1990 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 20, 1990

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

10459 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Accountants (Certified General) Amendment Act, 1990 (Bill 42).

Hon. Mr. Strachan

Introduction and first reading –– 10459

Oral Questions

Use of government aircraft. Mr. Rose –– 10459

Mr. Lovick

Effect of floods on Okanagan tourism. Mr. Chalmers –– 10460

Use of government aircraft. Mr. Lovick –– 10460

Reimbursement of expenses for medical treatment. Mr. Perry –– 10460

Use of government aircraft. Mr. Perry –– 10461

Mr. Rose

Tabling Documents –– 10462

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Environment estimates.

(Hon. Mr. Reynolds)

On vote 26: minister's office –– 10462

Mr. Cashore

Mr. Sihota

Ms. Edwards

Hon. Mr. Michael

Mr. Perry

Mr. Miller

Park Amendment Act, 1990 (Bill 25). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. Messmer) –– 10486

Mr. Gabelmann

Ms. Edwards

Mr. G. Janssen

Mr. Perry

Third reading

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 20, 1990

The House met at 2:03 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. PELTON:

Hon. members, in the gallery today we have three very prominent

Victoria businessmen. I wonder if the House would please welcome David

Nicholson, Barry Foss and Peter Dale.

HON. MR. MICHAEL:

Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today are four young British Columbians who

are going to see a great deal of our province over the next several

months. These four young women, all graduates of the BCIT tourism

marketing program, will serve as the Music '91 mall show touring hosts.

Over the course of the summer they will visit 16 communities with a

touring show promoting next year's Music '91 celebrations — our province's biggest single tourism promotion since Expo 86.

These

young people —

field supervisor Lori De Cou from Vancouver and hostesses Heather Usher

of Victoria, Sandra Morin of Powell River and Erin Ormond of Nelson —

are here for a training course to help prepare them for the tour. These

people will be fine young ambassadors for the year of music in our

province. I would like all members of the House to join me in making

them very welcome.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, in the

gallery today are a number of students from Esquimalt Senior Secondary

in the riding of Esquimalt–Port Renfrew. They are here because they

have formed a club — I guess that is the best way to describe it —

around environmental issues. They are here not so much to watch

question period, as to watch the debates during the Ministry of

Environment estimates, which I'm sure will be controlled and tempered

so that they can enjoy it. So would all members please join me in

giving a warm welcome to the students from Esquimalt Senior Secondary.

HON. MR. SMITH:

Mr. Speaker, in addition to wishing to welcome Bishop Snowden, who

offered prayers for us here this afternoon, I would like to welcome to

the gallery Marjorie Snowden, who is, of course, from Kamloops. She has

been involved tremendously in many, many community activities, but most

especially I would like to welcome her here and acknowledge her

presence for her very, very important work with the hospice society in

Kamloops. Would the House join me in welcoming Marjorie Snowden, please.

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today are two visitors from

the constituency to the north of Nanaimo, but I have a hunch that my colleague

across the way, the Minister of Regional and Economic Development (Hon. S. Hagen),

hasn't seen them. So I'll take it upon myself to introduce and make

welcome Mr. Ian Terry, the chair of the Regional District of Nanaimo, and Mr.

Barry Johnston, a Parksville alderman. I'll ask the members to please make

them welcome.

MR. SPEAKER:

Hon. members, brevity is actually the hallmark of a properly done

introduction, and without political remarks being made on either side.

Introduction of Bills

ACCOUNTANTS (CERTIFIED GENERAL)

AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

Hon. Mr. Strachan presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Accountants (Certified General) Amendment Act, 1990.

HON. MR. STRACHAN:

Mr. Speaker, my comments will be brief. As indicated in the title, this

is an amendment bill. It amends the certified general accountants' act

to make it equivalent, in terms of discipline procedures and also the

membership procedures of its council, to the chartered accountants'

act. The CGAs sought these amendments. That is essentially the essence

of this bill.

Bill 42 introduced, read a first time and

ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the

next sitting of the House after today.

MR. SPEAKER:

Hon. members, subsequent to question period yesterday the hon. second

member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Perry) raised an alleged matter of

privilege. I have examined the material put forward by the hon. member

and I am unable to find any basis for a matter of privilege.

Oral Questions

USE OF GOVERNMENT AIRCRAFT

MR. ROSE:

I have a question for the Minister of Government Management Services.

Before releasing the government flight logs, the minister stated that

she was convinced that no one would find any evidence of abuse in the

air service. The logs, however, show clearly that you and your

colleagues are using air ambulance jets as political taxis, at a cost

of more than $100,000 in solo flights in the first three months of this

year alone. Does the minister still insist that no minister has abused

the privileges of government air services?

HON. MRS. GRAN:

Mr. Speaker, the assumptions being made by the NDP are incorrect. The

hypocrisy that exists on that side of the House over air services

astounds me.

Interjection.

HON. MRS. GRAN: I'll withdraw "hypocrisy, " but let me tell you, hon. members, that the policy framework for government air services hasn't

[ Page 10460 ]

changed

in the years since the NDP were in power. I want to remind those

members.... And I'm not criticizing, because those members well know

the difficulty of ministers trying to serve a province as big as

British Columbia. But let me tell you that many years ago — and

again, I'm not criticizing —

an Hon. P.F. Young, who I'm sure you're familiar with: January 2, 3, 8,

10, 13, 21, 22, 23, 28, 29, 30 and 31 of 1975. That same minister and

others — oh, an Hon. G.V. Lauk; I'm sure you know who that is —

January 2, 3, 7, 9, 10, 13, 14, 21, 22, 27, 31 — all to and from

the same places. So give me a break.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please. In addition to all that, the word "hypocritical" is not

unparliamentary and need not be withdrawn. However, since there are a

number of members wishing to assist the Chair in asking members to

withdraw and members are offering unsolicited withdrawals, perhaps

we'll proceed on that basis. However, Hansard need not record them.

MR. LOVICK:

To the same minister, who asks that we give her a break, we will indeed

when she gives a break to the people and puts an end to this abuse.

Mr.

Speaker, the logs show 100 solo flights between Victoria and

cabinet-member ridings in the first three months of this year alone.

And on February 2 we had the ridiculous spectacle of two ministers

taking the same jet to the same place but on separate trips within two

hours of each other, at a cost of some $3,000. The question to the

minister is just this: does the minister not agree that this

constitutes an abuse of the air service?

HON. MRS. GRAN: Mr. Speaker, my answer is no.

EFFECT OF FLOODS ON

OKANAGAN TOURISM

MR. CHALMERS:

My question is for the Minister of Tourism. It has been well known and

well publicized that we've had flood conditions in the Okanagan for the

last few weeks, but it has been so well publicized that it has been

driving tourists away. Some hotel operators tell me they are down 25

percent, and cancellations are coming in because of the adverse

publicity. I'd like to ask the minister what he is doing or what he is

prepared to do to counteract that situation.

HON. MR. MICHAEL:

Mr. Speaker, that's a very good question, but I would urge the member,

first of all, to perhaps spend a bit of time talking to his local

weather reporter, to see that the problem areas are more specifically

described rather than generalized as the entire Okanagan Valley under

flood. Indeed, the member has a very good point: those flooding

problems are very site-specific, but the reporters are not reporting it

in that manner.

I can report to the House that we certainly have a well-prepared advertising program underway — radio

and TV releases. We will be working with the nine tourist regions,

mainly the Okanagan-Similkameen tourist region. I can assure all

members of the House that we will be doing a good job for tourism and

bringing back the massive flow of tourists to the great Okanagan Valley

once again. Thanks for the question.

[2:15]

USE OF GOVERNMENT AIRCRAFT

MR. LOVICK:

Again to the Minister of Government Management Services. Does the

minister not think that scheduling six separate flights using four

different jets in one day to bring six cabinet ministers back to

Victoria is really an abuse of the air service?

HON. MRS. GRAN:

I have a feeling that during my estimates later on today we'll be

talking about these issues, but in the interest of open government and

open opposition, I am wondering where the flight logs are for the

Leader of the Opposition.

REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES

FOR MEDICAL TREATMENT

MR. PERRY:

To the Minister of Health. In mid-May, Mrs. Doris Currie of Port

Coquitlam required urgent radiotherapy for breast cancer. Faced with a

six- to eight-week delay in treatment In British Columbia, she flew to

Edmonton, where she received prompt treatment. She has now been denied

reimbursement for her $294 airfare. Will the minister tell this House

by what sort of twisted logic he denies women transportation for

life-saving medical treatment while at the same time government jets

have flown a minister's spouse and children to a weekend holiday in

Vanderhoof?

HON. J. JANSEN: I'm very pleased that

the member brought up the need for additional radiotherapy units in the

province of British Columbia. We are, as the member opposite is aware,

supplying the additional capacity in British Columbia of 13 more units

over the next few years. The day before yesterday we announced In

Kamloops the two additional units that will be made available there. I

can certainly look into the specific details of the case.

The

concern I have is that we get questions in this House.Yesterday I had a

question from the opposition House Leader. He didn't want to be an

alarmist, but he was concerned that a Saltspring Island resident died

as a result of non-availability of aircraft. When we contacted him for

details, he refused to supply them. Unless I can get specific names and

details of the cases, I can't look into those situations. But I would

be pleased to do that for the member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. PERRY: A question, Mr. Speaker. Mrs. Currie phoned the Health ministry on May 31 and, when

[ Page

10461 ]

told she would not be reimbursed, she asked: "Do

you mean I might have to die on the waiting-list?" She was told,

"Unfortunately, that sometimes happens," by one of the minister's own

officials.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Name names.

MR. PERRY: The question is:

is it the minister's policy that the flagrant abuse of the ambulance by

his colleagues takes precedence over the legitimate health needs of a

woman like Mrs. Currie?

HON. J. JANSEN: Unless the member opposite can give me the name of the official who made that comment, I ask him to withdraw it immediately.

MR. PERRY: I will provide the name to the minister if he wishes, but perhaps he would like to have it directly from the woman concerned.

A new question for the Minister of Government Management Services.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Minister of Health on a point of order.

HON. J. JANSEN:

I have asked for a withdrawal of his statement unless the member would

supply a name so that I could respond. I would ask him to now reveal

that name, and if he doesn't reveal the name he can withdraw his

comments.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Where an

unparliamentary remark has been made, a withdrawal can be asked for.

However, I don't believe this is an unparliamentary remark. It may be a

remark which people find offensive, but it doesn't....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please. It doesn't reflect on a member of this House. If there

are other points of order, I would ask that we save them until the end

of question period, because the time of question period is fixed. I

would ask the second member for Vancouver–Point Grey to continue with

his questions.

MR. PERRY: Mr. Speaker, I'll give the

minister the phone number of Mrs. Currie in Port Coquitlam, which is

941-3776. Perhaps he'll follow it up.

USE OF GOVERNMENT AIRCRAFT

MR. PERRY: I have a new question for the Minister of Government Management

Services. This government has denied $294 in travel costs to a woman with a

life-threatening illness who needed to fly out of province for urgent treatment

that was not available in British Columbia. The minister has stood in this House

and defended a government that sees no problem in flying a minister's family

for a weekend holiday. Can the minister not, for once, admit that her air

service policies and her government have failed completely to serve the real

interests of British Columbia citizens and taxpayers?

HON. MRS. GRAN:

Mr. Speaker, it would seem to me that the member is misleading the

House when he talks about a holiday. Mr. Member, I believe that that is

a very unfair and unparliamentary thing to say. You are dealing with

whether or not spouses are allowed to travel, and certainly they are

within the policy, as they were within the policy of the NDP. I have

instances all through the logs where NDP spouses traveled with the

ministers.

Again, let's think about what you are saying before you do it in the interest of politics. You are being hypocrites.

MR. SPEAKER:

I must now ask the minister to stand and withdraw the word

"hypocrites." "Hypocritical" is not unparliamentary, but "hypocrites"

is.

HON. MRS. GRAN: Mr. Speaker, I would gladly withdraw the word "hypocrites" and add....

MR. SPEAKER: No, there's nothing to be added to it. Thank you, hon. member.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, because of all the interruptions in question period, I hope that we might extend the time at least by a minute.

the minister of government air services, let me remind the minister of

the three stated objectives of the government's air services policy:

1. Ensure the economic and efficient use of government air services. Has the government passed or failed this test?

Provide direction to ministries on the appropriate use of government

air services. Has the government passed or failed this test?

3. To ensure coordination and uniformity in the application of government air services. Have you passed or failed this test?

HON. MRS. GRAN: Mr. Speaker, my answer to that question is: where is the itinerary for the Leader of the Opposition?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The bell terminated question period.

might remind members that it's inappropriate to ask questions about

legislation that is currently before the House. Some of you may wish to

peruse Bill 1 before asking these questions and see how it applies.

HON. MR. MICHAEL:

I take objection to a remark made by the member for Vancouver–Point

Grey during question period. That remark had to do with families going

home for weekends to take vacations. Mr. Speaker, I would ask if you

would take that remark under advisement and perhaps see fit to ask

[ Page 10462 ]

that member to put a withdrawal in Hansard . I can say that I travel home quite regularly with my wife — as

a matter of fact, according to this morning's paper, nine times in one

month. But I can say that it's always on the business of my

constituents within my constituency or for the constituency of the

province of British Columbia, and I take particular offence at that

remark.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, it is not

possible to ask for a withdrawal of a remark that a member finds

offensive. On that basis, members could ask for withdrawal of virtually

everything said in this House. There are, however, matters which are of

a personal nature when one reflects on an individual member. On that

basis, I will review the remarks and bring back a decision later.

MR. ROSE:

I have a point of order concerning a charge made by the Minister of

Health a moment ago. He charged that I would not provide his office

with the name of the person mentioned in the question yesterday. I

didn't have clearance for that at the time. I do now, and I'll be

pleased to supply the name to the minister.

Hon. Mr. Weisgerber tabled the annual report of the Ministry of Native Affairs for the year ending March 31, 1989.

MR. SPEAKER:

Hon. members, prior to the next order of business, I would remind all

members that tomorrow morning the House sits at 10 o'clock, and

question period will also be at 10 o'clock tomorrow. If members need

any further Information about the rest of tomorrow's proceedings, it's

available through my office.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN:

I'd like to welcome to the Legislature today about 40 grade 7 students.

They're just coming into the House now. Their teacher is Mr J. Mills.

They are from Hatzic Elementary School. I'd like the House to give them

a good, warm welcome.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT

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

MR. CASHORE:

Before I begin, I stated yesterday that I thought we would be able to

conclude by about 4 o'clock. I had not anticipated taking as long as we

did on the oil storage tanks yesterday. I will still try to be as

concise as I can, but I'm sure it's going to take somewhat longer than

that. I just wanted to make that point.

Mr. Chairman, I

want to turn now to the minister's major project review process, which

has been announced in recent months. I believe it's generally

understood that the major project review process is an effort to ensure

that major projects such as pulp mills and other kinds of industrial

development — dams, bridges, etc. — will undergo an appropriate process of

examination prior to being approved for construction and operation. We

certainly do agree with that intent. However, we have looked at the

major project review process that has been put forward by this

minister, and we see some flaws in it. We wish to draw that to his

attention.

[2:30]

We all know, Mr. Chairman, of the way in which projects in

Saskatchewan and Alberta have been bogged down and terminated by the

courts. And we all understand the desire of the province to avoid that

happening here. It can be very disruptive to the development of

commerce and of important projects within the province. So we

understand why that is a concern. But the best way of addressing that

concern is to make sure that we do it right from the very beginning.

And doing it right means putting into place the kind of review process

that entrenches in legislation the principles that are going to make it

work so that we don't end up becoming bogged down foolishly and

unnecessarily in costly litigation. Indeed, during the term of this

government there have been unnecessary court procedures, court costs

and litigation. This has almost been a hallmark of this government. We

can understand that the government is perhaps finally seeing the light

and wanting to change that. Therefore we feel that it's extremely

important that three principles be in place, among others, as this

process is undertaken.

The

first principle is adequate opportunity for the public to be

meaningfully involved in the process — at all stages —

so that in keeping with the Brundtland report the people of this

province do have an opportunity to exercise their democratic right to

give meaningful and helpful input into that process, to comment on what

the proponent is proposing and not only to suggest changes but to put

forward those questions that need to be addressed — questions

which sometimes require technical expertise. This is the principle of

public participation, Mr. Chairman.

There

is also the principle of independence of assessment, so that it isn't

the proponent's people who are assessing the validity of the review but

the people with expertise — people who can examine the proponent's

position and protect the public interest by protecting our rivers, our

oceans, the land base, the air that we breathe, the flora and the fauna

from possible effects of acid rain, etc. That's the second principle.

Mr.

Chairman, the third principle is that the intervener funding should be

available to those legitimate interveners who would go through an

appropriate process of having that funding made available. The

suggestion is not that it be made available

[ Page

10463 ]

willy-nilly to anybody who walks in or fills out a

form but that there would be an appropriate process to address the

issue of intervener funding.

The MPRP was born in a

questionable process, because it did not fulfil all of the requirements

of those three principles I have just enunciated in the development of

the MPRP. Mr. Chairman, it would have been so helpful to the people of

British Columbia to have those principles in place when the MPRP itself

was being developed. Therefore we have a communication of March 26 that

went to the Minister of Environment from Westcoast Environmental Law

Association, over the signature of Anne Hillyer. They sent along their

critique to the minister at that time; and some of the points they have

raised have been addressed since then. But they said that there was "no

opportunity for input from public interest groups into the development

of the MPRP." That's unfortunate, Mr. Chairman, because the day has to

stop where government and public officials and cabinet ministers give

lip service to a process, but when it comes down to brass tacks, we

discover that that process really isn't in place at all.

just want to review some points of weakness that we find with the MPRP,

and perhaps the minister would like to comment on them. The first is

that the MPRP has no legal status, no legislative authority. It's a

working policy of government, and it is not a legally enforceable

environmental review process MPRP's clout is that no provincial permits

will be issued unless approved by the review process. But future

compliance is not enforceable; it still depends on the ineffective

hodgepodge collection of provincial regulations which everybody knows

aren't really working.

The MPRP is limited in scope and

does not apply to existing industrial facilities or to ongoing or new

policies and programs. It's not applicable to all projects. Separate

review processes already exist for mine projects, energy projects,

allocation of harvesting rights to Crown timber and proposals to

establish ski hills on Crown lands. All review processes should be

under one umbrella; they should be under one piece of review

legislation. If all of this was brought under one umbrella, it would be

good not only for the public interest of the average British Columbian,

but also for the proponents. It should be a matter of high import on

the government's agenda to ensure a cohesive and unified approach to

the review of all projects.

Mr. Chairman, under the MPRP,

there's no mechanism to provide for a fair and full review of a

proposed project. The opportunity for public input is limited to

written responses as part of the prospectus stage. Then a one-week

public information session is on the proposal as part of the stage one

review, and only if considered necessary by the steering committee will

a public hearing be held at the stage two review.

Mr. Chairman, I know the minister will say that the steering committee will

consist of good people who will do a good job, but we've seen the recent

history of the problems with people on the Environmental Appeal Board not operating

in a fair and equitable manner. And in that case, the minister has pointed out

that new people have been appointed. But again there have to be standards in

place that ensure that it is done appropriately.

The

MPRP has no appeal mechanism for either public or project proponents.

If this were entrenched in law, that in itself would be ultra vires

because it is a right to have an appeal for something that is legally

sanctioned.

As I said before, the MPRP has no provision for

intervener funding, and approval under MPRP does not constitute

approval under the federal environmental assessment review process,

meaning that there's no guarantee for a proponent that it will not

later be subject to EARP. That can be an unnecessary cost or a

duplication. Where the Navigable Waters Protection Act and other

federal legislation obtains, it could lead us into costly court

procedures.

Mr. Chairman, MPRP applies only to major

projects submitting their permit applications after February 19, 1990.

That means that some projects that were underway prior to that, but

nevertheless requiring that review, are eliminated from that process.

There's a different process going on in their case.

Those

are some pretty significant points at issue with the MPRP. It

indicates, in my view, that the MPRP is there as window-dressing, as

public relations and to prove it's doing what it purports to do, but it

doesn't really deliver. It cannot deliver. It does not have the

legislative base; it does not have the principles that should be there

to uphold environmental protection for the 1990s and beyond.

would like to ask the minister, when he is commenting.... It's

difficult to word this question and be parliamentary, but I would like

to ask the minister if he has considered plans to entrench the MPRP in

legislation. Maybe some note is being taken of some of these questions.

That's one.

I'd also like to know if the government will

establish an independent panel to function on these boards. Has the

minister considered putting in place an appeal mechanism which, if he

were to entrench this in law, I believe would be required by law? I

would like to ask the minister if he has considered making intervener

funding available to protect the public interest. I know that on other

issues when we've asked him about intervener funding, his answer has

been no, but I want him to put it on the record. So I'll listen now to

what the minister has to say.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I

would also welcome the students from Esquimalt who are here to listen

to this good debate today. I would say to the member that the major

project review process is working extremely well in this province. It's

being looked at very closely by the federal government which, as you

know, has observer status in the meetings. It's co-chaired by

Environment and Economic Development. As you know, out of it so far we

have Celgar and the ferrochromium plant both going to public hearings

through the major project review process, and yet

[ Page 10464 ]

even

your own member from that area would like to see us get on with the

project. The fact is that it's going to be a much cleaner pulp mill

when it's finished than it has ever been. This process seems to work

extremely well.

I will repeat as often as you want that

intervener funding is not part of our government's policy. We run a

province with a 4 cents debt per capita. The federal government has a

35 cents debt per capita. Maybe there's a good reason for that. We just

don't believe that it's necessary, and that's the policy of the

government.

The mine development review process is one of

the most popular things in the world; we get people coming here all the

time to look at how it's done. In fact, if you want to go even further,

with TFLs, we had a Finnish group here the other day who were telling

us that they are going to be logging in the Soviet Union and that they

are using the British Columbia TFL example. That's what they sold to

the Russians as the best way to do things. There we've got a bunch of

socialists copying British Columbia, which I find rather different, but

they are.

I don't know what more I can say. The major

project review process is working well. There is an appeal process

through the Environmental Appeal Board. I know some of the members who

have been on that board have not been happy in the past. I don't think

I need to go today into the details of the person we appointed as

chairperson of that appeal board. She has all the credentials. Some of

the other people we've appointed, like Olga Barratt, have tremendous

credentials. I'm sure they will do a very fair job.

MR. CASHORE:

These debates have been quite cordial, but I do have to say that

sometimes I think the minister says the first thing that comes into his

head. He just said that the process has been working well. How does he

know it has been working well? There hasn't been any opportunity for it

to bear fruit. It hasn't been in existence long enough for the minister

to be able to say that it's working well. He says that it's working

well because he wants to say that it's working well, but he has no

evidence to say it's working well. We can't even say that the jury is

out, because the evidence isn't in. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to make

that point.

MR. SIHOTA: In listening to this debate,

I was taken by the minister's comments with respect to intervener

funding. I want to comment on that briefly and then pose a question to

the minister.

I think the minister understands that what

often happens is that there is a proposal in a community for some type

of project — be it a pulp mill or a ferrochromium plant, to use examples that we've seen —

and citizens are concerned about the prospect of an industry coming

into their community and the effect that that may have on air and water

quality and the general environment in the area. Citizens then usually

make a decision to petition or to go to a public hearing where the

matter is going to be approved or rejected. Those hearings,

particularly when you get in front of something like the Environmental

Appeal Board, are very technical, and they require expert evidence,

lawyers and resources that....

[2:45]

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: I'm sure the Premier doesn't like lawyers, but that's his bias. The fact of the matter is that we....

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Some lawyers.

MR. SIHOTA:

Let me guess who is on the top of your list here, Mr. Premier. I was

wondering if Robert Bourassa is a lawyer, but I guess not. I wouldn't

put him in there.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: He is a lawyer.

MR. SIHOTA: He is? Or is he an economist? In any event, let me just get back to my point.

What

happens is that the apparatus we set up to evaluate projects is very

complicated. Citizens who get together don't have the necessary skills

or the knowledge to be able to appear in front of a judicial or

quasi-judicial body such as the Environmental Appeal Board. They are

not aware of all the precedents. They don't understand all the

technical language around chemical reports and effluents. They don't

even always understand — in the fashion that I don't — the

various measurements and measurement techniques and the various nuances

that experts can put on their evidence about why a situation should

occur or not.

On one hand you've got appearing in front of

a board a group of people who are relatively unsophisticated, but on

the other hand you have the applicant, which is a large company that

wants to put in a pulp mill, has millions of dollars of resources, can

hire the best lawyers, the best chemists, the best engineers, the best

technical advisers. There's an inequality there at the hearing. One

side has far greater resources representing it than, usually, the

citizens' group has. That, in my mind, speaks in favour of the need to

balance the playing field so that both of the groups that are appearing

in front of the group that's going to decide whether or not to allow

for a pulp mill, or whatever, are at balance and that there's a quality

of influencing power on both sides.

When the minister says

that he would not approve intervener funding for those types of groups

I've just outlined, I am at a loss to understand the explanation. He

made reference to the federal deficit. I'm wondering if the minister's

explanation is due to dollars and if that's the sole reason he doesn't

think the government should move in this direction. Alternatively, is

it based on other policy considerations? Or is it based on both? I'd

like an explanation from the minister for why he rejects the concept of

intervener funding.

[ Page

10465 ]

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I want to comment not only on what the

member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew said, but on the critic for the NDP,

who says we like the process and it hasn't gone on. It has gone on.

What I am telling him is that I like the process because it is working

well so far. I don't know what he is really getting at, because he is

saying that if they allow a project to go ahead, it obviously doesn't

work, or.... I don't know what he is saying, but I'm telling him that

it is working extremely well so far.

The member for

Esquimalt–Port Renfrew talks about citizens, their rights and what they

can do. You know, citizens can go to the public hearings at no cost

with no problem at all. They can go to their city council. We have more

elected people in more levels of government that most areas of the

world. But certainly they can go to their city council at no cost and

give their opinions.

Council in any community can hire

staff and experts to do what they want them to do. That's available to

the average citizen. They can go to the appeal board — for which lawyers are not required — at no cost.

would suggest that the ferrochromium plant is a good example of the

system and how it works. As you know, the federal government and our

government agreed on a chairman and a couple of other individuals who

were independents to review the process, and we paid for their experts.

But it is done in a proper businesslike manner, not in a circus

atmosphere that some of these hearings can get into. This matter is

working very well. I think there is excellent public input, and that's

our government policy. You may disagree with it, but that's the policy

and we think it works well.

MR. SIHOTA:

The minister says that people can go, and he is right. You can go to

all of these venues — be it public hearings, city councils or

appeal boards — at

no cost. It doesn't cost you anything to be a spectator and to watch

what transpires. I guess it doesn't cost you anything to be able to

stand up and express your opinion.

However, if you want to influence the system, there are costs. Whether it's

a simple matter of going to a water board and saying, "Look, we think...."

In the 17-mile area of my riding we have citizens who don't have water.

They have to take water out of the creek. They are not hooked into the Sooke

water system. So in the summer when the creek gets contaminated, they have to

make other arrangements for their water. A simple example. They go to the water

board, which is.... I wouldn't put it in the genre of environmental appeal

boards, but it is a very simple setup at the water board. But they are met there

with bureaucrats who say it's going to cost so much for them to put it in

a pipe, and it's going to cost so much to do the blasting and all that kind

of stuff. And here are engineering studies which show that it is going to cost

$10 million — to use that example — to put in about a mile's worth of pipe.

It boggles the mind to think that it's going to cost $10 million to do it.

I'm

not asking the minister to express an opinion on that example. What I

am saying is that if you want to counter the opinion that it's going to

cost $10 million, you need to have the technical ability to be able to

show why it's not going to cost $10 million and why you don't need the

sophisticated engineering work that the water board is proposing.

In addition — to go to a different level —

if you go to the Environmental Appeal Board, it doesn't cost you

anything to watch what's going on. But if you are a citizen and you

speak out, you may want to cross-examine the expert from the company

who says it's fine to put these chemicals in the water. A lot of people

don't have cross-examination skills. It would assist them if they had a

lawyer to be able to cross-examine them, and I'm not saying that

because it would benefit my profession. You can come back and say that

to me. I'm not here standing up speaking in favour of lawyers. I am

just saying that people don't have that skill. So you can show up at no

cost, but if you want to influence the system, you need costs. Right?

Suppose

you want to cross-examine their chemist, who says, "No, it's no problem

if we put all of these chemicals into the water," and the board says:

"Well, that's fine; we've heard what you have to say in

cross-examination, but do you have any experts that counter their

opinion?" You know experts don't come free; you have to pay for people

who take time out of their lives to attend to give expert evidence.

Those

are all examples. It is very easy to say that you can do it at no cost

— to show up. But if you want to influence the system, there is a cost,

because that's what we've set up. We've set up quasi-judicial systems,

and you can't ask one group to go in front of a judge with its hand

tied behind its back. You can't do that. There has to be an equality of

resources on both sides.

want to ask the minister the same question, because I think he avoided

the answer. Is it because of policy reasons — and, if so, what are

they — or is it because of cost exclusively, or both, that you

choose not to go towards intervener status?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS:

It's because we don't believe in that process the way you've described

it. In a small area, $10 million is not a small amount of money. If we

allowed everybody in this world to hire a lawyer every time they wanted

to fight something, I don't know what the costs would be. Heaven

forbid! We have enough problems with health care today and the costs

going up. We can't afford to be doing it everywhere. Again I say that

you have elected officials.

However, with regard to the

major project review process, we did appoint Mr. Williams, who's a

lawyer. I have nothing against lawyers as such. I just wonder how much

of that $10 million worth of pipeline is in legal fees for documents

and protection and everything else people are doing. As you and I both

know, if we could get that contract for one mile of pipeline, we could

form a partnership and both leave here tomorrow. We could lay the

pipeline and live happily

[ Page 10466 ]

every

after, because there's no way that one mile of a pipeline can cost that

kind of money. But when Mr. Williams and the two independent people

sitting on the panel called in their experts, the experts were there

and available for questioning by the public.

MR. SIHOTA:

The minister says we've set up this process. You have. You've set up a

quasi-judicial process. I've been to these hearings. I can remember a

case from very early on when I was elected. I guess this is a small

issue in the overall world, but someone wanted to put a townhouse

development next to Spencer School in Langford, and the question was

whether the drainage from the townhouse development would settle in a

pond and saturate the fields at Spencer School and have adverse

effects. They were concerned that because there are no sewers, effluent

would collect around the school and create a health hazard. I remember

sitting through those hearings. If you've got a developer with all

sorts of money and citizens with all sorts of concerns, it's very

difficult for the citizens to provide persuasive technical evidence to

demonstrate that their concerns are valid — in this case, that effluent would show up at Spencer School.

In fact, if you took a look at cost, Mr. Minister, there's a lot of cost — I won't say there's more — associated

with uninformed people going to a hearing and taking up time expressing

an opinion that may not have any foundation. You can get through a

hearing a lot more quickly if the people have their experts in place,

have their evidence organized and can proceed efficiently through a

hearing. Sometimes I feel for the people who have to sit through these

hearings and listen to people who aren't prepared to proceed. There is

a lot of time and cost associated with that. You have to consider that

when you look at the dollars and cents.

I'm not saying that

people ought to be able to go out willy-nilly and hire a lawyer every

time they have an environmental concern. I'm saying that there ought to

be a process that would allow people to procure that funding through a

mechanism that decides by way of application. You fill out an

application form, you lay out what the project is, and a decision is

made.

Other jurisdictions have public defender systems

where lawyers are available to help people out on environmental

matters. I'm saying that there are all sorts of options in terms of

what government can do. But I would beg to differ, because I now sense

that your opposition to what I'm saying is not based exclusively on

cost but also on the process and the policy that you subscribe to

versus the....

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA:

The Premier just can't say something nice. He said: "I can't stand

him." Look, I'm not even yelling at the guy today; I'm being pretty

nice to him. But if you've got to go to your office, go, so we can have

our debate in here.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: No, you know full well that yesterday I was in the same temperament in here. Now you've knocked me off my thought pattern.

sense that your concerns are not so much cost as they are policy,

although there may be an amalgam there. From the policy point of view,

you've set up — appropriately, in my mind — a quasi-judicial

process, just like going to court, where you have two, three, four or

five people on a panel making a decision on whether something should

happen. Inevitably they are going to have to hear argument from both

sides. The moment you set up a quasi-judicial process in society,

you've got to make sure that people can work within that framework. And

they can't if they don't have the tools that dovetail in with that

framework.

It's incorrect for you, Mr. Minister, to say

that as a matter of policy you don't think it's needed. People can show

up and look at the one example — the ferrochromium plant. It just

ain't that simple. People need the tools to be able to deal with the

system. If you want to set up that kind of system, you've got to

provide people with the tools. Otherwise the inevitable result is that

the deep pockets will win. The people who have the financial

wherewithal to make all the appropriate stances in front of the appeal

board will win. I haven't looked at the results, but I would venture to

say that in the cases I've described, the person with the deep pockets,

the applicant — usually the industry — will succeed in its endeavour.

[3:00]

Your process is correct, but you haven't given people the tools to

adequately take advantage of that process. And I say that if you're

going to reject giving people the tools, then you're making a

fundamental policy error. As I said yesterday, I don't expect you to

reverse your position right here, but I think you should, and I think

you should do it real quick, because you've got to realize that the

system can't work the way you've got it. If your bias is to say yes, we

want industry, and we're going to set up a system that is sort of an

artificial vetting process to allow for it to happen, then you've

achieved your goal by not giving citizens the tools. But if your goal

is really to have deep, sophisticated, technical, meaningful dialogue

about whether an industry should come in, then you've got to give

people the ability to engage in that dialogue. Again I've got to say

that you're wrong, and I think you should reconsider.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS:

I thank the member for his comments. I couldn't help but think, as I

was sitting here, that it's like going to church. I appreciate the

message, as I do the minister's every Sunday, but I don't always agree

with everything he says.

MS. EDWARDS: I have a

number of concerns about the major project review process, and some of

them deal as well with the intervener funding. But I wanted to start

with some other questions of the minister.

[ Page

10467 ]

I'd like to point out first of all that in the discussion of what is

a major project and then the actual list of what kinds of things

constitute a major project.... Why has the minister not included in

that list such things as golf courses on private land? I know that golf

courses, ski resorts and that kind of thing on Crown lands are there,

but they're not included and neither are major resorts.

This

may seem to the minister like something that doesn't need a review

here, but I'll tell you that it can create some major problems with

resource allocation and resource use in our part of the province. When

golf courses go in and they begin to be subject to review because they

want to be out of the agricultural land reserve, and the Land

Commission says no and then the cabinet says yes, I think it's a very

clear case that these things have some major implications and that they

should be subject to review and to public statement. As you know, the

reviews that come through some of these processes are not available;

access is not available to people in all parts of the province.

might also mention to the minister that you could have such a thing as

a major tourist resort and it may sound to you like something that

doesn't conflict, but when you plunk it down in the middle of a major

game migration route, as the Panorama ski resort was, you have some

problems. These are not included here, and I'd like to ask why.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I can send the member — I'm not sure if she has it —

a copy of the guidelines. On page 13 it says quite plainly: "The

Cabinet Committee on Sustainable Development may require projects and

industries that are not listed below to be subject to the MPRP if they

believe that the potential environmental or socioeconomic impacts of

the projects warrant such action."

MS. EDWARDS: That

certainly brings me to the next question, even if it's not an adequate

answer, in my view. There are many situations in which this review is

not required, and the decision as to whether or not it shall be

required is.... Some are automatically excluded because they're not on

the list; some of them may come up if the Cabinet Committee on

Sustainable Development requires it. But it has been suggested to me,

Mr. Minister — and I think it is a rather excellent suggestion —

that all of the major projects.... Perhaps we could make some

designation other than the ones that are here, because we should

include other projects that could have major impacts on resources and

the use of resources by other stakeholders.

Has the minister considered having a situation where a municipality or regional

district could initiate a major review? They probably know it's going to

go on and could initiate it. That is not even discussed here. It's not written

out in the guidelines, and as my colleague has already pointed out, it's

certainly not legislated.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS:

Again, page 13 says basically what you were saying at the start of your

comments. There's nothing to stop a municipality, village or city from

doing their own review of any project within their boundaries, and also

nothing to stop them from writing to me as Minister of Environment with

a city council motion saying: "We believe this project should go under

this process and would like it to go under the process." We would then

take it to the committee. As you know, our policy in this government is

to go through the different levels. If you got a recommendation from

that level of government, it would be very difficult not to review it.

MS. EDWARDS:

I find the minister's last statement very difficult to believe. There

are a number of situations where what regional or municipal governments

want is not necessarily reflected in what the provincial government

decides to do.

Vis--vis the two examples that I gave you,

I might mention that the Ministry of Forests, the Ministry of Energy,

Mines and Petroleum Resources and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs,

Recreation and Culture as well as Environment Canada and the federal

environment assessment review office are all included in the steering

committee, but the Ministry of Tourism is not. This is not going to cut

as wide a swath as the minister suggests it will.

Even if

the minister were to accept the recommendation of a regional district

or a municipality, there is no requirement at all that the minister pay

any attention. That seems to me a shortcoming in the bill.

Regarding

the other suggestion that the minister makes, which is that the

municipal government or the regional government have hearings of their

own, surely that's not what the minister intends.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Chairman, municipalities have hearings

of their own. They have them

every week. If you bring in a golf course proposal — a lot of them

are being proposed around the province, as you know, and a number in

your area —

they go through that process. Those are hearings, the council hearings.

If they want it to go to the next step and recommend to us that we take

a look at it, I see no reason why we wouldn't give that approval.

MS. EDWARDS:

Mr. Chairman, maybe the minister isn't aware that there are large areas

in the province that aren't zoned at all. They have no zoning

whatsoever, so the regional process is not likely to be invoked when a

proposal is made for the kind of development that could very easily

have a major effect on the use of a resource in the area. I put that to

the minister and I hope he will consider it.

I move on to

the point about the approval in principle which would, or could, be

given to a project. At whatever point the approval in principle is

given, that approval in principle is valid for five years. Mr.

Minister, even most variances from the board of variance are not good

for five years. That's an extremely long time to suppose that any

decision that is made is going to be the same the next time

[ Page 10468 ]

around.

It would be much more reasonable to suggest two years, and if after

that anything happened, there would be at least a review and update

process. Certainly after that the whole ambience of the area, the whole

resource context may be changed. I wonder if the minister has thought

that perhaps five years is a long, long period of time for approval in

principle.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Chairman, the

problem that you have, depending on the size of the projects.... For

instance, I remember having the GVRD in my office a few weeks ago

talking about their sewage treatment plants. It's going to take five

years to do the project. A ferrochromium plant takes probably a good

two to three years to build. Your five years, in that context of a very

major project, is not that long.

With regard to things

changing, yes, they do. Our permits change and our regulations change.

Pulp mills right now are going through a process of down to 2.5 by '91

and 1.5 by '94. Who knows whether in the next couple of years, with

increased technology, those things may change. Things are changing all

the time, and our permit regulations change.

MS. EDWARDS:

Mr. Chairman, I think the minister misunderstood me. That's five years

without starting the project, and it's still good for five years even

if they haven't started the project. If they don't start the project, I

can see no reason at all to have that approval in principle extended.

If they're in progress, obviously that's something different. But five

years, if they haven't even made an effort to begin, is not something,

as I say, that even boards of variance normally allow. I would like the

minister to respond on that, but I'll go ahead with another question.

would like to make the comment that 30 days for local review and

comment is much too short. I put that in context with the same

situation that my colleague the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr.

Sihota) was talking about. There is no intervener funding. The people

are faced with perhaps a very highly technical issue, and you allow

only 30 days. It is far, far too short. It's too short if the

interveners want to have technical advice. It may simply initiate a

situation where they give up before they start. So I wonder why 30

days. Is there some great rush? If we go through this too fast and the

public is opposed, you know yourself that there will be far more fuss

and there will be political action, whether it's within the hearing or

not. Thirty days is not necessarily going to allow the kind of

preparation of an intervention that might be needed.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS:

Mr. Chairman, the 30 days only applies to the prospectus stage, which

is the initial stage. Again, I stress that the people appointed to the

panel are experts. They hire experts. We fund that, which is a form of

intervener funding.

Then you have the public hearings. The

ferrochromium plant's been going at least three months now. I mean, we

get the complaints from the other end, from industry, saying: "How long

is this going to last?" We're talking about multimillions

or billions of dollars for some of these projects. How long do we have

to wait to get them started?

The biggest concern in Celgar — as you know; talk to your own member —

is the delays. The delays may cause the expansion to be halted because

of the way the money's going right now. Who knows what's going to

happen to this country after this weekend? You could lose the impetus.

If that project had started when they wanted to start it, it might be

nearly complete by now — which that member was in support of. But

we've got a process. It's now going to public hearing. I don't know how

we could do it much differently.

I know we have a

difference, but I'm telling you that that's what we looked at and

that's our policy. You have a different policy, and that's fine too.

MS. EDWARDS: I would like to carry on just for a moment about intervener funding,

because appointing a board is not intervention. The minister is pushing

far too far to suggest that that's the case.

Just in the

most recent few years of my experience of public hearings, I might

suggest first of all the Courtenay hearing by the Utilities Commission

where the chairman of the Utilities Commission said that had he been

able to under the law, he would have wanted to provide some funding for

the intervention that had been made. He commented about the fact that

the very limited number of people in the Comox Valley had to pay a

large amount of money to bring an expert in from California to counter

the arrayed forces of B.C. Hydro, with all the technical resources in

the world that you need to prove the case that was being put by B.C.

Hydro. You had these few hundred people from the Comox Valley trying to

counter it. The chairman of the Utilities Commission said that he would

have funded intervener funding if he could have.

[3:15]

The same thing happened at little wee itsy Elko in my riding, where

they opposed the burning of some soap in a beehive burner that did not

meet the standards. The people in that area — fewer people —

had to hire a lawyer and an expert to go into that hearing even at the

waste management branch appeal level.

would like to mention the Cranbrook PCB storage case, which was about

to go to the Environmental Appeal Board. Yes, we had a municipal

government in there spending money, but we also had another group who

could not possibly have argued the case for PCB storage without some

major technical advice.

I would also like to tell the

minister that I have sat on appeal boards long enough to know you don't

always want a lawyer arguing your case. In fact, sometimes you say:

"Please get an expert. Don't get a lawyer." But that says nothing about

intervener funding, because when you are dealing with technical issues,

you need technical support.

I think saying that you have appointed a board to hear it is not adequate to suggest that there's been

[ Page

10469 ]

any kind of intervention by a cause that the people may want.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS:

I'll just mention that not only did we appoint the panel, but the panel

was given money to hire experts. Those experts are hired on behalf of

the people who want to come and ask questions. That's what they're

hired for. The people can also come.

the case that you mentioned —maybe in your own constituency —

to our staff and the ministry, that's what staff is for. They can

provide those people with the information they require.

MR. CASHORE: Yesterday I mentioned Law Reform for Sustainable Development In B.C.

It's a booklet about the sustainable development committee of the

Canadian Bar Association, British Columbia branch, and it has an

excellent little handbook on environmental protection for the 1990s and

beyond. I don't know if the minister has had a chance to read it yet,

but if he persists on the tack of standing up against intervener

funding, standing up against independence of review, standing up

against reasonable opportunity for the public to participate in the

process, he's going in a direction that's going to get him into

difficulty.

It simply is not acceptable in terms of

environmental expectations. There is an expectation on the part of the

public that this type of environmental regulation be done right, that

it be done appropriately and that we not try to hoodwink the public by

pretending to do it properly when we really aren't.

I want

to point out that in that little document by the B.C. branch of the

Canadian Bar Association, they make many points. On page 116 they say:

"MPRP should have a mechanism for appeal of the decision of the

steering committee to the Environmental Appeal Board." They say right

there that there should be a mechanism for that. I just want to ask the

minister if he would comment on that specific point. This is a

recommendation from a group that the minister says he has a great deal

of respect for.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I do have respect

for some of the work they do, just like I have respect for some of the

work that Greenpeace does. As the member knows, both organizations have

the ability to raise money with tax deductions. I was reading in the

paper that Greenpeace will get about $125 million this year to fund

their operations. They certainly appear at most of these meetings.

Intervener funding is available in Canada through those types of

sources, and also through the source I just mentioned. Our major review

process, the panel, can hire experts, and those experts can be used by

the citizens. That's the way it should be.

That's our policy. It disagrees with yours, but we quite often have those disagreements.

MR. CASHORE: I didn't get what the minister said about the appeal

process. Did you refer to the appeal process in your answer just now? He mentioned

intervener funding. Did you just now give your thoughts on there being an appeal?

Would you give your thoughts on that? That's one of the specific recommendations

made by the B.C. branch of the Canadian Bar Association.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Appeal to what?

MR. CASHORE: That there be an opportunity for appeal of the decision of the steering committee to the Environmental Appeal Board.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: They can make an appeal on a permit if it's granted. I feel that's adequate enough.

MR. CASHORE:

That could be a permit to begin construction that has come through the

MPRP? Let the record show that the minister is nodding in the

affirmative.

The other point is -just to reiterate to the

minister - that there is no legislative authority for the MPRP, and I

hope that he'll do something about that.

I'd like to move

on to another topic. This refers to an area that's in the minister's

riding, but I don't think it will be in the riding that he's running

in. I may be incorrect about that. It's about Britannia Beach. I don't

think that will be in the new area that the minister seeks to

represent. Anyway, it's in the area he represents now.

know that in Britannia Beach there's Britannia Creek. Britannia Creek

was at one time a salmon spawning stream, and because of copper

leachate from the Britannia copper mine that was there for many years,

that salmon-spawning stream was wiped out for the purpose of

regeneration of salmon. It's my understanding that it was Kennecott

Copper that owned the mine and created the mess. Given that he has

stated we should be going after polluters to make them have their just

deserts and pay for the environmental problems they have inflicted, I

would like to put a couple of other items to the minister.

It's

my understanding there is compensation available under the federal

Fisheries Act; that, for instance, the minister could seek compensation

using the federal Fisheries Act to go after the company that caused the

pollution. The reason I'm going slow is that I know the minister is

consulting, and I want him to hear the points I'm making as well.

It's also my understanding that if the mine closed prior to 1967 — I

believe it did, but haven't been able to pin that down; perhaps some of

the minister's advisers know the answer to that question — the

provincial Pollution Control Act would not apply, because presumably it

came into effect at that time. I'm sure the minister's advisers know

the answer to that.

assuming, therefore, that the only

recourse is under the federal Fisheries Act, I want to ask the minister

if in or about 1976 — that's when the Social Credit government

came back into power — reciprocal federal-provincial letters of

agreement were written to the effect that if the province did not lay

[ Page 10470 ]

charges,

the federal government would not override. I want to ask the minister

if there are letters in existence working out that type of arrangement

between the federal and provincial governments. I'll just hear what the

minister has to say.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I know that

we stray sometimes from the estimates in one year, but, boy, going back

to 1976 is a long way, and my staff has no recollection of seeing any

letter like that. I certainly have not seen that, nor have I heard of

it. I have discussed this issue many times with constituents of mine,

as the member I am sure can imagine, and I know our staff is looking at

some of the funding we have for acid mine drainage and is looking at

cleaning up that area. As the member knows, the shares of the company

have been sold in that area, and if there's a major development taking

place, it will all have to be looked at at the time.

MR. CASHORE:

Will the minister confirm that it's also his understanding that the

mine closed prior to 1967, and therefore compensation under the

provincial Pollution Control Act does not apply? Assuming that to be

the case, would the minister confirm or tell the House what is being

done or has been done to make use of the existing laws of the land to

go after the polluter and get compensation?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS:

I might advise the member that he talked earlier about salmon going up

the stream, and that a few years ago the salmon weren't going up the

stream to the Woodfibre mill anymore, and they are again. As the member

may or may not be aware, we blew the dam at that creek no more than a

couple of years ago. I was there the day after they did it. They got a

little exuberant, really blew it and did a good job of cleaning out the

channel. But now that the dam has been opened up, it would not surprise

me at all to see the fish start going back up that creek again. They

were not going across on the other side either, but they probably will.

don't have the information here about 1976, but I can assure the member

that my staff will do a search of the files and if there's anything in

those areas, inform him. We are working right now on the process of

looking into the cleanup.

MR. CASHORE: Is the

minister seeking through those channels that are available to recover

the costs of that cleanup by having the polluter pay wherever he or she

may be, in whatever manifestation of that company it may be, given that

this is a principle that has been affirmed by this government?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: As the member said, that is the principle, and we always work on that principle.

MR. CASHORE:

I assume from that answer that there are active efforts now underway to

go after that polluter and recover the costs, since, as the minister

points out, some efforts are now underway to recover that channel.

The

minister is nodding in the affirmative. I'll say that for the record so

he doesn't have to get up and say it again. If I'm wrong, then he can

correct me.

I would like to ask the minister what his position is with regard to another pulp mill on Howe Sound at Britannia.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: There are no applications at the present time for any pulp mills in that area.

MR. CASHORE:

According to the minister's friend Terry Jacks, the minister has been

quoted as saying it's an ideal place for.... Wait a minute; that's the

wrong quote.

He has been quoted as saying that it's good news for the community — the

concept of a pulp mill at Britannia Beach. Does the minister feel that

Howe Sound can bear the consequences of another pulp mill at this time?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS:

Just two things. I know you slipped out the first one, and Mr. Jacks is

quoted as saying I said that Howe Sound was an ideal place for a

petrochemical plant. That's an absolute lie. He knows it, and he keeps

on spreading it around. But it's for his own benefit.

With

regard to the pulp mill, in 1983 or 1984, when Makin Pulp and Paper

first announced they would build a closed-loop pulp mill with no

pollution going into the water, there was great excitement in the area

because— as the member remembers — at that time there was 25

percent unemployment in the area, and we were looking for industries

that would employ people.

That

project, for whatever reason, has not proceeded. I agree with those who

would prefer to see Howe Sound as a recreational area, especially since

we have had such success with Whistler, the proposal for the ski areas

in Garibaldi and all of those tourism attractions.

I am

excited about the proposals for the new development in the Britannia

Beach area, and I would expect that a lot of that property that has

been looked at for industrial purposes will probably now be reverting

to recreational purposes. I would certainly be the biggest supporter of

that.

MR. CASHORE: I thank the minister for that answer. It was the answer I was hoping he would give.

[3:30]

My own opinion is that Howe Sound should not be put in a position of

bearing any more of the brunt of that kind of industry. Even though the

minister talks about improvements— closed-loop and that sort of

thing — we still have stories of spills in the night. We still

have unproven technology.

It's

still a future hope, and I think any thought of putting such an

additional burden on Howe Sound at the present time would certainly be

untimely. I am glad that, under this questioning, the minister has

[ Page

10471 ]

come forward and stated unequivocally that he would

prefer to see the recreational attributes of Howe Sound enhanced at

this time. I think that's appropriate.

I would like to turn

to a story that was in the news in September. The minister often states

that he is not really responsible for what happened in the ministry

prior to becoming the minister. But as I said at the outset of the

estimates, I am referring to the minister in his capacity as the

Minister of Environment and not him personally. I think there are

questions that go back in history and have to do with people of a

bygone day who maybe forgot they had inherited the future from their

children. Therefore all these kinds of questions are quite relevant.

This

refers to a Mr. E. Livingston, who has an engineering degree and is

with Pacific Hydrology Consultants Ltd. Mr. Livingston tells me that he

is a professional engineer and hydrologist, and he has practised in

B.C. for a great many years — since 1950. He worked for the

provincial government for what is now the Ministry of Environment from

1961 to 1967 — before it was the Ministry of Environment— as head

of the groundwater division. Let it be said that he knows of which he

speaks.

Now

he is expressing some real concerns about the way in which temporary

dumping is taking place in the province. First of all, dumping is being

done by people who look upon the province as a garbage dump and just

dump wherever they want. Approval is being given — or

permits — to allow that kind of dumping to carry on in a

particular case.

the instance he has referred to — it is very well documented, and

I believe he has sent copies of this information to the ministry — he

points out a sequence of events. He goes into a great deal of detail.

The sequence of events is over two pages, and it goes from January 4,

1989, until September 12, 1989.

Basically it goes like this. On January 4, 1989, he discovered that dumping

was going on at a dump site in the city of Kelowna and that it later operated

under a letter of approval from the Ministry of Environment. That letter of

approval that eventually was given was dated July 21. So he first became aware

of this on January 4. He informed the Ministry of Environment in Penticton.

He also stated that considering the geology of the area and the proximity of

the Glenmore-Ellison Improvement District's well, the site was very inappropriate

and the dumping should be stopped. Then on May 23 — and you'll notice that

most of these conversations are initiated by him — he again visited the site

and noticed that there was much more rubbish on the site and no fence or sign.

May 24: he phoned Mr. Al Kohut, acting head of the Ministry of Environment groundwater

section, with a degree in engineering, to discuss the situation at the dump.

May 25, 1989: he phoned Mr. R.H. Ferguson, director of waste management, and

discussed the situation at length, emphasizing the unusual geological conditions

which make the site particularly inappropriate for dumping. June 6: he visited

the site and found that an embankment of earth had been placed along the road

to prevent further dumping.

August 22 he visited the site and found that the embankment had been

removed. August 24: he phoned Mr. Ferguson again and informed him that

dumping had resumed at the site; Mr. Ferguson said that the waste

management branch had issued a permit to allow dumping at that site. In

reply to Livingston's question as to why this had been done, Mr.

Ferguson said that the waste management branch regional manager in

Penticton had investigated the site, conferred with the dumper and

issued a permit. Mr. Livingston once again stated that he felt the site

was inappropriate. Again I point out that he's doing that from a

professional perspective as a hydrologist and engineer. August 29,

1989: he again visited the site and took photographs; the amount of

rubbish was greater. September 6, 1989: he phoned Mr. Ferguson and

requested more information.

On September 6 he phoned Mr.

Nickel, regional waste manager in Penticton. In answer to a question,

Mr. Nickel said that he was not sure whether the dump was operating

under a permit or an approval, but thought he recalled signing an

approval. He said that the groundwater

section of the ministry had not

been consulted about the dump site. Mr. Nickel agreed to send a copy of

the approval and a list of those who had been notified about the

operation. September 12: a copy of the approval was received by Mr.

Livingston; it shows that approval was granted on July 21, 1989, to

continue dumping for one year, starting July 19.

My first

question is: could the minister give us an update on the situation? And

would he advise the House if a permit to dump on that site is still in

existence?

HON. MR- REYNOLDS: Mr. Chairman, before I

answer the member's question, I'm sure members wouldn't mind if I made

an introduction. I would like the House to welcome Miss Doris Zurcher,

the teacher of the Signal Hill Elementary School in Pemberton, British

Columbia, and 30 of the grade 4 and grade 5 students here to the House.

Mr.

Chairman, with regard to the letters, I'm informed by my parliamentary

secretary, who knows the Kelowna area very well, that the restriction

on that dump site was for inert building material, and that is what is

on the site. It has been checked out and there is not a problem. So

there was a follow-up there.

I can assure the member that

on these dump sites all around the province we have a number of people

checking them at all times. We take it very seriously. As I know the

member is aware, just in the last couple of weeks, through an

undercover operation, we have laid charges against a person and a

company in Langley which could amount to a fine of up to $1 million for

illegal dumping. We are taking it very seriously, and we always

appreciate the efforts of people like Mr. Livingston and the

information that they give us.

[ Page 10472 ]

MR. CASHORE:

I would point out that Mr. Livingston has pointed out that this

particular dump site, which is supposed to receive only building

construction waste, is located very close to another well-operated

landfill. It's just a short drive away. I'm just perusing my notes here

to try to find out the actual distance; I may find it. But he states

that it's not very far.

MR. SERWA: It's quite some distance.

MR. CASHORE: About how far?

MR. SERWA: The landfill will not accept that type of building material — concrete and lumber, etc.

MR. CASHORE :

Mr. Chairman, the hon. first member for Okanagan South is helpful here.

He said that the landfill will not accept this kind of material —

another problem. It's located 2.4 kilometres from a large, properly

operated landfill near the north end of the Glenmore Valley.

MR. SERWA: That's as the crow flies, but there's no road there.

MR. CASHORE:

That's as the crow flies, but there's no road there, the hon. member

says. So we still have the view that it's quite a little drive. We

don't know how long the drive would be.

The point, though, that this engineer makes — and I remind the minister that he's a hydrologist —

is that the hydrology of the area is such that it's his professional

opinion that to have a dump in such an area is a potential danger to

the groundwater. He also makes the point that since such dump sites are

not monitored in any thorough way — I'm sure people in the ministry go out and look at it once in a while, but....

It's

almost a standard within the province that when people who are having a

problem getting rid of what they want to get rid of see things being

dumped, they help themselves to the site. It's at that point where it

becomes a bit of a Pandora's box because you get things being dumped

that are not in the terms of that temporary permit. That's where the

problem starts to develop and where it does become a very clear

leachate threat for the aquifer.

I don't think, therefore,

that anything the minister has said would give comfort to Mr.

Livingston or to anybody who reads through what Mr. Livingston has

pointed out carefully. The only solution, unless one can deny the

points that Mr. Livingston is making, is that there should not be a

landfill at that place.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: The

landfill is for inert building material. If it's inert, the restriction

is there. There's nothing leaching; it's impossible If it's inert.

Granted

you can have a situation anywhere around the province where people

could try to illegally dump. If that's happening, as I mentioned

earlier, we are using undercover groups to find out this information,

and I can assure the member and the public that if they know of illegal

dumps, we want to know about them. We'll find the people; we'll charge

them, and they'll pay heavy fines, because illegal dumping is

unacceptable. This is also why we've got such major recycling on In the

province: most of this material should be recycled and not dumped.

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

MR. CASHORE:

As the minister knows, when he referred to the meeting in Langley the

other night and to the charges that have finally been laid there, the

people in Langley waited ten years for the Ministry of Environment

conservation officer service to gather the evidence to support charges.

During those ten years those people put up with a great deal of

discomfort. If the minister thinks that certain terms In a temporary

permit are going to bring comfort to people.... They're not.

Can

the minister advise the House what efforts, if any, are taking place to

find a better location to dump those materials that is not in such an

environmentally fragile place, as outlined by Mr. Livingston,

especially since it is not monitored 24 hours a day and leaves itself

wide open to the dumping of inappropriate substances. Also, as has been

pointed out by officials from the Ministry of Environment to the Forest

Resources Commission, the Ministry of Environment is short-staffed when

it comes to being able to monitor all the situations throughout the

province that require monitoring.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS:

I would suggest to that member that some of the recycling programs that

we're promoting in this province will solve a lot of these problems. We

are working with every regional district to look at a recycling process

not only for household waste but also for industrial waste. There are

some very successful programs operating around the province.

I've

been assured by the first member for Okanagan South, who is from

Kelowna and who is also my parliamentary secretary, that the type of

material you're talking about going into this landfill is not going

into that landfill. It's inert. It's being monitored. If there were

problems In the past, they're not happening now. I can assure the

member that if we have any suggestions from anyone about these sites....

The

one in Langley may have taken a long time, but we also believe in a

system where you must have documented evidence. There's no sense going

to court with a weak case.

[3:45]

MR. CASHORE:

Again, anybody who reads Mr. Livingston's letter to the minister would

disagree with the minister and be of the opinion that he would not go

there with a weak case. However, the minister's comments are on the

record. I would think it would have been encouraging to the people of

the area if he had said that efforts are underway to

[ Page

10473 ]

relocate that site where it could be under better

surveillance, given the environmental sensitivity of the area, which

the minister didn't really refer to, and given the susceptibility of

that area, where leachate could be produced and could go into the

aquifer. I'd also point out that there is a picture that Mr. Livingston

sent, showing quite a thick pile of rubble in that location. There

definitely could be a leachate problem from what one sees in that

picture.

Just to get off that topic for a moment, I'd like

to turn to another issue: the Tatshenshini River, North America's

wildest river, as one environmental group says. It flows through the

Yukon and the northwest comer of British Columbia and then through

Alaska's Glacier Bay National Monument to empty into the Pacific Ocean.

I'm sure the minister is aware that the Yukon government has stated its

opinion that that project should not go ahead. They have taken a stand

to protect the wilderness Tatshenshini River. The government in the

Yukon called on the federal government to put a moratorium on mineral

activity on this unique river until the Kluane land use plan is

developed. In the Yukon submission to the planning process, they

recommended that the Tatshenshini get long-term protection. I'd also

point out that I believe similar action has been taken on the part of

the Alaska government, which has also expressed a great deal of concern.

would think that unless we have an appropriate process in place, we're

in for big trouble with international courts, not to mention our own

national courts, if we don't get up to speed on that issue pretty

quickly. We recognize there are a number of values involved there. One

is that the Geddes Windy Craggy open-pit copper mine, with the road

building that would be involved.... There is an approval process that

they are entering into now. I know the minister will speak again,

glowingly, about the mines process for this type of thing.

think we need to get some leadership from this government at this time

that states very clearly that from the perspective of the Minister of

Environment at the very least, this issue is going to be dealt with

very carefully. I'd like to hear the minister articulate some values

with regard to the Tatshenshini that will send out a clear message that

it's going to be very difficult to proceed, given the various natural

amenities and given some of the values that have been outlined by a

great many environmentally appropriate groups.

It's a

trans-boundary river which provides important salmon-spawning and

juvenile-rearing habitat. I'm sure we wouldn't want the Americans

conducting an activity that might despoil one of the rivers which we

look to as a source of food production and important to the food chain.

I just want the minister to know that we've taken a position on this: that

the natural amenities of the area deserve very careful consideration and the

most stringent type of process; that there should be a thorough, long-term benefit-cost

evaluation; that the International Joint Commission should conduct a thorough

study of the proposal, given the significance of the Tatshenshini as an international

river; and further, that the recently stated position of the Alaska government

opposing the proposal should be seen as adding urgency to the need for careful

international discussion.

The

review process must be at least equivalent to the requirements of the

federal environmental assessment review process, and it must be done in

such away, again, that it upholds those principles that we referred to

in the debate a little while ago with regard to intervener funding,

with regard to adequate public opportunity to be meaningfully involved

in the discussions relating to that project, and with regard to

independence of review of what the proponent is bringing forward.

would like to ask the minister in his comments to refer to meetings he

may have had and commitments he may have made to the various

environmental groups who, I'm sure, have contacted him on this issue.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS:

It's interesting to hear the comments of the member. As you know, Mr.

Chairman, we have this project under the mine review process. It will

receive a thorough review. The people in my ministry are very much

involved. As the member knows, there have already been numerous public

meetings. In fact, there were meetings held between the Yukon, Alaska,

British Columbia and other concerned people. This will get a thorough

review. I don't know what more I can add to that.

MR. CASHORE:

It's the position of our caucus that British Columbia should enter the

Canadian heritage rivers system. The fact is that B.C. is one of only

two provinces in Canada not participating in the heritage rivers

system. The Tatshenshini would, I believe, be the number one candidate

to come under the purview of the Canadian heritage rivers system, a

program of national importance that recognizes rivers with significant

natural heritage and recreation values. That's something we stand for,

and I think it would be appropriate for the government of British

Columbia to get on board and then do what is necessary to make it clear

that on a national basis we in British Columbia support the Canadian

national heritage rivers system, and that we would look upon the

Tatshenshini as being a number one candidate for that designation.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS:

I thank the member for his comments. I can't help but think, when we

talk about some of these things that are set up: another good federal

government bureaucracy. Maybe there's a good reason why this province isn't part of that system.

I know my colleague the Minister

of Parks (Hon. Mr. Messmer) is making a presentation to cabinet in the

next little while, and I'll wait until I hear his presentation. But I

really have to wonder, when some of these projects are set up. We do

the greatest job in Canada on tourism in this province right now. We

[ Page 10474 ]

don't need a lot of assistance in those areas from the federal government.

HON. MR. MICHAEL:

Just for the record, the Minister of Tourism has indeed flown the

Tatshenshini River just a few weeks ago by helicopter — pretty well the

entire length and breadth of the river. I've had a firsthand look at

it. I was well briefed all along the way on the importance of that

system for tourism in British Columbia. I can assure you, Mr. Chairman,

and members of the House that the Minister of Tourism will be making a

very strong and determined representation on behalf of all those

interest groups to his cabinet colleagues when the time arises.

MR. CASHORE:

I was pleased to hear that comment from the Minister of Tourism, and I

think it would be appropriate for the Minister of Environment to get on

board with that initiative and send a very clear message that this

government places the value on the Tatshenshini that will preserve its

tourism and wilderness values as a very high priority.

few comments now, Mr. Chairman, on the recently announced recycling

program of the Minister of Environment, just to get some of our

thoughts onto the record. I've been through the document, and there are

some things I really like about it. I think it's quite well presented.

I think anybody who reads through this will learn a lot about

recycling, and I think it's worthwhile. It's a far better use of the

educational dollar than pictures of the minister on television or in

newspapers that arrive at our houses. I'm sure the minister will agree

that this Is a far more appropriate use of those dollars.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: That's your opinion.

MR. CASHORE:

Yes, that's my opinion, hon. member, and that's where we differ. Some

provinces wouldn't have a person who's a candidate for the Social

Credit Party also on ads that are on television at great cost. In terms

of the sophistication of those ads.... I usually judge ads on

television by comparing them to the standard of the beer company ads

and the B.C. Tel ads. In my opinion those are the most sophisticated

ads on television. That's not a value judgment about their message. I

would say that the taxpayer resources that went into producing the ads

that feature the Minister of Environment, who would like to be the

Premier very soon....

MR. SERWA: John, you don't do things like that.

MR. CASHORE:

Yes, I do. The hon. member says I don't do things like that. I do do

things like that, Mr. Chairman. I don't know if you'd call that

confessional, but yes, I do, hon. member.

Mr. Chairman, the

fact is that this is a much better use of taxpayers' dollars: truly an

educational document which contains some helpful information similar to

some of the points mentioned by the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head (Ms.

Cull) yesterday. That's about the only complimentary thing I'm going to

say, but I thought I should say it.

The fact is, though,

that it does have some problems. Number one, it doesn't have the kind

of funding in place that's really going to enable the various parts of

the province to have the financial resource that is needed in order to

get the kind of comprehensive plans in place that the government is

calling for, even though it's on quite a lengthy timetable.

The

program seeks to recognize the importance of replacing our disposable

society with an environmentally sustainable one, but in contrast to the

New Democratic Party plan, the government's recycling plans remain

flawed. Under the MSWM program, each regional district in the province

is required to complete a solid waste management plan by December 31,

1995. That's more than four years from now.

That's an

awfully long time, given that there's such an urgent need. We have to

put that in the context of Bill 38, the Hazardous Waste Management

Corporation Act. This government wants to get that up and running right

away, because they see that as the solution. But they fail to recognize

that in using that approach, they're not really giving more than

lip-service to getting recycling going. Therefore they're starting with

the wrong priority.

The government's program says it aims

to reduce waste by 50 percent by the year 2000, but the government plan

does not include audits of industrial and commercial wastes. If that's

not included, then the plan is not holistic. It doesn't include the

whole area that needs to be dealt with.

Also, the

government's plan includes specific actions that could be taken to

increase recycling through public awareness, such as the document I

referred to. But the plan does not mention ways to encourage or to

force recycling in the industrial and corporate sectors. It doesn't

address that. We can't just hope, as the minister has said time and

again during his estimates, that the private sector has become so good

since this minister became minister, that all he has to do is go into

the boardrooms and talk to the chief executive officers, and everything

will be all right.

[4:00]

While there's a targeting of the consumer, there isn't a concomitant

targeting of other sectors of the community. The government's five-year

program does not include limits to be imposed on the production of

goods and materials for public use in order to reduce the environmental

impact associated with disposal. For instance, overpackaging must be

reduced. That has to be addressed, and on a very quick timetable. The

cradle-to-grave responsibility for the production of that which goes

into our waste stream and causes problems for us is simply not

addressed in any meaningful way in this program.

addition to that, the government to date has failed to support and

develop markets for recycled materials. This program includes a

statement that market development is important, and that it will

[ Page

10475 ]

increase volume of both supply and demand of waste

materials. But no plans as to how this will be done are included in the

program. So I'd like the minister to address that.

Also,

there's no assurance that it will aim to ensure that recycled products

are cheaper to purchase than non-recycled. On that point, we have a

situation where we could find that environmentalism is available only

to yuppies and not to low-income people. You can get the green ads from

the supermarkets, go in and buy the brown coffee filters or unbleached

paper towels that cost more. But when you think of the single parent

trying to raise a family and having to go flat-out between a job and

maintaining responsibilities for that family, that person doesn't have

the luxury of being able to find affordable, environmentally

appropriate goods. So the cost of these goods should reflect their

environmental appropriateness, and that should be recognized.

guess the major difference between our approach and this government's

approach is that our approach will be to establish a provincewide

recycling program that will not be grandfathered or grandmothered. The

Socreds seem content with a piecemeal approach municipality by

municipality, but not with the real coordination to get it going and

make it work. It's similar to the forestry valley-by-valley approach to

carving up our watersheds.

Now when it comes to waste, we

leave it to the municipalities one at a time, but there's no

comprehensive plan or coordinated planning. This plan that the

government is putting forward pays lip-service to that, but when you

try to find the substance that says how that is actually going to

happen, it ain't there.

Mr. Chairman, we plan to create two provincial authorities: the B.C. recycling

agency and a waste reduction division of the Ministry of Environment. Between

these two authorities, these issues will be addressed in a way that's useful

to the public.

The

government's plans involve a complicated financial assistance program

that will require going through four people — the head, the

manager, the director and the minister—

before acceptance is given or not. Then when it is given, it's

questionable whether or not it's adequate. I don't know if the minister

has any comments to that.

I decided to say that all at one

time in order to save time. But I'm sure that in the Blues tomorrow,

I'll be able to read the minister's two-sentence reply.

MS. EDWARDS: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MS. EDWARDS:

Mr. Chairman, before the minister gives his exciting response to my

colleague the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam, I would like to take

this opportunity to ask the House to join me in the very rare pleasure

of having a class of students from my riding here in the Legislature.

I have a group of almost 50 grade 7 students from Highlands Elementary School

in Cranbrook with their teachers Brian Hamagami and Ron Tornicki, and several

adults. I would ask the members to help me welcome them.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS:

I'll try and just take the two sentences. I want to thank the NDP

critic for his comments on our TV ads. They must be good, because if

they weren't, there wouldn't be any comments about them. He compares

them to the beer ads and B.C. Tel ads. I couldn't help thinking,

watching those B.C. Tel ads, that the one they have on right now is one

of the worst ads I've ever seen on TV. It really reminds me of a bunch

of vultures. That's like your policy for garbage. The vultures go

around, pick it up and drop it somewhere. We believe in the more

high-tech approach, and you're back to the old approach.

The

member made a comment about me wanting to be Premier. I want to assure

him that he does not have to fear that. We have the greatest Premier in

all of Canada sitting right here in front of me. He's probably going to

win the next two or three elections, and I'll be too old to even try

for the job by that time. I'll be ready to retire and....

MR. CASHORE: The choir didn't join in there.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS:

Oh, listen. He says: "The choir didn't join in." I'll tell you, every

member on this side owes their election to the Premier of this

province, who has done the greatest job of any Premier in Canada.

I'll

get off that political stuff. I want to make sure we talk a bit about

what the member said. He said the funding was not enough. It's a $150

million program, and it's going to work. He talked about the NDP

recycling plan. I think the NDP recycling plan is to send Dave Barrett,

Dave Stupich and Bob Skelly to Ottawa.

The member has a

brochure over there. The people of the constituencies out there in the

province can phone the hotline to find out how to recycle, and can talk

to the Recycling Council of B.C. about the great job this government is

doing in spreading recycling right across British Columbia.

MR. CASHORE:

I wasn't referring to the ad about the vultures; I don't like that one

either. But I do like the one that says: "Got a friend; not the usual

kind." I like that one; I'll put that on the record.

Mr.

Chairman, I just want to pick up on a point the minister just made. He

said $150 million. That's over five years, as I understand it. Again

he's putting all the eggs — or most of the eggs, if they ever do get around to spending the money — into

the basket of resource recovery plants and who knows what other really

high-tech solution to what the minister sees as the problem.

There

has been a lot of news about the minister seeking the support of the

GVRD and the CRD and other places to try to get his resource recovery

plants up and running. It's interesting that through the public

process, citizen groups managed to convince

[ Page 10476 ]

the

members of Vancouver city council to totally reverse their position on

the issue of resource recovery plants — I might add, to reverse their

position from the one held by the minister. And the vast majority of

people on city council — I

think all but two — have completely turned away from what the minister

promoting, even to the point of turning down the money he is offering

to try to get these people on board. They are saying: "No, Mr.

Minister, you don't suck us into your game that way. We have certain

things to do first. We have to get our blue box program up and running

and functioning properly first."

So here's the minister

flogging this issue, because he wants to be able to transfer public

funds into low-cost loans to the private sector so it can get these

white elephants going. Then the public is left with the residual costs

of cleaning up the rest after friends and insiders have received the

opportunity to cream the profits off the top of waste management, using

public funds to a great extent.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS:

Just a short note so as not to keep the debate on this going forever.

It is interesting to me that some people in the GVRD, where they have a

big massive burner, would want to turn down something that would

recycle garbage instead of putting it in the burner. But it never

amazes me what people will do when a couple of hundred people come out

to a meeting, especially just a few months before an election.

MR. CASHORE:

Well, Mr. Minister, there are a lot of people in this province who

uphold the values of a public process. Comments such as the one you

just made simply denigrate the value of people within that process. The

record shows that. I appreciate the minister stating that so baldly and

in such a straightforward way, but I really cannot see how a statement

like that can help the minister in any way, shape or form except with a

handful of people who are already on his side.

Be that as

it may, I think we have to realize that resource recovery plants have

some problems that have not been addressed. One is that they tend to

put the main effort into getting that process up and running instead of

the other processes of recycling and finding markets for the recycled

goods.

Resource recovery plants, especially the ones the minister believes in, end up producing RDF or refuse-derived fuel — a

mixture of plastics, paper and other substances that are burnable. It's

my information that the burning of those substances does create some

very serious problems and that they become much more toxic in

combination than if burned separately.

Resource recovery

plants aren't incinerators, but they produce a system that delays the

burning of garbage. The burning of that garbage then finds its way into

a cement plant, or whatever kind of plant it may be. It might even go

across a border. It might fit into the minister's plans for trading

toxic waste, I don't know. But there are big problems relating to that

technology, and I don't hear the minister addressing those problems.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS:

I would hope that the member opposite would go to some of the areas of

the world where they're using resource recovery plants. There's nothing

in our program that downgrades the blue box system or the three Rs. The

idea is to make sure that we're not putting it in landfills after we do

that. He knows full well that no matter where in the world they're

recycling with blue boxes, green boxes, clear plastic bags or whatever

it may be, the percentage they are collecting at the front end is a

very small amount compared to the total.

The resource

recovery plant will take the remainder of that. It can take the wood,

the metal, the boxes and the plastics. No plastic needs to reach the

end if you have a proper sorting system. We saw one in Iowa that was

actually taking household batteries — a major problem in our incinerator in Burnaby right now — out

of the system and pulverizing them, the steel going back into a steel

mill and the insides being sold as a chemical to somewhere else. This

is high technology.

The member talks about insiders and

friends. I don't know anybody in that business. There are people who

are out looking at technology and trying to do what they think is a

good job for the citizens of British Columbia. I would suggest very

strongly that he take the time to talk to some of the people — and

to talk to Bill Fornich, who is from his party, about some of the trips

he's made to look at some of these plants. Yes, they do work, and it's

just part of a system.

If I could believe that we could

sort at source and stop 65 percent of the garbage tomorrow, I'd say:

"Hallelujah!" But as Minister of Environment, I also have to be

responsible to the people outside Burns Bog who are sitting there with

that smell, stench and the leachate, saying: "What are you going to do

to stop the garbage from going into that landfill? What are you going

to do to clean up the garbage we've been putting in there for

generations?" To do that, we need high technology.

MR. CASHORE:

The minister mentioned the batteries and the problem they caused with

the Burnaby incinerator. That's a good case in point. There should be a

process that the government is facilitating to get those batteries out

of the waste stream. In the meantime that toxic ash is coming out to

the Coquitlam landfill. When that $75 million incinerator was put in,

it was seen as state of the art, and we got all kinds of assurances

from all the technical people that there wasn't going to be a problem.

Now the people of Coquitlam have to accept that problem in the form of

the grate ash and the fly ash, which is the most toxic of those two

kinds of ashes. It ends up in that landfill in an earthquake zone on

the banks of two rivers. That's not very reassuring, Mr. Minister.

The

minister talks about resource recovery plants, but he hasn't commented

on the RDF. Could he advise the House as to the industrial plants in

British

[ Page

10477 ]

Columbia that he would see as being markets for the refuse-derived fuel that would come out of resource recovery plants?

[4:15]

HON. MR. REYNOLDS:

The plant in Nanaimo, I understand, has a contract with a cement kiln in

the lower mainland. I can assure that member that they will meet all

the permits that we have in that plant right now. I can assure the

member that I've seen tests where the material is properly sorted at

the front end. The material that they're burning in cement kilns right

now is a lot worse than any of the refuse-derived fuel that is coming

from some of the refuse plants.

MR. CASHORE: I'm

sure the minister is aware that these plants, such as he has described,

do not have the same pollution standards as even the Burnaby

incinerator. They don't have the same "state-of-the-art" scrubbers and

that sort of thing. That's not very reassuring.

Mr.

Chairman, I just want to turn very briefly to one aspect of solid waste

management and say that when you are involved in this process, you hear

different rumours. I've heard two different kinds of rumours with

regard to the direction the minister is moving on the deposit system.

The minister is aware that our position is that the deposit system

should be expanded, that it should truly be a deposit system and that

it should cover a great many items in the waste stream that do not

require a deposit. My own feeling is that we should develop some kind

of system of deposit to force the manufacturers to take back the little

batteries that would be collected in the household.

The

minister is aware, I'm sure, of the success of the beer industry's

deposit system This is different from the soft-drink industry's system,

which is a refund system. It's my understanding that bottle

returns — the most environmentally appropriate, given that they are reused several times — has

a 95 percent success rate in getting those bottles back into that

system. There's a somewhat smaller success with cans, which are in the

neighbourhood of 75 percent With the soft-drink industry, it's much

less.

I understand that the soft-drink industry — I should maybe be mentioning more industries —

are lobbying the government to get out of that altogether They are

willing to give some money to try to make sure all of the cans and

bottles go into the blue box without there being a deposit. My opinion

is that that would be a disaster.

I've heard rumours that

the minister supports strengthening the deposit system and expanding it

to some other products. I've also heard rumours the other way. I think

this would be an appropriate time for the minister to enlighten the

House and the people of British Columbia with regard to his thinking on

this issue.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I'm very pleased to see that the member likes

the deposit system. I happen to like it myself, as I'm sure he's aware.

I don't know where he'd hear the rumour from the other side, other than

the fact that I've got an open mind on the issue. My own opinion is that

the expansion of the deposit system would be very good. I would very much like

to receive a list of items you think we should put on a deposit system. I happen

to think household batteries wouldn't be a bad idea either.

committed myself to have public meetings and stakeholder meetings.

We've had two of them so far. We've had both sides extremely well

represented. I've now asked staff to prepare a brief for myself with

the recommendations and what the impact would be. I will be going to

Ontario and Alberta In August with representatives of environmental

groups and the bottling industry to look at how both systems work.

you know, Ontario took the deposits off with great sums of money

donated by the pop companies and newspapers. I hear from some sides

that it's working extremely well. They're getting it all back in the

blue box. Yet I know other sides have sent me clippings from the

Toronto paper saying that metro Toronto is telling the provincial

government to put them back on the deposit system because of litter

problems. We're going to go to Alberta. They have a full deposit

system. Once I've had a chance to do that, I hope sometime in the fall

to make a recommendation to cabinet and have a policy brought forward.

MR. CASHORE:

The soft-drink industry receives a windfall profit on unreclaimed

containers, given that that's a refund system. There are different

estimates as to how much that might be.

HON. MR. FRASER: Here we go: windfall profits.

MR. CASHORE:

Be careful, because the minister just nodded in agreement to what I

said. Be awfully careful that you don't find yourself coming up with a

great big conflict in cabinet on this issue.

The fact is

that some of that windfall profit should be appropriated by the

government and used to apply to environmental issues. That would be

appropriate.

To move on to another topic, I wrote to the

minister on February 8 concerning a constituent who had found some

documents in Como Lake. At that time, I communicated with the

minister's staff. I didn't take a position on it pro or con. I asked

the minister to conduct an investigation. The gist of what was being

said as a result of finding those documents was that there was a memo

referring to the shipping of low-level PCP-contaminated hog fuel being

shipped to the Cache Creek area. I asked that the investigation would

seek to ascertain the source of the memo and to conduct appropriate

testing at the landfill site to ascertain whether or not the terms of

the permit had been exceeded and to review the kinds of substances that

are included in the shipments to the landfill. Can the minister update

us on the status of that?

[ Page 10478 ]

HON. MR. REYNOLDS:

I do not have a report, nor would I expect to get one from the RCMP

with regard to their investigation. I know there was an investigation

on how material went missing, because there was a break-in at the

plant, but I don't have that.

I can assure the member that

I have the assurance from my staff that no product classified as a

special waste is going to the landfill site in Cache Creek.

MR. CASHORE:

I want to refer momentarily to a topic that the minister brought up a

little while ago. There was an announcement, I believe on June 5, that

a charge was laid against an individual at the Stelter farm. The farm

had been an apparent source of annoyance for people living in that area

because of the stench and because of various alleged activities in

order to discuss that issue, one would have to become downright

scatological. But suffice it to say, there were accusations that waste

from septic tanks was being dumped on a farmer's field and that it was

being used to spread on other fields. The thoughts of what might get

into the food chain, and also the discomfort of people living in that

area.... That went on for ten years.

It's interesting. When

I went out there and met with those people, I listened to their tale of

woe. I didn't find this out from these people, but I do believe that

the final straw that resulted in the resignation of Doug Adolph was

when what you'd almost call a Keystone Kops experience with trying to

get the evidence kind of fell apart.

Because he didn't have

enough of the CO staff that's necessary to do the investigative work

that needed to be done, we had to wait ten years to get a charge on

that situation. That's why those people had to go through such

discomfort all that time, and we still don't know if that's going to be

dealt with.

It was interesting that we got an announcement

about that. It was a surprise to people who were attending a public

meeting on June 15, which was being held to try to enhance the chances

for the Social Credit MLA for that area.

The fact is that

it's really shameful we have to wait for that type of an event to get

some action that would give hope to their people that their cry for

help, which has gone on for ten years, would be heard.

understand that other concerns which were expressed to the minister

that night were the number of golf courses that are going in because of

the OIC that has allowed golf courses on agricultural land; oil and gas

drilling; and loss of agricultural land.

While I'm glad the

minister was able to make that announcement, I'm going to be watching

that very closely. I don't know if the minister wants to comment on

that.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I want to say to the member

on the other side that he can talk about something taking ten years to

be done, but it only came to my attention six months ago.

can tell him that Doug Adolph was unsuccessful in being able to lay a

charge against these people because he couldn't present enough evidence

to Crown counsel. Other people were because I gave them support, let

them go undercover and spent some money to get them.

I hope

they pay the heaviest fine they can for that kind of pollution. My

staff know I feel that way. You can talk about the past all you want,

but I feel very strongly about industry or Individuals who pollute and

break the law. I have no sympathy for them whatsoever. That's why we've

increased the fines to $3 million, and in this case a $1 million

maximum fine.

I didn't release it on the 15th; we released

it a few days earlier. Somebody asked me the question, and I repeated

it that night.

MR. CASHORE: The fact is, Mr.

Minister, that there still aren't enough conservation officers in the

province to do the backup work that needs to be done. It's all very

well to say that this happened when this minister arrived on the scene.

The fact is that this story is just one example of something that's

being played out throughout this province. There aren't enough

conservation officers.

Last year we were told that we got

29 new conservation officers. What that really was was that there were

13 already hired, then two more, and three went to the lower mainland.

Of the other nine, two were appointed to the northern region, and there

were two native conservation officers. But 15 of those, according to

our calculations, were actually backup staff, clerical workers and

waste management technicians.

The fact is that the majority

of this work has gone into pollution control, which is still

over-worked and over-burdened, and very little of it has gone into

supporting the need for wildlife enforcement. That's really difficult.

Prior to 1989 there were about 104 COs; now there are 130. It's

inadequate; there simply weren't enough to cover the needs.

Look

at Vancouver Island, for instance. There aren't the people available to

attend to situations when they develop. We've had to have people come

all the way from Duncan to deal with a cougar problem here in Victoria.

There was somebody in Esquimalt several months ago who was attacked by

a raccoon. An elderly couple were getting of their car. They fell out,

and the woman broke her hip. They were told, after several phone calls,

that to be able to deal with that they'd have to bring a conservation

officer all the way from Duncan. That's simply inappropriate, Mr.

Minister. I have here a letter from Joe Saysall of Duncan, who writes

to the minister as much as he writes to me.

[4:30]

We have 130 conservation officers in British Columbia, which, with

our wonderful scenery and all of our wildlife, is the most beautiful

province in Canada. We all agree on that point. But in Alberta they

have 180; in Ontario, 300; in Quebec, 225, This government is simply

not giving to this work the

[ Page

10479 ]

people who are able to fulfil the task. It's rather

unfortunate that somebody like Doug Adolph would find, for whatever

reason, that he could not continue in that service after giving good

service for a great many years. For the minister to stand up in this

House and somehow blame him for the benign neglect of this government,

which has resulted in failure to prosecute and bring these polluters to

justice, is really not appropriate. It's not becoming to this minister

to criticize Doug Adolph. He should be thanked for the service he has

given, and there should be some recognition that he has paid a heavy

price for working under very difficult circumstances. Did you wish to

comment on that?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Chairman,

I'm advised by the staff that the member made some statements that the

administration staff are backup. They are related to enforcement;

they're part of enforcement; they're trained in enforcement. We sent

seven people up north — not two, as he said. And we do have a

conservation officer based in Victoria. In his own figures he says

Ontario has 300, and we've got 131. Well, they've got three times the

population. So I don't think we're doing too badly. If you take a look

at Ontario, with its population and size, and see that they've got only

300 and we've got 131, I don't think it's a good comparison.

MR. CASHORE:

Since the minister chooses to be selective in his comparison, would he

also comment on the comparison with Alberta, where the number is 180?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Alberta has a debt of about 12 cents per capita, and a major deficit too.

MR. CASHORE:

Mr. Chairman, the minister just said that environmental protection is

expendable on the basis of that kind of cost analysis, which means that

he doesn't really understand the meaning of sustainable development.

MR. PERRY: I'd like to ask the minister whether he thinks that dioxins, or 2, 4, 7, 7-TCDD, as an example, is a human carcinogen.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Chairman, I'm not going to get into a debate

with the member, who is a doctor, on what he might consider one or not. I can

only go on the basis of the material I've received, and I've received

materials on both sides. In fact, I've just received a document today that's

about six or eight pages long that I've sent off to Bill Andrews at the

West Coast Environmental Law Association to ask for his comments. It's from

Washington, done by highly reputable scientists, who are saying that they do

not feel that the initial concerns of dioxins being a major world carcinogen

are as accurate as they originally were. I think there's a great debate,

and I wouldn't want anybody to think, by what I'm saying, that I have

no concerns about them. I think we all have concerns about them, but there

is a good public debate out there on the topic.

MR. PERRY: Having listened to the minister a moment ago, I wrote down

something he said, roughly paraphrasing: "I feel very strongly about industries

that pollute and break the law." He looked like he meant it. I wonder if

he can explain why one of his first acts as the new Minister of Environment

was to invite reporters and others to eat crabs from Howe Sound, which were

widely suspected to be contaminated by dioxins.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

HON. MR. REYNOLDS:

I would hope that the member, who has a good education as a doctor,

would know that it wasn't one of my first acts; it was a statement I

made when asked a very simple question by a reporter: "Would you eat a

crab from Howe Sound?" I said yes, I would, and the federal health

officer said the same thing. The facts are: commercial crabbing only is

banned in Howe Sound; commercial prawning is still legal; commercial

fishing, private fishing and private crabbing are still quite legal. I

have friends and neighbours who take crab out of Howe Sound every day

of the year when in season and eat them and don't consider it a

concern. The dioxins are not in the meat of the crab; they're in the

pancreas of the crab, as I'm sure the hon. member the doctor is aware.

So to use that statement....

As I mentioned yesterday, the

brochure of the NDP, put out by the leader of the party, who talks

about honesty in government, has a bold statement that fishing is

banned in Howe Sound. Fishing is not banned in Howe Sound, and I hope

that the party will change that