1979 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 32nd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, JULY 10, 1979

Night Sitting

[ Page

653 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Environment estimates.

On vote 89.

Mr. Skelly –– 653

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 654

Mr. Gabelmann –– 656

Mrs. Wallace –– 657

Mrs. Jordan –– 658

Mr. Cocke –– 658

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 659

Mr. Skelly –– 660

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 661

Mr. Nicolson –– 662

Mr. Davis –– 663

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 665

Mrs. Wallace –– 666

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 668

Tabling Documents

B.C. Heritage Trust report, 1978.

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 668

Provincial Capital Commission statement of receipts and expenditures up to

March 31, 1979.

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 668

TUESDAY, JULY 10, 1979

The House met at 8:30 p.m.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT

(continued)

On vote 89: minister's office, $164,938 — continued.

MR. SKELLY:

Mr. Chairman, just before the long dinner hour we were discussing

procedures under the Pesticide Control Act and regulations, and various

appeals and that kind of thing, and I mentioned the lack of a policy

surrounding the use of pesticides in the province. I believe I read a

quotation from the royal commission which was held into pesticides by

the previous NDP government, in which it was suggested that the present

legal and administrative arrangements are cumbersome, lack public

credibility and tend to perpetuate the use of chemical pesticides

instead of alternative methods.

One of the main battles that

they've had around the granting of pesticide permits in the province is

that inadequate consideration has been given by some authorities such

as B.C. Hydro and some forest companies into alternative methods of

pest management. I believe Hydro has even admitted that they have only

two people on their staff who have been doing work in this area,

looking into alternatives to pesticide control, weed control or

vegetation control other than the chemical methods. At one time the

member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) and I wrote to Hydro and asked them what

kind of work they were doing in alternative management means, and they

fairly well indicated that there was nothing on the books.

think that one of the ways a prospective applicant should have to

justify his use of chemical herbicides or pesticides is that he must

come before the committee and prove that he has used alternatives and

those alternative means have failed. Unfortunately, because of the lack

of public view that's involved in the initial process — that is when

the interministerial committee considers the application — it's not

known to the public just what alternatives have been considered, what

alternatives have been used and have failed whether an applicant has

done any research into the alternatives at all.

The

minister, I believe, was in the process of discussing some of those

areas of concern. One of the things, I think, that the minister and the

government lacks is a real serious intent to minimize the use of

chemical pesticides in the province. When they passed the Pesticide

Control Act in the first place, it was simply to create a management

system so that they would know what pesticides are being used; they

would know that for certain categories of pesticides, licences of a

certain nature would be issued to make sure that people who were

applying those pesticides did have some background in the use of them.

It's quite different in Sweden, obviously, and I quote from a magazine

that's published by the ministry. The policy in SWEDEN — and I gather that

the minister has visited Sweden to look into things other than this, but he

has visited Sweden — is....

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: Perhaps the minister will clarify that.

HON. MR. BENNETT: What do you know that we don't know?

MR. SKELLY:

What does he know that he doesn't want to know? I gather he was looking

into the management of wolves and he took over.... [Laughter.]

Perhaps the minister will clarify that subject.

In Sweden they treat the use and abuse of pesticides and poisonous chemicals very seriously. In Wildlife Review

of summer 1978 they indicate a Swedish industrialist was arrested

following the discovery of 32,000 gallons of toxic waste buried in

rusty barrels on plant property. The official charge was "spreading

poisonous substances." They take a much more serious view of the

application and abuse of these substances in other countries than we do

here. One of the things required is that we tighten the control of

poisonous chemical substances. It appears to me the minister and his

government do not have adequate concern for these types of substances

and the problems they can create in the environment.

That

leads to me to another

section that I wish to discuss under the

Pesticide Control Act, and that is the minister's handling of certain

chemicals such as 2,4-D, 2, 4,5-T and picloram. Just before the last

election the minister suspended the use of 2,4-D in Okanagan Lake, and

the reason given then was that the Eurasian milfoil infestation had

gone on for so long they might as well give up on it, although they did

apply for permits in Kalamalka Lake and Wood Lake. The Premier looks a

little confused at this point, but I'm sure if he discusses this with

the minister he'll find out that that's true.

In addition,

the water investigations branch applied for permits to use 2,4-D in

lakes on the lower mainland and in lakes on south and central Vancouver

Island. Fortunately, the pesticide control branch determined it was an

abuse of the legislation to apply for permits where Eurasian milfoil

had yet to be detected and had yet to be a problem. It does demonstrate

there is an empire building up within the water investigations branch

that seems to have as its objective the use of 2,4-D wherever they can

use it rather than wherever milfoil is a problem. This brings up

another problem. In the ministry two different forces are operating:

one wishes to use a pesticide, and which is an applicant for the use of

pesticide; and the other judges on the merits of using a pesticide in a

particular situation.

So in this case two organizations

under the same ministry are in conflict, and it becomes a problem. I

feel that the water investigations branch should be out of the use of

2,4-D altogether. They should not be applying for permits. They should

not be encouraging the application for pesticide permits. They should

be out of that aspect of the problem altogether. If the minister and a

branch of his ministry are responsible for adjudicating on pesticide

permits, then his ministry should not be applying for the permit at the

same time. It's a conflict of interest to have two agencies within the

same ministry under the same minister, one of which is applying

pesticides and one of

[ Page 654 ]

which is adjudicating on the use of pesticides. There is the possibility of conflict, and it should be eliminated.

The

other questions I'd like to ask the minister are about the chemical

2,4,5-T. I understand that in the United States the chemicals 2,4,5-T

and 2,4,5-TP are still under suspension, and also in one other province

in Canada. There are serious concerns in certain areas of the United

States that the use of this chemical has caused monstrous birth defects

and serious genetic problems. Unfortunately the minister carried on a

moratorium on 2,4,5-T in this province until the end of June, and then

he lifted it. His reasons for lifting it were that the Canadian

government authorities had checked with the United States, analysed

their study material and found out it was inadequate. For that reason

he has carried on with the use of 2,4,5-T and 2,4,5-TP in the province

of British Columbia, even though he has increased the restriction on

purchasing and applying the chemical. But the minister has not given us

in any detail what analyses Canada has done of the U.S. information,

which brought them to the conclusion that 2,4,5-T should be allowed to

be used here in British Columbia when it is still under suspension in

the United States. Perhaps the minister could explain that and possibly

table the studies his ministry has done.

I think the same

thing applies to Tordon 22-K. I believe a permit has been granted in

the Kispiox o Hazelton area. The appellants are using a paper by Dr.

Melvin Reuber against the use of Tordon 22-K, wherein it was indicated

in his analysis of Dow Chemical's information that Tordon 22-K does

cause cancer, and that any material that causes cancer in one mammalian

species is capable of causing cancer in another species, or it should

be considered a possible carcinogen for human beings until it's proved

otherwise. If it causes cancer in one mammalian species, it should be

considered carcinogenic in man unless the proof indicates otherwise. On

this basis, the people of the Hazelton-Kispiox Valley area have asked

that the use of Tordon 22-K for Canada thistle and sow thistle in their

area be suspended.

In the meantime I believe somebody from

the Ministry of Agriculture in the province has done a critique of

Reuber's paper which has not been made public. It says that his

information is balderdash, and yet we have no opportunity to obtain

this information from the ministry to send it to Melvin Reuber to be

checked out. I'm just wondering on what grounds the minister is

intending to allow Tordon 22-K to be continued to be used in the

province in spite of the information that has become available recently

by Melvin Reuber, who's a pathologist for the National Cancer Institute

in the United States.

Will the minister would be kind enough to answer those questions?

HON. MR. MAIR:

I presume the appropriate place to start, Mr. Member, would be on the

2,4-D issue. I think we discussed the Pesticide Control Appeal Board

and all the rest of that before supper. I think I indicated to you at

that time that there are perhaps better ways that we can do some of the

things. We'll look into some of the suggestions you've made.

The

2,4-D situation is one of those areas where we had to make a hard

decision as to whether we were going to use this herbicide in the

control of Eurasian milfoil. We decided we were, but I think the

circumstances under which we use it are not commonly understood or

known. We will only use it at the request of and with the obvious

consent of the local authorities involved. This is the case in Wood

Lake and Kalamalka Lake. We had a false start, as you possibly know, in

Kalamalka Lake. The Vernon city council had a couple of rethinks, but

we got it down so that we used it there.

Your criticism of

our making applications for use of 2,4-D in lakes on Vancouver Island

and other places in British Columbia may be all well and good, except

that I think you should understand the motive. We did not make that

application so that we, as a ministry, could use it at that point in

time. We made the application in the event that a local authority in

those waterway areas asked us at some later time to do so in the

interest of speed. Time is of the essence, I think you would agree, in

dealing with the milfoil problem. It's not something that you want to

let take hold if you could avoid it. I agree with you. We were turned

down and that's the end of the matter, but I'm only discussing the

motives of it now. If, for example, milfoil had got into Shawnigan

Lake, and the local authorities had asked us to use 2,4-D in the

treatment of that milfoil, we would have been in a position to do so

immediately. If they did not ask us to, or specifically asked us not

to, no more would have been lost than the time and the effort it took

us to appear before the board and get the permit. It may have been that

we wasted some effort; however, that's a judgment that anybody can make

or not make as they deem fit. But I thought that you should know what

the motivation for that was.

Let's deal with 2,4,5-T and

2,4,5-TP separately. Now 2,4,5-T has been rescheduled into

schedule 1

of the regulations, and that puts it in exactly the same category as

DDT, which has not been used in this province for years. I, frankly,

cannot think of an occasion when permission to use that, since it is in

schedule 1, would be permitted. It just strikes me as something that

would be totally unforeseeable. I just don't see it happening at all.

Now

2,4,5-TP, which is principally used in apple orchards, as the member

probably knows, is still being used in the United States for that

purpose. It is, of course, in

schedule 2, and it must be applied for,

and I'm sure the member knows what the conditions are. The situation

with the two of them is virtually the same as the situation in the

United States. To all intents and purposes 2,4,5-T is banned since it's

in

schedule 1 and is not going to be allowed for application. But

2,4,5-TP is limited principally to the same uses as in the United

States, where the concern was originally raised.

Now on the

other matter, I don't want to hide behind the matter of Tordon being

before the courts, but, I think, perhaps, the member might agree that

we should abide by, or at least postpone, discussion on that until we

find out what the courts are going to do with that application which is

on public land.

We have made no effort to prevent that being

used on private land. We have no information before us to indicate

there is any reason why we should change that stand. I say to you

frankly, Mr. Member, there is scarcely a herbicide or a pesticide in

use that somebody could not raise a concern about, and say, "I think it

may be carcinogenic," or "I think it may do that," or "I have reason to

believe, having read a paper compiled by somebody, somewhere, this

might be the case." The subject is of such worldwide interest that

[ Page

655 ]

it is not very difficult to find authority for almost every proposition. The

long and the short of it is that we have had no evidence, hard or otherwise,

to give us concern about the application of this particular substance on private

lands, and so we have taken no particular steps to avoid its use.

far as public lands are concerned, as I say, I think the matter is now

before the courts. It's under appeal and we will take a look at that

situation after the judge has ruled.

MR. SKELLY: I am

amazed that the minister would say there's no evidence before them that

picloram is or is not a carcinogen when the paper has been tabled by

Dr. Reuber of the National Cancer Institute, and is fairly widely

available. I would think that the minister, being concerned about the

environment and about the health of the people of British Columbia,

would insist that the burden of proof is on the pesticide producer or

user that it does not cause cancer, or does not harm the environment.

That's where the burden of proof should lie. That's the real problem in

situations such as these.

The same thing has happened in

Kispiox-Hazelton, where the citizens have had to seek out the

information, because the government feels they should use pesticides

almost without question. It is only when citizens bring up this

information that government changes either the category of the

pesticide, as they did 2,4,5-T, or restricts its use. The burden of

proof should always be on the applicator or the producer of the

chemical that it does not cause harm to the environment or human beings.

the case of Dr. Reuber's paper, which has now been available since he

presented it to a conference in Portland, Oregon, a few weeks ago, the

minister should have that information. In his paper, Dr. Reuber has

taken material produced by Dow Chemical in their analysis of Tordon

22-K, and shown they have misused statistics. He indicates that from

material produced in their studies Tordon 22-K does cause cancer in

rats and dogs. His information as a pathologist with the National

Cancer Institute in the United States is that if a substance can cause

cancer in one mammalian species, it can cause cancer in another. Also,

the tolerance is zero. One molecule of a carcinogen striking a

receptive cell over a latency period which may last as long as 30 or 40

years can cause cancer in human beings,

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: You didn't understand?

AN HON. MEMBER: No, no, I'm sorry. My colleague said, "You've got to die of something," and I said: "Why?" [Laughter.]

MR. SKELLY:

Well, if I'm going to die of something I'd rather have it something

other than what is sprayed upon me by the Social Credit government.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Perhaps the member would address the Chair.

MR. SKELLY: To inform the minister as to the total costs of cancer to

society, I'm referring to testimony by Dr. Samuel Epstein before the United

States Senate. He's a professor of occupational and environmental medicine

at the University of Illinois. Talking about the failure of the National Cancer

Institute to take measures to control environmental carcinogens such as Tordon

22-K, 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T, even with the exception of dioxanes or such substances,

the recognized annual total cost of cancer in the United States is some $30

billion. There is mounting evidence that the externalized costs, such as the

$8.5 billion surveillance costs for workers exposed to the few OSHA regulated

carcinogens and the approximately $2 billion Love Canal lawsuits, are substantially

greater. So in the United States, if we're dealing with costs of cancer

on an annual basis of something like $30 billion to $40 billion a year, many

of them environmentally caused, chemicals and substances put into the environment

by people such as the British Columbia government and the regional districts,

working under the Weed Control Act, pose a substantial financial problem that

we are going to have to pay for ultimately through the Ministry of Health.

urge the minister to take a stronger role in examining the properties

of these chemicals and, in fact, even take a stronger restrictive stand

than the United States government and the EPA are in making sure that

the burden of proof lies with the user of these chemicals and with the

producer of these chemicals, prior to allowing them to be used here in

British Columbia.

HON. MR. MAIR: I think, perhaps —

not with the desire to have the last word on the subject, but just to

clear up one or two matters, Mr. Member — the difficulty of the

proposition you make is that one is constantly going to be asked to

prove a negative, and that is not an easy thing to do.

might point out that the royal commission on herbicides and pesticides,

which you referred to earlier, certainly looked into this situation and

did not recommend against the use of them. It recommended the

controlled use of them. I guess the ultimate argument that still rages

— I frankly don't know why it does, but it seems to — is whether there

is a link between smoking tobacco and cancer. There is no doubt in my

mind about it, but you can look around the world and you will find

medical men who will cast doubt on it, probably because they smoke

themselves, or they have a different burden of proof, or whatever it

may be. All I am saying, Mr. Member, without trying in any way to

criticize the material you have, is that it is not difficult to find

support for almost any proposition that you want to put forward in this

very interesting and difficult area.

Obviously we don't

agree on one of these particular substances, and I guess that's one of

the reasons that we are where we are. Maybe that's one of the reasons

that people change governments and keep governments in. As for

differences of opinion, we've got one there, and so be it.

MR. SKELLY:

Well, surely, Mr. Minister, I hope there would be better reasons for

changing government than the fact that one uses 2,4-D and the other

does not, and one advocates nuclear power or the other does not.

However, I think those are probably good reasons for changing the

government in this province, and perhaps that's going to happen in a

little while.

You mentioned the tobacco program. I think

almost every authority that has any credibility in the area and doesn't

receive money from people working in the tobacco industry has stated

that tobacco does cause cancer. People

[ Page 656 ]

in the industry have recognized that tobacco does cause cancer, but they still like to sell the product.

[Mr. Hyndman in the chair.]

One

of the problems is — and again it comes up in Dr. Epstein's testimony

before the Senate — that the National Cancer Institute and the

government of the United States are deficient because all they

allocated in 1977 for research and education for lung cancer caused by

cigarettes was $7 million. They probably spent 10 or 12 times that

amount to encourage growers to grow tobacco. The problem is with the

government, as the problem is with the government here. I would just

like to draw that to the minister's attention.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, I defer to the member for North Island for a couple of minutes.

MR. GABELMANN:

Mr. Chairman, there are a couple of us back here who wanted to pursue

the chemical issue, and then get on later to other issues. It seems to

make some sense to stay with the issue at hand just for the next few

minutes.

As a child growing up in the Okanagan on my

parents' orchard, I remember having a job in the garden, which was to

get an empty tobacco can and go down to the garage and pick up, out of

a sack, a canful of DDT, and go back down to the garden. With my

fingers, without gloves or anything else, I spread the DDT among many

of the vegetables in that garden to avoid cutworms.

remember at that same time most of the tree-fruit growers in that area

were using chemical sprays as many as eight to a dozen times a year. I

remember that particularly well because I remember how many of my

stepfather's colleagues in the Okanagan died from lung cancer in their

late 40s and early 50s. A great many fruit growers did. For some reason

people didn't understand that the chemicals being used in that

tree-fruit industry were very dangerous, and this is only 20 or 25

years ago.

While we've made some progress in banning things

like DDT, and while we've made some progress in reaching other

solutions for spraying programs, for the most part, at least, in that

particular industry we don't seem to have learned the central lesson

about chemicals. I worry, as does the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly),

about 2,4-D, 2,4,5-T, Tordon and many of the others that are apparently

being used quite indiscriminately in many parts of this province.

started out my comments this evening, Mr. Chairman, by referring to my

childhood because I wanted to read a letter from a group of grade 3

students in Tahsis, dated June 28 of this year — a week or two ago. I'm

not going to read the whole letter, but I wanted to read one paragraph:

"We are told not to pick the wild strawberries and blueberries that

grow there" — referring to an area in the bush just outside of Tahsis —

"but who is going to tell the black bears not to eat them, the deer not

to eat the grass, the trout not to swim in the polluted Malaspina Lake?"

These

are grade 3 kids. Who's going to tell the black bears and who's going

to tell the deer and who's going to tell the trout? I'm particularly

pleased that kids in grade 3 these days do have an awareness of these

chemicals. When I was a kid we didn't have such an awareness. But it

seems that in this society it's only the kids who have an awareness;

the people in authority don't seem to have that concern or that

awareness. I think it's a problem into which the government and the

minister must make much more careful and concerned study.

took down the minister's words in response to the member for Alberni

talking about 2,4-D in the Okanagan relating to milfoil. I believe he

said: "When the government applies for a 2,4-D spraying or application

program in the Okanagan, you would do it with the consent of the local

authorities involved." I believe those were your words. I would like to

ask you whether the same principle applies when a private corporation

asks for permission to apply 2,4-D. We had a situation in the Gold

River–Tahsis areas where the Tahsis Co. applied for a 2,4-D permit. The

regional district opposed the spraying program, yet it went ahead. I

believe the regional board was not notified of the spraying application

and technically got their protest in too late. Nevertheless, the

regional board was opposed to the spraying. The company went ahead,

with the effects that I quoted from the letter from those kids from

grade 3 in Tahsis. If the government requires the consent or the

approval of the local board or local authority involved, should not

private corporations who apply also live by the same rules?

want also in this particular discussion to comment on one other aspect

relating to spraying permits. B.C. Hydro, some time earlier this year,

applied for some spraying permits in the Nimpkish Valley. Later they

were withdrawn and the spraying did not go ahead. I don't want to

comment on the spraying application per se, but on the process that now

exists. In order to do that I would like to quote very briefly from a

letter from the Nimpkish Indian band at Alert Bay who, as you know,

have the Nimpkish Valley as their long-time home grounds. They

expressed their point of view in this letter to me, a point of view

that I share, Mr. Chairman. They were talking, I believe, more of

herbicides, not pesticides, but it's quite common that we misuse the

word. They said:

"A pesticide-use permit

should not precede an appeal hearing. A hearing of all grievances

against the issue of a permit should be heard before the permit is

issued. After this, hearing appeals should be possible."

Then

they said, and this is important too, I believe: "The burden of proof

should be the responsibility of the permit-holder, not that of the

appellant." This is the third point in their letter:

"Public

notice provisions must be made much more widespread. Just a case in

point is pesticide use permit No. so and so which escaped our attention

until seven days after the appeal deadline. The Nimpkish band, having

an historic interest in the Nimpkish Valley...has a right to know when

herbicides and other deleterious substances are present in the valley.

The whole mechanisms that are in use for notifying concerned people or

potentially concerned people are lacking."

That's a problem as well that I'd like the minister to comment on.

The final point in this letter from the Nimpkish band is:

"No

person should be put in a position of risk by the activities of another

person or group, especially when the use of environmental poisons is

concerned. The focus around which the appeal board should

[ Page 657 ]

articulate their decisions should be 'any risk' instead

of 'unreasonable adverse effect'."

"any risk" should be the key for the appeal board to consider. I just

wanted to make those comments at this point, Mr. Chairman. I will have

some other comments on other matters once we leave this area of

discussion a bit later this evening.

I do want to say very

candidly, through you, Mr. Chairman, to the minister, that I believe

the minister has a genuine concern and a genuine interest in the topic,

and I have been pleased by the kind of intelligent response he gives to

questions, not just here in the House but in general, relating to

environmental matters. It is a refreshing change in general, but I hope

he will take the candour and the honesty and the openness one step

further and do something.

MRS. WALLACE: If I could

continue with this discussion on the use of chemicals in today's

society, I think the minister made a very good point when he talked

about the fact that you couldn't always be negative. What I want to ask

the minister to do is to be positive, to look at alternatives. Unless

we start looking at alternatives we are going to be caught in a bind.

We have a problem with milfoil, which we're all aware of, and

unfortunately the minister has come to the conclusion — and this

government seems to have come to the conclusion — that the only

available method of control is to use 2,4-D.

Now I think,

Mr. Chairman, that we have to concentrate on the other types of

control. If we used more of a positive approach to other types of

control, and I'm talking about water nets and harvesting and those kind

of things that I'm sure the minister is aware of, and if we put more

effort into building up a good alternative control program, then the

minister wouldn't be caught in the situation that he found himself this

year where he had to sneak his 2,4-D into Kalamalka Lake a day early to

prevent the protesters from coming out and causing a problem. Those are

the kinds of things which occur when you only have negative programs,

Mr. Chairman. If this minister got involved with a real honest effort

in positive directions, other than just concentrating on 2,4-D, or

2,4,5-T, then we wouldn't be in this position.

Something

that is very close to my concerns is the agriculture situation with the

apple trees. We don't have an alternative. I'm convinced that's why the

minister changed his mind at the end of June. The fruit people said:

"Okay, if we don't get permission to treat our fruit trees by the end

of June we're going to be in trouble." There is no other explanation,

in my mind, why the minister would change his mind at that particular

time just at a point when another report was released from the United

States that really pointed up the hazards of 2,4,5-T. For the minister

to change his mind just at that point, there must simply have been

economic pressure from the farm community because they had no

alternative. What I am urging this minister to do is to concentrate his

efforts and his moneys and his time and his staff to bring in the

expertise to find those alternatives that will get us out of this bind.

We are in a bind, Mr. Chairman, and sooner or later we are going to

come to the point where we recognize that we have to stop using some of

these things.

The minister has a copy of this

article in

Common Sense called "Chemical Madness is Killing Our Country." I sent

him this earlier at his request. We've been discussing this matter. It

has some very startling information in it. One of the things it talks

about is a range-spraying program that was protested very heavily in

Arizona. There were a great many protests. Finally, in desperation,

this one woman, a Mrs. Billie Shoecraft, had tests run on her own body

tissues to find what residues were there, and they found residues of

2,4-D and 2,4,5-TP. despite the manufacturer's claims that the

compounds biodegrade in a matter of weeks. Ten years later that same

woman died of cancer, and an autopsy showed that those same chemical

compounds were still in her body.

That is the kind of

evidence that is being turned up about these chemicals. Mr. Chairman,

and that is why it is so incumbent upon this minister to find

alternatives so we don't find ourselves in a position of not having a

program to put in place. We can't just listen to the people who are

involved in producing those chemicals, because naturally it is a very

lucrative business. The member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) has mentioned

this in connection with smoking. The people who make the chemicals make

a fortune and they're going to bring every scientific resource at their

disposal into play to try and further the use of those chemicals

because it is a lucrative business.

The same report that I

sent to the minister goes on to talk about the tests that were done

back in 1971. In studies on mice they found 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T were the

cause of severe birth defects in mice. Mortality rates ran as high as

74 percent and abnormality rates as high as 100 percent at the upper

level. Some of the defects observed include cleft palate, no eyes, no

jaw, brain outside the cranium, cystic kidney and club foot.

That

study back in 1971 recommended the discontinuation of the use of the

ester of 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T but it is still the most widely used

herbicide in the world. We use it everywhere, particularly 2,4-D.

1975 there was a further study done and that study found that the

greatest defects were caused by small dosages over long periods of

time. And yet that's exactly what we're doing.

In 1976 the

director of the U.S. National Cancer Institute estimated that 90

percent of all cancers are caused by environmental carcinogens.

Exposure to these compounds is both irreversible and cumulative.

Mr.

Chairman, it's rather sad that we stand here talking about whether or

not to use these and trying to prove that they are not that harmful or

that they are more or less harmful or they are safe to use. What we

should be talking about is alternate methods because, until we get

those alternate methods, we're going to be caught in this bind. What I

am urging that minister to do is to take some positive action in

developing research and development to find alternative methods to

control the problems that we're facing today.

I was a bit

shocked when I picked up a paper recently and found that some American

medical scientists have come up with the idea that, if we have lead

poisoning, we need not be too concerned because they are now going to

put something else into our system that is going to counteract the lead

poisoning. You know, Mr. Chairman, I don't think that's the way to go.

The way is to keep that poison out of our system in the first place

rather than to put another chemical into our body to counteract that

and build up goodness-knows-what other kind of complication. We've

[ Page 658 ]

got

to take a look at what we're doing to ourselves and to our environment

and turn ourselves around, or we're headed for destruction. It's

incumbent upon this minister to take those kinds of positive actions. I

know he has the concern, I know he has the ability and I would like to

see him commit himself to taking those kinds of positive actions.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MRS. JORDAN:

I don't intend to take very much time of the House and I don't intend

to pretend that I am an authority on pesticides, as so many people who

can almost pronounce the names lead this House to believe. But I would

like to say just a few words on behalf of the people of the Okanagan,

who, directly and indirectly, have been the subject of discussion this

evening. I would like you to appreciate that those people, who are very

much involved in the milfoil problem, are perhaps the most concerned

people in this province and perhaps more concerned than many of the

people on the floor of this House, because they live with both

problems. They live with both concerns: how do we handle a very serious

weed problem — if you want to call it that — and how do we handle the

treatment for it?

I want to give this government and the

previous minister and this minister full marks from the people of our

area for the way this whole situation has been handled. Every care has

been taken that is humanly possible and of which we have knowledge

today. I won't go into the total history, but it was this government

and this very ministry that set up an independent board of three of the

most competent people we could find in Canada to investigate the whole

management of milfoil. They were given free access to money for any

program that they wanted to undertake, to travel anywhere they wished

to travel, in order to investigate all facets of the problem and

possible treatments. They will tell you to this day, Mr. Chairman, that

there was no political interference and there was no pressure put on

them from anyone in this government.

These people came back,

made their recommendations and travelled throughout that area, not just

once or twice but several times, holding public meetings and answering

all questions to the best of their ability. And I attended most of

those meetings. It might have been very nice if some of the people who

are so interested in this subject had attended those meetings. Nothing

was avoided. Where they had concern, they expressed concern, and the

people accepted this. At the same time the government was seeking every

alternate method they could. This relates to mechanical methods,

biological methods and others.

They put together a

recommended package, which was paid for in total by this government but

was not implemented unless there was local approval. Every community

which was to receive the benefit as well as the concern of this program

had the right to speak out. And it was their elected representatives

who made the final decision.

In the Vernon area all hearings

were well attended. We have, Mr. Chairman, ongoing citizens' committees

which are out on those lakes monitoring what is going on and reporting

to their MLA, to the citizens and to this ministry. Those citizens are

not out waving placards, and they are some of the strongest

conservationists that we have in British Columbia. They are exercising

responsibility and showing concern.

You cannot run away

forever from decisions such as this minister and this government have

had to make. Every precaution has been taken in terms of the ultimate

water supply. In fact, it's going on at this time. All applications are

being heavily monitored. All the resources of this province and this

ministry are available at any time to those people taking

part in that

program and to anyone who has other concerns.

The one point

that does concern the citizens of that area is that a few people, who,

granted, are very concerned but tend to let their concern overwhelm

rational thinking, are the ones who are creating the problem. They are

the ones who are bringing undue publicity to our area, and this is

unnecessarily hampering the livelihoods of people. We want to hide

nothing. We want everything on the table. We don't like to be the

subject of every pseudo-scientist who comes along, because there are

long-range rippling effects on the livelihood of many people in that

area.

I would just close by thanking all the members for

their interest. I invite them to come to the Okanagan, to take

part in

observing the program, to speak with a great deal of responsibility

when they address us, and to remember that the local citizens of the

area I have the honour to represent fully support, albeit with concern,

this program. They will be delighted, as will this ministry, if we can

find alternate means to chemical use. In the meantime they are not

afraid to face life. They are doing it responsibly, and they would like

us to support them in a responsible manner.

MR. COCKE:

I'm delighted to follow the member for North Okanagan. Having property

in the Boundary Similkameen area on Skaha Lake, and having had it for

some 20-odd years, I was diving the other day in my lake and finding

milfoil just like everybody else in the area, knowing full well that

that milfoil will break the surface within the next few weeks, I'm just

as concerned as that member from North Okanagan about what's happening

to that beautiful recreation area, but I couldn't agree with her less.

She

speaks of phenoxy herbicides as though she knows what she's talking

about. What that member is saying is that they are going to have some

effect. I'll tell you what effect they're going to have: they're going

to kill this year's crop — great news! — so that this year's crop

provides the nutrients for next year's crop. Where does the milfoil go

when it dies? It sinks to the bottom, rots and provides the nutrients

for next year's crop. If you want proof of that statement, go down to

the Tennessee Valley, where they've been fighting milfoil with phenoxy

herbicides, 2,4-D, for years and years and have got nowhere.

There

is a way out. I admire the member for having suggested that that was a

marvelous group that looked into the situation. I first appointed the

same group to do some work for me some years ago.

MRS. JORDAN: Did you take their recommendations?

MR. COCKE: Some of them.

they overlooked — and I believe they did — the only way to control

Eurasian milfoil, which is with its natural predator.... I agree with

the minister when he says that you can't harvest it out; it's far too

big. It would cost an absolute fortune. You can't get rid of it with

phenoxy herbicides, 2,4-D, 2,4,5-T, or anything else. You can only

control it

[ Page 659 ]

with

its natural predator, which is grass carp. Grass carp are a threat to

some of our fish and wildlife people in this province; they're worried

about what they might do to the food chain. The fact of the matter is

that they are vegetarian. I think we must take our chances with grass

carp and go with them. I have talked to some of the foremost biologists

in this country; as far as they're concerned, there is only one way to

control that weed and that is by its natural predator. Grass carp will

eat nothing but Eurasian milfoil if that's what's available. They'll

resort to other forms of weed if there is no Eurasian milfoil

available, but if there is milfoil available they will eat it. Isn't it

a lot better that we go the natural way?

What happens to

that fish? Well, it grows to 70 pounds. It's a bit coarse, but it's not

nearly as coarse and muddy as the normal carp in our lakes. All over

Europe it's a first-class eating fish. It's a brand-new industry, a

brand-new look at a way to control Eurasian milfoil. I don't care what

you say, you are not going to control that weed with phenoxy herbicides

or any other kind. It's impossible, because what will occur is that the

weed will drop to the bottom. I'm not giving any kind of value judgment

as to whether it's going to cause cancer — it might — or whether it's

going to be poisonous, or whatever it might do. I'm just saying it is

not a realistic approach to attacking the problem of Eurasian milfoil

in those lakes. I have as much to lose as anybody else. I have 600 feet

of waterfrontage on Skaha Lake, and it's one of the worst affected.

AN HON. MEMBER: Capitalist!

MR. COCKE:

Sure, I'm a capitalist in that respect. And when we get good socialism

in this country, I'll give my property to all the people. But until then

I'll play your game. It's something I learned a long time ago: you

never want to swim as a minnow with a bunch of sharks.

HON. MR. MAIR: I will, if you don't mind, deal with the last three or four speakers in reverse order.

want to answer the member for New Westminster's (Mr. Cocke'

s) concerns,

and the method by which he would handle the question of milfoil — using

grass carp. We can argue about this all day long and all night long,

and it's not going to get us anywhere. But I think the member would

agree that the grass carp is not without its problems, not the least of

which is that the federal fisheries people wouldn't let us put grass

carp in there if we wanted to — and I have that information direct from

them. Quite apart from that, as the member well knows, grass carp have

an adverse effect on the trout and char which inhabit the lake. They

don't eat them, but they have an adverse effect on their spawning

grounds and have had for years. So you're running a grave risk of

getting rid of one problem but introducing another.

MR. COCKE: There is no fishery in those lakes.

HON. MR. MAIR:

Unfortunately, Mr. Member, that's simply not true. It may be true of

Skaha Lake, but it's certainly not true of the other lakes we're

talking about. I don't think the people at Okanagan Lake are quite

prepared to give up their Kokanee fishing and even their giant rainbow

fishing despite the problems they have with them — mercury and that

sort of thing. In any event, I say to you, Mr. Member, it's probably

idle to argue about it because the federal government, who have control

over fisheries, are not going to let us do it even if we wanted to. So

I think we probably just have to forget about that.

I'd like

to answer your question and one of the questions from the member for

Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) by pointing out that of the control

methods we use for Eurasian milfoil, 75 percent of our effort is

mechanical and 25 percent is chemical at this point. Talking about

control is different than talking about elimination. I would be the

first one to agree with members opposite that you cannot control

Eurasian milfoil with 2,4-D. If you get it early enough in the lakes

where it has just entered into the system you can get rid of it in the

first stage. Once it gets hold, however, it's idle to consider using

2,4-D.

I'd also like to deal with a couple of things the

member for Cowichan-Malahat said. She implied we had somehow tricked

the demonstrators on Kalamalka Lake. I thought we had too, and when the

press asked me about it, I said: "Well, I guess if I were going to go

and do that, that's the way I would have done it." But it turns out

that we didn't do it that way after all. The only time we could get it

in appropriately was very early in the morning and the demonstrators

misjudged when we were going. There really wasn't the mens rea that you

and I thought we had. I should point that out to you.

Let's

get our letters and numbers straight on 2,4,5-TP and 2,4,5-T. As I

indicated before, Madam Member, through you, Mr. Chairman, 2,4,5-T is

the bad-news one. We have now moved it up to

schedule 1. That's the one

you were concerned about, and that's the one that I can't see any way

in the world that it will ever be used in British Columbia.

Now

2,4,5-TP, which is the one you're talking about that's used in the

apple orchards and so on, is the one they still are allowing in the

United States of America. The reason the decision was made as of the

end of June, while I wouldn't deny the fact that the orchardists wanted

to have some answer in time for their season, was because the

moratorium expired on June 30. I had to either place a new moratorium

or I had to come up with an answer. Bearing in mind the information we

had from the United States and from the federal government, we felt

that was the right decision to make.

You suggested I said we

shouldn't be negative. I agree with that. What I really ought to have

said is that you can't prove a negative. That's one of the difficulties

when you're dealing with the onus of proof. You're asking the person

who is going to apply a pesticide or herbicide to prove, presumably

beyond any reasonable doubt, that that herbicide or pesticide can't

possibly hurt anybody. There's no way you could use a pesticide or

herbicide under those circumstances. Some would say: "Well, that's

good, because you shouldn't." However, that's not the law as it stands.

It's not the law that was recommended to us by the commission you very

rightly appointed when you were government.

It's just as I

say; it's not the fact. If we're going to allow herbicide or pesticide

use in British Columbia, we have to have some standard other than the

onus of proof being on the applicator and being beyond any reasonable

doubt. I think, quite frankly, that we have got a pretty good system.

We've got an independent board that, incidentally, have given us as

many adverse rulings as positive rulings. By any means it isn't just

the government that wishes to apply.

[ Page 660 ]

We're

probably the least of the applicants in front of the board. But I think

as often as not the people who have applied to use pesticides or

herbicides have got second prize. I think that gives a good indication

that they're doing a good job.

I'm moving into the comments

made by the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann), moving back

upwards as I go. I don't think that you were in the chamber prior to

dinner when I dealt with the question of the procedures that we now

have and whether we should make some changes. The member for Alberni

(Mr. Skelly) suggested a number of changes in technique, which I think

enough of to want to take a long took at. I think I said to him before

dinner that it may be difficult to prevent the use of a herbicide or a

pesticide at all times between the time the permit is granted and the

appeal is heard. We should have some discretion. The reason I say that

it's difficult to do it at all times is that you're going to have

emergency situations develop. You're going to have situations where in

the opinion of any reasonable person the issue is not of such a serious

nature that it can't wait a week or two or whatever it takes. But

perhaps we should go so far as to give the administrator the power to

determine that and determine that a stay in its use ought to be put

into effect pending the time the appeal is heard.

I think

that probably has got a lot to it, and I certainly will undertake.... I

won't undertake to do that, but I'll undertake to look at it very, very

seriously.

The member for North Island made a point about he

position of a company when they wanted to apply 2,4-D. I presume you

were referring to B.C. Hydro and some of the applications they make on

rights-of-way and that sort of thing. But I suppose it doesn't really

matter, because the rules are the same.

Let me tell you what

our procedure is as a government, what the procedure is if you happen

to be a company, and then we can go from there, if you wish. When we

want to make an application as a government for the use of a pesticide

or a herbicide, let's say 2,4-D, we have to go to the Pesticide Control

Appeal Board and we have to get a permit. We're subject to the same

rules of appeal as everybody else. We have to get that permit. As a

matter of policy, however, in the use of 2,4-D in waterways we have

elected only to do that when we also have not only the consent but the

invitation of the local authority to do so. That's a policy of my

ministry and of the government.

If a company wants to do

that they have to go through the same hoops, in the sense that they

have to go to the board and they have to get a permit. They obviously

don't have to go and ask the regional district, but the regional

district has every right — and, indeed, I suppose, in many cases an

obligation — to take an appeal or take whatever action that they want.

I suppose we'd both be quite satisfied with the situation if we backed

up a little bit and went to your suggestion a moment ago. If the board

itself had the power to stay the use of it pending an appeal, then they

would be, unwillingly perhaps, in the same position that we as a

government have willingly put ourselves in in terms of getting regional

district approval. It would amount to the same thing. If we do look at

the suggestion that you have made, or more particularly the member for

Alberni has made, we will accomplish the very thing that you're looking

for.

I might say, and this may be damning by faint praise,

we probably have the best controls on herbicides and pesticides in

Canada. Certainly I'm more satisfied with what we do, in addition to

what the federal government does, than I am with just what the federal

government does. A great many provinces in Canada simply rely upon the

federal government and the national register, and we're not prepared to

do so. I have been asked on many occasions to do so.

The

member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace), of course, and myself know

many members of the B.C. Federation of Agriculture very well. I have

been urged by many of her friends and mine to do just that — to keep my

nose out of what is the federal government's business, in their view,

and let the national register be the determining factor. I'm not

prepared to do that. I think we have a provincial responsibility, and I

may not exercise that responsibility in a manner pleasing to everyone

in this chamber, but I certainly am going to exercise it in a manner

that I think is appropriate.

MR. SKELLY: I certainly

support the minister in his last comments. I would hate to see this

province go back, and I would hate to see the minister refuse to take

any initiative in putting greater restrictions and controls than the

federal government on some pesticides. I have never been happy with

what happens with the Petawawa federal experimental station where they

test pesticides. In the case of orthene they bring up the people from

Standard Oil and Chemical to provide the chemicals, and also to provide

the staff to do the analysis. It seems like inviting the fox into the

chicken coop. Naturally the reports that come out of the pesticide

centre in Ottawa favour in general the chemicals that are tested there,

because most of the staff and most of the chemicals that are tested are

provided free of charge by the chemical companies.

That's an

extreme conflict of interest that should be drawn to the attention of

federal authorities. I'm sure I know a member for Comox–Powell River

who is going to do just that in the event that they have an opportunity

to get into session back there. His name is Ray Skelly. That's

something we've been working on together and hopefully some changes

will be made there.

Now the minister talked about the

problems of proving the negative. I realize that there are problems

associated with that and I don't expect to see it adopted as policy

that a pesticide producer must prove that it has absolutely no harmful

effect to the environment or human beings. It simply can't be done.

It's too much of a long-term problem. It's simply too difficult when

you have carcinogens that have latency periods of from 20 to 30 years.

The pesticide would never appear on the market. But where the danger

has been demonstrated in other mammalian studies, then the burden of

proof should be on the producer of the chemical to prove that it's

entirely safe for human beings. According to many authorities and

cancer specialists, what's true of one mammalian species is true of

another as far as carcinogens go. So I think the burden of proof should

be on them.

I would like to talk a little bit about the

public relations program that the 2,4-D empire goes through, especially

in the Okanagan Valley. I have been up there, for the information of

the lady member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan). I have been up to the

Okanagan Valley and seen

[ Page 661 ]

the

problem and talked to a lot of the people associated with the problem,

including municipal officials. And I have been in touch with people

from the Okanagan Water Basin Board, et cetera, who felt last fall, at

any rate, that the program was a runaway program as far as the costs

were concerned and that it wasn't proving anything.

I know

the kind of public relations program they go through and I know that a

municipality can turn down the 2, 4-D program in the first place and

then have this PR trip laid on them and approve it later on. We had a

gentleman from the water investigations branch come down to Port

Alberni recently to talk to us about the benefits of a Eurasian milfoil

control program in Sproat Lake. He came into the room dressed like a

teenage idol with his shirt open to his belt, wearing gold medallions

and dancing around at the front of the hall. Needless to say, a lot of

people in the hall were impressed by that fact alone. Then he said to

us: "I've been accused by some people of being an alarmist." And he

showed a film called An Alien Invader . It was about Eurasian milfoil in

the Okanagan Lake and it showed all these people being sucked into this

milfoil.

It was a straight public relations scheme to try to

get the people in the Alberni Valley, especially in the Sproat Lake

area, to adopt the program, including the 2, 4-D. He went through every

possible control measure, with the possible exception of the Amur grass

carp. The result — in the newspaper reports — was that the meeting

unanimously approved the use of 2, 4-D to control milfoil, which didn't

exist at that point in Sproat Lake. Then the regional district came out

and approved the use of 2, 4-D as well and on it went.

Then

I started getting letters from people at the meeting who resented the

very fact that this guy made the presentation in the form that he made

it and asked me what authorities I could consult to try to fight this

program. So it wasn't exactly what you would call unanimous support for

the 2, 4-D program.

I am 100 percent in favor of combating

the possibility of Eurasian milfoil in Sproat Lake. There are ways we

can do it. Fortunately the ministry is involved in some of those ways

right now, checking boats coming across on the ferry, checking boats at

some of the stations in the Okanagan Valley and in areas where there is

a milfoil investigation — a darn good idea. I think that program should

be stepped up and more funds should be allocated to that aspect of the

program, possibly, than to the 2, 4-D aspect. In that way I think we

can prevent the spread of the infestation of Eurasian milfoil.

Unfortunately one of the problems is that Canada geese appear to carry

this material around with them and deposit it in lakes throughout the

province. That's got to be a bit of a problem, and I don't know how you

solve an almost natural problem like that. But maybe that's not our

problem to solve.

I do resent the kind of public relations

program that some people in the ministry are using to try to spread the

use of 2, 4-D to combat Eurasian milfoil throughout the province, even

in areas where it doesn't exist. I would like to ask the minister to

emphasize the positive in this case, to get people out checking boats,

monitoring lakes and making sure there isn't infestation.

You

have the power under the Pesticide Control Act to declare an emergency

and to remove the application of the Act from a certain area of the

province where, in the opinion of you and the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, an emergency does exist. I think that's

the best procedure for going about it. If you feel there is a new

infestation, then possibly you should consult cabinet, declare an

emergency and take whatever steps are necessary to prevent a further

infestation.

I think one of the problems with the Amur grass

carp is that there have been no isolated studies done. Set aside a lake

in the Okanagan Valley, or somewhere else in the province, and

purposely infest the lake or pond or whatever with Eurasian milfoil. I

don't think any studies have been done on the life cycle of Eurasian

milfoil in any waterway in British Columbia. I don't think we know how

Eurasian milfoil reacts to other substances other than 2, 4-D, or how

it reacts to grass carp, or how other species react, because we've

never done that kind of isolated life-cycle study. Now certainly that

is an expensive proposition and it's a longer-term proposition, but

over the long term it is probably going to produce much better results

and much firmer results.

The member for North Okanagan (Mrs.

Jordan) mentioned the three wise men, Oldham, Powrie and Mackenzie, and

the research that they did. But the research that they did wasn't

conclusive in favour of 2, 4-D. The problems they've had with 2, 4-D

and Eurasian milfoil in the Tennessee Valley Authority have resulted in

the use of that chemical for over 25 years and no eradication — no

solution to the problem. And it's the same in almost every area in

which it has been used, so that other areas, such as Wisconsin, are

looking at alternatives to 2, 4-D and alternatives to chemical control.

think this minister should be an advocate for the environment. He

should not simplify ecosystems; he should not add new poisonous

chemicals to the environment. He should be an advocate for the natural

way of doing things and he should be looking at alternatives to

chemical controls and to controls that are known to have undesirable

side effects.

HON. MR. MAIR: I have a brief reply to

the member for Alberni — through you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I

think we've got to recognize — and I think we both do — that any

pesticide or herbicide is designed to have a harmful effect on part of

the environment. That's what we have it there for. The trick is to see

that it doesn't harm non-targets. We're all trying to do the same

thing, and I am appreciative of the suggestions that were made.

the second point, when we're dealing with natural methods of combating

this problem, let me remind the member for Alberni that the carp is

hardly a natural inhabitant of the North American continent. It was

introduced, as my history tells me, by a German in the eastern United

States back in the nineteenth century — perhaps it was even the

eighteenth century — to remind him of his days at home in Germany, and

since then it has been a damn nuisance all across North America. We

spent a lot of money in Fish and Wildlife trying to poison lakes and

get rid of not just the carp but other predator series as well. It's

not a predator, I agree — its problem is that it messes around with the

spawning grounds of other fish — but we've been spending a lot of money

trying to get rid of those things. And while I would love to find a way

to get rid of Eurasian milfoil that would satisfy you and me, I don't

know that introducing the carp any further to the various

[ Page 662 ]

water systems of British Columbia — no matter what kind of carp it may be — is going to be particularly helpful.

MR. NICOLSON:

Mr. Chairman, for three and a half years going on for four years, we

have supposedly had a Ministry of Environment, when, in fact, we have

had several different ministries all under one minister. Now we have

the most recent sort of amalgam, or almost an alloy, which doesn't

necessarily mix, as I think was very well pointed out by the member for

Alberni (Mr. Skelly).

I would hope that the minister would

look at the various powers which he has and try very quickly to look at

those powers which he has which will enable him to work and operate as

Minister of Environment. Frankly I think he does have some very strong

powers — if he is going to use them. It might mean almost the abuse of

power in the short run. But I would hope that the minister would look

at the Environment and Land Use Act very carefully and consider, in

some of the extraordinary circumstances that some people are finding

themselves in, using those powers until something perhaps a little more

temperate and more appropriate could be brought into this House to

create a real Ministry of Environment.

I was very concerned

about the way in which the proposal to use herbicides in Kootenay Lake

was brought in. I'd just like to relate to the minister the way his

letter was treated when it arrived at city council. It was photostated

and sent out to each member of council; a council meeting was held, and

one or two people had read the letter. I think there was an election on

at the time that this went out, and a couple of people, for obvious

reasons, didn't want to rock the boat, being involved in the provincial

election.

I was very surprised to see one other person vote

for that action, and when I went after that member of council about it

and just asked some questions to find out some information, he said:

"You know, I should really be taken to task on this, but it was one

time that I hadn't had the time to go through all of the agenda before

the council meeting, and I didn't know what was up."

What I

would just like to say is that I am sure that this was the very small

amount of consideration that was given by the Nelson city council when

they did give unanimous approval for emergency measures, including the

use of 2, 4-D, should milfoil show up in Kootenay Lake.

is rather interesting that it seemed that the ministry was ready to go

ahead without holding public hearings or anything else,

whereas in

other instances where municipal entities such as regional districts had

opposed use of certain herbicides in the past, their use was allowed

over and above those objections.

What I would like to talk

about might cover a few different areas, but I would like to relate

these various areas to an effective Ministry of Environment. One

problem which I am sure affects all rural members is the problem of

garbage, and where to put it — the city of Nelson has been dealing with

this problem ever since I moved there in the early sixties. They had a

city landfill site that was only supposed to be used for another six

months, and that went on for about 15 years. Then the regional district

went looking for landfill sites and finally came up with a place that

met all the objections. They were going to have to haul it what I

thought was a terrible distance, but at least it was a solution. That

was not allowed to go ahead because the city of Nelson wouldn't go

along with it.

Recently the city of Nelson — I've already

spoken to the minister about one group of people — went to private

contractors. Various people had different pieces of land, and these

pieces of land happened to be in the midst of rural residential areas.

Now when the suitability of these sites is considered, they are

considered under thoroughly technical parameters and limitations under

the Pollution Control Act. The PCB reviews them, and they are informing

people that they will judge the suitability of the site by virtue, I

guess, of proximity to waterways, perhaps the stability of the site,

the soil testing and various other things. But not within their

parameters is the fact that many people live contiguous to the area. So

as a purely technocratic response, people are left out there sort of

hoping that the application will fall on these technical grounds when,

in fact, when you really think about the environment, the environment

is the thing in which people live. When you've got people living in an

area and somebody is proposing to put a garbage dump in it.... In two

of the areas just outside Nelson the people, quite frankly, if it does

pass the technical criteria, will engage in civil disobedience.

Why

do we have to go that far? Why can't we just recognize the fact, almost

at the outset, that having such a thing in proximity to residential

habitation is just not going to wash? I know that we can talk about

having to bury it every day, and having burning only every three

months, and various other things, but that simply isn't going to

satisfy the needs of people.

What I am suggesting here is

that the parameters under which the PCB judges such an application are

too limited because they overlook the very obvious fact that people

live right next to this small acreage. Many people live around it, and

they are not going to consider things like bears and other such things.

They are limiting, according to my information, their considerations

just to soil suitability, proximity to creeks and waterways, and so on.

There

are other instances where a person's environment is endangered. There

is another group of people living just outside of New Denver, and a

mine is being drifted right underneath their homes. It starts at a

lower elevation off their property and it goes underneath. About a year

ago, I believe, there was a blast from one of these operations and the

disturbance brought down a slide which landed right in one person's

garden.

People feel very helpless because their enjoyment of

property seems not to be affected by the remedies that are normally

used. What the ministry can do, of course, and what the minister can do

in situations such as this is to resort to the Environment and Land Use

Act, which does give him powers to act in a rather primitive way, I

suppose. He certainly doesn't lack for powers to protect people, but

just referring to the PCB guidelines, a case like this wouldn't even be

considered.

The minister had an on-site inspection of the

problem at Lemon Creek, and I would just like to know if there will be

a study done by the water investigations branch there. I think that

also the Salmo River should be looked at. We should start to take

action all over this province with some of these problems that we try

to shuffle off and pretend don't exist. A lot of them came about as a

result of bad land-use planning. Some of the mistakes that were made

done by date back to the turn of the century, I suppose, in

[ Page

663 ]

terms

of diversions and things which have caused problems, but I would hope

that the ministry would not try to sort of shuffle these things aside.

The water investigations branch did do some work in the Salmo River,

for instance, in 1974-75 in terms of a study, and then some of the work

was implemented in about 1977 and it did have some very useful results.

one of the things I would like to say to the minister is that I would

hope that he would try to use some of these disjointed powers that are

found in various branches or departments that have come into his

ministry and try to make them work in terms of creating a very good and

sound and enjoyable environment for residents, particularly in some of

these unorganized territories which can fall to things which aren't

normally covered by legislation, other than something like the

Environment and Land Use Act.

Mr. Chairman, I'd also like to mention the Creston Valley Wildlife Management

Authority and I would hope that the minister would take a very careful look

at it. I'm disturbed in a couple of ways. I frankly don't like the way

in which the Creston Valley Wildlife Management Authority has been run in the

past. Every year something comes up and it really hasn't operated in a professional

manner. It has operated very much in a vacuum. It's somewhat improved inasmuch

as Frank Shannon was appointed to the Authority, but now I understand that the

provincial government doesn't have an appointee on the Authority, so there

is really a lack of directorship. There always has been, right from the very

first instance.

While I don't like that, it doesn't mean to say that I don't support

the concept of the Creston Valley Wildlife Management Authority. The budget

is up this year to $131,000 from $129,000. I think if the minister will check

he will see that the budget was probably last increased by any significant amount

in 1974. This level of support really hasn't increased a great deal. It's

my understanding that this pays for the operation management. I know that a

lot of investment takes place — Ducks Unlimited pours money into it — but that

goes into capital projects, really. It's my understanding that this year

they closed down the campground, and I had complaints about that. I drove by

just a couple of days ago. Unfortunately I didn't have time and look and

see if it was in operation. It would seem that this level of funding must be

inadequate and should be increased.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

The

most recent thing I ran into, which I was a little bit disturbed about,

was after kicking all the trappers off the the area, staff went out and

started trapping. I know pelts were sold and moneys realized; I checked

into this. It looked to be very irregular. It was answered by members

of the staff. I'm informed that everything was all above

board. Still, the way it was done — and I'm not going to take up a

great deal of time tonight going into it — didn't help the image of the Creston

Valley Wildlife Management Authority. It's another symptom of something

which would be remedied if we had a good, active, functioning

directorship for it, or if it were put back under control of the

branch. I know that's s difficult because the federal government is a

partner. It simply isn't run in a proper and professional manner.

I'd also like to know from the minister how much of the $2 million for

salmonid enhancement is actually coming from the federal government and is appearing

in our estimates as an expenditure? Last year the amount spent by the provincial

government was in the neighbourhood of $300,000, and I would wonder if that

is about the same.

HON. MR. MAIR: I didn't get the last point. I'm sorry.

MR. NICOLSON:

Last year, as I understood, about $300,000 of that was actually

provincial funds, and the rest came from matching federal funds.

Again

— it's perhaps symptomatic of some things that have happened — for more

than two years we have been without a regional director of the fish and

wildlife branch in the Nelson office for the Kootenay region. This

means that the fisheries biologist, who has been acting all that time,

has been doing those duties, and one of the duties must be suffering.

Either he's not doing a complete job in his fisheries duties or as

regional manager. I believe, in fact, that he's been offered the

position, and he does want to be in fisheries. So there has been a

vacancy there, I believe, for about two years, and I think that is

really serious because it's at the top position in the region in Fish

and Wildlife.

Also, I'd like the minister to consider his

announcement of new regions for the Environment ministry. I would hope

that forestry, or the grazing branch of forestry, would come up with

the same boundaries so they could be co-terminus. One of the problems

is that a wildlife biologist who wants to talk to the forestry person

involved with grazing, if it happens to be in Rock Creek, which lies in

our environment area but could be outside the forest headquarters for

that area, could be in Kelowna or someplace. Instead of going

downstairs to talk to this person, it means somebody has to travel

about five hours by car or by plane. So one would hope there could be

an improvement in boundaries.

Many things could be raised,

and it is difficult when ministries have been changed; the fish and

wildlife branch has been changed many times in the past three or four

years. I would hope we would start to pursue a very active program of

enhancing certain spawning streams, particularly for Kokanee, along the

west arm of Kootenay Lake. In the last two years, they've had to

restrict Kokanee fishing because of concerns about the escapement. It's

obvious to anyone who observes such things that the number of spawners

has dropped off terrifically. The ministry has the opportunity; they

have gone ahead and purchased property at Redfish Creek, and they can

get on with this.

While I say some of these things

pertaining to the Nelson area with which I'm familiar, I'm sure that

many of these same concerns could be expressed for other regions of he

province. There are about six areas, some of them coming under various

subheadings, and I thank the minister for his attention.

MR. DAVIS: First I'd like to congratulate the minister on the job

he's doing, and also congratulate the minister whom he succeeds. We have

done a first-class job in protecting our environment, and I believe British

Columbia has shown the way in many respects not only in connection with land-use

planning but the protection of its wildlife and so on.

Being the Minister of Environment is a big job, particularly as the concept

of environment is so all-embracing. In the United Kingdom, for example, when

they first established the U.K. Ministry of the Environment it not

[ Page

664 ]

only covered fisheries and what goes for wildlife in the United

Kingdom, but it also covered air quality pollution of waters,

industrial pollution, urban sprawl, housing and even transport. All of

these were under the umbrella of the Minister of the Environment in the

United Kingdom. While that ministry has been trimmed somewhat, the

Minister of the Environment in the United Kingdom is still very much a

member of the inner cabinet, and the concept of environment in that

country — where much of the original natural environment has been

destroyed — is regarded as very important. The aim is to protect the

human environment and living conditions for people. The aesthetics of

the U.K. surroundings and so on are all embraced in the concept of

environment as far as the organization of the environment ministry is

concerned.

In this country, particularly in the provinces,

the responsibility has been narrowed somewhat because the

administrative load is so great. Still, the minister in this province,

for example, is expected to have an answer when it comes to tankers

offshore. He is expected to have some kind of answer when it comes to

fallout from a nuclear plant in a neighbouring country. He is, at

least, expected to have a view in these areas. While he, and indeed the

whole government of the province, can't do much about some of these

things, they must do their utmost to try and influence future events.

the west coast, I personally think that there's a lot to be said for

what I'll term a west coast water quality agreement between Canada and

the United States, one which would also necessarily involve the

province of British Columbia and the state of Washington. I say this

largely because we do have — and it took several years to negotiate — a

Great Lakes water quality agreement. It's a treaty between Canada and

the United States. The signatories are not only Canada and the United

States as national governments, but also the province of Ontario and

five of the individual states bordering on the Great Lakes.

was necessary; it was essential to have the states and Ontario

participating because the states and certainly Ontario have controlled

pollution to a much greater extent than the national governments did.

They controlled industry, economic development, industrial location,

municipalities, cleanup budgets, and they subsidized municipal budgets

for treating sewage, runoff rainwater, the natural runoffs from

agricultural land, and so on. It's only with the full participation of

a province and the neighbouring areas of the United States that a water

quality agreement can work. I think that British Columbia might

consider advocating, admittedly, a new kind of agreement, an agreement

of somewhat the same character as the Great Lakes water quality

agreement here on the west coast in respect to our saltwater areas

which are so precious to us.

The necessity of proceeding

with the Great Lakes cleanup — and it was a cleanup, and is a

continuing cleanup — was obvious. They'd already been badly polluted.

The damage in large measure was done,

whereas we on the west coast have

a relatively pristine environment. Our water quality agreement on the

west coast would-be essentially one of protection or prevention, in a

sense, rather than cure. It also would involve a new role for the

International Joint Commission, which has so far confined its

activities pretty well to freshwater — to problems across the

international boundary line on land. It has not extended itself into

saltwater areas, even though the international boundary line continues

on out through the Strait of Juan de Fuca on this side of the continent.

other words, Mr. Chairman, British Columbia might well take the

initiative and help to create a new kind of water quality agreement

which would, in effect, get two levels of government — national and the

state and provincial — to agree at least to minimum standards for

industrial effluent, for discharges from cities and towns into rivers

and streams and on into the Puget Sound, on into the Strait of Georgia,

on into the Strait of Juan de Fuca. It would give us some influence

over where oil refineries are located, some influence over industrial

plants located across the line in the United States, and some little

say in where oil tankers operated — at least the standards in which the

tankers are built and to which they are operated.

I am not

suggesting that this would be easy. The Great Lakes water agreement was

a very obvious need that took half a dozen years to negotiate. It was

finally signed in 1973. But it exists and it was a first in the world.

I think we could have, conceivably, here on the west coast a first in

the world in saltwater. Canada and the United States have worked

together to help clean up the Great Lakes — a rescue operation, really.

Surely they could work together here in these adjoining waters to

basically maintain the environment in its clean state.

have been talking about water problems. This is a great challenge. It's

an international challenge but I believe it's one in which British

Columbia as a province could participate. Without British Columbia,

the controls, as I said, don't exist over pollution from land entering

water. The national governments can go so far but they certainly can't

solve the entire problem by themselves.

I think we have a

bit of an air quality problem. Perhaps I can focus onto a group of

industries — the smelting, refining, power-producing industries. During

1978 there were hearings, and towards the end of last year the

Pollution Control Board issued certain guidelines or objectives, as I

might call them. They are very stringent. They're the toughest anywhere

in the world, and certainly by far the toughest on this continent.

These are B.C. standards, if I can refer to them as that, but they're

essentially guidelines. The problem that I see is that they describe a

range of possibilities. They don't set a definite level, and therefore

those industries are facing uncertainty in their forward planning. The

range goes all the way from what I would refer to as zero pollution

with no discernible effect on the surroundings whatsoever — that's a

possible requirement on these industries — to what might be referred to

as the maximum amount of pollution that the local air environment would

assimilate. Anywhere in that range may be the point at which the

director of the Pollution Control Board says that a particular smelter

or refinery or coal-burning power plant may have to design its cleanup

facilities — in other words, not pinpointing a particular standard.

Perhaps

I could identify the costs in respect to, say, the Hat Creek

coal-burning power project. The latest estimate I've seen of the cost

of that project is about $1.2 billion. To meet the most onerous tests

set up by these standards would require the expenditure of at least

$300 million more. This would not only mean we would have by far the

cleanest coal-burning power plant on this continent or indeed anywhere

in the world, but would probably add sufficient to its costs to render

it uneconomic, at least relative to Hydro developments in the far —

north, which in turn have their

[ Page

665 ]

environmental problems — perhaps flooding industrial land or interfering with fisheries, Indian land claims and so on.

plea here really is that the Pollution Control Board be more specific,

that it also be more reasonable in the sense that it require that the

local development be able to use much of the assimilative capacity of

that local environment in other words, not damage the local

surroundings unduly — but not require unusual, exceptional, very

expensive methods of cleanup, especially when they involve mostly

equipment that has to be imported from other countries.

Cleanup

in industry, by and large, doesn't cost much. In most industries,

pollution control or abatement — the cleanup of air, water and land —

doesn't involve more than 1 or 2 percent of the gross value of the

product of that industry. In other words, industry in almost all cases

can well afford to control pollution, protect its surrounding

environment and make our human environment pristine and certainly very

clean. But in these few industries I've mentioned, the requirements of

extreme management are so expensive that I believe the Pollution

Control Board should be more specific and indeed more reasonable.

The

biggest single problem, as I see it, is the problem of the saw-off:

between jobs on the one hand and a very clean environment on the other

hand. The United States has recently come out with new standards for

coal-burning power plants. Their standards are essentially a compromise

to what I loosely referred to as jobs, energy policy and environmental

protection. Where environmental protection tends to run head-on into

energy policy, the environmental standards tend to give way somewhat.

I'm not really suggesting that that sort of thing happen. I believe

that our new standards, at least at the top end, are tolerable in our

power utilities, smelters and refineries. I'm simply asking first that

those standards be definite so that the industries can plan ahead and

secondly that they be reasonable.

On the solid-waste

disposal side we've heard a good deal about burning wood waste, garbage

and so on. I hope the Pollution Control Board is reasonable in that

connection. There is another saw-off required there: we could have

solid wastes accumulating simply because our air pollution requirements

are so onerous or because our water pollution requirements are

difficult to meet. The Ministry of Environment will have to look at

saw-offs there as between air pollution, water pollution and the

pollution of the land. A good deal of judgment is required. We're

learning all the time. We know a great deal more now. It's much easier

for industry to be clean now than it was even a few short years ago.

Points of view have changed a great deal. Awareness of the environment

has increased considerably.

I well remember when the

Columbia River Treaty was being negotiated. In those days the then CCF

Party was all in favour of the so-called McNaughton Plan. The so-called

McNaughton Plan built a dam at the international boundary line on the

Kootenay River and flooded those waters back into the upper Columbia

and Lake Windermere, and virtually flooded the whole of the Rocky

Mountain Trench. The McNaughton Plan was to divert all of the

floodwaters of the Kootenay into the upper Columbia. Indeed, the end

result of the McNaughton Plan was also to divert all of the floodwaters

of the upper Columbia at Mica into the Okanagan and Thompson River

systems. That was a very popular scheme not only with the CCF but with

many Canadians. It was an all-Canadian power project; it was to drop

all the floodwaters to the sea in Canada. That was a scheme which was

espoused by many. All it shows is that in those days people had little

regard for the wildlife resources of the mountain trench, the scenic

values there or the people who were living there who had properties and

farms. It was a very mechanical view of things. It was almost

engineering a la mode, with very little regard for the biology and the

environment of a large part of British Columbia. To the credit of those

who were responsible for developing the Columbia River Treaty, the

McNaughton Plan was not proceeded with, even though it was a so-called

"all Canada" plan. Basically those waters still flow and will continue

to flow in the natural channels rather than being diverted from one

river basin to another.

Willy nilly we have a development

which from an environmental point of view, is a better development than

the diversion or multiple diversion plan referred to in those days as

the McNaughton scheme. The NDP today is now very sensitive, as it

should be, and as the Social Credit Party should be, about the

protection of the environment. It just shows that within about 15 years

we've all grown up a little bit in the sense that we regard not only

the production of more kilowatt hours or more industry as the be-all

and end-all of our existence. We've learned a great deal. We are

affected very much by our environment, and the quality of our life is

determined largely by it.

I suppose the main point I'm

trying to make is that the Ministry of Environment, nationally and

provincially, is faced with a great challenge. It's supposed to look

ahead; it's supposed to be concerned not only with wildlife but with

industry and jobs to the extent that the Minister of Environment

mustn't be ''Mr. No" all the time, but it is a very important ministry

and I think it's well managed. I think it has every intention of doing

a first-class job of protecting our environment in this province, and

so I certainly hope this minister's estimates go through quickly.

HON. MR. MAIR:

Mr. Chairman, I thank the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr.

Davis) for his thoughtful speech and the ideas that he has given me. I

gather that they were more in the spirit of suggestions than specific

questions. I would like to mention that one of the problems we have in

the Pollution Control Board in setting rigid standards is that a great

deal of flexibility is required, not only in the day-to-day operation

of the board with new schemes that come across its desk, but in that we

have a great problem with what I might call grandfather situations,

where we have pollution situations that existed long before we even

realized that they were pollution situations and long before we put

into place any legislation to take care of them.

I agree

with the member that we have a golden opportunity to work with the

federal government — I might say personally I have a golden

opportunity, because the federal minister is a long-time personal

friend of mine and we share a lot of the concerns that the member has

spoken of. We don't need to have any Thames Rivers to clean up; we have

the opportunity of keeping them clean before they get into that state.

Going

back to the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson), I must say I hope

that I get all the questions that you put to me, Mr. Member. One of the

problems I have is I can't read my own writing, but I try very hard to

start from beginning to end. You mentioned in the beginning about the

[ Page 666 ]

council

in Nelson and the question of 2, 4-D. I'm sure that you have advised

the council that they can undo that decision if they wish. This is not

cast in tablets of stone. If the city council did not pay proper

attention to the decision and did not treat it as seriously as it ought

to have been, it ought to rethink it and come up with another solution

or at least redebate the matter.

On the question of garbage,

I'm aware of the problem that the city of Nelson has had, and I have

before me a number of notes with the whole history of the situation

which, I'm sure, the member doesn't want to get back into now. Suffice

it to say that if the Ministry of Environment were in the business of

having to provide solutions to these problems, we would never be able

to do any kind of a good job, because we would be saddled with the

responsibility that belongs elsewhere.

Let me explain. One

of the more serious problems we have right now is with my own

constituency in the city of Kamloops, and their waste disposal problems

in the Townsend River. We simply have had to say, through the pollution

control branch and the board particularly, that they can't dump any

more effluent in, they just cannot go any higher than they've already

gone, and we will not extend their permits. Now if I had to provide

them, as a ministry, with the answer as to what they were going to do

with that dilemma, then the tendency would be not to put them in that

dilemma in the first place. I think it's much better that the Ministry

of Environment be put in a position to put people in that dilemma

situation. The government of British Columbia may have to come back and

form part of the solution in the long run — that is, the government as

a whole — but in the meantime I think I would be seriously handicapped

in doing the job I'm sworn to do if I had to at the same time tell

people how they could solve these problems that we have raised for them.

did have a golden opportunity to take a look at the Lemon Creek

situation and the Slocan Valley and Slocan Forest Products situation.

The trip I took was somewhat unrelated to my duties as Minister of

Environment, as the member well knows, but in any event I did have a

good chance to take a look at it. I am advised by my deputy sitting

next to me that I have an extensive memorandum on my desk concerning

Lemon Creek. I told the people when I was there that I thought the

situation certainly could do with some tending to, and I meant that at

the time. I hope to be able to give you some news in a few days, after

I've had a chance to consider what my ministry has told me about that.

The

Creston Valley Wildlife Management Authority. I gather in that

particular discussion that the member was having with me — through you,

Mr. Chairman — that he was more making comment than asking any specific

questions. If you have got some specific questions — or specific

solutions, I suppose — I would, of course, be very pleased to hear from

you in that regard.

The member for Nelson-Creston dealt with

the Salmonid Enhancement Program, and this gives me an opportunity to

clarify what I think is a commonly held error. The $2 million that the

provincial government has budgeted is our contribution toward the

Salmonid Enhancement Program, and does not represent any federal funds

at all. It represents about $1.5 million toward the program itself —

which is 5 percent of the federal amount, which is $25 million — and

then there is an additional amount of $700,000 or $800,000 for

administration and allied things. So the $2 million is not a recycling

of federal money. That is our share of it; the federal money is put in

in a different manner.

In the member's own riding we do have

two vacancies. I am advised we have an environmental manager vacancy

and a regional director vacancy, and that they are both in the process

of being filled at this point. We know we have to do it.

wish I could remember the word that the member used for districts that

are the same districts. That is a wonderful word. Please write it to

me, because I like to improve my vocabulary. I am just going to talk

about coinciding districts between various ministries of government. I

agree with the member that it would be very helpful if we could,

throughout the government, always have the same districts regardless of

what the ministry is. The problem is that the degree of service that we

must deliver from ministry to ministry varies, and the impact that we

have in different ministries is different. In ELUC we have tried to

have all the same districts, and we're one of the first, along with

Highways, to break away from that to some degree — simply because we

have got management problems. One classic example is the question of

Kamloops administering the Okanagan. That has been found to be totally

unsatisfactory, so we've had to divide that in two. We try as best we

can to not let that interfere with administration and not create the

problems that the member has suggested. But, as I say, there are those

difficulties that do arise.

On the question of Kokanee, I

hope to be able to announce to the House — and if it's not in session

announce to the public — new methods of funding which we're working on

now which will enable us to do a great deal more in the preservation of

habitat, in the acquiring of habitat and on the whole question of

enhancing the fish as well as the wildlife habitat. We're working very

hard on this. We've had a lot of suggestions, not only from your area,

Mr. Member, but in other areas of the Kootenays and, indeed, from all

walks of life as to how we might do this over and above the traditional

methods of financing those things. I hope we'll be able to have

something to say on that in the very near future.

MRS. WALLACE:

I don't want to belabour the chemical debate, but I would like to

correct the minister. He said I was referring to 2, 4, 5-T; it was 2,

4, 5-TP. The case in point was a Mrs. Shoecraft. It was exposure to 2,

4-D and 2, 4, 5-TP where she developed cancer in the tissues.

want to turn to a topic I've discussed many times with this minister.

It is the Cowichan estuary. The task force to review the development in

that estuary was first established in March 1977. We still have nothing

official on hand. We have many rumours; we have many documents; we have

many leaked documents and many contradictory documents. It's such a

different situation to 1974, when a task force was just as

all-inclusive, just as broad in its approach to the matter. Yet it was

able to come in with a report in a few months and to make a

recommendation. Within a month we had a minister who acted upon that

recommendation.

We seem to have found that the result of

that decision and that minister's action have been more or less

disregarded. At the time that former recommendation was instituted with

the first task force, certain rules and regulations were set down for

industry going into the Cowichan estuary. The letter sent by Doman

Industries,

[ Page 667 ]

signed by Mr. Frumento at that time, dated February 6, 1975, listed the commitments

they were undertaking. It talked about a total sawmill operation, about certain

dredging, pollution control measures, noise abatement, air emission abatement,

temporary log storage. That was the one thing where there was an addendum for

a matter of a few months, that it would be doubled from 20 acres to double that

amount. Log movements, temporary log storage and future plans for dredging were

simply within the boundaries of that present proposal. It gave the mill

capacity; great details were given in this letter. As far as expansion plans

were concerned, it was indicated at that time that the expansion plans were

nil.

Was

interesting to note that in February of 1977, the same Mr. Frumento

went before the municipal council and indicated they actually had

stages one, two and three, and the testimony that was given before the

council is very interesting. The question was asked: "What construction

plans were originally submitted to ELUCT?" Only stage one was presented,

as ELUC only wanted to know what their immediate plans were. Doman

Industries was anxious to proceed. They did not want any delays as a

result of processing stage two plans. It was never stated that a chip

hog-fuel loadout facility would be provided as these materials were to

be trucked out. The response was that Doman simplified their submission

for the sake of expediency. They now needed this facility to provide an

alternative market to dispose of chips and hog fuel. It was stated that

if the overall plan was submitted to ELUC it would probably have been

turned down. ELUC approved one set of plans and the council another.

Then Mr. Frumento said: "Doman received tacit approval. They did not want to overcomplicate their submission."

think, Mr. Chairman, that those kinds of remarks indicate the crux of

the problem that we're facing now, because ELUC accepted at face value

the request of industry to go in there. They agreed to abide by the

regulations that were set out by ELUC, and now we find that they had

planned to do other things than they had advised ELUC. We have now this

second task force which is taking so long to come out with a report,

and we have, as I am sure you're aware, a couple of leaked documents —

at least I assume they're leaked. They arrived on my desk one day in my

Duncan office, and I have no idea where they came from. But I am very

curious about these documents because one is a report called an

"executive

summary" and the other one is a proposed land-use plan for

the Cowichan estuary.

Now this executive

summary, which I

understand from some members of the task force had more or less been

discussed by that task force and more or less had the approval of the

members, establishes three different areas.

First, it

relates to the various potentials within the estuary, and it comes up

with three types of areas within the estuary. There is a restricted

zone, where it says that no further development is to be permitted.

That particular area is the intertidal area. It says that such a

precautionary approach is recommended to protect fishery resources, as

fish stocks may be declining and impacts on habitat are apparent.

Potential alternative sites for industry have been identified.

Incidentally, there was a report of some 11 alternative sites, and

this particular report identifies about 21.

The second zone

is the conservancy zone. Development within this zone is limited to

agriculture, recreation, wildlife habitat and tourism. Use is to be

compatible with existing agricultural capabilities. It talks about all

that area being within the agricultural land reserve.

Then the third area is the assessment zone, which would be open for possible development.

Now,

you know, that might be an acceptable sort of a document, Mr. Minister.

But this other one which came along with it, and which some members of

the task force didn't seem to be familiar with, is a proposed land-use

plan for the Cowichan estuary. It talks about the same three zones, Mr.

Chairman, except it says that it would accept the restricted zone —

that's the inter-tidal area, where nothing is supposed to happen — with

four specific exceptions, and those exceptions are pretty major. Those

exceptions would allow some major expansion in that restricted area,

quite contrary to the thoughts behind the original — if this was the

original — executive

summary.

I'm trying to find the

specific points that they are talking about, but they are fairly major.

They want log handling — well, four very major changes, very major

industrial endeavours within that restricted zone.

When it

comes to the conservancy zone which was to be limited strictly to

agriculture and recreation, they talk about one specific exception

there. And that's a transportation corridor right through it, which,

you know, is completely harmful to the kinds of activities that are to

be there recreation, wildlife, and so on.

The one seems

simply to defeat the other. While it is based on those three zones, the

second report comes up with recommendations to exclude or allow certain

things in those zones that defeat the whole purpose of the

recommendations of that first report.

Now I don't know

whether these are official documents or not, Mr. Chairman, but they

must have some basis in fact. The problem is that we've been going

blind for over two years and wondering what's going to happen. In the

meantime — you and I have discussed it quite recently, Mr. Minister —

there has been a firm of consultants hired to look at the log handling

and the industrial needs of the estuary. The chairman of the committee

has indicated that he has this report. but it's not available to the

public at the moment.

The time has just gone on too long.

Nothing is happening, and I can tell you that the people of the

Cowichan Valley are mighty concerned. It's no good for industry, and

it's certainly no good for the people who are involved and concerned

about environmental protection, People need to know the directions

they're going. It leaves the credibility of the whole task force, the

minister and the Environment and Land Use Committee very much in

question because there has not been any action taken, or any response.

I can't see why we have this delay. Surely the facts have been found.

Certainly the local input indicated that nearly 70 percent of the local

people were completely opposed to any further development in that

estuary.

We in the Cowichan Valley cannot understand the

delay. It certainly became an election issue. The people of the valley

felt that they should know what this government was proposing to do

about the estuary before they went out and cast their ballots. Since

we're discussing your estimates, the estimates of this ministry, we

should know what your ministry is proposing to do about that estuary. We

[ Page 668 ]

need

to have the opportunity to discuss it, and if we can't get any reports,

it's impossible to discuss it intelligently. I'm having to read from

press releases and from reports that may. or may not have any

authenticity.

that I know is authentic. The fisheries economic advisory staff of the

Department of Fisheries and Oceans pointed out the value of the fishing

industry to the Cowichan estuary, the optional or potential values of

the tourist industry there, and the aesthetics. It wasn't able to

gather figures on the industrial side of it because those figures were

just not available. In the face of what they did gather, they are very

concerned about any further industrial development there.

have a report by the industrial interests in the Cowichan Valley

relative to Island Shake and Shingle establishing themselves there.

Then another report done by a credible consultant indicates there are

many flaws in that first report. It certainly is not the sort of

situation one would desire to have when coming into this Legislature to

discuss such a crucial item.

The House is getting very noisy, Mr. Chairman. I suspect members are anxious to leave. Do you want to answer now?

HON. MR. MAIR:

The answer to the problem is not an easy one, because this is a very

difficult question. I think I've given ample evidence, Madam Member,

that I have a very keen interest in this problem, a special interest in

it. It would be very easy to come up with a quick decision. But it

probably wouldn't be the right decision.

I want you to know

that I now expect the report to be on my desk within the next week or

ten days. We've now got all the material together, and as soon as I can

possibly do so after that report is on my desk, I will have an ELUC

meeting. I don't want to delay it, but I want to make sure it's the

right and best decision I can make. I can only say to you, Madam

Member, that I have done everything humanly possible to see that all

the evidence is in and that the Cowichan River estuary is dealt with

properly. That will have to prove whether I'm right or wrong.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. Mr. Curtis filed an answer to a question on the order paper.

Hon.

Mr. Curtis filed the report of the British Columbia Heritage Trust for

the year 1978 with attached auditor's report, and the Provincial

Capital Commission statement of receipts and expenditures up to March

31, 1979.

HON. MR. McGEER: I ask leave to table two

documents. Earlier today during second reading of the omnibus bill on

education the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) stated that

no letter with respect to independent schools had been circulated by

him during the election campaign. I have a letter here signed by G.

Lauk. It may not be the first member for Vancouver Centre, but it was

written during the election campaign to say: "If the NDP is elected as

government, the present legislation will remain in place." Along with

that is an item by the two candidates in Vancouver–Point Grey,

circulated to all the members. I ask leave to table this with the House.

Leave not granted.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1979,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada