1990 Legislative Session: 4th 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)

TUESDAY, JUNE 19, 1990

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

10427 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Community Care Facility Amendment Act, (Bill 43). Hon. J. Jansen

Introduction and first reading –– 10427

Oral Questions

Use of government aircraft. Mr. Rose –– 10427

Ms. Smallwood

Gun control. Mr. Davidson –– 10428

B.C. tree-fruit industry. Mr. Rose –– 10429

Contract for dialysis equipment. Mr. Perry –– 10429

Surgery waiting-lists. Mr. Perry –– 10429

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Environment estimates.

(Hon. Mr. Reynolds)

On vote 26: minister's office –– 10430

Ms. Cull

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm

Mr. Blencoe

Mr. Reid

Mr. G. Hanson

Mr. Gabelmann

Ms. Edwards

Mr. Jones

Ms. Smallwood

Ms. A. Hagen

Mr. Cashore

Mr. Serwa

Mr. Rabbitt

Mr. Sihota

The House met at 2:02 p.m.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

I have great pleasure today in introducing to the House Mario and

Marcella Carniel, who are longtime good friends from Burnaby. We've

known the Carniels for many years, and I'm very pleased to have them

with us today, as well as their sister-in-law Gluliana Carniel and her

daughter Toni Trevisan. Visiting them from Italy is their sister-in-law

Maria Carniel with Gabriella Durante. I would ask the House to bid

welcome to these visitors to this beautiful capital city.

Also

with us today visiting from my constituency of Richmond is Roslyn Blute

and David Lind, who are hard-working constituents. They are taking in

all of the proceedings, in the House. I would ask the House to bid them

welcome as well.

MR. REID : I'd like the House to pay

a special welcome today to a young lady from Osaka, Japan: Yuki Etori.

With her is her uncle from Surrey, who is a very strong supporter of

government initiatives, Mr. Sam Yamamoto. Would this House give them

both a special welcome.

MR. CHALMERS : Visiting in

your gallery today are two residents of the Okanagan area: Mr. Bob

Whitehead, the plant manager at Hiram Walker, and Mr. John Madsen, who

is also with Hiram Walker. On behalf of the Minister of Municipal

Affairs (Hon. L. Hanson), I'd like to ask everybody to make them

welcome.

HON. MR. MICHAEL : Mr. Speaker, I'd like the

House to welcome a class of approximately 45 grade 7 students from the

Parkview Elementary School in Sicamous, who are accompanied today by

their teacher, Mr. J. Lucas, and several parents. Would the House

please give them a warm welcome.

MR. SIHOTA : In the

gallery today is Hilary Arnott, who is a legal journalist and editor

visiting us from London, England. Would all members please join me in

giving her a warm welcome.

MRS. BOONE : Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today is Sylvia Bishop, who

comes from my hometown Of Delta. I'd like the House to greet her, please.

Introduction of Bills

COMMUNITY CARE FACILITY

AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

Hon.

J. Jansen presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.

a bill intituled Community Care Facility Amendment Act, 1990.

HON. J. JANSEN : Mr. Speaker, this bill makes a number of very important

changes to the Community Care Facility Act to enhance the health and safety

requirements contained in the legislation. This act establishes the basic licensing

requirements for facilities throughout British Columbia that offer residential

care or day care to either adults or children.

There

are four essential areas of change to the Community Care Facility Act

contained in this bill. First, the two licensing boards for adult care

and child care are being consolidated into one new body, the Community

Care Facility Appeal Board.

Second, the position of

director of licensing has been created to assume many of the

responsibilities of the former licensing boards. Third, the basic

licensing functions are being assigned directly to medical health

officers to reflect existing practice. Fourth, new powers to appoint

the public administrator for a facility have been added.

These

amendments are all designed to significantly increase the level of

protection afforded to clients of community care facilities. I am

pleased to be able to present these amendments to the House, and look

forward to fuller discussions on these matters during second reading

and Committee of the Whole.

Bill 43 introduced, read a

first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

USE OF GOVERNMENT AIRCRAFT

MR. ROSE :

Mr. Speaker, carrying on with the continuing air saga, I'd like to

direct a question to the Minister of Government Management Services.

The guidelines state that air ambulance service is the first priority

for the government's jets. Yet yesterday you told the House that the

service accounted for only about one-third of all the flights last year.

With

those numbers, would the minister not agree that the first priority is

clearly not ambulance service at all, but ministerial travel?

HON. MRS. GRAN :

Well, that's your

interpretation of what I said. Trips by government

air services for ambulance purposes amounted to 38 percent of the air

travel in that calendar year. But the first priority of the government

aircraft is always for ambulance service. If the aircraft is being used

by a minister and is needed for ambulance service, it is taken and used

for that purpose.

MR. ROSE : I am prepared to accept that, but I would like it to be confirmed.

I wonder if I could direct a supplementary to the minister, or perhaps even to the Minister of Health.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE : Well, temporarily. He sits right across from me.

[ Page 10428 ]

Last

year we were told that the government spent $4.4 million to charter air

ambulance services. Is either minister prepared to table a list of

flight times and dates to ensure British Columbians that ministerial

travel was not the reason for the chartering of private air ambulances?

HON. J. JANSEN : There have been a lot of inaccuracies mentioned by the other side of the House — and

indeed by the press — concerning the use of government aircraft,

particularly as it relates to the air ambulance. My mandate as Minister

of Health is to provide the most convenient and quickest mode of

transportation which is suited to the local circumstances as possible.

Surprisingly

enough, we have a situation in this province where we can't land jet

aircraft. We use prop aircraft and helicopters because of shorter

runways or the local terrain, and neither of those types of aircraft is

available in the government fleet.

It is, however, accurate

to say that a majority of the jet flights used are air ambulance

flights from the government service. There are priorities. The first is

that we get what government aircraft are available, the second is that

we look at what is necessary in terms of the aircraft available for the

particular use.

MR. ROSE : I am pleased with the

answer. I congratulate the minister for the velvet fog emanating from

over there. But will he release the list of the flight times and dates?

I wonder if he would care to answer that.

HON. J. JANSEN :

I think the opposition had three years of flight logs available to

them. I can tell you the breakdown, in terms of the amount of work that

we do. We use far more prop aircraft and helicopter aircraft than we do

jet aircraft, in terms of the local conditions I talked about earlier,

so I'm not sure what the member wants beyond that.

MR. ROSE :

I don't mean to be unduly persistent about that. I would like an

answer, since those charter flights are not among the logs that were

released yesterday. That's why we're asking.

I'd like to go

back to the Minister of Government Management Services. I want to be

very careful about this; I don't want to be an alarmist. But is the

minister aware that at least one death last April has been blamed by

the family on the unavailability of air ambulance services from

Vancouver to Saanich because the planes were being used for ministerial

travel?

HON. J. JANSEN : Mr. Speaker, I take offence at that comment and I'd like to take that question on notice to check that out.

would indicate, however, that there was a question yesterday or the day

before related to a young boy from Kamloops, and there was a comment

made that there was a 12-hour delay in terms of that pickup. In fact,

what had happened was that at a certain time, 2:37 hours, the request

was made for a plane and that was subsequently cancelled at 2:42 hours

on the same day. That's some five minutes later. To suggest that the

plane was delayed 12 hours is shameful.

MS. SMALLWOOD :

My question is to the Minister of Health. While the government air

ambulances are being used for political taxis, the only ambulance

equipped to provide advanced life support services in Surrey-Delta did

not operate for two day shifts on May 31 and June 1 because the

Emergency Health Services Commission refused to authorize overtime. I'd

like to know if that is acceptable to this minister and if he does not

believe that such service should be provided on a 24-hour basis.

HON. J. JANSEN :

Again, it is absolute rubbish that one would suggest that those

circumstances are in existence. In fact, because we've had shifting

problems because of illness and vacation, we have assigned other staff

in those slots. But the service has not been interrupted, and it's

shameful to suggest otherwise.

MS. SMALLWOOD : I

would ask the Minister of Health to check with his own staff. I think

you will find that, due to the fact there was not authorized overtime,

this particular vehicle sat idle for two day shifts, and that on one

day there were at least three to four heart-attack victims who had to

have a lesser vehicle come to their relief. Providing a lesser vehicle

diminishes their chances for recovery, and I'd like the minister to

look into it and report back to this House.

[2:15]

GUN CONTROL

MR. DAVIDSON :

My question is to the Solicitor General. A growing number of

handgun-related offences are taking place throughout British Columbia.

Yesterday, for example, a sub-machine-gun was used in the daring escape

at the Kent institution. Several handgun-related incidents took place

the week before. I'd like to inquire of the Solicitor-General what new

steps he has taken to initiate prevention of handguns coming into that

element throughout British Columbia. It's an alarming growth.

HON. MR. FRASER : That was a very serious question, and therefore I will give it a very serious answer.

Firstly,

gun control is in the purview of the federal authorities. But

notwithstanding that, I will assure the member and everyone else that

B.C. has taken a very aggressive stand with respect to gun legislation

and has been pushing the federal authorities to upgrade their

regulations with respect to guns. In particular, it has made a very

aggressive effort to push the federal government into controlling

semiautomatics, which can be easily converted to automatics. It is also

very concerned about the level of gun activity in the province, and

will be unrelenting in its pursuit of gun control and regulation within

British Columbia.

[ Page

10429 ]

B.C. TREE-FRUIT INDUSTRY

MR. ROSE :

I'd like to address a couple of questions to the Minister of

Agriculture and Fisheries. To the minister, welcome back from the

Okanagan. I'm pleased to see he's in one piece.

He stated

that he's pleased with the Lusztig report tabled by the Provincial

Secretary yesterday. The fruit growers, on the other hand, have

condemned the report and the minister, stating that if it's adopted it

will kill their industry I wonder if the minister has decided to follow

the advice of the fruit growers and quit?

HON. MR. SAVAGE : Mr. Speaker, that's an easy answer. No.

MR. ROSE :

Mr. Speaker, since even the fruit growers can't get rid of him, perhaps

I could address this supplementary to him. I wonder if he could assure

the House that his government will ignore the report's recommendations,

like the government does with the auditor-general's report and many

other reports. Has he decided to enter into discussions with the

federal government and the province of Nova Scotia for a national apple

marketing board such as has been so successful in milk, eggs and

turkeys?

HON. MR. SAVAGE : Mr. Speaker, as you well know — at least I hope that the opposition House leader knows very well — the

report was done by an independent commission of inquiry. The report

makes a number of recommendations. Those are the recommendations of

that commissioner.

We have proceeded to set hearing dates

for the industry to make their submissions on the nearly 50

recommendations contained in that report. I will not interfere in any

way with the suggestions that come forward to that hearing process.

Once that hearing process has had the opportunity to look at the number

of recommendations from the industry, the processors, the packing

houses, the distribution system and the retail sector, each and every

one will be given the opportunity through the several different

hearings throughout the areas — including Chilliwack as well as the Okanagan area — to

make their point known relative to where they may have some input or

concern as to the suggestions and recommendations made by Mr. Lusztig

in his commission of inquiry into whether we deal with the supply

management issue as it relates to the national farm products marketing

act. Only time will tell after the time is given for the input relative

to that inquiry.

CONTRACT FOR DIALYSIS EQUIPMENT

MR. PERRY : A question for the Minister of Health Can the minister tell

the House whether his continuing advisory subcommittee on chronic renal failure

was consulted before a contract to provide all government supplies and equipment

to home dialysis patients was awarded to Baxter Travenol without a public tender?

HON. J. JANSEN :

I have complained in the past about the lack of research by that member

opposite in terms of some of the details he presents to this House. The

fact of the matter is that that contract was tendered.

MR. PERRY : Supplementary. The contract was renewed without tender. That's what I'm referring to.

Can

the minister confirm that his advisory subcommittee had serious

concerns about the Baxter Travenol contract including concerns about

the quality and safety of the equipment being provided to home

peritoneal dialysis patients?

HON. J. JANSEN : If I

could get the benefit of the member's research, I'd be pleased to look

at the problem he refers to. The information I have is totally contrary

to what he has, so I'd be pleased to listen to his side of the

information.

Interjection.

MR. REID : Take two aspirins and go to bed.

MR. PERRY :

It'll take more than that, unfortunately, to get rid of this cough —

maybe a holiday, if the government will call the election. An election

campaign would be even better.

SURGERY WAITING-LISTS

MR. PERRY :

A new question for the minister. On June 5, the minister again promised

to provide me with a copy of Dr. Keon's report on heart surgery

waiting-lists. I've been checking my mail daily for this report, and it

has not arrived. In contrast, I got a very nice letter from you

yesterday, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister tell the House when I can

expect the Keon report that he promised me originally on April 277

HON. J. JANSEN : Yes, I know that the member is very keen on getting the Keon report, which is about two years old — for

his library, obviously. But I reflected upon his request and also

reflected on his lack of clarity in some of his questions in the House,

and I've asked staff to give him a bit of an overview of what this

report really means to help him understand it.

MR. DAVIDSON :

On a point of order, during question period I tried to seek a

supplementary on my question. I'd like to know if there is a particular

ruling that Mr. Speaker would have that members of the back bench are

not allowed supplemental questions, while members of the opposition are

allowed sometimes two, three or four. It seems to me that it is

patently unfair.

MR. SPEAKER : And the second point of order?

[ Page 10430 ]

MR. PERRY : On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I'd appreciate your advice. On June 5 — I'm going to refer to Hansard at page 10070 — the

minister indicated that the Dr. Keon report was in the mail, and

specifically accused me of being too busy with other matters to check

my mail. I find it difficult to interpret his answer a few minutes ago

otherwise than that his intent was to mislead the House when he

answered my question on June 5.

As you know, this is a

matter of very serious concern. A patient had died while awaiting heart

surgery immediately before I asked the question. I took the minister at

his word, honestly. He telephoned me after his remarks in the House to

apologize and to admit that he had not mailed the report.

find this a frank and grotesque abuse of parliamentary privilege. I

would request your assistance, Mr. Speaker, in dealing with the matter.

I think it is totally unacceptable in a minister to mislead the House

in this way. I'd appreciate your direction on how to follow it up

further.

MR. SPEAKER : I'd first like to deal with

the point of order raised by the second member for Delta (Mr.

Davidson), who shouldn't really need to have the rule explained to him,

having previously sat in this chair and deliberated on almost precisely

the same matter. However, a quick perusal of the standing orders will

indicate that whoever the Speaker recognized as standing is the person

who shall be recognized. The issue of supplementaries and who gets to

ask supplementaries is entirely at the discretion of the Chair.

order to make matters perfectly clear, the Chair has been assisted by

the opposition, which provides the Chair with a list of questioners.

The government has not yet seen fit to do so.

If I could have the next point of order from the Minister of Environment.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

Mr. Speaker, continuing on the point of privilege raised by the hon.

member, I would suggest that the member must know, although he hasn't

been here long enough, that it certainly wasn't a question of

privilege. I would ask him to withdraw his final comments about the

minister misleading the House.

MR. SPEAKER : When the

matter of privilege was brought forward, the member first asked advice

from the Chair. The Chair is not in the advice-dispensing department.

There are others who will dispense advice, free or otherwise, to

members anytime they want it. It's available almost throughout the

buildings.

On the matter of privilege that the member

raises, the Chair will take it under consideration, review the remarks

made both in today's Hansard and in the previous one, and bring a

decision back at a future time.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT

On vote 26: minister's office, $335,500 (continued).

MS. CULL :

I want to talk about issues related to sewage treatment in my community

and in other communities throughout British Columbia. As the minister

is fully aware, the matter of sewage treatment in greater Victoria is a

very serious one in which I believe the public has been well out ahead

of locally elected politicians.

We are now in the middle of

a major study on sewage treatment in my community, and the first phase

of the liquid management plan has called for sewage treatment. I have a

number of questions I would like to ask the minister. I'll run through

a few of them so that he can note them and then provide me with

answers. Then I'd like to follow up with some supplementaries.

First

of all, I would like to know how many communities in British Columbia

are still discharging raw sewage into local waters. How many

municipalities are in violation of their waste disposal permits? Does

the minister have environmental impact studies of those communities

that are either discharging raw sewage or are in violation of their

permits, or where perhaps both situations are occurring at the same

time?

I would like to start with those three questions. If I could get some answers, I would go on from there.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

I would advise the member that we can gather that information together,

but there will be quite a few details in it. Some of the material, as

you know, is being pumped into oceans. This is under the federal

Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

We have a number of

municipalities in the province throughout the interior that are on

proper sewage treatment. The ones that aren't are all being looked at

and reviewed. If the member would like to continue with some other

questions, I will get the list, if she wants them, of every community.

But we can probably be here for two days if you want to list every

community in the province and what they're doing with their sewage.

MS. CULL :

I would like the minister to pursue those questions, because I would

like to have some idea of whether the ministry in fact has that

information. But I will go on with my question....

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

We have all that kind of information, and we're quite prepared to make

it available to the member. I'll just give you an example: the district

of Campbell River, sewage effluent — they are out of compliance; the district of Chilliwack, the town of Creston; the city of Fernie; the greater

[ Page

10431 ]

Vancouver sewage and drainage district; the greater

Vancouver sewage and drainage district; the greater Vancouver sewage

and drainage district; Powell River Regional District; the city of

Penticton: nine at the present time are out of compliance.

[2:30]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

I'll be very brief. I just wanted to make a few comments on this

particular budget. I regret that the opposition leader is not here

again today, because I was hoping we might have an opportunity to hear

from the Leader of the Opposition so that we could compare what the

approach might be from his standpoint as opposed to what we've seen

here in our province for the past good number of years.

The

reason I say that is that in the area of the environment we really have

many things to consider. But when we're comparing what's happening

today to see how effective it is, we have to look at past practices or

experiences. I think we can all agree on that.

I was the

mayor in Surrey in 1972-75 when the NDP was government, and I can

recall we had a number of debates about environmental issues.

Particularly we debated the refinery which was proposed for Surrey; we

had some considerable debates about.... Those were the years when we

were having some difficulties with septic tank approvals and were

looking to get some assistance for sewage treatment installations.

During the NDP years I would say we probably had one of the worst

records in relative terms to what we've seen in this province for a

good while.

I say this because — again I repeat — oftentimes

in environmental considerations we have to look at the past to see what

was done and then attempt to try to do it better today. So I commend

the ministry for the many approaches that have been initiated over the

last several years, and, Mr. Minister, I realize that there's much more

to be done.

Obviously we'll never have a perfect situation,

and we'll continue to hear from the opposition as to how they might do

some things more effectively. But I refer them back to the NDP years of

'72-75 when I was the mayor in Surrey. They did a dismal job in every

respect in controlling those environmental concerns being raised during

that particular time.

Now I raise this because I want to

get it on record I'm hoping that one day in the not too distant future

the Leader of the Opposition may in fact pay us a visit.

Incidentally, that reminds me — how many days can you go and still get paid?

This is better than a Senate job. It's ridiculous. We've complained

about senators getting paid for just showing up. Well, the Leader of the Opposition

is getting paid, and he doesn't even show up. It's absolutely ridiculous.

I hate to digress, Mr. Chairman, but something ought to be done about that.

We ought to perhaps at some point have a motion specifically dealing with that

issue. The Leader of the Opposition is never here.

MR. BLENCOE :

I'm very pleased the Premier has actually decided to join us and enter

the debate. And we love hearing about the Leader of the Opposition. But

I think we're debating the estimates of the Minister of Environment.

you are concerned about the Leader of the Opposition, call an election,

Mr. Premier, and then we'll see you and then the people will have a

final decision. Call an election! Call an election!

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

Well, Mr. Chairman, as I said, obviously the Leader of the Opposition

could have a considerable influence on the environment, and he could do

so in part by participating in this debate or any of the debates, which

are so important to the people of the province.

This is our job here — to

participate in these debates and to offer alternative and constructive

suggestions. That's why he's being paid full-time, even though he's

hardly ever here.

The second member for Victoria says:

"Call an election." Call an election? We're doing great things in this

province, and we're continuing to do great things, but an election will

be called, my friend, and that'll be history for you. Now on to the

estimates.

Again I would reiterate that we certainly want

to hear from the opposition as to what constructive alternatives there

might be. For my own constituency, I've definitely identified the

environmental concerns that have been raised with me by members of the

municipal council or others in the community, and I have taken them to

the Ministry of Environment. I've presented them to the minister or

people in the ministry, and they've always attended to these matters

very efficiently and effectively. I'm very pleased about that, and I

think we're making great progress. There is much more to be done, Mr.

Minister, and I realize that you have a tremendously challenging job.

I'm going to take my place now and listen to some constructive suggestions, hopefully, from the opposition — not a whole lot of negativism and criticism without some constructive suggestions. Then I'll be speaking again.

MS. CULL :

I have to thank the Premier for his dissertation on the NDP during

1972-75. I'm sure that during that time you enjoyed being on this side

and asking questions — not you personally — and I'm sure you'll get an

opportunity soon to be asking questions of government ministers. In the

meantime we are asking the questions here.

I might also say

just as an aside that the Minister of Environment this morning did

thank me this morning for some of the suggestions I was making during

estimates. So there are a lot of positive ideas coming from this side

of the floor.

I want to clarify the answer the Minister of

Environment gave me. Is it correct? I've added this up and counted the

greater Vancouver sewage and water districts three times. But is it

correct that there are nine communities in British Columbia out of

compliance with their waste disposal permits when it

[ Page 10432 ]

comes to sewage? Is that the sum total, or were there others?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : The ones that I named are out of compliance, yes.

MS. CULL :

Could you tell me how many corporations, pulp mills and others are out

of compliance with their waste disposal permits? Is it nine, ten or

significantly more? I don't need the precise number if you haven't got

the figures there, but I'd like some idea of the relationship.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : There are approximately 40 if you include pulp mills and other industries.

MS. CULL :

Thank you, Mr. Minister. I asked that question because we often hear

from members on the other side of the House when we're talking about

pollution in the province: "Mat about the municipalities!" When we

bring up pulp mills, the municipalities always get lumped into that,

and I'm pleased to know that for the most part, out of 145

municipalities or whatever there are now in British Columbia, very few

of them are actually out of compliance.

I'd like to go on.

I asked about the number of communities that are out of compliance and

are discharging raw sewage. I asked the minister whether the ministry

itself has any environmental impact studies of the effects of these

communities which are out of compliance. I'd like to know whether there

are any such studies.

I'd also like to know about the

budget increase for waste permit fees. There's an increase in the

charge, if I've got it correct, for waste disposal fees. I would like

to know how much that is, and what impact that is going to have on

municipalities. I know that somewhere along the line we have discussed

the amount of money to be raised by this increase in fees, but I don't

seem to be able to find it. Could the minister advise me as to how much

that is going to be?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : New revenues

from increasing the rates, including the municipalities, will equal $2

million in 1990-91 and $6.3 million in 1991-92.

MS. CULL : How much does that pertain to municipalities?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : About $400,000.

MS. CULL :

I believe the Ministry of Environment participates with the Ministry of

Health and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Culture to

provide funding to municipalities for sewage disposal, treatment

collection and other items like that. I believe sewer and water grants

is what they are called.

I understand that there is a priority system for ranking applications, and

as is natural with any government grant program, applications usually exceed

the amount of money that's available. But I understand that there is a priority

system, and that projects designed to correct environmental or health hazards

get 50 percent funding instead of the 25 percent funding. Is that correct? Do

I have the guidelines right on that? Is there ministry analysis that shows what

communities are in fact creating an environmental or health hazard? Are there

any environmental impacts, for example, of these nine noncompliant communities

that are not meeting their disposal permit requirements?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

As the member has stated, we've introduced a high-cost grant program

for the municipal treatment upgrading projects which may provide up to

25 percent funding in addition to the 50 percent that comes from the

Revenue Sharing Act.

With regard to environmental impact

studies, we don't have those as such, but the ministry is monitoring.

We will analyze and put in priority the different municipalities that

we would look into giving the increased grant to.

I might also mention that when it comes to sewage treatment, the average — or very close to it, anyway — household

taxes would be around $200 in the communities that have sewage

treatment plants. The city of Victoria is looking at $2 per household

right now, and the city of Vancouver is about $37 per household. In a

debate of whether the provincial government should be putting up all

this money, when it comes to the taxpayers of the province paying,

these municipalities should look at getting the levy up in their tax

base also. We shouldn't be giving them enough of a grant so they can

maintain a tax base of $2 per household for sewage treatment. They have

a responsibility, just as the people in Campbell River or Prince George

do, to have a system that operates and is good for the environment.

MS. CULL :

I'm not sure whether I heard the minister correctly. I believe he said

that the program provides 25 percent on top of the 50 percent that is

funded. I was under the impression, just from looking at the circular

that your ministry — or maybe it was Municipal Affairs — sent to all

municipalities, that the minimum is 25 percent, but the maximum is 50.

Can it then go up to 75 percent? Is that what the minister is saying — that in certain circumstances the community can get 75 percent funding?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

Yes, that's happening right now. In fact, I just signed one off the

other day. I think it was Charlie Lake that got 75 percent. When I was

talking about environmental impact studies.... When the municipalities

are developing their waste management plans, included in that when they

come to us is an environmental assessment, which is about the same

thing.

MS. CULL : I've been advised by the minister's

staff, though, that not all these grants are tied to liquid waste

management plans. So in some cases

[ Page

10433 ]

grants are being applied for on the basis of some

kind of engineering study, but not on the basis of a liquid waste

management plan. If there isn't a liquid waste management plan and the

ministry doesn't have its own environmental studies, could the minister

tell us what criteria are used to determine which communities will

qualify for this enriched assistance up to 75 percent?

MR. REID :

While the minister is preparing an answer to that previous question,

Mr. Chairman, I have a couple I'd like to direct to the minister about

sewage waste, noncompliance and outfalls, etc.

[2:45]

1 know in the last three years.... The Leader of the Opposition isn't here

today. I wish he was, because while he was the mayor of the city of Vancouver

they agreed to fund a very expensive outfall extension on the Iona treatment

plant, which is really a sorting plant. It sorts water from solids, and all

the liquid goes right out into Georgia strait. With the extension, that outfall

now directs the untreated effluent further south. I can tell you that in the

most recent summer White Rock, Crescent Beach, Boundary Bay and Point Roberts

areas had the highest coliform counts in their history. I believe that was a

direct result of them deflecting that sewage from the Vancouver sewage system

further south into beaches around White Rock, Semiahmoo and Boundary Bay.

Mr. Minister, I would like a response from your staff relative to a monitoring of that particular question — because it was asked of me about two months ago — to

the GVRD sewage and water waste committee, advising whether in fact

that increase in coliform count in Crescent and Semiahmoo Beaches is

not a direct result of Vancouver city's sewage outfall being now

further south and directing that effluent into those two bays.

would also question whether, in fact, the city of Victoria's direct

untreated effluent into the salt waters of the south end of Vancouver

Island does not also create some of the problems for the beaches in and

around White Rock, South Surrey, Crescent Beach and Semiahmoo.

would hope that you have some response to that from your staff relative

to whether it's being monitored at the moment. I have a deep concern

about it. As you know, I've raised it in the past. I think the question

of the two major cities of the province of British Columbia dumping raw

effluent into the Georgia strait and using salt water as a treatment

for sewage has been outdated for a hundred years.

I agree

with you, Mr. Minister, that it's about time the Victoria and Vancouver

taxpayers put up $200 a household to clean their effluent before they

send it onto the beaches of my constituency.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : We should have a vote. I think everybody agrees.

I'll go back to the member from Oak Bay-Gordon Head first. She was talking

about the process we use. As she would know, if there is an engineering study,

there is an environmental assessment included. We would look at that — I'm

talking about putting things in priorities — and also at the total cost per household

for our priorities.

Charlie

Lake was a good example, I think. With a 75 percent grant, it's going

to cost them in excess of $500 per household in taxes per year to put

in the sewage treatment plant. That's with the householder only paying

25 percent. So to help those people get it is a priority to us. They

are still paying very high taxes, but we give them a high grant. That's

how the money is divided, and we will make our decisions based on those.

With

regard to the comments of the member from Surrey-White Rock, I've had

numerous meetings with the GVRD and the Capital Regional District and

couldn't agree more that we must do something.

Stage one of

the waste management plan of the GVRD has been approved. We instructed

the GVRD to implement secondary sewage treatment at Annacis and Lulu by

the end of '93. We're working with them. That may not be a date they

can meet, because of getting equipment, etc., but they've agreed that

it has to be done.

We're meeting with them on a regular

basis to try to eliminate.... I think everyone in this province or in

this room agrees that in the next few years we must be able to say that

we finally reached the day when sewage is not going into any stream,

ocean, river or lake. We must handle it ourselves and solve the problem.

this province we have the technology. The technology that we're using

in the Okanagan is probably the best in the world, but it doesn't stop

us from looking at technologies in other parts of the world and

continuing to find better ways to do it.

MS. CULL : A

final question to the minister on this subject, with respect to the

CRD. I would like to know whether the minister would consider, given

that the first phase of the liquid management plan does show concern

about the environment from the continued dumping of raw sewage.... Will

the CRD then qualify for this higher level of funding — 50 or 75 percent, depending on how the criteria are applied?

the CRD one of the communities? You didn't list them as being not in

compliance, but I know that there are some outfalls that are not in

compliance. One of them is so old that there was never a permit issued

for it. Presumably it's out of compliance, because it closes the beach

at the end of my street every summer.

I would like to hear

from the minister about the priority for the CRD. Is it one of those

communities that deserves this higher level of funding?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : The reason that you may think — I thought so when I looked at the stats — some

of them should be on the list is that you may have a municipality that

has a permit to put raw sewage in the ocean, because that's the way

it's been for years.

[ Page 10434 ]

You

may have considered the situation at Penticton, where they have one of

the best systems in the world, and they're out of compliance because

they're pumping more into the lake than their permit allows them to.

Yet the water that's going in has been treated, and very little damage

will be caused. But that's why they're out of compliance with their

permit.

Yes, I would say that we are working with the

Capital Regional District. We are meeting on a regular basis. They will

get full support from my ministry for whatever funding we can get them,

whether it's from my ministry or the Ministry of Municipal Affairs,

when their plans are completed and they come before us.

MR. G. HANSON :

Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to hear that, because for some years now we

have been asking for the same kind of financing or funding formula for

sewage treatment that existed under the Sewerage Facilities Assistance

Act, which was in place in '72-75 and was repealed sometime in the

mid-seventies. I'm not sure of the exact date.

The funding formula was 75 percent from the province, over and above 214 mills. Everyone in this region — particularly in my own constituency, the southern portion of the capital — is

yearning for safe, clean beaches. As the member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head

mentioned, every summer... I don't believe it's just storm-drain

pollution; I believe that the millions of litres of raw, untreated

effluent that are discharged into the ocean are creating the problem. I

agree with the member for Surrey-White Rock-Cloverdale (Mr. Reid) that

it is an intolerable situation and that an end should be put to it.

The

problem here is not the lack of willingness of the citizens of Victoria

to pay their fair share for sewage treatment; I believe they are

willing. All of the polls that we have seen indicate that people are

willing to pay higher property taxes and so on to have a clean, safe

maritime environment surrounding our community. We want to see that

happen.

Mr. Chairman, the minister is probably aware.... He

talked about looking at what happens in other places. We don't have to

look very far. We just have to walk down Government Street and look out

at the mountains across the strait of Juan de Fuca. By federal

legislation it is illegal to discharge raw effluent from a village, a

town or a municipality in Washington State. There is no community along

the Puget lowlands, or near Port Angeles, Port Townsend or wherever

else, that doesn't have primary treatment. By 1995 they will all have

secondary treatment

I'm calling on this minister to get

tough with the CRD, to bring them into compliance and say: "Yes, we'll

pay our fair share. We'll pay 75 percent, if you pick up the rest.

We'll have clean water and world showcase beaches for the Commonwealth

Games in 1994, and we'll show people what a clean environment really

is."

It's totally unacceptable, it's been going on far too

long. It's an engineer's solution. You know, the engineers will come up

with anything that you tell them to come up with. Right now they've

told us that the solution to pollution is dilution. We don't accept it.

Every

single beach is posted, and every single one is unsafe with viruses and

all sorts of other bacterial whatevers. Do you know, Mr. Chairman — just as a sidebar story — that

in the windsurfing magazines, Clover Point is considered to be one of

the finest places in North America to windsurf? The canyon of the

Columbia River is one, and this is another.

Interjection.

MR. G. HANSON :

Nothing like this; not as good as this. They come from everywhere. It's

on the cover of windsurfing magazines, and people all over the world

reading them have no idea that the proposal for the east coast

interceptor is to dump 100 million litres of raw, untreated sewage

every day off the beach of a major park — right there off Dallas Road, right off Clover Point, right off the beach.

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer

has been running a series of articles. The people of Washington State

hold British Columbians and Canadians in high regard. They think we are

environmentally more sensitive, more committed and more concerned than

they are. They are absolutely shocked to find out that the capital of

British Columbia is planning to dump 100 million litres every single

day, when the connector is all hooked up.

As I said, the

community is yearning for clean water and safe beaches, and they are

willing to pay their fair share. It's unfair of that minister to say:

"They only pay a sewer connection now." Leadership should be provided

to say to the CRD — and of course there are representatives from the Gulf Islands, from Sooke, from all the municipalities....

The

tradition has been to throw up a big number to scare the public, to say

that it's going to cost X millions of dollars. The fact is: what is the

price of a clean, safe maritime environment?

Victoria does

not have a long beach. When you go from Foul Bay Road, where the

municipality of Oak Bay ends, around through the Inner Harbour to the

edge of Vic West where Esquimalt begins, Victoria does not have a lot

of shoreline. Why should that shoreline be used as the tail end of the

gastrointestinal tract for southern Vancouver Island?

know the member for Surrey agrees with me, and our colleagues from Oak

Bay-Gordon Head, Victoria and Esquimalt are absolutely united. We will

help you; we will work with you. We will help you deliver the cheque to

the CRD. We will come with the big board that says the percentage to

give this region clean water. We can do it soon. We can have our

pictures taken together. We can do it in a totally non-partisan way. We

don't have to do it as the Premier just did. I wasn't sure whether his

remark should be categorized under liquid waste, solid waste or just

used hay.

We have a serious problem of water quality in our

marine environment in this region, and we would like to work with you.

This minister has to say to the

[ Page

10435 ]

local CRD, just as he has to the GVRD.... Mr.

Chairman, I heard the minister say that he is laying the wood on the

GVRD so that they can get secondary treatment in place. All we've got

is primary treatment. It isn't helpful by any stretch of the

imagination.

I've talked to health inspectors who say that

there is an aerosol effect when the wind is blowing. As I mentioned to

you, it is a windsurfing capital. The wind gusts up. I know the members

who jog and walk along know how the wind blows up. There's an aerosol

effect, and airborne coliform comes up on the windows of the houses and

buildings along Dallas Road because of the raw sewage frothing up and

being blown up against the city. That's an absolute fact.

[3:00]

countries of the world; 60 to 70 countries are going to come to this

community in 1994. As the minister said, he was looking at 1993 and

Vancouver to push the GVRD to get their secondary treatment in place.

What better health project than this environmental, ecological monument

to show to the world — they are largely poor countries that have water quality problems and so on — than to have proper treatment here in our own capital.

want the minister to know that he has the support and assistance of the

members in this House, whether we sit on this side or on that side. We

will work together, but we need his commitment. The community can't

bear the financial burden of this on their own. They must have senior

government as a major shareholder.

Because this is a

deep-water port, we may be able to work together to get some federal

assistance. We've heard the Prime Minister, during the last campaign,

talk about Halifax harbour and about cleaning up other areas in the

country. I'd like to hear from the minister whether he would be willing

to have cooperation to get federal assistance — federal dollars — to assist and make this a system that would last well Into the future.

don't know how the U.S. or Washington governments got so far ahead.

I've consulted with Metro Seattle, and I've talked to engineers there.

They say that given the population in this region, there's no reason

why we couldn't have proper treatment in this area amortized over time.

You don't pay for it at the cash register today. You amortize it over

time like any other worthwhile project. It's not going to get any

cheaper. I think we should get on with it, and I think we should work

with the minister.

I've seen him make remarks and point his

finger at local people or local MLAs. The time for finger-pointing is

over. The time for clean water and sewage treatment for this region is

now.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : I thank the member for his comments. I would tell

him that we will have the stage 1 report with the terms of reference for the

stage 2 study in my office by the fail of this year. We have met with the Capital

Regional District numerous times. They know my position on sewage going into

anywhere. They are proceeding at a very quick pace, and they have the assurances

from this government that they will get full support on the programs that we've

brought in, especially the ones this year which increase the amounts to complete

their projects.

We've

been just as tough with them as we have been with the GVRD. I didn't

feel I had to write them the same letter, because they came to see me

and said: "This is what we're prepared to do. We'll do the studies.

We'll get them underway." Their commitment is there. They understand

that the public wants it to stop. I don't think it's a political issue

from that point of view. Everybody wants it to stop.

With

regard to federal assistance, we've talked to the federal government,

but it seems that like everything else we do in this country, there are

billions available in Quebec for their programs and cleaning up the St.

Lawrence, but there's very little — available in British Columbia.

They've given us no indication at all that there's any assistance. But

in this case, I don't think we can afford to wait. We must go ahead and

continue to negotiate with them to see if we can get some funding or at

least a cost-sharing program, especially in the areas where it's

affecting oceans. It's their responsibility; they should be giving us

some assistance. They've done it in other parts of the country.

MR. G. HANSON :

Just one quick question. What does the minister think about a target of

getting his officials to line up a time-line so it would be feasible to

have sewage treatment in this region by August 1994?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

I wouldn't want to mislead the member. As I said, we will have the

stage 1 report by the fall of this year. The stage 2 report will

recommend what we should be doing in the area. Of course — and you would agree I'm sure — there

should be full public hearings, cooperation and discussion as to how

they should be doing it. It's going to take you through '91. For the

three-year construction period, 1994 should be an agreeable date. I

would certainly think that with the Commonwealth Games coming to

Victoria, it would be a great time to assure everybody that there was

no sewage going into our ocean.

MR. GABELMANN : The

minister said a moment ago that he didn't think it was a political

issue. I think he meant to say that it wasn't a partisan issue. I can

think of no greater political issue in our land than the whole question

of what we do to our water and our land around our cities.

just want to say that those of us who represent rural constituencies

sometimes get a little annoyed with people from the city, who have a

view of what environmental crises are in this province and in this

country which is very different from the view that some of us have.

[ Page 10436 ]

I had to rank the two most serious environmental issues we have to face

in this society, number one would be the contamination of our waterways — both salt and freshwater —

by human excrement and the industrial wastes that come from our kind of

urban society, and secondly, the automobile. If we could deal with

those two issues in a comprehensive way, we would be a long way toward

dealing with the most serious environmental questions in this province.

have to say, on behalf of my rural constituents, that they quite often

feel a mite annoyed with people from the city who bum carbon fuels in

their automobiles and pour their own excrement into the water adjacent

to their cities. Then they come up to these rural areas and tell us how

to look after our environment. I just want to put that on the record,

because a frustration is building in this province that cuts across

partisan lines.

There are a wide variety of issues of

concern to people in the constituency I represent that come under the

aegis of the minister whose estimates we are debating at the moment.

Most of those issues have been, in one way or another, canvassed by

other members, and I do not intend to repeat them. But for the record,

I share a lot of the concerns that have been expressed so far in this

estimates debate.

There are two areas I want to talk about.

One relates to the constituency that I think too little attention is

being paid to by the ministry at the present time, and that's the whole

question of conservation officers. The whole conservation officer

program has been limited to begin with. The number of people who are

out there attempting to look after our fish and game stocks is totally

insufficient to begin with. Now there appears to be a movement away

from that kind of work and more into compliance for pulp-mill and other

pollution permits. I don't knock that, but it's a shame that we have

taken away from the conservation officer function.

Poaching

is a serious problem in my constituency. There are at least as many

animals taken illegally as legally, and we need to really step up our

whole conservation officer program. I could make a long speech about

it, but I won't. The minister knows the issue. His staff know the issue

well, and I want him to know that there is widespread concern about the

conservation officer shortage in the northern half of Vancouver Island.

I trust that additional staff will be made available. There was a

replacement of an empty position some time ago — and I thank the minister for that — but much more needs to be done.

There

is only one other issue I want to raise at this stage. Council members

in Port Hardy raised with me the other day a question which they asked

me to relay directly to you, and I'll do it in this forum rather than

informally so that it's clear that it's on the record. They tell me

that their licence fee for treatment for their sewage is approximately

$5,000 a year The district council of Port Hardy has two treatment

plants. They pay $5,000 so they're not putting raw sewage into the

water; it's partially treated. As there are about 5,200 people in that

community, they pay$1 a head. They tell me — and I find it difficult to believe —

that the city of Victoria pays $12,600, which is considerably less than

$1 a head for the same fee. And the city of Victoria, of course, pumps

untreated sewage into the water. The numbers may not be entirely

accurate, but if they're close to being accurate, what's the premise?

What's the basis for fees of this sort that bear no relationship

whatsoever to either the population or the volume of effluent?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

I thank the member for his questions. With regard to the conservation

officers, as the member knows, we have 131 conservation officers around

the province in 51 different offices, and the time spent in the last

year has increased. I agree with him that we did go towards the pulp

mills for a while because of the severe problems. But as the member

knows, those things are improving. The money's being spent and some of

their work is tending to go back the other way. I think that is borne

out in the fact that the number of charges and investigations are way

up this year on the fish and wildlife side. But we're always reviewing

those programs and where people are. We're certainly doing that right

now in our ministry.

With regard to Port Hardy, you bring

up a very good point. Your figures are correct within a couple of

dollars, but I know they're reasonably close, because we looked at

this. On January 1 of next year we will be reviewing all those fees and

setting them in a more accurate manner, so it's possible theirs could

go down and Victoria's could go up. But there's no question that when

you get 5,000 people and they're paying $1 a head, and Victoria is

paying pennies per head.... That's a problem we have all over the

province. Fees, when they were set up originally, were set in a very

simplistic manner. People with plants got penalized — not those who had

the old permits to pump raw sewage out. So we'll be looking at that and

be ready to announce new fees by January, 1991.

MS. EDWARDS :

First of all, I want to talk to the minister about guide-outfitters and

packers. I am sure you are very well aware of the situation that

obtains in British Columbia on the part of the guide-outfitters and

perhaps on the part of the packers.

There have been a

number of cases in the courts, and there have been decisions. And there

certainly is a case to be made for some action on the part of the

minister — perhaps legislation. Certainly the way he does regulation

may have to be addressed, The B.C. Wildlife Federation has now asked

for intervener status in cases that are related to the packing and

guide-outfitting activity in any particular area.

Under the

Wildlife Act, only guide-outfitters can legally guide individuals for

hunting, but packers are allowed to provide other services. They can

pack, they can cook, they can do various services. They can do it for

anybody, of course, but they generally do it for resident hunters

because these services are usually used by hunters. Non-resident

hunters have to

[ Page

10437 ]

hire a guide-outfitter because that's under the act, but packers often provide packing services to resident hunters.

The

problem, as the packers see it, is that the guide-outfitters are given

a territory that should exclude only other guide-outfitters, but the

guide outfitters are excluding the packers from those territories. Of

course, that's what the court cases have been about.

The

Wildlife Federation suggests it is wrong to give anyone control over

public access and public activities other than the government, which of

course relates to the situation and the case that guide-outfitters

make, that they should have more control over what happens in their

guiding areas. There are many arguments, Mr. Minister, but what I would

like to hear is some response from you about what you see as the area

of operation, if you like.

First of all, I shall ask the

question: what do you see as the privilege that is given to a

guide-outfitter when he is given a territory? What kind of control does

that include? Should it include any rights or privileges to grazing

land or rights or privileges to exclude other business persons? Or

should it give any territorial control to the guide-outfitter except to

allow him to carry out his business in that area, and other

guide-outfitters will not compete with him there?

[3:15]

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

As the member knows, there is a case before the courts. It would be

very improper for me.... If I were to stand here and take a position

one way or the other, one side would go into court and say: "This is

what the government wants us to do." I can tell you that we have been

meeting with both sides and my staff, trying to resolve their problems.

But until the case comes out of the courts, it's very difficult to

discuss certain aspects of what they should or should not be doing.

MS. EDWARDS :

I would think it would be quite safe to talk about how the minister

feels and how his government feels about the kind of control that could

be exercised over such an area, particularly with guide-outfitters,

many of whom.... I don't have the statistics at hand. As you know, many

of these licences have been paid for with foreign money. Although the

guide-outfitters themselves are residents and citizens, a lot of the

money involved in the licences is foreign money. The resident hunters

who want access to public lands want very clearly to know that they

have access to the lands on the grounds on which a normal citizen can

pack into the area or can hire someone to pack into the area, without

having one resource-user make those kinds of rules.

I might suggest to the minister that in discussions it frequently is suggested

that the tenure, if you like, the guide-outfitters are talking about in the

worst possible scenario — let me put it — would be the kind of tenure that the

government has talked about as tree-farm licences to forest industries, where

one user has the control of the territory and others must ask for use and so

on. I would like to hear the minister's response to that.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

All I would be prepared to say is that we see the guide-outfitters as a

legitimate business. We support them and have increased their tenure,

and we want them to continue. We are working with them to see that we

can have a solution to the problems that are there. But again, it's

very difficult for me to state things that could be used in a court

case.

MS. EDWARDS : I wonder if the minister would explain what he meant by saying he would want to increase their tenure.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : I am advised it was in the wildlife amendments that we brought in last year.

MS. EDWARDS : Has the minister considered regulating packers?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : That is one of the options, but that's the item before the courts.

MS. EDWARDS :

Does the minister support the concept of requiring some measure of

Canadian ownership in companies which hold guiding territories?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

Mr. Chairman, not with free trade. We always encourage investment in

this country, and under free trade we probably couldn't stop it, if it

was in an area we wanted to.

MS. EDWARDS : I'm just

curious. As you say that, does that mean you couldn't regulate against

foreign capital from other than the U.S. ? Under the free trade

agreement.... I understood that was a trade-limiting agreement with the

U.S. Does that mean you couldn't regulate against ownership from other

countries?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : Again, we're in favour

of free trade and foreign investment, so we wouldn't do it. I presumed

the first question was about the United States.

MS. EDWARDS :

It just seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that the question is of free access

to public lands, and what I'm hearing from the minister is that there

is nothing to say as long as it's under the courts. It's very much an

issue to resident hunters who have been limited from going various

places, because they can't get to certain areas in this province

without the assistance of a packer, for example. They don't necessarily

run their own string of packhorses. They may not be hunters; they may

be photographers or simply outdoor people or riders or whatever. But

the question is: does the minister wholeheartedly support free access,

shall I say, of residents to public lands?

[ Page 10438 ]

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure I got the question right. First of all, I

thought I heard the member say that she didn't want the people to have

free access to the land. Then I was going to suggest to her that it

wasn't free, that people were licensed, certified and had to pass

safety regulations before they could be licensed to go into our lands.

Then she asked the question about Canadian citizens. Maybe you could

just clarify.

MS. EDWARDS : I'd be pleased to try and

lay it out. As I see it, the argument lies in people who use public

lands for their own recreation and those who use them for business. The

two business groups, as I see them, are the guide-outfitters and the

packers. Guide-outfitters have to be licensed. They are in an area; a

territory is given them which excludes other guide-outfitters. Now the

question is whether you exclude packers.

The other

question, then, is for residents who want access to public lands, who

sometimes cannot have access or may be limited in their access to

public lands if they cannot hire the assistance they need to get there.

That is several steps back, as the minister will see. It could mean

that they can't get there, because they can't hire a packer, because

the territorial route control has been given to the guide-outfitter.

am just curious to know how the minister feels about access to public

lands, and what he wants to give the guide-outfitters in order to

exclude other groups — commercial or recreational. I am curious to know

how the minister supports recreational access and whether he sees both

of the commercial groups I've mentioned being licensed or not. If he's

not going to comment on that, then what is the context in which he

makes these decisions?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : Mr.

Chairman, it seems to me that what we're really getting at here is that

the member is trying to get me to make a policy on packers, and I'm not

prepared to do that while it's before the courts. I guess the question

is: when do packers become guide-outfitters? And that's the debate

they're having among themselves.

MR. JONES : I'd like

to raise a concern from my constituency. People who live in Burnaby

North are pretty happy people. They don't have a lot of concerns, but

they do have a couple in the environmental area.

One of

them, in particular, is Burrard Inlet tanker traffic. I'd like to spend

a couple of minutes and enlighten the minister on this, because given

his responses in the past, I think its an area that requires further

understanding on his part. The residents of North Burnaby have very

serious concerns, and for very good reasons.

We have to

look at the history of tanker traffic in the last five years and what

is projected for the future. I think we have to have a look at the

response of responsible agencies to those concerns and also at the

response of the minister in this situation.

Mr. Chairman,

in 1984 there were some 61,000 metric tonnes of petroleum product

transported through Burrard Inlet. Compare that to today, when there

are some 1,240,000 metric tonnes. In that short six-year span we've

seen a 2,000 percent increase in the amount of petroleum product

transported through those fragile waters. During the same time as this

tremendous increase in amount of petroleum product, we've also had a

400 percent increase in the number of tankers.

The port has

a pretty good safety record, and although we've had problems, we

haven't had disasters or very serious problems. But we have had a

tremendous increase in the amount of petroleum product in the last six

years. That should ring an alarm bell down in the corner of this House.

That should ring an alarm bell for the Minister of Environment, as well

as for those people who are concerned. I think it has. But even more

important than those increases that have gone on in the past are the

projected increases.

We see a present level of six million barrels of petroleum product increasing to 14 million barrels by 1992 — enough to fill an additional 24 tankers and 24 barges as a result of the projections of the Trans Mountain Pipe Line Co.

top of that, we have a projected increase due to Petro-Canada and their

project of adding MTBE to petroleum products to replace lead in

gasoline, and that's going to result in another 26 tankers traveling

those fragile waters. If a proposed second pipeline from Edmonton to

Burnaby is constructed, shipments will go from the present six million

to 58 million barrels a year — enough to fill another 90 tankers. I

don't see any signs of any alarm bells going off yet, but very clearly

the minister has to be concerned about this.

What we see is

not only a huge increase in the past, but an even larger increase

projected for the future. We know the conditions in Burrard Inlet are

very special, and we know that the tankers are getting larger. In fact,

in February the largest tanker of some 105,000 deadweight tonnes — the largest tanker ever to navigate the Second Narrows — went through that body of water even though, I believe, the limit is supposed to be 90,000 deadweight tonnes.

have something like 10,000 ships a year call in the port, and only 8

percent of the foreign vessels are safety inspected, despite the fact

that the international standard is 25 percent. David Anderson, the

person chosen to head up a study on the environmental safety of tanker

traffic, describes the Vancouver harbour as a very high-risk port.

Mr.

Chairman, the Second Narrows is only 138 metres wide at its narrowest

point. It has tides and currents up to six knots. There are many turns

and shoals. There is heavy traffic, and it's a very ecologically

sensitive area. My constituents want to see that area preserved. They

don't want to see it despoiled by the disaster of an oil spill.

[3:30]

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

[ Page

10439 ]

We had a small oil spill in February, and although it was a very

small oil spill there was still a serious impact on the environment

there. There were between 500 and 1,000 birds killed with that oil

spill. The cost of that cleanup was $1.17 million, and that cleanup

occurred in perfect weather conditions. It occurred under ideal

conditions, and even at that, it recovered only some 40 percent of the

spilled diesel fuel last February.

That's a very minor

spill, and I know the minister was there with the Environment Youth

Corps and very proud of that. I can tell you that the Environment Youth

Corps were not very proud of the government in terms of their treatment

of the seriousness of that spill.

We've had a study, and

the minister pooh-poohs this study. It was a study as part of a report

currently being completed by the States and British Columbia task force

on oil spills set up jointly last year by the government of British

Columbia and the states of Washington, Oregon, Alaska and California.

That was following the disastrous Exxon Valdez

oil spill in Prince William Sound in Alaska. This study was carried out

for the task force by the applied statistics division of Environment

Canada, and they used a standard model used by both U.S. and Canadian

government agencies to predict oil spills.

Mr. Chairman, this study found that at current tanker traffic levels — and

remember, I described the great increase to produce those current

levels, but also keep in mind the tremendous projected increase in

tanker traffic — the port of Vancouver can expect a serious oil spill

of at least 10,000 barrels every five years and a lesser spill of 1,000

barrels within two years. The report that the minister denies exists

has not been released, but detailed information on the findings of that

report have been leaked.

Very clearly a 10,000-barrel

spill in the Vancouver port is some 40 times larger than the February

oil spill that I described a few minutes ago. That February oil spill

was just some 40 tonnes of diesel fuel. It was quite minor compared to

the kind predicted by this study conducted by a task force jointly

representing the jurisdictions on the west coast.

So we had

a huge increase in the past; we have a huge projected increase. We have

a study that is predicting serious consequences. There has been an

overwhelming response from a variety of sources — from David Anderson,

who the government appointed to look into this matter and who, a year

ago in June 1989, called for a ban on further crude exports.

Environmental groups Call For an Inquiry and Burnaby Citizens for Environmental

Protection have similarly called for a federal impact study under the federal

environment act. As well, a number of other groups have called for that. Municipal

councils in Vancouver, North Vancouver, Burnaby, Port Moody that represent the

citizens in their jurisdictions — responsible representatives of all political

persuasions — have also called for a study and a moratorium until a safe and sustainable

level of tanker traffic can be determined.

David

Brander-Smith, QC, chairman of the public review panel on tanker safety

and marine spills response capability for the federal government, has

responded to those calls from those municipal councils and he says:

"After

considerable reflection and review, our panel considers that the

concerns expressed by these municipalities, as well as others who

participated in our public hearings, are warranted. We accept the

principle that an environmental assessment of both present and future

expansion plans, which would increase tanker barge traffic in this

region, be undertaken as quickly as possible. This assessment should

examine the effects of increased movements of crude oil and petroleum

products through Burrard Inlet and establish a sustainable limit."

we have environmental groups, we have David Anderson, we have David

Brander-Smith, we have all the municipal councils from the regions

affected calling for a moratorium on increased tanker traffic and

calling for a full environmental impact study.

These are

responsible bodies. These are bodies of people of every political

persuasion. What is the response of the minister to this situation?

Well, the minister says that I invented the study; that I dreamed it up

out of thin air. He is basically encouraging increased tanker traffic.

He doesn't seem to be behind the call of all these citizens and all

these elected bodies for a moratorium. He seems to condone the fact

that the petroleum industry is quite capable of managing itself — the same kind of attitude we heard with respect to the prediction that there would be a major oil spill on the coast.

It was predicted that there would be a major oil spill within 241 years, and yet we saw the Exxon Valdez occur within 12 years of that opening. We had all kinds of assurances from the petroleum industry prior to that spill as well.

The citizens that I represent have seen the Grays Harbor disaster and its impact on Vancouver Island; they saw the Exxon Valdez ;

they saw the small spill in Vancouver harbour; they have seen the spill

in Huntington Beach, California; and last week they saw the spill off

the Gulf of Mexico.

There was a picture the other day of a

sand sculpture and it had the picture of a tanker with a circle and a

line through it. It seems to me that this government — and this minister — has

its head in the sand with respect to any concern about increased tanker

traffic. The potential disaster of an oil spill in this province.... It

would be a disaster for the economy of this province; it would be a

disaster for the tourist industry; it would be a disaster for my

community and the citizens I represent. I would like to ear the

minister come out with a little more responsible position in terms of a

full impact study conducted under the federal Environment Act, and a

moratorium until safe, sustainable levels of tanker traffic can be

established.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : The member over

there asked for studies. It's funny that when we do studies here, they

ask for action; when we act, they ask for studies.

[ Page 10440 ]

this case, as he knows, the Premier of this province invited the

governors of the states to set up the task force. It was our

initiative; it showed leadership. That task force is addressing the

issues you are talking about.

As you know, we had the

Anderson report. You've got the Brander-Smith federal report, which

isn't out yet. It's being studied extremely well by very competent

people.

This government has done a number of things. You

want to talk about enlightening this minister and enlightening this

government. We've done things — hat your party has opposed — which are

reducing the amount of oil that comes out of Burrard Inlet. The natural

gas pipeline to Vancouver Island, which is supported by some members

from your side — not all, but some of the enlightened ones — will reduce in great numbers the barges and tankers of oil coming to Vancouver Island and other British Columbia communities.

you were to place a moratorium, you would be telling the rest of

British Columbia to stop all growth, because those communities are

getting oil from Burrard Inlet.

MR. JONES : Tell that to the municipalities.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

You tell it to the municipalities. Some of the ones I've been to on

Vancouver Island can't believe that anyone would put a moratorium on

the oil being shipped to their communities — until we at least get the natural gas pipeline. It means that you have to stop growth.

also would suggest to that member... I'm sure he was at Globe '90. If

he had visited the floor and seen some of the equipment that's been

developed in British Columbia.... There's a company in North Vancouver

that has made a navigation chart that goes on a TV screen; it is fitted

on these oil tankers. If it had been installed in the Exxon Valdez ,

you never would have had the accident, because it has all the

safeguards built into it. It's designed by a Canadian, built right in

North Vancouver. At Globe '90 contracts were sold to American companies

and worldwide companies. It's a new development in navigation shipping.

It's tremendous, and the type of thing we should be looking at.

would also suggest to that member that years ago, before his time in

politics, a pipeline down to the United States was proposed for our oil —

instead of having ships go through Burrard Inlet. The leader of his

party, who was on city council at the time, opposed that. You can't

have it both ways. You're not going to turn the tap off. The world

wants our oil. It's a major employer. We have to build safeguards.

will stress again that his party called for a tug to go with ships all

the way to the Victoria station When they called for it, we were

already doing it. We not only have one tug which was demanded by the

Leader of the Opposition; we have four tugs going through that Second

Narrows bridge that you talked about. We have two tugs going through

the First Narrows with the ships.

When I say "we" here, this is Ports Canada — but

our province. There are three ships on standby for cleanup at all

times, not the one that was requested. The safeguards are there. That's

why we have such a good safety record in the harbour. When the task

force makes its recommendations, they'll be made public and open for

discussion.

I would also ask this question: would that side

be prepared to go to the oil companies and say: "Why don't we stop all

the oil tankers? Why don't we go back to the United States and ask them

if they want to put a pipeline down below the Gulf Islands and below

the San Juans so this whole area can be protected from oil tankers?"

Would his party be prepared to support that?

[3:45]

MR. JONES :

Mr. Chairman, I have a sneaking suspicion that my constituents aren't

going to be very comforted by the minister's answer. My constituents

have seen the tremendous increase in tanker traffic in the last six

years. I'm amazed at the level of knowledge among residents in that

area of projected plans by the petroleum industry to use Burrard Inlet

to vastly increase the projected tanker traffic.

The

minister wasn't listening. What I was suggesting that he pay attention

to was the call for a moratorium not on all tanker traffic, not on all

traffic, but just on an increase of that hazardous and dangerous

petroleum product going through what's described as probably the most

dangerous port in the world for that kind of traffic. We need to look

at it.

I don't have all the answers, and the minister certainly doesn't have all the answers. What I'm suggesting we need to do — and

I'm pleased that the minister raised Mr. Brander-Smith, because Mr.

Brander-Smith is very concerned about the opinions of those

municipalities that the minister rejects — is decide what the future of

that fragile harbour will be for petroleum products being exported by

very large tankers in that ecologically sensitive region of British

Columbia.

It's not a major setback for the commerce of the

province to slow down a little bit, to have a look at what we can

sustain there at a safe level, and plan accordingly. If it results in

plans — the kind the minister was throwing up in the air there — then

fine, let's have a look at it. But first of all we need not to have a

disaster, as is predicted by the report that the minister and his

government initiated. What we need to do is take a little pause, a

little reflection, a little review. There would a minor impact on the

commerce of the province while we did that as a safeguard for the

constituents around Vancouver Harbour, North Vancouver, North Burnaby

and Port Moody. That's not a lot to ask.

The minister is

right. There have been studies. The minister and his government hired

David Anderson, who made a number of recommendations. He suggested two

things. One was that there be a ban on further crude exports. He is the

government's own spokesperson, the government's own expert on this

issue. Secondly, he wanted 35 recommendations im-

[ Page

10441 ]

plemen t ed every three

weeks, and for any of those that were rejected.... I know the minister

is not listening, but this is going to be a question, with one of those

little question marks, very shortly. He wanted 35 recommendations every

three weeks, and for any of his recommendations that weren't

implemented, he wanted written reasons.

We have a study

that the government commissioned. It's basically ignoring that study.

What are you doing about the David Anderson study? Have you decided to

respond to his recommendation that you get on with it and start

implementing those recommendations on a regular basis — and for any that aren't implemented provide written reasons? Are you prepared to do that, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

The one thing that I think is interesting in this conversation is that

we talk about a spill in Vancouver harbour based on whatever method is

being used; but it's guessed at. I don't think that report says that

there's any less chance of it if there's a moratorium. The moratorium

wouldn't stop the prediction that there could be an oil spill.

With

regard to the David Anderson report, there were over 100

recommendations. I think that well over 30 of them have been

implemented so far. The rest are being looked at. Over half of the

recommendations fall under either federal or U.S. jurisdiction, not

this province's. They are being looked at by the task force, which

consists of our deputy minister and members from California,

Washington, Oregon and Alaska. That is being actively pursued. When all

of these federal and provincial task forces are complete and we sit

down and analyze what is going to be done, I'm sure other aspects of

that report will be complete.

MS. SMALLWOOD : On Friday, I believe — or perhaps Thursday — the

minister undertook to find some information about bonds for

acid-generating mines. I wonder if that information is available now

and if the minister would like to share it with us.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : The answer is five, and two have bonds for acid-mining drainage.

MS. SMALLWOOD : Perhaps the minister can elaborate on the amount of the bonds and why only two have bonds.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

The reason is that the other three mines don't have any acid-mine

drainage problems. The bonds are $400,000 and $700,000 respectively,

and they are under review at present.

MS. A. HAGEN : Like others who are entering the debate this afternoon,

I want to raise some matters that are of particular concern in my riding. New

Westminster, as the minister well knows, is strategically located on the Fraser

River. That body of water is increasingly being affected by developments along

the shore.

want to start off first of all by just raising a brief question about

the minister's plans in respect to waste management. New Westminster,

being the old city it is, has just one system for the disposal of

sewage and surface water, and the effect of that system on Annacis

Island, which is the major treatment plant, very often produces

concerns about the dilution of effluent flowing into the river. The

hilly city means that we're very often in a situation where the amount

just of drainage going into that plant — and I'm not sure how much of it is diverted to Annacis and how much to the Lulu Island plant; both of them are affected — has a very real effect on the river.

Could

the minister please advise about whether there are any plans to deal

with this matter of the separation of sewage and groundwater disposal

which affects my city? What kinds of support would be available for the

city in undertaking that fairly major project to improve that situation?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

I can advise the member that we have been meeting. I think I've had at

least two meetings in my office with the GVRD. We are looking very

closely, under a liquid waste management plan, at both areas of storm

sewers and other liquid wastes, and that will be part of an overall

plan that we'll work on for the Greater Vancouver Regional District.

Under the federal plan Mr. Bouchard talked about $2 billion for the

cleanup of the Fraser River; I was hoping that some of that money may

go toward that program to help us do it a little quicker than we could

possibly do it ourselves.

MS. A. HAGEN : I take it

from that answer that the minister doesn't have a timetable at this

point for those improvements or some general time-frame when he would

see those improvements taking place.

While I'm discussing

this whole issue, could I include in it a question about improvement to

at least a secondary stage for the Annacis treatment plant? What may be

in the offing for the upgrading of that sewage treatment plant to a

higher level of waste management treatment?

HON. MR- REYNOLDS :

Our figures here show that the upgrading will be completed by 1993, and

I would hope that the other plans could take place very quickly after

that.

MS. A. HAGEN : I know time is always of the

essence. I would like to pursue that a little further, but I can do

that directly with the minister.

The other issue I wanted

to raise is the issue of land development along the river. As the

minister well knows, there are some very significant projects that are

either underway or being contemplated on the banks of the river in my

city. There are some policy issues and some legislative issues that I'd

like to canvass in respect to those developments in order to know what

the ministry may have in mind at this stage for improving the

legislation and the regulations that govern development on sites on the

river.

[ Page 10442 ]

know there is floodplain legislation, for example, that would come into

play for any rezoning that would occur on Lulu Island, that portion of

the city within the riding boundaries. Also, as the minister may know,

there's a fairly extensive development which is currently under

discussion by the city at the tip of Lulu Island — the Port Royal project, as it is called — on a former industrial site.

There

are also proposals for a significant number of apartments east of

Eighth Street, the current market, on what was dock land, part of it

over water, which I should imagine will require a fairly major amount

of fill and drilling, all of which have an effect both on the river and

on concerns about the status of the land that is being redeveloped. The

land on Lulu Island is industrial land, and we all know that industrial

land may or may not have contaminants that are of concern to those

people who may at some time be resident on that land.

From

my research into this issue, it appears that we really have a kind of

legislative vacuum. There's no clear statutory responsibility about who

deals with these issues. We have had some practice around the Expo

land. I understand from questions we have asked the minister in this

House that he has taken responsibility or is the minister responsible

for that development.

Vancouver, for example, has a bylaw

which states very clearly that the city undertakes no responsibility

for advising applicants as to the condition of soil or construction

materials present on any site; authority for assessing potential

hazards associated with soil contamination lies with the provincial

Ministry of Environment. Yet I understand the ministry has no

statutorily-based standards to govern contaminated sites.

know the issue is of concern to all municipalities it's also of concern

to the real estate industry, which has caused this issue to be studied

and has completed the first phase of that study in a document called

"Toxic Real Estate in British Columbia: Identification of Issues," a

1989 report of the West Coast Environmental Law Research Foundation of

Vancouver, Canada. I understand that there are two other volumes on

this issue to be published shortly, having to do, I think, with legal

liability and some statutory proposals.

As I read this

document and look at some of the issues that are coming up in my own

riding, it seems to me quite important at this time that we have some

knowledge of the Ministry of Environment's responsibility and intent

around statutes or regulations in respect of this land so that we know,

first of all, that on the sites there is a due process everyone can

know and understand, and that in respect to developments along the

river there are procedures in place to ensure that damage isn't done to

the river and the fishery.

I think these are extremely

important issues for us to have some knowledge of in the riding at this

time, as we are looking at the approval processes for the development

of these properties. I would appreciate comments, insights and

direction the minister can provide as to his ministry's involvement and

intentions. I think that would be helpful for us at this time.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

The member brings up a very good point. First of all, I will say that I

was in New Westminster at a friend's wedding not too long ago, and that

whole development is looking very nice. The redevelopment of the

downtown is certainly a great picture for New Westminster.

the area of contaminated sites, if there was a concern on a piece of

property at the present time, it would be up to New Westminster to ask

us to look at it, and we would set the standards for remediation which

the developer would have to meet before developing the land.

the present time we are in the process of preparing contaminated sites

legislation, which will work in conjunction with the federal program

for orphaned sites. It is legislation that we have to have to qualify

for assistance from the federal government on some of these things.

[4:00]

My opinion is that we should have a White Paper on the subject so

that we get more input from the municipalities and cities around the

province. I would hope that we would have that ready in the very near

future.

MS. A. HAGEN : Two brief questions. In

respect of a site that the city feels it would like to have reviewed

and the standards that are set by the ministry, could the ministry

advise whether there are any standards for these standards, or does the

ministry work on an individual site basis? What is the process here,

and is the information available to the public and municipalities about

criteria for those standards?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : Yes, we do have criteria, and they're available to municipalities and to you if you'd like to see them.

MS. A. HAGEN :

One final question. I will take the opportunity to follow this up

directly with the ministry. In respect of developments that are taking

place right on the river, where the very nature of the construction is

going to have an effect on the river — it can't help but have an effect, because they're going to be driving piles; there may be fill and a whole range of things — is

there legislation or regulation regarding that? Is it shared with the

federal ministries? Can the minister provide me with some information

regarding his ministry's involvement with that kind of development?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

Yes, we are involved; in fact, in different ways. We are involved in

diking. Some of those instances require our approval. Also federal

Fisheries is involved, and we work very closely with them on those

types of developments to make sure that everything is environmentally

safe and sound.

[ Page

10443 ]

MS. A. HAGEN : Are there provincial regulations or statutes

that in any way come into play here, or are these matters governed more

by federal bodies?

Let me suggest one area where I

anticipate there's going to be a fairly extensive impact on the river,

which is a site east of Eighth Street where a number of highrise towers

will be built out over the water. Is there a role here that the

ministry specifically plays? Is it a regulatory role, or is it governed

by some statute that exists within the province?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

Yes, if you're talking about the buildings that would protrude over the

water or affect them, they would have to get approval under the Water

Act. There are regulations, and they would have to go through and meet

those. I would assume also that New Westminster would probably have

public hearings on that development, at which time I would expect that

our people and Fisheries would be there to answer any of the questions,

if they were asked to be. But certainly they would have to meet our

regulations before they could get the go-ahead.

MR. CASHORE :

Just for the information of the Minister of Environment and his staff,

I expect to be canvassing a number of items along with my colleague

from the Cariboo for the rest of today. My colleague from Prince Rupert

will be returning, and I expect that for the first part of tomorrow

afternoon — perhaps three-quarters of an hour — we'll be dealing with

forest issues that he wants to have some involvement in. Then I hope

that we would be able to conclude in a total of an hour and a half to

two hours tomorrow afternoon. I know there's no way that I should even

attempt — and I'm not attempting in any way — to restrict my government

colleagues from participating, but I will do everything I can to

canvass the material I have in that time.

I would like to

revisit the issue of underground storage tanks, Mr. Chairman. During

debate yesterday, the member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head (Ms Cull) referred

to some information that has been made available through the

Association of Professional Engineers of B.C., which is an organization

that not only out of their own interest for their own industry but also

out of concern for the province has issued an important and

far-reaching report.

Among other things, they point out

that leakage of as little as one litre of gasoline could render one

million litres of water unfit for drinking, and that significant

concentrations of carcinogens such as benzine can persist in drinking

water and take many decades to remove.

They also point out that there have been at least 15 reported gasoline leaks

in the lower mainland over the past two years. There was one in Kelowna that

caused an estimated $300,000 damage to telephone cables. They point out that

in many cases the people most affected by the leaks were powerless to obtain

compensation for lost time and/or damage to their property. In a number of cases

the provincial waste management branch was unable to help with cleanup

They

have recommended that as a first step the provincial government should

immediately start documenting the status of the underground storage

tanks in the province, especially those in sensitive areas. This data

could be collected with the cooperation of the industries involved. But

it would seem to me that it should not be left to the industry to

collect the data with some benign neglect or benevolent approval on the

part of government. It would seem from the minister's comments in the

House yesterday that indeed the expectation would be to leave it to the

industry. I think it's very clear, and the Association of Professional

Engineers of B.C. makes it very clear, that there must be a much

stricter government-centred process of monitoring.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

Mr. Chairman, the documented status of underground oil tanks is being

done, as the member says, and it's being done by industry. Many times

on that side they talk about "polluter pay," and in this case the

polluters pay. They're doing it, but we're monitoring it. I think that

satisfies me that the job will get done. I guess I have greater faith

in the private enterprise system than my friend on the other side.

MR. CASHORE :

Mr. Chairman, it has nothing to do with faith in the private enterprise

system. That is completely a red herring. It's a matter of government

fulfilling its regulatory role and creating an even playing field in

servicing industry in that way. That's a responsibility that government

has. It has nothing to do with failure to trust private industry, and

certainly the professional engineers consist of people. I would assume

that the vast majority would be people who uphold the principles of

private enterprise as I do. Just because I believe that there are

situations where government has a responsibility does not mean that I'm

opposed to private enterprise. it simply means that there is some

disagreement as to where private enterprise should be involved in

matters that relate to the public welfare and that require independent

monitoring.

The point is made that the issue is so serious

and the potential danger to our water supply is so immense that it

requires the very careful "hands-on" protection of government through

regulation, monitoring and standards. That is absolutely necessary in

that process for that point to be made.

The professional

engineers point out that as well as documenting the status of

underground storage tanks, the province should, as a minimum, adopt the

new national environment code of practice for underground storage tanks

containing petroleum products for use in the province. I know the

minister said yesterday that the code would be adopted in three months.

But we have had the experience of Environment ministers in this House

promising that information on out-of-compliance polluters would be made

available by the end of last summer, for instance. It wasn't; it didn't

happen. Even the limited information that this minister has made

available has not been adequate and has been done in a manner which

[ Page 10444 ]

indicates that he is going to control the flow of this information and confine it to the 12 worst or something like that.

Here

is another case in point. These standards should be adopted

immediately. I would point out to the minister that the taxpayers of

British Columbia, through their Ministry of Environment, in view of the

fact that the Minister of Environment is one of the CCME — the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment — actually participated in developing the standards in that code. British Columbia, I believe — perhaps the minister can confirm this — is

the only province in Canada that as of this date has not adopted the

code. Would the minister elaborate on his answer of yesterday about

British Columbia's role in coming on board with that code? Will he

confirm that British Columbia is the only province in Canada that has

not come under the code that it actually helped to develop?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : I think there is a slight misunderstanding, and maybe it's the way it was

explained yesterday. The code has been adopted. It's the monitoring

that will take about three months. I'm working with our staff to get

things coordinated on how they are going to monitor the code. But the

code itself has been adopted.

MR. CASHORE : That is

interesting information given yesterday's answer that it would be

adopted in three months, did the minister really mean that the

monitoring would begin in three months?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : Yes.

MR. CASHORE :

Then we still have a problem, because the information I have is that

the code has not been adopted. Could the minister advise the House of

the date that the code was adopted by British Columbia? Could he also

advise me whether a news release was issued at that time informing the

public that it had been adopted?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : I am advised by my staff that it was adopted immediately the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment agreed to it.

MR. CASHORE : In other words, the government of British Columbia has adopted the code but simply has not started using it.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

It's being monitored right now. The code is in place and is being

monitored, and in about three months' time we should have reports on

the monitoring that our staff has been doing.

MR. CASHORE :

Oh, so now it isn't that the monitoring is going to begin in about

three months as was stated a few moments ago; it is that it is being

monitored at this very moment. I assume the minister means that it has

been monitored since it was approved by the government and that it is

now just a matter of getting the reports of the monitoring in three

months. Is that what the minister is saying?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : Yes.

MR. CASHORE :

Well, this is very interesting news, I am sure, to the Association of

Professional Engineers of British Columbia. I don't know if the

minister has corresponded with them to update them on their assumption

about this situation.

Would the minister advise the House

about the process of adoption? Was it simply by being there, or is

there a process of adoption whereby the government adopts something

through OIC or legislation? Would the minister advise the House if he

knows the procedures in any other provinces for adopting this code? In

other words, is this the standard for adopting the code?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

The fact that we agreed to it at the meeting was the adoption. Nothing

else is required. It is much like being at the Globe '90 meeting when

we agreed on certain things to do with packaging. It was agreed by all

the provinces and was adopted. It becomes part of what we do in this

province.

[4:15]

MR. CASHORE : Mr. Chairman, yesterday the minister said:

"With

regard to storage tanks, the companies right now are in the process of

changing all the tanks in the province. They'll be done in an orderly

fashion and be completed within the next couple of years, I would hope.

The industry is doing an inventory of all buried private oil tanks in

the province. We're working with them on that inventory, and when we've

got it complete, if regulations are required, we will do them. But

we're hoping that the private sector will end up cleaning it up."

The

fact is that there are between 500 and 2,000 abandoned residential

underground storage tanks in the province. Who is identifying those 500

to 2,000 abandoned sites? Is the industry in the process of doing that?

Is the industry identifying and cataloguing those sites? What reason

does the minister have to expect that the industry would necessarily

know where those abandoned tanks are?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

Mr. Chairman, the answers to the first two questions are yes and yes.

The last answer is that the industry put them in. Who better to know

where they are than the people who installed them?

MR. CASHORE :

Would the minister advise the House, then, if he has contracted with

the industry to address the issue of the abandoned tanks? He's saying:

"Yes, the industry is doing the monitoring." Would he advise the House

when he initiated the process and contracted with the industry? What

entity of the industry is doing the work that the minister has stated

is underway? Could we have the names of the companies and the names of

the

[ Page

10445 ]

corporations, if they are corpora t ions, that are presently conducting an inventory of these abandoned residential underground storage tanks in the province?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

The original agreement was about six months ago. We expect the report

to be in our hands in about three months' time. It's being done by an

association of the companies in the petroleum industry.

MR. CASHORE :

Mr. Chairman, could the minister name the association? Is it the

Petroleum Association? Would the minister agree to table the documents

contracting the association to perform this task?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

Mr. Chairman, the association is the Canadian Petroleum Producers. We

do not have a contract with them; we have an agreement. They'll be

reporting back to us in three months.

MR. CASHORE :

Mr. Chairman, would the minister advise the House what the process was

that led to this agreement? Was there a letter of intent? Were there

letters exchanged authorizing this process to proceed?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : Basically it was done through meetings and discussion. No formal document was signed.

MR. CASHORE :

I understand that there is a formal inventory process underway. That

association agreed at some amorphous time in the past to begin to do a

job on behalf of the government. There was never any letter of intent.

There was never any minute that one could table. There was never any

reference through an OIC or in the Legislature; somehow it just started.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

Mr. Chairman, you don't need OICs and legislation to get everything

done. An example is the oil tankers in Burrard Inlet: putting four tugs

through the Second Narrows, two tugs through the First Narrows, one tug

to Victoria station and three boats in the harbour looking after them

and what they're doing. All these conditions were done with agreement

with industry. It did not require legislation; it did not require

orders-in-council.

This is the same type of agreement. You

don't need legislation or orders-in-council to force people to do

things. The companies have as much at stake in doing what is good for

the environment as anyone else today, as I'm sure the member knows.

Everybody wants to get on the environmental bandwagon They're asking

what they can do, and in these cases they're doing it.

MR. CASHORE : Mr. Chairman, the Association of Professional Engineers

of British Columbia make a very clear point with regard to the potential dangers

of these underground storage tanks the potential danger to aquifers. It's

a very serious thing.

The

minister tells me and tells the House that while this privatized

process of monitoring is taking place there are no letters of

understanding, no document whatsoever that indicates by what process,

for what remuneration, by what standards.... What are the expectations

of this government with regard to this inventory that the minister has

referred to, this monitoring that he says is now taking place?

should be the simplest thing in the world. The minister knows that in

private enterprise when a business deal is made between two entities

there is some form of a contract. There is some form of document that

indicates what the agreement is, what in this case the industry, the

association that the minister referred to, will do on behalf of the

government and the people of B.C. and what on the other hand will be

the responsibility of the people of B.C. The minister seems to be

saying that no such document exists and that it's in the hands of

private enterprise, and we just leave it at that.

question has nothing to do with that ideological discussion about

private enterprise. It has everything to do with good business. If

something is as serious and important as has been outlined by the

professional engineers, then what is the business process whereby this

government has facilitated this association to carry out that work on

its behalf?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : We make agreements around this province all the time — with farmers. People have codes of ethics, codes of business. We don't need....

MR. CASHORE : Just a shake of the hand.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

Yes, a handshake. Just like you do with a parishioner in a church. You

say, "Shake my hand," and he'll do something for you. You don't need a

contract with everybody in this world. You don't need a piece of

legislation to solve every problem in the province.

MR. CASHORE : Not even when it's on behalf of the taxpayers?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

The taxpayer saves money when you don't have contracts. The taxpayer

has respect for the fact that these people will do their job. The

taxpayer knows that this minister went out and did the deal with the

people that run the tankers through Burrard Inlet. It didn't cost the

taxpayers any money at all — except the salary they pay me — to make a deal, shake their hand. And they've done it.

I'm

sure those corporations have memos inside their corporations as to how

they're going to do it. But these corporations volunteered to do this

job at their expense. It's their business; they should be responsible.

I remind the member — he talks all the time about "polluter pay" —

that that's exactly what this is. This is the polluter paying for

something they did years ago that maybe wasn't considered wrong.

[ Page 10446 ]

Nobody knew what the problems would be. They're helping to clean it up.

That

report will be available in about three months' time, and I am sure the

member will make a note in his diary to ask me for a copy of it, and I

will see that he gets it.

MR. CASHORE : Just one

point before the member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head asks a question. It

isn't that simple: polluter pay. This is an issue of accountability.

What is the process whereby there can be accountability, when through

some sort of nondescript process on a handshake at some time in the

past it was agreed that the inventory would begin on these underground

tanks?

We're talking about a very serious problem here, a

problem that no less than the Association of Professional Engineers of

B.C. has raised. Really, does the minister think that they're going to

fail for the kind of explanation that he's giving in the House today? I

don't think that explanation would impress the business community or

any other community in this province.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

Business will stand up and cheer with any member of government, no

matter which side they're on or what party they're with, if we cut down

the bureaucracy, cut down contracts, cut down delays, just get the job

done. That's exactly what's happening in this area. We're getting the

job done.

MS. CULL : I'm really impressed. Are you

telling me, Mr. Minister, that petroleum companies are going to go

around to households that may have had tanks installed 20, 30 or maybe

even 40 years ago, that they're no longer supplying oil to, and check

that these tanks are there and that they're not creating a problem? Is

that what I'm hearing, that the petroleum industry is going to provide

a wonderful benefit for no cost to come and check my home to see

whether there's an abandoned oil tank in the back yard now that I've

converted to gas or electricity or some other form of energy? Is that

what you're saying?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : I'm finally pleased. From the other side I've got somebody who agrees with me.

MS. CULL :

I think this is going to be news to some of the companies. I was

checking with Chevron again after our discussion yesterday, and they've

told me that they have about 70 stations that they operate on a

two-party basis. In other words, Chevron supplies the gas but someone

else owns the station. They don't have any control over the tanks in

these two-party stations. They feel aggrieved that while in the ones

they own 100 percent without any sharing they're doing their

environmental bit and voluntarily incurring the cost, some of their

competitors are not.

There are certainly companies out

there who are not going around looking out for the environment, and I

would be very surprised indeed to find out that the petroleum industry

is going throughout the residential neighbourhoods of British Columbia

looking for abandoned oil tanks that may have been put in decades ago

by other companies — by other people, maybe by individuals —

going to people that they are not even supplying oil to today and

looking for these tanks. That's the point that we've been trying to

make.

The engineers' association has suggested that

anywhere between 500 and 2,000 abandoned tanks have this problem. There

are remedies to filling them up or removing them, but they have to be

identified and found. I think that the information we have shows that

not all the companies are aware of this agreement you say they have

with you, and they're not all out there looking for these tanks.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

I would stress to the member that I have said the association is making

a report back to us. They have an association. If somebody in their

association wants to give them a hard time or not agree, I guess that's

the price they might pay with publicity if they were not to be part of

something that was recommended by that association.

MS. CULL :

I just wanted to go on with one other point about the discussion I had

with Chevron and the code of practice we were talking about earlier.

They suggested that the only reason for having it was to have the

regulations. Without the regulations to ensure a level playing-field

for all the companies, there really isn't any benefit in having the

code.

While you say we have the code of environmental

practice for these underground storage tanks simply by having

participated in the conference, it doesn't seem to mean very much if

we're not going to get regulations. I now understand your answer to me

yesterday not to mean we are going to see regulations within three

months, but just that you are expecting a report back from a coalition

of companies.

[4:30]

In the meantime, we will still have various operators delivering oil

to tanks that may not be safe. We will have tanks underground that have

been abandoned but still have the potential to contaminate the water

and the soil. We don't have any regulations. We'll have to rely on the

environmental goodwill of those corporations which see it to their

advantage to be environmentally safe, but we will not have any way of

bringing into line those who do not see it to their advantage.

MR. SERWA :

We're talking about underground storage tanks and certainly the

pollution hazards that occur with rusted-out and leaking tanks. I just

thought I'd like to talk for a couple of minutes on the hazard of

leaking underground storage tanks. It is a very real problem,

recognizing the number of tanks that are in the province, not only in

the urban areas but also in the rural areas.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

[ Page

10447 ]

Several months ago I had the opportunity to talk to the British

Columbia Water Well Drilling Association in Kamloops. A number of

concerns were expressed with respect to groundwater. Groundwater is

going to become increasingly important in the province of British

Columbia. There's no question, with our growing population, in spite of

our water richness and resources, that in many areas — and certainly the Okanagan is one such area — the

use of groundwater is becoming ever more increasing in importance to

supplement the waters from our takes in the upper elevations and our

lower lakes.

The contamination of this groundwater supply

is a very important concern to municipalities, to regional districts,

to domestic and irrigation users. A leaking storage tank of fuel oil or

gasoline can contaminate groundwater supplies for many years over a

very large area. One of the concerns expressed to me specifically was

protection of that groundwater supply.

The challenge, of

course, is that unless we take action as quickly as we possibly can,

the lack of action and the lack of control — not only from concerns

with underground storage tanks but also expressed concerns with the

drilling of holes of wells that go into the water table — could result

in pollution from that source as well. It would take many years at a

substantial cost to try and clean up that pollution.

many cases we will be unable to clean up that type of pollution, with

the result that many areas could face serious problems. Groundwater

pollution is a serious problem in jurisdictions in Europe, and the

potential for that type of problem to become serious in British

Columbia is also evident.

One of the things that the

ministry and the minister is working on is a collection of information

with respect to water wells and the groundwater tables throughout the

province and the development of legislation to control the drilling

activity into the water table. This certainly came through loud and

clear from the discussions I had subsequent to the meeting with the

Water Well Drilling Association with their respective concerns. I know

that the minister is well aware of this problem, and the ministry is in

fact working on developing criteria — an information bank or a data bank — on

our underground water resources. I would like the minister to reply

briefly to the concern of the Water Well Drilling Association with the

potential of pollution to our very valuable underground water resources.

HON. MR REYNOLDS :

I'm glad the member brought that up. We have a meeting with those

people, and we will have a discussion paper coming out some time in the

next two or three weeks.

MS. CULL : I'd like to talk about underground storage tanks that

don't hold petroleum products. There have been at least two documented spills

involving non-petroleum items. One was a toxic organic liquid that leaked from

a tank on Tilbury Island over a period of about eight years. It wasn't detected

for eight years as it slowly leaked into sand on the banks of the Fraser River.

The

other leak involved toxic wood preservative at a sawmill in Penticton

where I understand the leak entered the groundwater and eventually the

Okanagan River and resulted in significant cleanup costs to the tune of

about $450,000.

Could the minister tell us what the

government is doing about tanks that hold non-petroleum products? Is

there a similar agreement with a Canadian association of non-petroleum

products that is checking these tanks voluntarily at no cost to the

public, as seems to be happening with the petroleum industry?

The

engineers' study we've been referring to indicates that there may be

8,000 such tanks that could be leaking toxic substances around the

province.

MR. RABBITT : How many? Eighty?

MS. CULL : Eight thousand.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

Mr. Chairman, all I could say on that one without.... I don't have any

details on the specific case on Tilbury Island, nor do my staff. But in

most of these cases it would probably be on private land, and it would

be the responsibility of the owner of that land or the company to clean

it up. If one was found that was put there a long time ago and the

company was no longer around, it would probably qualify under the

orphaned-sites cleanup that the federal government has.

MS. CULL : I don't understand the difference between tanks that hold petroleum products and those that hold chemical products — the non-petroleum products. The petroleum tanks that we've been talking about — particularly the domestic ones, but certainly most of the corporate ones —

are also on private land. Are you telling us then that homeowners would

benefit from such a program? If we've managed to get the petroleum

industry to voluntarily go out to homes in British Columbia that

they're not providing petroleum products to, in order to ascertain that

these tanks are there and to provide whatever kinds of remedial service

is needed to clean them up and make them safe, why is there not a

similar program for non-petroleum product tanks?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

Mr. Chairman, there is a big difference. When you're talking of the

petroleum companies, they may not be selling a product now, but they

were at one time. That means we know whose responsibility it is if

they're still around.

When you're talking about

non-petroleum products, it's not the same type of industry. You're

probably talking about a whole bunch of different people and different

cases. It may be an individual who had a storage tank for whatever

reason. I