in terms of quality, quantity or cost-effectiveness, such

invitations will be given appropriate public visibility and

distribution.

"All members of society have a right to free and reasonable access to provincial park lands.

"Commercial

operators within provincial parks will not impair the public's right of

free access to and within such parks, except as may be reasonably

required for proper conduct of their business,

"All developments within a provincial park must be consistent

with the approved objectives for that park.

"Park land and resources will not be sold.

"The

province will prescribe and control standardized campground and other

park user fees. Fees for additional services offered under permit —

example, boat rentals — will be submitted to the province for approval,

"The

employer will fulfill the obligations it has with its employees under

the collective agreement. Where there are existing service agreements,

B.C. Parks will offer contractors the opportunity to continue to

provide those services in 1988.

"Letting of

agreements for the operation of an entire park unit — that is, the

whole park. entire campground or day-use area — will not convey to the

operator any rights other than those specified in the public tender and

subsequent permit.

"The approval method by

which a private operator will liaise and report on all aspects of any

agreement will be through the district manager responsible for the park

in which the permittee is authorized to operate."

[ Page 4670 ]

Those are our 12 principles, and we will be adhering to them.

MS. EDWARDS :

Does the minister see any possible conflict between the reasonable

exercise of his business...? I'm not sure if that's exactly how it's

put. In other words, no person shall have his access limited except for

the reasonable operation of the business. It seems to me that there is

a danger there. Is there any more definition of that? Does the minister

have any expectation that there might be a problem with an operator

saying it's going to cost this much to run this park, which really

pampers a particular income level, for example?

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

Yes. What we mean by that is that because the public owns the park, the

public must have right of free access. However, it will be reasonable

if a campground operator is collecting fees for the campground part of

that park to deny access to that part of the park where, in fact, we

charge a fee. We charge a fee now for people to camp there, and the

operator may want to have control over that area that they are

responsible for and that they are earning a living from. That's what we

call proper conduct of their business.

Overriding that is

the principle that all the public has the right of free access. You

could, I guess, to take this to its logical conclusion, drive to a

campsite with your car and say: "Listen, the minister has said I have

free public access to all of the park, which includes this spot right

here, and I am not moving." The campground operator, that private

contractor, would have the right — because that happens to be his

business, that spot — to ask you to leave. He can't tell you to get out

of any other part of the park. That's what we mean by that principle

there. I think that's probably the best example I could think of.

[3:45]

MS. EDWARDS :

I think it might be a case, particularly if you hit a back-country park

— for example, the Elk Lakes in my area. If you drove up to the Elk

Lakes Park and couldn't afford to camp in the campsite because the fees

were so high, then you would virtually be denied access. What I am

asking the minister is: how is he going to control the fees?

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

Good question. It's a standard park fee throughout the province, on the

schedule of $6, $8, $12 — whatever it is. The contractor can't vary

them.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : Yes. It's the standard fee schedule, depending on services provided. That's a standard regime.

MS. EDWARDS :

I want to go to a different park problem that I've had brought to me by

a constituent of one of your colleagues who has not yet had an adequate

answer. It deals with the privatization of Cypress Provincial Park.

This

person wrote a letter to you. You may even have answered it; I believe

you did. Have you not yet answered his questions? His questions are: he

understands that you have leased the commercially useful part of the

park for $500,000 on a 50-year lease. I don't know if those figures are

correct, but I believe they are. If they are wrong, would you please

tell me? He says that the operator then returned to public use a small

toboggan area, and for that the provincial government took on the

responsibility of clearing two parking lots. It didn't really decide to

do the clearing itself, but it would pay the operator to do the

clearing of two parking lots in exchange for the fact that this

toboggan run had become again open to the use of the public.

What

I'm also told is that there is an exorbitant amount of money that the

provincial government allows that operator for clearing the lots. There

is also the question of whether they do or not, but I would like the

minister to respond. The amount, I am told, is $157,000 a year; it's

tied to inflation and it could go up. That's a considerable amount more

than the private operator is even paying the province to have the whole

part of the park that he operates with the cross-country ski runs and

everything like that.

My question to the minister is: is

this another of the possible ways that privatization is going to

operate, with the operator paying $500,000 over ten years and then

getting $157,000, more or less, per year to clear two parking lots? And

we'll argue about whether he does that or not later.

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

No, the proposal that we are undertaking now is... By the way, the

member's figures are correct, but the proposal that I am undertaking

and the regime that we have for privatization in allowing the

permittees to proceed under the principles that I read earlier will not

be the same as this. We will not follow that model that was put into

place some time ago, in 1984 — a different minister, a different

administration. Our program will have very little bearing on this.

MS. EDWARDS : Will you then be able to correct this situation?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : No, we've got a contract for 50 years.

MS. EDWARDS :

Are you suggesting that.... All right, the operator can operate for 50

years, but there is nothing that the province can do except continue to

pay at a rate of six figures for cleaning parking lots in the winter,

and that will go on as well as the lease?

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

We used to pay $419,000 a year for the operation and we are paying less

now. The other thing that we have seen, because of investment and the

increase in activity, is that the value of improvements is now $2

million, which still belong to us. The permit belongs to the people of

British Columbia. The permittee is going to be operating it for another

46 years, but nevertheless we have seen a remarkable increase in the

dollar value of our provincial asset and the revenues stemming from

this have more than tripled, from half a million to $1.8 million. It

has caused an awful lot of very good economic activity, and by and

large, as I examined the information sheet here from 1984, it looks

like a reasonably good contract.

It's really after the fact

now. It's not our current style of privatization, because we are just

talking about permittee service contractors, as opposed to something

like this, which is far larger and, of course, is a far longer permit

too.

MS. EDWARDS : I'm not sure what you mean by revenue. I assume you mean that the operator's revenue has

[ Page 4671 ]

increased,

that it is three times larger than what the province's revenue used to

be. I don't know what revenue now comes to the province. I assume you

take some tax off, and I don't know whether you meant that had

increased or not, but the suggestion is that the brochure for the area,

when this gentleman was there, had advertised 26 kilometres of daily

groomed-and-packed ski runs. About half of them were abandoned and in

poor condition, and he didn't see any first aid or safety patrols. What

kind of monitoring do you do on this operation? Are there other

operations in the province that were done at the same time in the same

way that this contract was done? What monitoring do you do, and who

decides that it's doing fine?

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

Mount Seymour and Manning Park were also done at the same time as

Cypress. We do some monitoring, and Transportation and Highways does

the monitoring when it gets to ski lifts and that type of mechanism.

MS. EDWARDS :

It's odd to me, Mr. Minister, that if you do the monitoring, and if in

fact this kind of condition occurs.... There must be something in a

contract that says that the owner, one of the contractors, has

something to say about the way the operation is carried out. If there

are runs that are in bad condition.... What if there are no first aid

stations, no safety patrols? The problem here is: what in the world has

the government got for its issue, and how can the government condone an

operation that does this and continue to contract?

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

I'd like to get current on this. The member is raising some concerns

with respect to a park that was privatized in 1984, four years ago. Her

concerns may be valid or not valid. But we are discussing the estimates

of 1988-89 and the current administration — my administration — a far

different cabinet, a different Premier, a different method of doing

things. So I find it difficult to answer, although I'll try and get

more information about Manning if the member requires it.

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

terms of dealing with my privatization initiative — the one I feel I

should be responsible to this committee for — I want to give the

committee the following answer with respect to our current plans. I

think they'll agree that this is a far better and more responsible

regime in terms of privatization. This is a proposal that is going to

people who wish to be permittees:

"The

province will retain ownership of the land and facilities which will

ensure that the type and quality of camping opportunities expected in

the campgrounds by the public are maintained."

Don't forget, we're only discussing campgrounds in my initiatives.

"Provision

of services such as grocery stores, laundromats, fast food, video

arcades, rental of ATVs and trail bikes will not be allowed."

We give a list of what you can't do:

"The

rental of canoes, boats, mountain bikes, auto camping units, horseback

riding, horseshoe pits, volleyballs, badminton equipment and the sale

of fishing equipment are services which may be allowed. Each agreement

will clearly specify those activities which are or are not appropriate.

This arrangement will allow the operator to apply his business

expertise to improve campground use and the efficiency of his

campground operation."

Here's the important thing. I think the member will take some comfort from this, and the public as well:

"The

terms of the agreements will be mainly for two years, with a renewal

option for a further three years, providing satisfactory performance.

Initially a few permits may have one-year terms. These terms likely

will preclude any interest by an operator to fund major improvements.

The longer-term strategy will be to work toward terms of five years or"

—maybe — "greater."

So we are not entering into any

long-term initiatives such as Manning. We're ensuring that we are

maintaining very tight control over the operation, the length of the

lease and all operations that happen within that campground. Don't

forget that this is only a campground permittee situation; it's not a

larger park operation such as we experienced at Cypress.

MS. EDWARDS :

Mr. Chairman, the question is not whether you did the 1984 contract;

the question is how the ministry monitors contracts. That particular

experience seems to indicate that monitoring a private contract hasn't

worked very well. That's why I want an answer from the minister as to

how he is going to monitor these contracts. How is he going to monitor

these contracts on the basis that he's going to have 69 fewer people

working in the parks branch trying to monitor all of these very busy

campgrounds, when in fact he says that already, before this year, 158

of 212 are already privatized? Do you have the manpower, and where do

you have it written into the contract to do monitoring that is going to

be sufficient and efficient?

MR. SIHOTA : Table the contract.

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

Actually, if you had been here earlier, Mr. Member for Esquimalt-Port

Renfrew, you would have been advised that the member will have a copy

of a contract. You can't table in committee.

In terms of

the staff, the 69 I mentioned were in fact auxiliaries. These are the

people who were doing the services that are now going to be done by the

private sector.

As for management supervision, all those

staff will be there and will remain there. They are very competent park

administrators, and I have no problem at all that they will do a good

job of managing and looking after the concerns of the public of British

Columbia and also regulating and ensuring that the permittees are doing

the job they are supposed to.

[4:00]

MS. EDWARDS :

Mr. Minister, may I conclude by expressing my extreme regret that this

whole process seems to have gone rolling into operation after the

season has started. We are already into the season of camping. We don't

have any supervision for the first major weekend in the year, and then

we're going ahead. Now we're going to have an honour system and so on.

I am upset by this way of doing it. I hope that there will be some

major monitoring. I sincerely hope that this high-quality and highly

regarded and renowned camping and park system in British Columbia ....

When you talk about extending the parks but not the manpower or

anything like that, I think there is a major danger there. I am

[ Page 4672 ]

one of these helpful people who think you should have more people.

MS. SMALLWOOD :

There are a few things I wanted to touch on in general about wilderness

and park designation in the province. Many of us expressed concern

during the debate on Bill 18 and the changing of the category of

designated funds that this minister is responsible for. I'd like to

read into the record a couple of comments and ask the minister to

provide more information.

During the debate on Bill 18 the

minister suggested that he would be pleased to talk about his plans for

conservation in the province and the money that he would have available

to him. The federal Environment minister has recently stated that we're

living on borrowed time, that deforestation caused by logging, farming,

ranching and mining is expected to eradicate one million species of

flora and fauna by the end of the twentieth century. Dr. David Suzuki

has predicted that the rate of habitat destruction and species

extinction throughout the world is so rapid that all wilderness will

probably vanish within the next 30 years.

We have a very

serious situation, and it's predicted by most experts that now is the

time to do something about it. The provincial government's own

committee, the Wilderness Advisory Committee, made recommendations to

government. The committee's main recommendations were to establish a

permanent advisory council and to have wilderness conservation

legislation. There are several areas that need to be dealt with in this

province, and what we have seen through the legislation that the House

just dealt with is that the minister no longer has the designated

amounts to do that.

Can the minister advise us what his

plans are for wilderness conservation, if he intends to bring in

legislation dealing with wilderness conservation, and whether he will

embark upon an intensive study, an open system of planning, that will

deal with these policy needs?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : In

the first place, you shouldn't ever quote Dr. Suzuki as an

environmentalist, because he doesn't know what he's talking about. He

is a first-class geneticist. If you want an environmental opinion in

British Columbia, talk to Ian McTaggart-Cowan. He is an eminent

zoologist, an eminent environmentalist and an authority.

Suzuki

told us that the Steller's jay was going to be extinct. He had other

gems. He talked about the bears on Lyell Island. There are no bears on

Lyell Island; there never have been. There was a Suzuki bear but not a

Lyell Island bear. If you want to quote authorities, I would suggest

you quote real ones. I'd recommend Ian McTaggart-Cowan, who is chairman

of the habitat conservation fund, if you want to quote an authority in

British Columbia, someone who knows something about the environment.

The

permanent council is a good suggestion and one that WAC recommended. I

don't have any problem with that, and we probably will be doing

something soon. There's also the Premier's round table on the

environment, and that's another appropriate body. As you know, I've

used a lot of committees since I've been minister. There was the

Shelford committee on falcons, and we have the Larkin committee at this

point, and river-rafting. I think that type of small committee of

experts, either short-term or long-term, is a really good idea. The

habitat conservation fund, which I just talked about — that committee,

under the stewardship of Ian McTaggart-Cowan, works extremely well and

gives us good advice. I enjoy working with these various groups. I

think it's appropriate. They give you good expertise and good advice.

They're on the ground, they know what they're talking about, and they

provide real information. So I don't have any problem, Madam Member,

with your concerns.

With respect to discussing Bill 18,

which is actually a bit out of order, because it's a bill that's

already been passed this session, I presume you're concerned about the

habitat conservation fund or the Crown land account. I don't have any

problems with either of them. Bill 18 was just a reorganization of a

payment process, suggested, I'm led to believe, by the auditor-general

and other bean-counters who insist that we do things their way. That's

why we have this bill in place. It doesn't really change the intent of

the Crown land account. It doesn't change at all the intent, direction

or purpose of the habitat conservation fund. I really have no concern

with that bill. It's being served well. I have an order-in-council

going through right now, of some substance, to do with the Crown land

account, and you'll be hearing about that when it's finally through the

cabinet process. The money is there, and I'm using it for appropriate

purposes in this ministry. I don't know what else I can say about Bill

18, except that it really has had no bearing upon the management

practices of the Ministry of Environment.

MS. SMALLWOOD :

Beyond slandering a citizen of this province, I would assume, and you

have said, that you agree with the basic substance of my comments. My

question to you, then, is why you are maintaining your position of

implementing the Wilderness Advisory Committee by the year 2011. You

have said that when you have implemented all of the advisory committee

recommendations, 6 percent of B.C. will be in parks, and all of the

implementation will be completed by the year 2011. Can the minister

indicate to this House why he would be turning back money from the

Crown land account, rather than using it to preserve wilderness and

establish parks in this province, even minimally to the recommendations

of the Wilderness Advisory Committee?

The minister brags

about the amount of land designated park in the province. However, by

comparison with some other jurisdictions, we are not doing that well.

Ontario, for instance, has 7 percent. They have a much denser

population, they don't have the wilderness available to them, and yet

they have a larger percentage of their province designated as park.

Alaska - now there's a wilderness state, a state that has a very small

population base. They have 25 percent of their land base in parks.

Kenya, 17 percent. Indonesia, 9 percent. Six percent is a pretty small

number. Why are you turning back money from the Crown land account

rather than preserving wilderness in this province?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : First of all, the debate about the Crown land account and Bill 18 is out of order,

Secondly, we are not turning back money. The Crown land account is healthy and is doing very well.

Thirdly,

you're referring to striking the balance. We say there — you can read,

I presume — not that we will have a park system of 6 percent but that

we envisage a system of acreage that is 6 percent of British Columbia.

Now before you go trotting out Ontario numbers, you've got to be

advised that Ontario also calculates the federal parks in that number

of 6 or 7 percent; so does Alaska. So you're going to have to learn how

to separate the apples from the oranges and the

[ Page 4673 ]

federal parks from the provincial parks. If we included the federal parks in our B.C. system, we'd have a greater system.

Also,

I'm not particularly impressed with 6 percent numbers about land. We

could have 20 percent of the province dedicated to wilderness, if you

took all the mountaintops between here and the Chilcotin flats; most of

the parks would be vertical. That may make you feel warm and cuddly

because you've got a number that's 20 percent instead of 6 percent, but

it doesn't do a bit for the park system. Numbers are really hollow;

they mean nothing. It's not the quantity of the park that you want to

be interested in, Madam Member, it's the quality. Get that quality —

that's what we seek.

There are a lot of good, dedicated

people in the park system who are working towards that every day. They

have a mandate. They have a policy. They have good plans in place. They

have the funding from the Crown land account. They have funding from

our ministerial budget. The parks branch budget, you'll notice, this

year is up from $30 million to $32 million, and they're doing a

first-class job.

Don't trot out any misinterpretation you

have or your caucus has given you about Bill 18. Don't tell me about

Ontario numbers or Alaska numbers, which include the federal parks. And

try, for goodness' sake, to get your facts right.

MS. SMALLWOOD :

It's nice to see that the good old Minister of Environment and Parks is

back. I was getting a little concerned; he was becoming a little too

agreeable.

I'd like to talk to the minister about this

quality parks system he talks about, which has undergone a severe

attack by this minister and this government in the past year — the very

parks system that we've had to have citizens stand and be arrested to

protect. Let's talk about the facts. Let's talk about what we know, and

let's talk about the real Minister of Environment and Parks.

The

Minister of Environment and Parks has now got a commission of inquiry

in Strathcona. He has a commission which he has, by the terms of

reference, restricted in its ability to deal with the very immediate

needs of the people of this province. By the terms of reference, the

committee is unable to deal with native land claims. By the terms of

reference, that committee is unable to deal with acid mine leachate — a

very important issue for Strathcona. By the terms of reference, this

committee is unable to deal with the implications on other parks. It is

dealing specifically with a very narrow, small area, and yet the

decisions this committee makes will have broad implications for the

province.

You have been requested and have systematically

denied requests from people around this province for that committee to

have hearings in other parks and other communities in this province to

give the citizens a chance to have some say in what goes on in their

parks. You have a commission that, while you have been reluctant to put

it in place, does not deal with the very needs of the people who have

been standing in protection of that park.

I think it's

important for that to get on the public record. You have constantly

denied the reality that there is a legal opinion — both from Justice

Southin and the legal firm of McAlpine and Hordo — that says you do not

have to compensate the claims in Strathcona Park and that the Tener

case does not apply to this particular decision. You have publicly

stated that you got bad legal advice. So what are you doing? Why have

you not moved to deal with these claims in question? Why have you

appointed as the chairman of the commission a gentleman who has

publicly stated that he is in favour of allowing mining in Strathcona

Park? Is this an unbiased Chair?

[4:15]

The

minister wants to talk about the facts. Mr. Minister, not only will you

stand on your record come election time, but the people of this

province may very well not tolerate you eroding their parks and putting

out, with taxpayers' money, the blatant propaganda that has been

circulated prior to the commission hearing. I'd like to ask the

minister how much taxpayers' money went into the publication of the

Strathcona newspaper.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : Well, well, have we got a litany here!

Let's

begin with the whole issue of the Strathcona hearing and the hearing

process. The decision to follow the recommendations of the Wilderness

Advisory Committee was made early in January 1987. With one exception,

the decisions were followed through and met with good public reaction.

In March, I became minister. I'm not apologizing for the remarks,

comments or decisions of another minister, because I was in cabinet in

January when that decision about the Wilderness Advisory Committee was

made. We did follow through on those.

Strathcona became a problem, and I indicated two days ago....

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

Just let me finish. Strathcona became a problem, and I indicated a

couple of days ago why the public were upset. I admitted that. Looking

at the 77-year history of Strathcona, there is no question that the

residents of Vancouver Island and the lower mainland who enjoy

Strathcona were upset about the variety of uses that Strathcona had

been put to, the way it had been ripped up by successive governments

over the years, with bits of land taken out for forestry purposes,

mining claims allowed to go ahead — a variety of things that happened

to Strathcona. It wasn't very nice at all.

I met with the

Friends of Strathcona successively. Every time they wanted to meet with

me, they met with me. I did permit five test holes to be drilled in a

recreation area that had been burned out and was not pristine

environment. It had been burned, logged and mined and the roads were

through it. That's how they got there, on our mining road. It was not

pristine at all. Those are the only five permits I allowed. A whole

bunch of other permit applications came to me which I denied.

you want the background, the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann)

can tell you, because he is aware of what has happened and what my

record is. Don't try to tell the committee what you know about

Strathcona and the process, because what you're saying is not correct.

Talk to the member for North Island and he will tell you how the

process went.

In any event, we get to the Friends of

Strathcona, we get to some civil disobedience, and they said: "The WAC

committee made a report; recommendation number 4 said that there should

be a further public review of the boundaries of Strathcona." I said,

"You're absolutely right; let's do that," and I put that in place. I

used one of the members of that committee, Dr. Peter Larkin, who has

never said he

[ Page 4674 ]

favours mining — not to my knowledge and not to your knowledge, I am sure, as well....

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : I think you will have trouble proving that.

used Dr. Peter Larkin, one of the members of the WAC committee, to

chair the meeting, along with a native Indian fellow from Campbell

River, a concerned housewife from Courtenay or Comox — I forget the

exact place — and Jim Rutter of the federation of mountain climbers,

who has, I think, climbed and guided hiking tours in the area for nine

or ten years and knows Strathcona as well as anyone does, on that

committee. I don't think I could have picked a better, more

well-balanced committee, and they are in place now doing their thing.

You

mentioned they don't have the right to decide native land claims. I'm

sorry, they don't. I'm looking at boundary issues, and I know I've

heard that complaint. No, I don't have the authority, and there isn't a

member in our cabinet that has the authority, to instruct any committee

to decide on native land claims. It's been our position, and it was the

position of your government when you were government — your

administration — that land claims was not a provincial matter.

Acid

mine drainage is covered under the mine development review process —

we've discussed that at some length — and the Friends of Strathcona

know that. If they say, "We don't know about acid mine drainage," they

are not being forthright with you, because I discussed it at some

length with them and they have the process and the procedure manuals on

the mine development review committee and they are well aware of what

it's all about. Don't let Bruce Wood or anybody else fib to you,

because he has had that information in his hot little hands for three

or four months now on how that process works.

For those

guys to tell you that they don't know, that they can't discuss acid

mine drainage, or they don't know the process that the government has

in place and therefore these hearings are not appropriate, is leading

you down the garden path, Madam Member. I hate to tell you this, but

get your facts right and you will understand how this works.

terms of other parks and what the Larkin committee can look at, they

were given the mandate, as WAC had recommended, that Strathcona

boundaries be further reviewed before anything else is put in place,

and that's what they are doing. Also, we have asked them to give us

recommendations for park policy other than Strathcona, and they will do

that. That's clear in their mandate and that's published, so don't try

to tell me that it's not there,

The notion of legal

opinion: you're right, there is legal opinion all over the province,

and I am not totally convinced yet which is right. It is going to take

a bevy of lawyers, legal opinions and probably some court cases before

anyone in the province knows what the proper legal opinion is. We've

had two court cases now. We've had Tener, and we've had one at

Strathcona but it wasn't appealed. It could be appealed, and that could

set up a new format in law. So I agree; I don't know, you don't know,

there is no one in this world who knows what the final law is going to

be in terms of mining claims — whether they're pre-park, whether

they're post-Park Act, whether they are Crown-granted or otherwise.

It's a legal opinion that's all over the block and no one knows at this

point, so don't try to hang me on that one because it's absolutely

incorrect.

With respect to public process, we've had very

good public process throughout the province in terms of establishing a

park. One of the best ones happened in my area in the formation of

Tweedsmuir — a very good draft master plan, public hearings in Bella

Coola, Burns Lake, you name it, all over the place, to good avail. We

finally, after good public input, arrived at a park plan for

Tweedsmuir. It was very good and successful, well-handled and

well-managed. So we've had lots of successes.

MS. SMALLWOOD :

I'd hate to accuse the minister of having a skewed hearing. I would

bring to the minister's attention the Blues. Perhaps if you reviewed

the Blues you would more clearly understand what my questions and

comments to you were. Quite frankly, your answers were inappropriate.

Never mind getting your facts right; you can't listen right.

The

reality of your record and your attempt to manipulate history, Mr.

Minister, is that you had some 69 people — citizens, taxpayers of this

province — having to get themselves arrested before your ministry

listened to them and put in place this commission. This group of people

volunteered their time, their money and their energy to try to get this

government to listen to them, to try to get this government to fulfil

its promise of consultation, public hearings, reviews.

Every

time the Friends of Strathcona Park asked this government.... Mr.

Minister, at a time when you were Minister of Environment they came to

you and asked you for a public hearing. It wasn't until they got the

kind of publicity that they got by being arrested that you all of a

sudden saw the wisdom of setting up a commission, which did not deal

with the issues that they asked you to deal with.

Mr.

Minister, if you are truly concerned about what the people in the

Strathcona community have to say, what their concerns are, then read

the Blues and answer the questions that I put to you.

believe there are members here who want to ask further questions on

parks. Then I hope to sum up the estimates, dealing with water quality

and water quality in the free trade agreement,

MR. SIHOTA :

I want to raise a couple of issues that are specific to my part of the

world, in terms of the riding I represent. However, I wasn't in the

House when the minister was making his comments about Botanical Beach;

certainly if he had some comments I will respond to them.

will put on the record, quite frankly, that I do appreciate the efforts

the minister made in this regard. I said that to him privately in this

chamber when I walked over and congratulated him for the work on that

issue. If I recollect — I don't have it here — the column properly, I

think that the opening line dealt with the fact that I or an opposition

member went over and applauded the minister for doing it. I'm certainly

grateful for the work of the ministry's officials in this regard,

because I talked to them on a number of occasions. I think it was Derek

Thompson,

HON. MR. STRACHAN : Twice.

MR. SIHOTA :

It was more than that — certainly to the contracting company in

Parksville. I can't remember Nick's last name, but it was Nick

somebody, or "A" Team Logging.

It was a much-welcomed decision in my riding, and that's appreciated. It was raised last year with the minister in the

[ Page 4675 ]

House

during estimates debate. The minister made some commitments at the

time, and I'm pleased with the outcome. I have no hesitation in saying,

as I did in the article, that the ministry ought to be congratulated

for it.

MR. WILLIAMS : And he'll take credit in his mailing.

MR. SIHOTA : Certainly there was stuff that I did on that as well. I think that's taken for granted.

MR. WILLIAMS : That will be mailed out to every constituent.

MR. SIHOTA : That will be mailed out to Prince George for the benefit of the minister.

wanted to raise another issue that's a little bit further down the road

from Botanical Beach: the matter of the Sitka spruce trees, which, of

course, have been of some concern and some note. I'm told that there

are 300 to 400 acres of trees in that area. They are of a national

quality; we haven't really seen that type of growth elsewhere in the

country. The trees are up to 81 metres tall and about four metres in

diameter. I read with some interest the report from the Sierra Club

with respect to the Carmanah Creek drainage area. I must say that I

concur in what the Sierra Club has to say with respect to the

preservation of the area as some type of park.

I understand

what's happened to date. I understand that Mac-Blo had built a road in

the area and discovered this quite fine stand of trees. At that time

they did the proper thing — and they ought to be congratulated for

this as well — in terms of alerting the authorities and expressing

their interest in preserving this type of stand. My understanding of

the story ends there.

I'm wondering whether or not the

minister could bring us up to date on negotiations between the province

and Mac-Blo with respect to preserving that stand of trees. Where are

we now, Mr. Minister, in that regard?

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

Because it is adjacent to Pacific Rim, the feds have been doing the

negotiating at this point with Mac-Blo. Mac-Blo, by the way, did go in,

as the member said, Mr. Chairman, and then stopped the road when they

came across these significant Sitka. The federal government is

negotiating with Mac-Blo. It's fee simple land, as I understand it, and

the Ministry of Environment and Parks is standing by to assist in any

way we can. So far the negotiations are continuing between the federal

government and Mac-Blo, so we will leave it at that unless there is

something else we can assist in.

[4:30]

MR. SIHOTA :

I understand the minister to say that the province is not a party to

negotiations right now. I take it from what the minister had to say

that the province, if necessary, will become a party to negotiations in

the future. I see the minister nodding to confirm that.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA :

If you're asked. I take it that the province would be willing to

contribute financially to some kind of deal, because I'm sure that what

happens in these situations is that the owner of the lands in fee

simple will immediately assert that the value of those lands and of the

resources are considerable and there has to be a financial deal struck.

Will the minister advise as to whether the province is open to

contributing financially on this matter?

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

Boy, that's way down the line and that's hypothetical. It would be

difficult and I don't think appropriate for me to stand here and commit

financial resources. Also, the policy of the federal government is that

they want to purchase and they want to own, and they have the greater

interest for an expansion to their federal park. We'll see how they get

along. We'll see if they want to buy it, because it is fee simple.

Hopefully they will. We may be involved in some other way of helping

the deal come together but, really, I can't make a comment with respect

to a financial contribution. We have an interest; we want to see it

preserved. I think it will come together well.

MR. SIHOTA : Are you sure that it's fee simple, not a licence or some old tenure?

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

I guess I stand to be corrected. I thought it was fee simple, but it

could be Crown land. I don't have the information right now.

MR. SIHOTA :

I want to turn quickly to another matter, Whiffin Spit, which is in

Sooke Harbour. I have a letter here dated — sorry, it's undated,

although I believe it was written around May 11 — from the Minister of

Forests and Lands (Hon. Mr. Parker) with copies to me and the Minister

of Environment and Parks. I don't know how familiar the minister is

with the area, but Whiffin Spit is a spit of land that extends around

and provides shelter to Sooke Harbour. The spit has been eroding such

that there is now a gash in the spit and water coming over the top, and

the view in the community is that the spit ought to be fixed. I know

that our regional director has been moving in that regard, as well as

the Member of Parliament for the area. I'm just wondering once again if

the ministry is prepared to assist financially with respect to

remedying the breach in the spit.

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

I wish I were better informed. Actually, I should be better informed,

because Frank Mitchell used to talk about this year after year, and I

used to sit in the chair there — I used to be Deputy Speaker — but I

always fell asleep when Frank Mitchell spoke, and I don't recall.

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : At least I was here, guys. You guys used to leave.

any event, I don't think we would participate in that type of repair.

As a matter of fact, I know we wouldn't. But I thank the member for

bringing it to my concern. If I have any more information, I will

provide you with whatever I can on the subject.

MR. SIHOTA :

That's fair enough, because I know that the principal discussions have

occurred with the Ministry of Forests and Lands, although there has

been some interministerial discussions, and obviously with letters

being sent to yourself that would be the case. I will tell Frank about

what you had to say about him.

[ Page 4676 ]

The

third issue that I wanted to canvass quickly, in relation to my riding,

is one that requires a little more detail. It deals with waste

management and permits issued by the Ministry of Environment. It deals

with an asphalt plant located in the Western Communities. The owners of

the asphalt plant have made an application to relocate the plant in the

Highlands area of the Capital Regional District adjacent to Langford.

The

Capital Regional District is really a bit at fault on this matter. The

property had been zoned to allow for the location of an asphalt plant.

The current owner bought the property on the basis of that zoning,

expecting to relocate the asphalt plant onto this property in the

Highlands. After the property was bought, it turned out that there had

been a restrictive covenant on the property, limiting the use of it to,

of all things, speed tracks for cars.

The Capital Regional

District had erred in the legal description of the restrictive

covenant, so it covered about three-quarters of the property but not a

quarter of the property. When the individual who bought the property

for some $400,000 wanted to put his asphalt plant on it, he became

aware afterwards of the restrictive covenant, and the CRD chose, for

legal reasons, because of liability, obviously, to allow the asphalt

plant to go, in the sense that they would retain the M2 zoning which

would allow it for industrial use. This, of course, exposes the CRD to

legal action on the other side from the adjacent property owners who

feel that they, who bought their property knowing of the restrictive

covenant, will now be injured by the location of an asphalt plant.

The

only hurdle that remains now for the owner of the asphalt plant is the

acquisition of a permit from waste management of the Ministry of

Environment. That's fair enough, and at this time I'm not going to

stand up and say that the permit ought to be denied and get after the

minister to deny that permit. That may or may not happen in the future.

However, there are a lot of people living in the area, who are

concerned about the location of the asphalt plant at that site. The

Ministry of Environment, waste management branch, has been inundated

with representations, letters, petitions and so on from residents

wanting to make submissions on the location of this asphalt plant.

It's

my understanding that the ministry has not acquiesced to calls for a

public hearing process, arguing in large measure that this is really a

minor issue not worthy of a public hearing and that there's some

discretion vested in the regional director, who has the authority to

decide one way or the other whether public hearings should be held.

Apart

from the letters sent, it seems to me that a salient consideration

ought to be the past record of the company involved with respect to its

honouring of municipal bylaws, and more importantly from the context of

the ministry, of Ministry of Environment directives. I think it's fair

to say that its record has been terrible, so bad that this same company

has maintained for 26 years a similar type of facility on agricultural

land in Saanich, knowing all along that they couldn't do it. It was

only this week, by way of court action, that they were removed from the

area.

If the individual makes an application, it's my

understanding — I stand to be corrected on this — that the owners have

21 days to appeal. But adjacent property owners are not given notice of

the application, and hence, 21 days go by fairly quickly and they only

know of the granting of the permit once the asphalt plant is located on

the property.

I have two questions to the minister: one, of

course, dealing with the obvious matter of notice, and two, with the

matter of a public hearing. Will the minister explain why no public

hearings are contemplated on this matter? I should identify it a little

better. It's an application by Capital City Asphalt to locate in the

Highlands. Could he explain why the ministry has decided not to hold a

public hearing in this regard?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : I

wish I could be more helpful to you and your constituents with their

concern. In this case, the Ministry of Environment is a technical

permitting agency and doesn't really deal in land use or what goes. You

could build an asphalt plant on the parliament building lawns if you

got ownership and the right zoning. As long as your permit in terms of

waste and what you're putting into the receiving environment meets our

technical standards, then that process can go ahead.

terms of the appeal, as you know, there is an appeal process — the