1986 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 33rd 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)

MONDAY, MAY 5, 1986

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

8041 ]

CONTENTS

Youth Guarantee Act (Bill M205). Mr. Skelly

Introduction and first reading –– 8041

Income Tax Amendment Act (No. 2), 1986 (Bill 23). Hon. Mr. Curtis

Introduction and first reading –– 8041

Boundary Act (Bill 24). Hon. Mr. Pelton

Introduction and first reading –– 8041

Oral Questions

Payment for TV program on fighting of forest fires. Mr. Howard –– 8042

Downie Street sawmill. Mr. Howard –– 8042

Forest fire fighting report. Mr. Williams –– 8042

Hopwood report. Mr. Williams –– 8042

Expo 86. Mr. MacWilliam –– 8042

Chiropractors' fees. Mr. Stupich –– 8042

Chernobyl nuclear accident. Mr. Reynolds –– 8042

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Environment. (Hon. Mr. Pelton)

On vote 25: minister's office –– 8044

Mrs. Wallace

Mr. Passarell

Mr. Lockstead

Mr. Reid

Mr. Michael

Mr. Blencoe

Mr. Hanson

Hon. Mr. Hewitt

Mr. Mitchell

Mr. MacWilliam

Mr. Cocke

MONDAY, MAY 5, 1986

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I know that all members would

like to express their sincerest sympathy and condolence to Mrs. Anne

Macdonald and the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) on

the death of His Honour Judge Malcolm Macdonald.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure

to introduce two people from the dynamic community of Duncan: Mrs.

Maria Munzer, mother-in-law of Rosa Munzer, who works in caucus

research, and Mia Szabo. Would the House please make them welcome.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, I ask all members to join with me in

recognizing National Forest Week, and draw to the attention of the

Legislature the fact that the city of Port Alberni, in the provincial

constituency of Alberni, has been designated forestry capital of Canada

by the Canadian Forestry Association of B.C. I understand the minister

will be making a belated visit to that capital in the very near future

– and we would welcome him. The fact is that Port Alberni has long been

the forest capital of Canada, and only recently has become salmon

capital of the galaxy, and we would welcome all members — all those

within hearing of my voice— to Port Alberni, and to recognize the importance of that community.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Visiting us today is a constituent of mine,

Mrs. Hilda Riva of Clearbrook, and her sister, Mrs. Anna Harendorfer,

visiting us from Austria. Would the House please welcome these ladies.

MRS. JOHNSTON: In the precincts this afternoon we have 55

grade 7 students visiting us from Strawberry Hill Elementary School in

Surrey. I would ask the House to please welcome them.

MR. REYNOLDS: In the galleries this afternoon are Charlene

and Orrin Macdonadl from Miami, Florida, who are here on their

honeymoon. l wish the House would make them welcome.

Introduction of Bills

YOUTH GUARANTEE ACT

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, I move that a bill intituled Youth Guarantee

Act be introduced and now read a first time.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're too old.

MR. SKELLY: Yes. There's no conflict of interest involved here at all.

The purpose of this bill, of course, is to recognize the importance

of young people in the province of British Columbia. As we know, young

people in B.C. are unemployed to a greater extent than almost every

other group in the labour force. I'm including people between the ages

of 15 and 24. There are 63,000 young people out of work, according to

the last statistics we have available — 21.5 percent of the young people in the province.

The purpose of the bill is to offer to young people in British

Columbia a guarantee of high-quality education, of training for

employment, of employment itself, or a combination of those three

things. I think that all members of the Legislature should recognize

the importance of the young people in this province — that they are our

investment in the future — and I look forward to having the government

members support this bill when it is debated in the Legislature.

[(2:15]

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

MR. SKELLY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I'm not sure

that that was an attempt to get all the cabinet ministers in the room

or to indicate the tremendous support that we have for this bill, but I

move that Bill M205 be placed on orders of the day for second reading

at the next sitting of the House after today.

Motion approved.

INCOME TAX AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1986

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

a bill intituled Income Tax Amendment Act (No. 2), 1986.

HON. MR. CURTIS: In presenting this to the Legislature, a

very few remarks. This bill contains a number of technical amendments.

I will not call them housekeeping, Mr. Speaker, but they are technical.

They're intended to bring the provincial act in line with the federal

government's taxation statute. This is done almost every year, at the

request of the federal government, under the terms of the

Canada–British Columbia tax collection agreement.

I move introduction and first reading.

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

Bill 23 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.

BOUNDARY ACT

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

a bill intituled Boundary Act.

HON. MR. PELTON: Mr. Speaker, I move the bill be introduced

and read a first time now, and in moving this I have just a couple of

words on the bill. It's technical in nature and its purpose is to

replace the present Boundary Act in a manner that's consistent with

section 43 of the Federal Constitution Act. The new Boundary Act also

updates and makes housekeeping changes to the statutory provisions

relating to the British Columbia–Alberta boundary. The Boundary Act

replaced by this act allowed the work of the boundary commission to be

confirmed by order-in-council, but

section 43 of the Federal

Constitution Act negated that process. It required that boundary

alterations be confirmed by legislative resolution. Mr. Speaker, the

new act alters the procedures for

[ Page 8042 ]

confirming the work of the commission, but does not alter the duties and responsibilities of the commission.

Bill 24 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House

after today.

Oral Questions

PAYMENT FOR TV PROGRAM ON

FIGHTING OF FOREST FIRES

MR. HOWARD: I'd like to pose a question to the Minister of

Forests. Last Wednesday, during a hockey game, there was a half-hour

prime-time television program which dealt with the government's

approach to the fighting of forest fires in the province. The minister

starred in that program, and I want to ask the minister whether the

production and the air time and the cost of putting on that program was

paid for by the taxpayers of the province of British Columbia.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, to the best of my knowledge

it was. I thought that the program which was prepared, with the

exception of the very last part of it, and that to which the member

made earlier reference, was a wonderful way to inform the public of the

activities which took place last year and which they're entitled to

know. As we all know, 1985 was an extraordinarily hot season, and the

member is well aware of all the difficulties which the weather, the

lack of moisture content and the lightning strikes caused.

I think it was a wonderful opportunity to inform the public about

the importance of the resource and the activities which have been

taking place since.

MR. HOWARD: That editorializing is not in accordance with the

facts. Last year's disastrous forest fire season was a result of the

stupid application of restraint. That's what the problem was, and no

amount of propagandizing at taxpayers' expense can cover up that fact.

I want to ask the minister a supplementary question. Estimates are

that something in the neighbourhood of $100,000 of taxpayers' money was

used to prepare and air that program, and inasmuch as it was straight

propaganda, will the minister be sending the bill for that program of

about $100,000 cost to the Social Credit Party for payment?

He's not going to. Perhaps the minister could declare to the House

that he agrees that taxpayers' money should be used to propagandize for

and on behalf of Social Credit. I don't.

DOWNIE STREET SAWMILL

The minister a few days ago told the House that he would investigate

with respect to the inventory of logs at the Downie Street sawmill in

Revelstoke. He's waving a paper around saying that he's done that, so

I'm going to ask the minister whether he would be prepared to read from

the paper the prepared answer and report on his efforts to get the

workers in Revelstoke back on the job working in that sawmill.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Last week the question involved inventory which is

presently in the yard of the Downie Street sawmill. I said that I would make

an inquiry, which I did. I can advise the House that there is approximately

28,000 cubic metres in the yard, something in excess of 800 truckloads of timber.

Perhaps the member is already aware of this. There is a particular

provision under the licence… I will give you the number: it's timber

sale licence No. A10295. There is a particular clause in that licence;

to ease your research, it's clause 8.8. It reads something like the

following: "During the term of this licence, the licensee will maintain

a timber processing facility in Revelstoke, with a capacity sufficient

to process annually a volume of timber not less than the volume

authorized to be harvested within the licence." I would like to advise

the House that what I was concerned about at the time is that inventory

could come from one of two locations. One of the locations happens to

be within a TFL; the other is not. The inventory which came out of the

TFL was tied to that particular sawmill.

As a result of securing all of the information this morning, a telex

was sent approximately two hours ago to the manager of the mill,

refusing the exemption which was sought. The exemption which was sought

was to remove those logs from that yard to another location. The

concern that I have is, first, that there must be a resolution of that

particular plant. But there was a commitment made at the time the

licence was given that those logs would be attached to that plant.

I have a concern, I might tell you, Mr. Speaker, and that is that

the inventory is there. With a hot summer, I'm advised by the forestry

personnel that there is a possibility some cracking could occur. And of

course, we always have to worry about any fires in the yard.

Mr. Speaker, I've registered my concerns with the House. But I was

aware of this. I thought before we made a decision I would get all the

facts.

MR. HOWARD: The question was: what is the minister doing?

What efforts is he expending to see that that sawmill reopens and the

people there get back to work? That was the question. One way to

prevent the splitting of logs in hot weather is to run them through the

sawmill now.

[2:30]

HON. MR. HEINRICH: We do not have to recite the difficult

history that Downie Street Sawmills has incurred, I suspect both on the

management side and on the employee side. I don't think there is any

question about some difficulties. Yes, I would like them to resolve

those problems and have that plant open. You see, the concern which I

have right now is that the existing licence expires, I believe, in

1990, with respect to the quote. Their cutting rights now are within

the average as set out by the Forests ministry, and that is plus or

minus 50 any one year, plus or minus 10 percent over five years.

I understand there have been some proposals to acquire the Downie

Street sawmills, and none of them have yet come to pass. But there's

one thing that is certain: the cutting rights assigned to that plant

were given on the understanding that the processing or manufacturing

facility would be in the city of Revelstoke.

FOREST FIRE FIGHTING REPORT

MR. WILLIAMS: Could the Minister of Forests advise the House

whether he's forwarded the firefighting report tabled last week to the

former minister, who misled so many

[ Page 8043 ]

British Columbians throughout the past year with respect to firefighting?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HOPWOOD REPORT

MR. WILLIAMS: A further question, Mr. Speaker, to the

Minister of Forests. With respect to studies done by his own staff, he

confirmed that he had the Hopwood report. Can he confirm that his

strategic studies

section has carried out its own analysis of the

problems dealt with in the Hopwood report?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: To my knowledge I haven't yet received an

analysis of that report. I have raised in the House on more than one

occasion that if the association who commissioned that report wishes to

make it public, that is up to them. But I am not about to break any

confidence, nor, even if I did have possession of an analysis done by

the strategic studies department in the ministry, would I make that

public, because indirectly you're going to be receiving some comments

in the report and I don't think that's up to me.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, is the minister saying, despite

the fact that these reports confirm millions lost to the provincial

Crown — and he has had studies done by civil servants confirming that —

that he will not provide that information to the Legislature?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, the comment made by the

member from Vancouver East with respect to the loss of millions and

millions of dollars of Crown revenue is not accurate.

EXPO 86

MR. MacWILLIAM: My question is to the Minister of Tourism.

Three months ago the minister ordered Expo 86 to comply with the

Financial Information Act, and disclose full information regarding its

finances. Has Expo decided to comply with the minister's order at this

time'?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, my answer to the member is the same answer I gave him, to the same question, last week or the week before.

MR. MacWILLIAM: A supplementary to the minister. The Crown

corporation has apparently decided to ignore the ministerial order. I

wonder if the minister has decided to once again request that a full

financial statement be supplied by Expo 86.

CHIROPRACTORS' FEES

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister

of Health. In response to a statement of mine with respect to

chiropractors on Friday, April 11, the minister said: "We have been

negotiating with the chiropractors. In fact, we are in negotiations

now." I have since heard from representatives of the chiropractors'

association that to the best of their knowledge there are no

negotiations going on. No date has been set for negotiations, and they

have been trying for four years to get such a date. I just wonder

whether the minister can reconcile these two different points of view.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I didn't wish to confuse

anyone. Discussions have been underway. A specific date may not have

been set for the next meeting, but I was speaking to representatives of

the chiropractors on Saturday — I was speaking to them; that's not a

negotiating team. I don't know whether they have a specific date for

formal agenda items, but we have been speaking with them ongoing. It

may not fit what they deem to be a head-to-head meeting, but

discussions have been taking place.

MR. STUPICH: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Would these discussions include

the matter of fees?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Fees really are almost all that's

not quite resolved. Many of the other factors have been overcome, but they have

not yet set up a process this year for precise fee negotiation. Other matters

have been resolved. I would have to check to see if they've actually developed

a date to sit down to discuss what modifications may be made to the fee schedule.

MR. STUPICH: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. As I hear

the minister, is it his team that has not yet agreed to set a date? I

believe the chiropractors are ready any time to set a date. Is the

minister saying that so far there hasn't been any discussion of a date

as far as his team are concerned?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I'm sure it would be, yes. I know the chiropractors

are anxious to meet at any time.

CHERNOBYL NUCLEAR ACCIDENT

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister

of Intergovernmental Relations. What representations have been made by

the usual peace groups who protest the United States at every turn, and

what actions have been requested of our government in informing Ottawa

to voice the strongest protest from the people of British Columbia

about the Soviets' lack of information to the free world on the nuclear

accident at Chernobyl?

HON. MR. GARDOM: An excellent question coming from the hon.

member. He raises very justifiably, Mr. Speaker, the issue of balance

in the world. I think his point is very well taken.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the Minister of

Municipal Affairs. What representation has the city of Vancouver made,

since declaring itself a nuclear-free zone, in urging the strongest

protest to the Soviet Union in failing to disclose at the earliest

opportunity the hazards involved in the recent nuclear accident?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Absolutely nothing. I haven't heard a word.

Orders of the Day

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

[ Page 8044 ]

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT

(continued)

On vote 25: minister's office, $211,255.

MRS. WALLACE: When we were discussing the minister's

estimates last Tuesday, I had been dealing at some extent with the

particular area dealing with fish and wildlife, and the minister had

made some responses. I don't intend to go on too long with this

particular area, but as a result of the minister's responses I do feel

that there are a couple of points I would like to raise with him again.

He began his remarks by talking about the as nitpicking. Really, Mr.

Chairman, I can't understand why he would think that talking about an

issue as important as our wildlife and fish resource in British

Columbia could be considered as nitpicking.

One of the things that he dealt with in his reply was the question

of the elk poaching at Shaw Creek. Actually, that was the very area

that I was talking about, where the elk had been poached at Youbou.

Some of that herd, six of the cows, had been radio-collared and sent

down to Shaw Creek — a transplant. A great thing, sure, but the problem

is that out of those six radio-collared cows, two were found dead at

Shaw Creek, poached, left lying in the woods. That is just a very local

example of the amount of poaching that is going on. As I had indicated

earlier, for every animal that's found, the estimate is that there are

two more lying somewhere in the woods that aren't found.

The minister sent tile recently — and I thank him for it — the

limited-entry hunting for this year. I have discussed taking advantage

of this break to discuss that in some detail with some of the people

who are really involved in hunting. What seems to come out of this is

that because of the shortage of game that's occurring, the ministry,

rather than making shorter seasons, seems to be taking a turn to going

towards limited-entry hunting on more and more species. We know there

are some species where that is required, but I do question the fact

that more and more with deer and moose — very standard types of animals —

in some areas rather than going to the shorter season the ministry

seems to be taking the turn of going to limited-entry hunting and

expanding that.

It almost seems to coincide with the lottery mentality of this

government, because in fact it's a lottery that you have for

limited-entry hunting. A lot of people pay their three bucks and enter

that lottery. I would like to know just how much the government has

made in the past and how much more it proposes to make by extending

that limited-entry hunting over a larger number of animals and really

going into it as a way of limiting the take. To me it seems that it is

just invoking the principle of a lottery as opposed to shortening the

hunting season, and I would like to hear some comments from the

minister on that.

When the minister was speaking to the B.C. Wildlife Federation in

Penticton recently, I was interested to hear him say that he was going

to deputize people who worked in other ministries as a means of

supplementing the conservation officers who by his own admission are in

very short supply. I understand from discussing this with people who

work in the Forest Service, particularly, that this is not a new idea.

This is something that has been tossed around for a long time and it

has always been turned down. It has never been accepted, for various

reasons.

[2:45]

One of the reasons is the training required. It's a very specialized

job, the job of conservation officer. As a result of amendments to the

act last year, conservation officers now have powers; they are asked to

exercise powers that even the RCMP refuse to take on, because they are

obliged to make a judgment as to whether or not a person is impaired to

the point where they should not be carrying a firearm.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Is that good or bad'?

MRS. WALLACE: I'm not saying whether it's good or bad. What

I'm saying is that it is putting a load on conservation officers that

even the RCMP refuse to accept. They insist on breathalyser tests

before they will make that judgment as to whether or not a person is

impaired.

So that is one area. Another thing, I'm advised that a conservation

officer has the power to insist that someone open the trunk of their

vehicle to allow inspection. Those are not the sort of things that

foresters or other people who are out there doing other jobs in the

woods are trained to do. So that's one of the concerns.

The other concern, an even more major concern, is the fact that

every forester that I talk to is worked to death right now. They have

more on their platter than they can deal with, and to add something

else at this point in time as a result of the restraint and the

cutbacks in the Forest Service that have taken place over the last

three or four years means that they just don't have any free time.

So what I'm suggesting is this. We have, as the re-elected president

of the Wildlife Federation John Carter said, reached a crossroads in

our wildlife population and how we use it. He says that the recession,

dam construction, native land claims, game ranching and fresh water

aquaculture will all have major impacts on the resource. "We've reached

a crossroads and face tremendous challenges the next few years in

trying to maintain the diversity of outdoor opportunities we now have."

He goes on in much more detail, but I think we have reached a

crossroads, and I would like to make just a few positive

recommendations to the minister that really need to be implemented if

we're going to protect this $2 billion industry in British Columbia.

These are recommendations made within the concept of the existing

legislation. The minister has just introduced a new bill, but it has

nothing to do with fish and wildlife, Mr. Chairman. I know I can't talk

about legislation, but as long as we're working under the existing

legislation, which has a lot of shortfalls, there are some things that

could be done.

I would like to see some of these things done. First of all, with

regard to the conservation officers, the operating budget for

conservation officers has to be increased. Their administrative backup

has to be increased so they have more time to spend in the field. Now

the minister has attempted to do this, he says, by regionalizing and

putting that work together; but the feedback that I'm getting is that

it just hasn't worked, that there is still a lot of administrative time

being spent by conservation officers in doing paperwork.

Also, there should be no further closures of conservation offices.

This is based on a pretty thorough review with a lot of people around

this province on what should be happening. The Princeton office is an

outstanding example. Now you have left that conservation officer there,

you have acceded to the pressure there, and I'm glad. I congratulate

you for doing that. But that has to become a permanent situation. In my

[ Page 8045 ]

estimation I believe the ministry should be

re-evaluating that whole business of regionalizing, because there is so

much more time being spent in travel, the coverage is so thin, and some

of those areas are increasing so rapidly with more roads being opened

up and more and more tourism in the province, that it's just not

possible to cover everything.

I would suggest that you have a look at where those gaps are, that

you identify them, and that in hiring new officers you place them in

those localized areas. Perhaps you do not put the new officer you hire

on his own, but you make sure that, by adding to that core of

conservation officers, you provide coverage for those areas that are

too thin.

I believe that what we need is a special task force to deal with the

whole poaching problem. In the days when I used to deal with

agriculture, rustling of cattle was a major problem. We worked with the

RCMP and the cattlemen to deal with it, and I would suggest that a task

force similar to that set up by the cattlemen to deal with this whole

poaching problem would be a good way to go.

The minister talked in his remarks on Tuesday about the butcher at

Prince George and how proud he was of what had happened, and he agreed

that the penalties were too light. But he said we have to leave it to

the courts, that that is beyond us. That's not entirely true. The

legislation sets the penalties, the limits. What we need to do is look

at changing that to ensure that those penalties are sufficiently heavy

to deter that kind of poaching. Couple that with an adequate police

force — more COs and a task force to look at the poaching — and I think

that that could be dealt with. It has been suggested that those

penalties should be doubled or even tripled, and that hunting

privileges should be suspended for people who offend. More cases should

go to court, rather than just letting them pay the penalty on the

roadside, as it were. They really should have to go to court and face

up to the trauma of that court experience, because they are committing

a crime and they should be duly charged. And I think we have to educate

the people who are sitting in judgment as to the actual value of that

wildlife and the extent of the problem.

Those are certainly some definite suggestions that I would make to

the minister. I think that, instead of the type of advertising we've

been seeing on television lately, perhaps we need an advertising

campaign geared strictly at the role of the conservation officer, the

value of our game and so on. That kind of program would be extremely

useful in educating the public on this problem.

It seems that many of the problems we face simply result from the

lack of political will to do something about the protection of our fish

and game. You know, if we're not a partner in protecting that fish and

game resource, in ensuring that that poaching doesn't occur, then we

automatically become a partner in that poaching. Mr. Chairman, the lack

of adequate funds to do the job indicates, in my view, that this

government and/or this minister are not really committed to the

preservation of that resource, and that they don't have the political

will to take the required actions. Perhaps I'll just leave it at that,

if the minister wishes to respond.

HON. MR. PELTON: Mr. Chairman, first of all, l hope the hon.

member opposite is feeling much better today than she was last Tuesday.

I wouldn't want to suggest that the hon. member was a nitpicker in any

way, shape or form.

Interjection.

HON. MR. PELTON: Did I really?' A slip of the tongue.

Most of these things, I'm sure the hon. member will agree, Mr.

Chairman, we've discussed before, though not in such great detail. It's

very difficult to disagree with 99 44/100 percent of the things you

say. Of course, I have to, not take exception, but suggest that it is a

matter of priorities about what we do. Within the ministry we are,

believe me, hon. member, really concerned about the wildlife and the

fisheries of this province, because that's our duty, our mandate.

To deal with one or two of the items that you mentioned, I've got a

little background paper on limited-entry hunting which you might find

interesting. In the past, a number of hunters have on occasion

expressed some concern, following each limited-hunting draw, that there

are people who are repeatedly selected year after year, as you

suggested, and that there are others who are never selected. We

undertook a review of this, and I'd like to read to you from it.

We reviewed selected applicants for a three-year period, which ran

from 1982 through 1984. The object was to determine, using each

applicant's resident hunter number as an identification, the number of

individuals selected once, twice or three times for specific hunts and

under what conditions this might occur. The results of the review

showed that there's really no significant occurrence of repeated

success of individuals in draws. The popularity of limited entry has

grown. In 1974 there were 168 applications, I believe, and there were

70,777 applications in 1985. The competition for many of these hunts is

very fierce, and for heavily subscribed hunts, of course, the odds of

being selected are very low. I'll give you an example. The Junction

sheep hunts have odds as high as 147 to one against being drawn. It

would not be surprising to apply every year for a lifetime and never be

drawn. Odds dictate the frequency of success. Relatively few people

have drawn authorizations more than once during this period, and only 5

percent were selected in all three years. The vast majority of hunters

who have been successful more than once are hunters who repeatedly

apply for relatively unpopular hunts with correspondingly low odds.

The hon. member asked specifically about how much money we thought

we would take in through a continuation or an expansion of the

limited-entry hunting. We expect some 75,000 applications. At $3 an

application, that is about $225,000.

I would suggest, though, that limited-entry hunting is not all that

new. It is just another tool that we utilize within the ministry to

manage wildlife. As time goes by it becomes more and more important,

because where wildlife used to just compete among themselves and with

other wildlife, of course as the hon. member knows, they now compete

with men. So they need some help in order even to retain the status quo.

We talked again about poaching. Yes, poaching is a real problem that

we have. We don't make any bones about it. We don't try to play it

down. It is a very real and a very difficult problem. As I have

mentioned last Tuesday, we do have some success in catching people who

undertake to poach, and we do have some success in taking them through

the courts, prosecuting and having them convicted of the charges laid

against them. But the member is absolutely right: we don't catch them

all, and I guess we probably never will. Probably if we had three times

as many conservation officers as we have we wouldn't catch them all. I

guess it is very similar to the fact that there are probably thousands

of people who daily speed down our highways and who are never caught

because

[ Page 8046 ]

you just couldn't do it. It is an ongoing problem which we are attempting to address.

I didn't realize that the idea of utilizing other ministries in this

protection capacity had been suggested before, although I guess there

is nothing wrong with revisiting an old idea. Sometimes the old ideas

turn out to be the best ones in the long run. We haven't completely

succeeded in our endeavours in this regard either. One of the

ministries we approached has expressed a great deal of interest in

trying to be of assistance in this regard, and the other one has

expressed some interest, to the point where everybody is going to sit

down and talk about it and see if there isn't something that can be

done.

[3:00]

The use of deputies would have to be very carefully thought out

because there would obviously be things that they just couldn't do, as

was pointed out by the member for Cowichan-Malahat. A great deal of

training goes into becoming a conservation officer, and people attend

schools for some time to acquire the knowledge necessary before they

can be deputized in the way that conservation officers are and carry

out their duties. Certainly we wouldn't expect others that were being

of assistance to us within the Ministry of Forests or the Ministry of

Lands, Parks and Housing, whichever it might be, to carry out all of

the duties of a conservation officer, because conservation officers are

from time to time placed in positions where there might be some

question about their safety. We certainly would want to be very careful

before we got into that.

But let me just repeat that all we are trying to do, in the best way

possible and with the limited resources at our disposal, is to bolster

or to improve the conservation officer service in the province of

British Columbia. I don't mean to be repetitious, but I must say that

the conservation officers we have, although limited in number, do an

outstanding job for this province, and l have nothing but praise for

them.

We have statistics, which I won't bore you with, that show that the

reorganization and the bringing of these conservation officers together

— which they will admit themselves, I have had them say it to me — has

been an improvement and has resulted in more people being apprehended

and in more people being caught for the misdemeanor of poaching.

We haven't had the increases in funding that we would like to have

to bring the conservation officer department up to a higher state of

usefulness and readiness, but I should point out that last year, if I

recall correctly, we put about $225,000 extra dollars into the pot, or

it might have been a quarter of a million. This year, on top of that,

we have added another $248,000. So we have put some in – not enough,

we'd like to put a lot more, but it is just not available at this time.

We do have priorities in our funding. I'm sure the hon. member opposite

appreciates that. As we allocate the money within the budget, we do try

to allocate it in the most reasonable and fair way, and we also try

very, very hard to get, as the saying goes, the maximum bang for our

buck. If I've missed anything, maybe the hon. member will remind me of

what it is and I'll cover it the next time l get to my feet.

MRS. WALLACE: Where does that money go – that $225,000? Into general revenue'?

HON. MR. PELTON: It comes into the ministry. It's part of our revenue. It's shown as revenue in the budget.

MRS. WALLACE: Just for Hansard 's

information, what I said from across the floor was that the money that

comes in from the limited-entry hunting does not go into habitat

conservation. It just goes into general revenue. That would be

approximately the amount that you're increasing the conservation

officers this year, actually. Also, last year, when you increased the

conservation officers, of course it was taken away from some of the

fishery research projects. So it's not like there's more money coming

in as far as government goes; it's simply coming in in other ways from

the people who are hunting, or by reducing other programs.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

I want to change the subject slightly and talk about another area of

responsibility that this minister has, and that is for various methods

of dealing with chemicals: the waste management vote, pesticide control

— all of those kinds of things. To initiate that particular facet of

the debate, I'd just like to quote from an

article that was published

recently in the Province , I

believe. It's an

article written by David Suzuki, entitled: "We've Lost

the Gift of Avoiding Danger." It starts out by saying:

"Isn't it strange? The great evolutionary survival attribute

of our species has been foresight. With our huge brains we are able to learn

from past experience, to recognize certain predictable regularities and to project

the consequence of today's actions tomorrow. Thus we are uniquely gifted with

the ability to make conscious choices and avoid danger. That ability has more

than compensated in our evolutionary past for our lack of...physical attributes....

"But today, with our immense populations and complex

technological society, we seem to have lost that capacity. The PCB

spill near Kenora emphasizes this loss. If it were the first

environmental accident ever to occur, we might understand the confusion

and paralysis.... Bhopal is still in the news! But don't we know

about Hooker Chemical and the ticking time bomb its toxic dumps pose to

those around Lake Ontario'? Dioxins spilled out years ago in Italy, but

it is also found in the food chain around the Great Lakes. In the past,

lead, arsenic, mercury, asbestos, radon, polyvinyl chlorides, pesticide

residues — the list seems endless....

"But do you think any of these issues has been satisfactorily

resolved, cleaned up, eliminated? Not on your life.

"High levels of PCBs in...London are not a serious hazard, yet it must appear to be concerned in Kenora.

"Various compounds...we are told that the

carcinogenicity of PCBs — proved beyond a doubt in animals — has never

been established in humans."

You know, this is the argument that we make for not

being concerned about it. In the United States any substance that is

carcinogenic in animals is automatically assumed to cause cancer in

people.

"Can't we see that the environment is not infinitely

self-renewing? Surely any objective bystander can plainly see that the

sheer magnitude of our numbers and the scale of our industrial and

domestic wastes are overloading the air, water and soil. Cancer experts

today agree that 80 to 90 percent of all cancers

[ Page 8047 ]

are caused by factors in the environment — that includes

all of the accumulated toxins of our technological society."

"But it's not just industry. Carbon tetrachloride,

used by dry-cleaners and dumped into sewers...many toxic chemicals in

our kitchens, bathrooms and workshops which we keep away from our

children but flush straight them down the sink.... Do we have any idea

how many chemicals are poured into drains in university laboratories?"

According to Suzuki, there are all kinds.

"We have a cavalier attitude toward the many chemicals

in our society and a faith that the environment will dilute them enough

to render them harmless. Yet today not only is the water in the largest

body of fresh water in the world polluted, but the groundwater as well

is turning out to contain toxins."

He concludes by saying:

"I'm afraid that so long as our elected

representatives are so woefully ignorant of even the most elementary

technological concepts and ecological principles, while being motivated

by purely short-term political considerations, and so long as we

blithely assume that a clean environment is someone else's problem,

we're in trouble."

I think there is great deal of truth in what Dr.

Suzuki is saying. We have had here in British Columbia over the last

year or two a horrendous increase in the number of reported cases of

spills or accidents or just appearances of various chemicals.

Let's talk about pentachlorophenol, the thing with which we treat

wood. Supposedly it's the only thing available to keep wood from going

mouldy. Well, that's not entirely true. There are other ways of

protecting that wood. But how much research are we doing into it? How

much is the government involved in ensuring that rather than just

giving more and more permits to use PCP to treat wood and allowing more

and more mills to install treatment tanks...? Are we doing anything to

try to back off from it? We know that it's a harmful chemical; it's a

dioxin. A dioxin is the most hazardous man-made product that has ever

been known.

My colleague from North Okanagan has talked about the situation at

Okanagan Lake where a permit is going out for a mill there to treat. My

colleague from Nelson-Creston dealt with the problem which we were all

involved with up there where a mill had been allowed to treat and then

was allowed to burn. That was a very interesting incident, that one at,

I think, Maple Bay or Maple Ridge or wherever it was, up in the Nelson

area. I phoned the local manager there in Nelson Creston, and he told

me that this permit would allow for 18 parts per billion of dioxin. But

he said that that was based on the fact that 30 parts per billion were

allowed in Ontario and that in the United States one part per billion

was considered safe. We were going to allow 18 parts per billion. The

problem is that those figures are not correct. It wasn't 18 parts per

billion; it was much more than that. As far as the Ontario standard

goes, it's not 30 parts per billion; it's 30 picograms per cubic metre,

which is less than one part per billion. So the information that he was

basing his permit on was utterly wrong. As far as EPA goes, they set a

figure of zero — not even one part per billion. So we're getting false

information. There's a lack of information. There is a lack of concern.

There is a lack of recognition of the hazards we're creating. You can't

see it; you can't smell it, particularly; the effects aren't immediate.

As a result of this, we're building ourselves right up towards another

Love Canal. I had a great many letters on both of those cases. But what

happens?

I think one of the most interesting things that came across my desk

was datelined Castlegar, where Westar was charged with 28 counts of air

pollution. The case was dismissed because the Crown had failed to prove

the pulp mill was the only source of hydrogen sulphide that was

recorded by a ministry environment monitoring device. That's just wide

open. Naturally you cannot prove that that's the only source. So if an

industry, or anyone else, is going to be allowed.... In that instance

it was hydrogen sulphide, which is not as bad as a dioxin but is still

a pretty potent chemical. If you're not going to be able to do anything

about it, with that kind of a judgment coming down, where are we going

on this whole chemical situation'?

[3:15]

I talked about spills. We've had PCB spills; we've have PCP spills.

We had an ammonia spill not long ago at the city of Merritt. We had a

PCB spill, as opposed to PCP. Of course, we dealt last year in these

Environment estimates at some length with the situation at Mackenzie,

where Hydro, contrary to the rulings, had stored these capacitors

outside, now hopefully under cover.

The minister talked about all the storage facilities that he had,

including one here in Victoria. I don't know what dateline he was

talking about that he had storage facilities available, but in March of

this year Victoria discovered they had a bunch of PCBs stored in a

wooden shack in a workyard. In their research they found there was no

space. The provincial government's hazardous waste storage facilities

at Cloverdale Avenue and Blanshard Street are full. B.C. Hydro's

storage is also full. Here was Victoria city with these things stored

in a wooden building, just waiting for an accident to happen. They're

having to build some kind of a cement block structure to put those

things in.

Eburne sawmill had oil stored there for many, many years which had

pentachlorobiphenols. Through some very unfortunate accident one of

these containers of oil was taken out and used to oil a saw, with some

pretty disastrous results. It caused a real hazard to the workers there

and a real concern to management in their attempt to clean the thing

up. The ministry was certainly involved in that.

I see that my green light is on, so just a couple more words. I

would like to point out to the minister — I'm sure he mentioned this

too —

that his deputy who is sitting on the floor made an announcement

recently that we were going to get a mobile incinerator for

pentachlorobiphenols and that he hoped it would be in operation by the

end of this year. I notice there's a sizeable chunk of money in the

particular vote. I expect that's the only sizeable addition of money in

this budget and I would suppose it's for this incinerator. I would like

a little more information from the minister regarding just where he's

at with those disposal units and when they will be coming onstream.

HON. MR. PELTON: Of course, that was a 15-minute statement.

An awful lot of things were said in there and I wasn't able to make

notes on any questions that might have been involved. Maybe we could

just deal with them one at a time, say, and try and do it in sort of a

rational way.

Let's deal with the PCB one. Yes, there are a lot of PCBs stored

around this province. At one time I had the figure in my head; I don't

anymore, but there is a great deal of it. It's

[ Page 8048 ]

been around for many, many years. As long as it's

around, and until such time as we find ourselves in a position to treat

the PCBs and reduce them to innocuous matter, we're going to have

spills. That's very unfortunate, but I guess that's going to happen.

The only thing we're going to be able to do is to get out there and

treat it as quickly as we can.

Even very recently the member will have read about the importation

into Canada of some electric oil-filled radiator type heaters that had

PCBs in them. They came from outside of North America and were found to

contain these PCBs. As a matter of fact, I understand that down in

Ontario one of these heaters sprang a leak and sprayed a pregnant

woman. We jumped into that right away because we didn't know how many

of those things might be around British Columbia. The reaction from the

federal Ministry of Environment, who I suppose are the first ones that

would be involved — or perhaps it was the provincial Ministry of

Environment in Ontario — was to make arrangements with the people who

had sold them in Canada to recall them, in the meantime — as we

suggested to anyone who contacted the ministry —

for heaven's sakes unplug them immediately, because it seemed it was

the heat that caused the one in Toronto to explode. We suggested that

they unplug them immediately and quit using them, put them in a plastic

bag and put them away until they could return them for a refund. On the

other hand, if anyone noticed that a leak was involved, they should

phone the ministry right away and we would come and take it off their

hands and put it away.

These things do happen, and I suppose, as I said before, all we can

do is deal with them as they happen. That's the way it goes. On the

other hand, l do think that over the past year I don't take any personal credit for this; it was part of the ministry's job —

we have made some inroads into where we are going in this regard. As I

said last Tuesday, by the middle of this year we will at least be able

to come forward with a chart which will indicate the minimum acceptable

levels of certain of the dioxins that we talk so much about.

By the end of the year we hope to be well on our way to having made

some arrangement whereby either the province of British Columbia will

have its own mobile destruction system, or with the cooperation of some

of the other provinces Manitoba and Saskatchewan in particular and perhaps even Alberta —

we will have come to some arrangement whereby the facility is available

to dispose of these noxious chemicals once and for all and get rid of

them and break them down into other elements which are not so toxic.

But I must be honest with the hon. member, Mr. Chairman: the money

that she spotted in our budget is not for that purpose. It is our

intention that the people who generate these toxic wastes, or these

special wastes as we like to call them, should be the ones that pay for

their destruction and for their control. That is the whole thrust of

the process we are trying to put into place. The last figure I saw was

a little over $7 million that the people who produce the products

should pay for any requirement for clearing them up or cleaning them up

or disposing of them. Almost a year ago, if not a full year ago, I

suggested this when I spoke to a meeting in Vancouver, and it was well

received by the industrial people present at that meeting. So I think

that is the way we will go.

I have a long report here with respect to the dioxin issue, but it

would just take too long to read it into the record. I am sure that

because my critic does her homework so very well she is aware of all

these things anyway, and there is not much point in my repeating them.

If we were dealing with one dioxin, it might make the job relatively

simple. But my understanding is that there are 75 or more different

types of dioxins that we must deal with, some worse than others. So it

is a long process that we are going to go through. We don't have the

facilities within our own ministry and within our own province to do a

lot of research into this, but certainly we have available to us the

results of research done by others, and we will certainly take

advantage of it.

It's no excuse for what is happening, and I think the member alluded

to it when she was reading from Dr. Suzuki, but these things have been

around for a long time. That doesn't make them good, mind you, but they

have been around for a long time, and it is only recently that we

humans in our frail way have come to appreciate the problems caused by

these dioxins, which by the way are not actually manufactured in

themselves, but are the result of other products, in burning or various

other things like that.

The one up in Meadow Creek was a good case in point. For many years

the company involved have been disposing of the ends of the lumber that

they get by burning it, which a lot of mills do, except that most of

the mills have a burner, and these people burned this out in the open.

They did it once a year, and they had a permit to do it, and they did

it in a season that was least dangerous, when it was wet, when there

was snow on the ground, etc. I imagine they got an overseas order for

some lumber, and they treated the lumber with preservative. As the

member knows, it is out of this preservative that this one form of

dioxin is generated. Inadvertently, when they were disposing of the

tailings – or whatever they call them – of the lumber they were

manufacturing, they all got into the same pile. It caused quite a

furor. But we got into the thing right away, and we did everything

humanly possible. We had them take the contaminated wood out of the

rest, and they got most of it out. If I remember correctly, a

relatively small quantity of the preservative was used, but it caused a

great uproar and it worried people and it worried us too. Fortunately

we were right in our estimation of the results of burning some of it,

and the program went through and worked out very well indeed. But there

again, it's another incident, and I guess what we want to do in the

long run is see that these incidents don't occur. That would be the

thrust of what we're trying to do within the ministry.

I say once again that by the end of this year we expect to be pretty

close to the point where we have a method of destroying PCBs anyway.

I've actually seen one of these machines work, and it does a very

effective job; but it was only effective on a certain type of oil with

PCBs in it. But the technology is there. It's for us to bring it

onstream and get to use it. We will no doubt run into one of the

problems we ran into with the Genstar scheme, which I still think was

well ahead of its time, and would have put British Columbia in the

forefront of other provinces in this country, but it went awry, and the

problem, of course, was that there is some residue with incineration of

any kind and it's what you do with that that ends up to be a problem.

But we'll work very assiduously to try to find a site where this can be

disposed of, and to try to do it with the least disturbance to the

population of our province, because after all, they're the people we're

out to protect.

I think that's about it for now, Mr. Chairman.

MRS. WALLACE: First of all, I would like to assure the

minister that I agree with the principle of user-pay — there's no

argument there at all. However, we are in very difficult

[ Page 8049 ]

situation with the amount of stuff that has

accumulated over the many years that we've been waiting to get this

facility in operation. I'm not at all sure that everybody who has this

stuff stored is going to be able to come up with the required amount of

the cost to get rid of this backlog. So I think the government is going

to have to have some kind of responsibility to ensure that we dispose

of this backlog we've accumulated.

[3:30]

He mentioned Genstar. Sure, there were a lot of problems there. What

worries me is that, from what I understand of the direction he's going

with this new scheme, again much the same: he's going to put it into

the hands of some private company to deal with it. I don't think that's

going to work. That was the downfall with Genstar. They wanted to set

up a centre here and bring in hazardous chemicals from the other

provinces and from the United States, in order to have this a big

enough enterprise that they would have enough recoverable material to

make it a profitable operation. That's fine if you can do it, but I

think there are a lot of people who have a real objection to bringing

hazardous wastes in from the outside when we are already generating so

many here. I think there's a general feeling that the way to go with

this is to do it as a government-controlled operation, to ensure (

a) that it is done in a safe way, no shortcuts; and (

b) that the problem

is dealt with on a local basis, with encouragement to polluters to

reduce their pollution — and there are certainly lots of ways that can

be done using methods that will become costeffective, if in fact

they're going to have to pay for the cost of destroying this stuff.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

There are many things that can be done. One company's waste is

another company's commodity, and those kinds of things can be worked

out. With research you can get various methods of chemical combination

so you don't have so much hazardous material...and for making that

other material available. Some of those areas you might think about

dealing with — for example, printer's ink; if there were a program in

place that would encourage newspapers to recycle that ink on site

rather than having it going out elsewhere.... That's certainly an

area that should be explored. Ion exchange in the replating industry

can be used onsite, by recouping the waste and having a profitable

recovery of those metals rather than putting them into the garbage.

I think we need to look at renewable materials, too, that can supply

chemicals and fuel. For example, it's technically possible to recycle

overspray —

that is, paint sludge. As you will recall, those barrels

that were found in Burnaby not too long ago, that's exactly what

they.... Now that is recyclable. That's what should be happening to it.

the government has a tremendous role to play in encouraging these

operations to take those kinds of actions.

We certainly have to look at the transfer of that waste too, because

hazardous goods in transit are a real problem. We've seen a lot of that

more recently. So we need to try to do as much of the recycling as

close to the site as possible. If in fact there was a little better

communication between various companies using various commodities, I

think that could be arranged. Rather than shipping everything down to a

central location and then shipping it back out after you've treated it,

we have to look at doing some of that on site. But the companies have

to know of each other's existence and they have to know what

commodities they want or need. Certainly it is being worked on in other

jurisdictions. I think the 3M company in the United States is one of

the outstanding examples, where in the last nine years they've saved

something like $192 million just through recycling their own materials.

So I think there needs to be a strong shift in the direction that

the ministry and this government take in providing that kind of

information. Certainly if we're just going into a repeat of the Genstar

thing, I have a lot of qualms about what will happen there.

I'd like to ask the minister about those electric heaters. I was

going to raise that later, but he has raised it. What sort of

advertising has been done'? You say that if people phone in and ask,

you tell them. There hasn't been, that I have seen, anything of any

great moment coming out of the federal government to warn people or

even to make sure that they're aware. I wonder how many of these

heaters are actually in British Columbia. Has there been any real

program put in place to ensure that we locate all of them and have them

returned'? You know, people don't all read the newspaper. Unless

there's a good strong ad campaign to ensure that people know about

these things, we could have that potential hazard sitting out there for

some time. I'm a little bit concerned that we're just being told to

unplug them and put them in a plastic bag. Really, we need to do

something better than that with them.

I was also concerned when the minister talked about having come up

with acceptable levels of dioxins. As I indicated, the EPA says zero

parts per billion. We have never really seen an acceptable level agreed

upon. Ontario has tentatively come up with a very limited amount — what

is it? — 30 picograms, which amounts to something like one part per

billion. But that's a tentative thing. l would hate to see us come up

with something.... You know, what we usually do is we get a level

of pollution and then we set our standards at that level so it doesn't

upset anybody. Then if that pollution goes up, we change our standards.

We've seen this happen. I've seen it happen on a great many permits.

The one that I recall most clearly is the Cargill one, when they had

the hog farm over on the mainland. Every time they wanted to pollute a

little more, the pollution permit was changed and allowed them to put

more of that stuff into the water. So I hope that's not what's going to

happen with this: that we're not just going to set that level at a

point that sort of fills today's need and doesn't upset the apple cart.

Because I have some very grave concerns about having any level above

zero parts per billion. I think that we're into a real hazard if we

allow this stuff to get out there legally, because we've already got it

out there now. What we need to do is get rid of what's out there, not

just legalize what's there.

HON. MR. PELTON: Just right off the bat I would just like to

suggest to the hon. member, and I'm sure she would agree, that setting

a zero level would be all well and good, but one would know before they

even started that it was meaningless. Every time we have a forest fire,

there are dioxins released. Probably more dioxins come out of forest

fires in British Columbia than any other source. Without trying to

appear to be making fun of it, I'm told that when you go to your

barbecue on a Saturday night and cook up a steak or hamburgers, you

produce some dioxins.

It would be nice to be able to have a zero level, but it just doesn't make a heck of a lot of sense. You can reach for the

[ Page 8050 ]

stars, but when what you're reaching for is unreachable, you'll never get there, I don't think.

As far back as February 1984, the Ministry of Environment issued

regulations that would control the storage, transportation and disposal

of special wastes. The effective date of that was not specified, and

we've now decided to revise these regulations — and I'm still talking

about the same thing, Mr. Chairman — to make the determination of

special wastes compatible with the federal transportation of dangerous

goods system of identifying hazardous wastes.

We've been working closely with the federal government and other

provincial governments through the Canadian Council of Resource and

Environment Ministers to establish programs for national standards and

for treatment and disposal, as I mentioned a little while ago. The

major areas of common effort include programs to deal with PCBs;

national standards for storage and treatment and disposal programs, for

waste reduction and contingency planning programs; and improvements to

the transportation of dangerous goods regulations. The movement of

special wastes now is being tracked from source to the disposal point

by the federal manifest system, and we are, Mr. Chairman, being

informed in every instance when any hazardous waste is being

transported down our coast, through coastal waters, or by land. We are

being notified and are able to monitor this ourselves.

The matter of who should manage a system for the disposal.... We

do lean toward having it undertaken on a private basis, a contract

basis. In the province of Ontario, they set up a Crown corporation to

deal with this. It's relatively new. I know that they have expended

great amounts of money, but their problems are much greater than ours.

God forbid that our problems should ever get to that point, but it's

being dealt with in that manner in Ontario.

The province of Alberta also set up a Crown corporation to deal with

this, and they have a disposal plant in Swan Hills. I'm led to believe

that they already are in a position where they know that the cost of

the operation of this plant is going to be absolutely horrendous. When

they first got into this mode, part of the initial agreement that was

made was that there would be no waste brought in from outside the

province of Alberta. So they are looking to spend a great deal of tax

money in taking care of the problem in that jurisdiction.

What we hope to do — and you mentioned this, hon. member; you're

quite right — is to encourage, in every possible way, the people who

generate the special wastes to recycle, to encourage them to reuse. I'm

sure there are a lot of things that they could reuse. You suggested the

materials that were in the barrels in Burnaby; that could have been

reused.

In the United States, particularly in the state of Oregon, which has

been set up as an illustration of how this should be done, they have an

information system where they pass information through all the

manufacturers in the province. It's kind of a compatibility information

system, where everybody will know what the other person has so that

they can utilize his product instead of acquiring more and increasing

the amount in the system, and it works out very well. It's considered a

model program down there, and we are looking at that one closely to see

if we can accomplish the same thing.

We believe that when industry realizes that they're going to have to

foot the bill.... We believe that we can reduce the amount of

special waste that's coming into the system in the province of British

Columbia by 75 percent. No, by a third — I wouldn't want to exaggerate

— by about 60 to 66 percent. That's what we're hoping to do.

The assistant deputy minister in the Environment ministry is dealing

with this almost on a daily basis through the other civil servants who

are involved in the CCREM. I'm determined that this whole problem will

be resolved, and resolved to everyone's satisfaction, and to the utter

and complete safety of all the citizens of the province of British

Columbia.

[3:45]

Also, the member asked how many of these heaters are in the

province. I'm sorry, I can't answer that question. I don't know, but I

do know already of people who are aware of the potential danger and who

have.... Apparently Woodward's in Victoria has sold a number of

these, and I'm aware of people who have returned these heaters to

Woodward's and who have received a refund for the heater.

We haven't done any advertising that I'm aware of; we have just relied on people finding out about this thing through the press.

I didn't think our suggestion that they be unplugged and placed in

plastic bags and put in a safe or cool place until they can be returned

was too bad a suggestion. The only time they will do any harm — we know

this for a fact — is if they leak, and it's very unlikely that they'll

leak if they are taken out of use, if they are not heated up. The

reason we have suggested that they be taken care of this way is the

very reason that the hon. member suggested at one juncture: we do have

storage sites around the province but they are limited in what they're

capable of taking. We are quite prepared, like we were some time ago

when a similar problem existed, to take them back and to store them for

people. But we suggest that we certainly can't get into the business of

refunding people for the cost of these heaters, and we suggest that

certainly if they are leaking they call us immediately.

By the way, on something we discussed last year — everything takes a

little while in government but it eventually happens — we do now have a

Zenith number to report spills and things of this nature like these

heaters, and it's Zenith 2667, and it works.

MR. PASSARELL: I have four quick snappers to the hon.

minister. I wanted to congratulate him on winning the Greenpeace

achievement award that was given to him recently by the environmental

group.

The first one is in regard to black-powder hunting. Has the minister

any plans for limited hunting of special categories of wildlife for

just black-powder rifles? One of the reasons that this has been brought

up is that there are a number of black-powder organizations throughout

the province who are saying that there should be some limited hunting —

a category just for black powder for the competition aspect. It's much

more difficult to hunt with black powder than with high velocity rifles.

The second question is the wolves, and that's been an ongoing

problem from prior to the minister's gaining this portfolio. There has

been a reduction, particularly in the far north this year, in regard to

wolves. Has the ministry looked at any kind of contingency plan?

Because going out and shooting wolves out of aircraft just simply

doesn't work. It's too expensive, and it just causes too much of a

controversy in setting up some type of $25 or $50 bounty for trappers

and hunters to alleviate the problem themselves as they have been doing

over the last 18 months.

The third one was a statement that Dr. Suzuki made to the wilderness committee, an erroneous statement in regard to

[ Page 8051 ]

his presentation on the habitat of the camp robber, in which he stated that the camp robber....

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: It's a bird. He had made a statement to the

wilderness committee in support of not logging on the Queen Charlotte

Islands because this was the habitat of the camp robber. As any person

who goes out on a picnic or spends any time in the bush knows, the camp

robbers inhabit the entire province. I was wondering if the ministry

and the minister could ask that the doctor come down from his ivory

tower and downtown Vancouver and spend a little time.... They could

maybe even provide him with a picnic lunch so he could go out in the

bush and see that the camp robbers exist outside the Queen Charlottes.

The last question, and probably the most serious one of the three

I've raised, is about a statement that was made by a spokesperson for

the Atlin Indian band recently on CBC radio, Whitehorse, in which this

individual said that the Atlin Indian band would go out and shoot

animals when they felt like it, as part of their proposed sovereignty.

As I think, and I think as most residents in the far north and across

this province think, wildlife belongs to all people of British Columbia

and not just to special groups. To go out and shoot wildlife anywhere

in this province and, as in this proposal presented by the Atlin Indian

band, to a shoot animals wherever they want to whenever they want to I

find is an injustice to all residents of British Columbia.

The ministry has been very positive in regard to individuals who

need subsistence permits and who can go to the wildlife officer to get

permits. These are given out to individuals who are in need of meat.

But in this case the Atlin Indian band simply wants to prove a

political point by going out and shooting animals. There is a concern

for this outrageous plan by residents of the north; there have been

quite a number of bad feelings brought about by this statement. I'm

opposed to this because I believe, as I said earlier, that wildlife

belongs to all residents of British Columbia, not to any group. To go

out and shoot a cow and a calf just to prove that you can go out and

kill something – to destroy an animal just to prove a point – I think

is pretty outrageous.

Special interest groups who strive for wilderness protection are put

in a quandary in this regard, because often groups like Greenpeace

support aboriginal title, and finding a group that's going out just to

annihilate animals to prove a political point is going to put the

special interest environmental groups into a pretty difficult situation.

I understand that the ministry over the years — and I've seen it in

the far north — has been reluctant to prosecute natives on wildlife

charges. If it happens that a particular band is going to prove a

political point by going out and blatantly annihilating animals, would

the ministry consider changing their position and prosecuting

individuals who do this'?

HON. MR. PELTON: I thank my colleague for his questions. The

first one with respect to black powder: at the moment we do not have

limited hunting for people who participate in the sport of black-powder

shooting, but I will certainly take that suggestion. We'll have a look

at that and see what we can do with it. Sounds like it might have some

merit.

On the matter of predator control, it is one of the ongoing wildlife

management tools that we utilize to try to maintain that very delicate

balance between predators and their prey. As the member knows, we have

utilized a great number of methods, trapping being one, and various

other things. In certain areas of the province, particularly around the

Quesnel area where there was a problem with predators and domestic

cattle, we have had a great deal of success with a trapping program.

We've not only had a reduction in the predators, but have been very

successful in training other trappers in the art of trapping these

particular beasts. Apparently it's a very specialized undertaking.

We're about to embark on a similar program on Vancouver Island. The

predator problem on the island has been getting increasingly worse over

the past few months, so we are moving into that one.

The programs we have in place are quite portable. We can direct

these at almost any given time to any particular area of the province

where they are required. So if there are problems in the member's area,

we would be only too happy to move some people in there and see what we

can do about them.

The matter of the camp robber, the little bird that the member talks

about, I didn't read the good doctor's submission to the wildlife

committee, but I heard something about some specific type of bear that

he thought....

Interjection.

HON. MR. PELTON: No, it wasn't the hon. member's favorite

bear; it was some other kind of bear. He said that this bear existed

only in the Queen Charlottes, on South Moresby. When I was apprised of

what really went on, I was told there was none of that particular type

of bear at all. There are some, but not.... So even the most

erudite of those people within our society, like Dr. Suzuki, I guess —

even like me — make the odd mistake. I guess that's what he did with

the matter of the little camp robber birds.

The last item: I'm reluctant to get into that to any great degree,

and I'm sure I don't have to tell the hon. member why. But I can make

one or two statements on it.

Since 1966 the Wildlife Act and the permit regulations have stated

that the wildlife director may issue permits to residents of British

Columbia to take wildlife outside the regular season — and I quote

right from the act — "when in actual need for sustenance." There is no

mention made of any racial origin involved in this at all. The only

qualifications are residency and actual need. The program goes a little

further than that. We don't just give them the permit to take the

animal from the wild. If we have animals that we've taken from people

who have been poaching, we will supply the actual meat to people who

require it for sustenance.

Thus the matter of sustenance use of wildlife is one of allocation,

not one of any kind of rights. However, where treaties apply, such as

on portions of Vancouver Island or in northeastern B.C., those

treaties take precedence over the Wildlife Act. We are not the least

bit backward in coming forward in attempting to have people prosecuted

for misdemeanors involving the taking of wildlife out of season or

without permits, but once.... We go as far as we can, and then the

rest is up to the courts.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I have just a few brief observations and

possibly questions for the Minister of the Environment, whose estimates

we're currently debating.

[ Page 8052 ]

I should mention at the onset, Mr. Chairman, that I've been

following the debate as closely as I possibly can, although I have not

been here for the whole debate. The member for Cowichan-Malahat has

addressed a whole list of the questions that I may have posed which

apply to my riding, as well as to many other ridings in British

Columbia, and I don't want to rehash that. If the question I'm now

going to discuss with the minister has been addressed previously, I

apologize; but this issue in the riding I represent is quite a large

and persistent issue that seems to be there forever.

It is the matter of the application of pesticides and particularly herbicides

on certain locations. It is less of a problem with highways; that has been reduced,

I understand, a great deal over the past several years. But I am concerned with

applications, by either the Forest Service or logging companies or whomever,

to apply these herbicides in certain areas. The minister may or may not recall

that we had a very serious case a couple of years ago where an application was

made to use a great deal of the stuff in watershed areas in my riding. I won't

go through that case again in this House.

[4:00]

To put it in a nutshell, Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the minister

could advise me currently about the appeal process. Every time one of

these notices of the intention of whomever the group may be to apply

herbicides — in some cases pesticides, but usually herbicides in a

given area.... Notices must be put forward in the local newspapers,

right? However, what happens if a group of residents or a regional

district — in two cases in my riding, if not three — or a group of

interested citizens or a ratepayers' group or a water district should

happen to miss that notice'? Sometimes they don't appear in the local

paper. They have 15 days to appeal, which is very little time. That

regulation may have been changed within the last while. If it has, I'm

not aware of it.

HON. MR. PELTON: It's being changed.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I'd like to get those comments in Hansard for

my constituents. One of the major complaints I've received in terms of

the appeal process was the lack of time for any given group of people

to prepare their case before appearing before the appeal commission,

and sometimes these permits have been granted without people in the

area even being aware that an application was before them. I think the

minister has my question on that matter, Mr. Chairman.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

While I have the floor, I have one other question dealing with

aquaculture and mariculture — I suppose all over the coast, but

certainly in my riding, where the industry has really taken off. I hope

you don't construe, from the few remarks that I'm going to make, that

I'm opposed to mariculture and aquaculture, because I am not. We have a

bit of a problem here, Mr. Chairman, in that this activity overlaps

into a number of jurisdictions. The Minister of Agriculture and Food is

responsible for the administration of that industry; however, the

Minister of Municipal Affairs has some jurisdiction in terms of local

zoning laws, by-laws that may or may not have been violated in terms of

this industry as well. I did speak briefly under those estimates. The

Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing of course has jurisdiction in that

that ministry is responsible for issuing leases to proposed operations,

and no end of leases over the last two years have been issued in my

riding.

Where this Minister of Environment fits into this whole scheme of

things is with the fisheries management branch. We know that there are

people in the field from Environment, because the fisheries management

branch obviously is responsible for managing fisheries under provincial

jurisdiction, and these people presumably advise the minister, the

various ministries, the government and the lease applicants on certain

aspects of that activity. So what I'm on about here at the moment — and

the only real reason I raise this particular subject this afternoon

while I have a moment — is that I've had complaints from some people

who have applied and received leases to proceed with mariculture

activities — the rearing of fish in the oceans is basically what it's

all about — and the financing of their programs has actually been

stalled by this ministry's people in the field. Whether this

accusation, which was put to me verbally on two occasions, is accurate

or not, I honestly don't know, because there was no way for me to check

at that time. This issue was just brought to my attention quite

recently, as a matter of fact. Perhaps the minister could comment on

the ministry's — and the minister's — involvement in this aspect of

mariculture.

HON. MR. PELTON: I'd like to thank the member for Mackenzie

for his questions. You pretty well have that aquaculture thing taped,

Mr. Member. There are three ministries involved. At one time the

Ministry of Environment was in some respects the lead ministry. But as

it was about to expand, and because of the vast amount of interest

shown, and because the whole industry, whether it be aquaculture or

mariculture, is related to food, the lead ministry became the Ministry

of Agriculture and Food, and that's the way it is today. Of course, the

Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing is involved in the provision of

foreshore leases and all that kind of thing. We're still very much

involved in the licensing aspect. We approve the sites, and we approve

the process that they're going to go through. Basically, because of the

expertise that we have within the Ministry of Environment relative to

fish and their habitat, and so on and so forth, we provide expert

advice to the other two ministries, and review the applications from

the people who want to get into the mariculture and aquaculture

business, to ensure that the pitfalls are all noted, that they're aware

of various things they might encounter, and that they aren't getting

into this thing not really knowing from whence they came or where

they're going.

Applications, I might say, are numerous. The interest shown in this

particular new type of venture.... It's not really new; it's an

old business around the world. But in British Columbia, up until a

short time ago I think, there were only ten people involved; and now

there must be 90 to 100 applications that have come on file. A lot of

people are getting into the business. If there was some specific

question in respect to that that the member wanted to ask, and if I

missed it, if you remind me of what it was, I'll cover that one again.

Just to get on to the first question you asked about pesticides and

herbicides, I'm certainly very well aware, because my critic brings

this subject up on many occasions, of the concerns that people have out

there about the use of pesticides and herbicides. Our involvement as a

ministry, as you know, is in granting the permits. All things being

equal, and if they comply in every respect with all the rules and

regulations – the training they've had for application and all

[ Page 8053 ]

that kind of thing — we would normally be prepared to issue the permit.

There is a process, as was mentioned. It's required that the

issuance of the permit be promulgated in a newspaper — which it is.

Just

recently we decided that there be a 15-day period after promulgation

when the issuance of the permit could be appealed. I didn't feel that

that was really adequate. We haven't got it in place yet, but we've

done all the groundwork, and we're just about to make it a 30-day

period, to give them more time. On top of that, because of the concerns

— and I think they're genuine concerns that people have, even though we

all know that to eradicate the complete use of pesticides would cause

us a problem in providing food and things like that, the concerns are

real, and we understand them — on a number of occasions we have granted

appeals even after the 15-day appeal period was over. I've got a couple

of cases in point. I just happen to have them here today.

One of them involves a Mr. McEachern, who is a Campbell River

resident. He had done his very best to obtain a copy of a pesticide use

permit following the appeal deadline and he missed his opportunity. He

complained to a hearing before the Environmental Appeal Board. The

member from north Vancouver Island had interceded on behalf of this

gentleman and he was informed that the permit would likely be cancelled

and reissued in order to reopen the opportunity for appeal. So I'm not

trying to pat our ministry on the back, but I do think that we have a

very real appreciation for the concerns of people about the use of

pesticides and that we bend over backwards to ensure that they have

every opportunity to make their concerns known to us before a permit is

issued.

There was another similar case that happened when Whonnock

Industries failed to notify local residents of the issuance of a

permit. We did a similar thing for them and we will continue to do that

so that the people's concerns can be adequately addressed and they will

get the best possible hearing. I think the matter of appeals is just

one of the basics of a democracy, that people should have the right to

appeal the decisions of politicians or bureaucrats. In this particular

instance we're doing everything we possible can to ensure that that

happens.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I appreciate the minister's answer,

particularly the fact that the ministry will be moving to allow people

at least 30 days to register their appeal. At 30 days' time, of course,

they have to come up with the appropriate information and research as

well. I might remind the minister that before his tenure as minister

the government did at one point — in fact it was the ministry — help

finance an appellant's research and briefs. I think that is no longer

valid.

I might add just a note here. On a number of occasions I've been

requested to and did appeal particularly to some of the larger

companies, and in fact to the Forest Service, to have certain herbicide

spraying programs set aside. In all fairness I've received fair

cooperation. I didn't win them all; guess none of us does. I won't go

into the specific cases, but there was one major case in the Powell

River area where the Forest Service finally agreed to utilize a manual

release type of operation for alder rather than pesticides in a

watershed, and another major case involving a large private company on

the Sun shine Coast where the company eventually agreed to reduce the

operation significantly and perhaps go into manual release.

Anyway, one last item. In terms of getting back to the mariculture,

you weren't quite clear, as I'm not — and I have to apologize to the

minister. I didn't expect to be getting up at this moment, but I

happened to be in the House and I did leave my material on my desk. But

it's nothing that earth shattering; there are two small items. Well,

one may not be small.

A well-known biologist from the University of British Columbia, a

professor there, tells me that he is deeply concerned about the

possibility of Atlantic salmon being brought into British Columbia for

fish-farming purposes. I think I read in the paper somewhere — I don't

have the material right in front of me — that the people who are

proposing to bring the Atlantic salmon into the Pacific coast for

fish-farming purposes say there is no danger because the fish won't get

away. Well, fish do get away, but that is beside the point. No, it's

not beside the point; the point I'm trying to make is: has the ministry

made absolutely sure no detrimental effects will accrue from whatever

kind of diseases Atlantic salmon have, if they have any? I'm sure they

do, because all fish at some point do. It is introducing a new strain

into the Pacific region. So maybe the minister could give me some

information on that particular situation.

When I was referring to staff under the ministry, the complaint I

had very specifically was this. I'm not sure if it was just because of

lack of staff, but the process for these people who had obtained leases

to proceed with mariculture programs was being held up somewhere within

your ministry, sometimes by field staff, or somewhere in your

department. But it's a valid complaint. The applications to proceed

with their mariculture operations were somehow being held up either by

field staff or some other staff within the ministry. So a lot of

valuable time was lost. They were paying interest on bank loans and

things. They felt that a better and prompter service would be in the

better interest of the industry. I wondered if this was because of lack

of staff or if you knew what the reason was.

[4:15]

Once again, I just want to make absolutely sure. l receive these

complaints only verbally, nothing in writing, no proof or anything like

that, although they said they would write; but I haven't received

anything as yet. This came to my attention very recently.

HON. MR. PELTON: To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Chairman,

there are some delays in the issuance of these permits, but I think the

delays are the exception rather than the rule. The reason for the

delays — the ones that I know of — is in some sense similar to the idea

of the appeals against the permits for other things. In one of them,

the local people, particularly in the immediate vicinity of where the

operation is to take place, have had some concerns. We've been trying

to address these to see if we can't bring the parties together to allay

any concerns that people might have.

Also, because of the interest in aquaculture and mariculture, we

have moved additional people into the particular part of the ministry

that deals with this so that we can deal with people as expeditiously

as possible. I'm pretty positive that there aren't many applications

being held up. None of them are being held up, other than that there's

some particular reason why it can't be dealt with. I don't think it's

volume. Volume might have something to do with it. Specific items have

given rise to concern, and these are the ones that I would suggest are

being held up. But I'll look into that and see what

[ Page 8054 ]

kind of a backlog we have. I'd be pleased to provide you with that information.

The Atlantic salmon eggs: we have had some objections. As a matter

of fact, I think there's been quite a bit in the newspapers about this.

It comes primarily from those people – those fine people, as a matter

of fact – who are really involved with steelhead fishing. The United

Fishermen and Allied Workers' Union has been alarmed over the

importation of new fish diseases that may have serious effects on wild

salmon stocks. Believe me, we're very much aware of that concern and

very concerned about that possibility. My people have assessed the

actual risks, in consultation with the federal people, particularly the

disease experts. As you'll know if you've had goldfish in a bowl at

home for the kids, fish seem to be prone to diseases. It's quite

common, at least in my experience, to wake up in the morning and have

the girls crying because one of the little fish is floating belly up in

the bucket. They are very prone to diseases.

An effective quarantine and disease-screening procedure is in place.

Also, there's strict federal legislation about the importation of these

eggs. Last year I think about 150,000 disease-screened eggs were

imported from a source in Scotland. This year about a million eggs have

been imported from a second disease-free group. The policy has been

completed, always in consultation with the federal Ministry of

Fisheries and Oceans.

I should also mention, Mr. Chairman, for the edification of the

member, that down the road we see an end to this requirement for the

importation of any of these Atlantic salmon eggs. Not too far down the

road a strain will be developed that will.... We'll be able to get

our own eggs right here on the coast.

I was just going to say a couple of other things about the appeal

process. You were talking about helping people to come in and make

their appeal; intervener funding, they call it. Our appeal board in the

ministry is a very large one. It has a permanent chairman, and the

other members are on call. We have members all around the province. To

mitigate the large expenses of moving people around, we try to hold the

appeals as close as possible to the place where the appeal generates

from. That makes it much easier and much less expensive for people from

various areas around the province to come and make their appeal before

the board. They move around considerably. We haven't had too much

criticism or concern expressed about intervener funding, particularly

with respect to these appeals on pesticides, herbicides, water licences

or whatever. That's the method we've used, and I think it's proven

quite effective. We do have an excellent appeal board.

MR. REID: In your estimates, I would like to pursue a couple

of subjects that you and I have had some discussions on, but I would

like it on the record. It is to do with the concern about sewage and

that proposed coal-absorption process that has been bandied around the

province for the last 10 or 12 years. With the research that I have

been able to follow up in the last year, I think it goes without saying

that further interest must be paid to that subject by both the

provincial ministry, your ministry, and the federal people, inasmuch as

it will offer for us as a province not only a breakthrough in secondary

treatment of sewage, but also a possibility and potential of selling a

lot of coal, especially from the Hat Creek source that currently has no

market developed.

In order to pursue the subject further, some strong support for that

process has come to me from Simon Fraser University: Dr. Samia Fadl,

who has been researching this subject for the last 12 years, with some

absolutely phenomenal results. She also has an assistant who has

graduated to the staff of BCIT, namely Joffre Berry, a chemical science

technologist.

As recently as today, Mr. Minister, they are encouraging us and your

ministry to assist first of all from a participatory point of view of a

ministry plus ultimately, if necessary, some financial help towards a

pilot project required at the Iona outfall. The reason why they are

concerned about getting a pilot project at Iona approved is that there

is currently a proposal to spend $72 million for a five-mile outfall

into Georgia strait: the dilution solution, which has been proved

totally unacceptable in the Puget Sound by other communities who have

tried that process. As a result of their failure in the south, our

research people, the professionals in the field, are saying: "Let's not

make the same mistake and spend literally millions of dollars." I'm

sure the proponents of the Iona outfall hope your ministry will put

some money into that. I would hope that we would explore all other

possibilities before we agree to assist in any way an outfall into

Georgia strait that would continue to pollute it with toxic metals.

I am encouraged, by the research that has been done in the province

of British Columbia, that we are on the threshold as a province, and

your ministry could be on the threshold, of a brand-new innovative

project to solve some of the problems of heavy metals and the toxic

wastes that have come out of industrial plants through our normal

sewage plants, secondarily and tertiarily treated and providing us with

cleaner waters.

To back that up, Mr. Minister, as you know I have also been in

contact with the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Mr. Tom

Siddon, because the Iona outfall is in his riding. Mr. Siddon says in a

letter that I received on April 16: "If it is possible to process the

effluent through smaller secondary treatment facilities at a reasonable

cost, I would be most willing to support this proposal."

As does a graduate from UBC in engineering and a strong proponent of

this process, Prof. Coulthard, Mr. Siddon indicates strong support for

at least a pilot project to prove once and for all whether in fact this

province, this ministry, would like to be on the leading edge of

secondary and tertiary sewage treatment around the world. I am

convinced we are at that stage, and I am convinced that the sooner we

can get on with that pilot project.... As you know, we have been

discussing it with the Greater Vancouver Regional District, which along

with the city of Vancouver will have to fund the $72 million for the

outfall. Of course, they're scrapping for their $14 million in the hole

already, the city of Vancouver, and I am sure they are not in the

position of putting out even another $1 million for an outfall, never

mind $52 million.

So, Mr. Minister, because other constituencies in the world have had

total disasters, total failures, with outfalls, I think it's prudent on

our part not to encourage an outfall as a process of our dilution

solution of disposing of heavy metals in the effluent into Georgia

strait. I think whatever your ministry can do to put a pilot project in

place, give it sufficient time — six, seven months; I think that's

sufficient- to prove that it works on a larger proportion of sewage

than the current smaller ones in the province that are in place....

The sooner you can encourage that, I think the better for all

[ Page 8055 ]

sewage outfalls on any ocean outlet in the world. I think we should

start sooner than later to be part of that research, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. PELTON: I must stand and respond in some way to my colleague

and my friend on this subject. I can appreciate his desire to have those words

written into this record, because he and I have had some very serious conversations

about this matter on numerous occasions. Unfortunately, up to now it hasn't

been possible to do anything really constructive in this regard, I guess with

the exception of a study that was undertaken at a little place called Pritchard,

not far from Kamloops, and that was funded through the Ministry of Municipal

Affairs, and on which we have a report that is being looked at at this particular

point in time.

[4:30]

Certainly the Iona outfall problem is understandable. I do know that

even though the Greater Vancouver Regional District have not been as

supportive as they might be of the cool process — or at least to my

knowledge haven't been as supportive as they might be — they have at

least offered the opportunity for some experimentation to take place in

the Iona area. From the ministry's point of view, and to my

disappointment I must say, we don't have funds available to become

involved.

I am prepared to offer my support in any way, shape or form that I

can, and as a matter of fact, I'm in the process, if it hasn't been

done already, of committing that to paper. But we just don't have the

funds to embark on any kind of experimentation program. I really don't

think, from the information that I've been able to gather – and my

information is not nearly as wide as the information that the member

has-that there is any question but that the process will work, and will

work well.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I guess it's a matter of application and a matter of costs that come

into the picture. Certainly I think maybe there is a slight error when

the cost of the outfall is suggested as $72 million, because I think it

is really $47 million, which is still a lot of money. That outfall

would be required, I'm advised by people within the ministry,

regardless of the treatment. Even if it was taken to the ultimate of

tertiary treatment, that would still be required.

What we'd like to achieve — and I don't say this in a derogatory way

about the cool treatment system — and what we'd like to see when it

comes down to heavy metals is that the heavy metals not be allowed to

get into the sewage in the first place. There again we have to deal

with the people who produce all these contaminants that get into sewage

wastes, and if we can eliminate them at source, we're accomplishing a

great deal.

In the meantime, as I say, the member has devoted a great deal of

time to this program. I had the privilege a couple of weeks ago of

meeting an engineer who is a very strong proponent, and I've read

papers from the professor from Simon Fraser. Certainly the hon. member

has filled my ear well and good, and we will continue to do everything

we can to support the member in his ongoing quest to have what could

very likely become a worldwide accepted system put into place.

MR. REID: Mr. Minister, the concern I have is that.... I

know that we've talked at great length about funding any of the

projects which are demonstrative in nature, but in following up some of

the reports that I've been able to read coming out of the Greater

Vancouver Regional District area and the city of Vancouver, I see they

indicate that in order to proceed they're going to need funds from your

ministry in order to bring on the outfall. I just want assurance from

your ministry that before we fund what appears to be a disaster

solution in other areas of North America, this provincial government

won't consider funding outfalls until we look at other potential

solutions for the toxic-waste treatment of waste water.

Addressing one other comment that you made relative to source

control, source control in the greater Vancouver area isn't and never

will be sufficient to control heavy metals, the main component of which

is lead. It comes off every street; every car that drives around gives

off a certain amount of lead, which ends up in rainwater and our

drainage water. It ends up in the system and ends up in Puget Sound.

This process has been proven to remove 95 percent of lead from waste

water. That problem will not go away by treating some of the other

source controls. I agree with that, because that GVRD report said

they'd have to deal with initial impact problems. There's major dumping

by companies that do electroplating. They've got a commodity that they

have to dispose of, so they have to go through impact sources now.

There are slaughterhouses and rendering plants which have a major

impact problem. All those have to be treated separately — I have no

argument with that.

There are 70 million gallons of liquid going through that Iona plant

on a normal day. When they get over 80 million gallons a day, which

happens on some occasions during the winter, whatever goes over that

volume gets around the current system and goes out raw into Georgia

strait – right through the channel out into Georgia strait. So you've

got not only the leads and the toxics that go through the normal system

going out into Georgia strait on a straight pipe, but also all the

other things that are in normal sewage. I disagree with that happening

in my community, which is the lower mainland. I'm a resident of the

lower mainland, and I challenge that.

There is a process which has been proven. Unfortunately, Mr.

Minister, some of the numbers which have been generated through your

ministry — I don't say by your ministry, but through your ministry —

give everybody concern about the process having any viability. They use

numbers such as 18,000 tonnes of coal a day being required. Well, I

have a response here from a professional that says 5,000 to 6,000

tonnes is the total requirement for a process to treat 70 million

gallons, and it's good for 7 1/2 years before you have to re-treat or

dispose of the spent coal. Because of the misinformation provided out

there — and the problems of toxic wastes and heavy metals....

We've got it right over here in Victoria. We don't hear our members

for Victoria talking about it very much, because they've got a straight

pipe out here to the ocean. Fortunately for them the ocean is from here

to China — it's the open sea. Eventually they're going to get wise and

agree to come and talk to me about it, because I'll give them some

information on the subject. They should be talking about treating the

sewage here in Victoria.

MR. BLENCOE: We've been asking you for years.

[ Page 8056 ]

MR. REID: if you've been asking about it, why haven't you

said something about the Iona plant that's going to be putting it five

miles closer to you if they get that outfall? Interjection.

MR. REID: This is running right into your beaches, and I

think you should. Anyway, I haven't heard you say anything about it for

three and half years, and you're supposed to be an environmental

specialist.

I'll tell you, Mr. Minister, that the problem with the process....

Interjection.

MR. REID: He hasn't said a word.

MR. BLENCOE: Is this your maiden speech?

MR. REID: This is my maiden speech.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. REID: Anyway, Mr. Minister, there's not only the problem

of waste water. There's also a corporation in the lower mainland which

wants to deal with the sludge after reduction of the effluent —

bringing it down to a sludge basis, but drying the sludge, taking out

the heavy metals and putting it into fertilizer, or whatever. We have

corporations prepared to become part of a major pilot project that has

potential to be researched and developed and sold around the world —

not only the process, but the coal, of which we've got millions of

tonnes sitting up there in Hat Creek. It has been proven to be the

ideal coal for the process. We need to put a pilot project in place.

It'll treat our problem first, and then everybody else's when they need

it.

Mr. Minister, as you know, I've talked to you at great length on

this before, but I want to be certain that if we're funding anything in

the coming months, we fund the pilot project before we fund any major

outfall components.

MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a few comments to

the minister regarding his very important portfolio. As an MLA and a

representative of Shuswap-Revelstoke since May of 1983, I certainly

recognize the very important role and important job that he has as

Minister of Environment. It's certainly been a lesson for me to see the

multitude of problems, regardless of what ministry or area they might

be in, that must pass over his desk and through his ministry for

resolution. At this time I would like to state the pleasure I've had

working not only with the minister but with his staff, and the service

that I've received, and the 100 percent cooperation that I've received

on any inquiries I've made on behalf of my constituents.

It wouldn't have been that many years ago when the average person

being asked a question as to the basic needs and desires of their life

would have answered: food, shelter and clothing. I would submit to you,

Mr. Chairman, and to the minister, that if those questions were asked

of the average citizen on the streets of British Columbia today, they

would answer: number one, clean water; number two, clean air; number

three, peace. Not only in that order, but certainly those three would

be on top of anybody's priority list on the streets in British Columbia

today.

While I know there's not that much that the minister can do on the

subject of peace, I know that he does have a little bit of influence

with his federal counterparts. Perhaps on occasion we should remind the

world that Canada is very much in favour of peace and we are very much

against certain things that happen in society. We're certainly very

concerned with this nuclear fallout resulting from the situation in

Kiev in Russia today. I know the minister is monitoring that situation

as closely as he possibly can with his federal counterparts. I'm sure

that the minister will be making presentations to the federal

government about our very strong feelings and concerns about that

situation in Russia, and will be calling upon them to see that that

type of situation will never occur in that country again.

It's strange, Mr. Chairman, that we didn't see any marchers or

demonstrations out in the streets, in particular in Vancouver, as a

result of this particular accident. I'm sure had a similar accident

occurred in the United States or in another friendly nation, the

demonstrators would have been out there in the thousands, with the

mayor of Vancouver and the aldermen leading the pack, demonstrating

against this terrible atrocity; but not a word. Mr. Chairman, do we see

as a result of that having occurred in the Soviet Union. Normally, we

would have seen demonstrations as a result of the shooting down of the

Korean airliner, the atrocities in East Germany, the putting down of

the Hungarians, the situation in Afghanistan and the terrible

atrocities with some of the races such as the Jewish nationality in

Russia. But we don't see any demonstrations from that particular group,

although we certainly see them when there are accidents and certain

things happening in the friendly western nations. I find that very

strange.

Getting back to some of the things in my constituency, I would like

to talk about some of the concerns of the constituents of

Shuswap-Revelstoke. The first one has to do with the growing concern

with the houseboat industry on Shuswap Lake. I know that the Minister

of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Ritchie) has authorized a lake

management study coordinated by the Columbia-Shuswap regional district,

and I know that the Minister of Environment will cooperate with the

Minister of Municipal Affairs and other ministries, such as Lands,

Parks and Housing, in giving as much input as they possibly can to

investigating in detail the problems of houseboats and other

environmental concerns for the Shuswap Lake management study.

Houseboating is a growing industry. It has created a lot of jobs in the

province. But I have to advise the minister that along with that there

are certainly a lot of concerns. It's not only the grey water concerns,

Mr. Minister; it's the question of noise and the interference of

privacy from individual lot holders and cabin owners on the lake. I'm

sure that all of the residents in the Shuswap will be looking forward

to the lake management study.

[4:45]

Mr. Chairman, I would also like to express to the minister my

personal satisfaction for the dollars that the Ministry of Environment

has put into the Columbia-Shuswap regional district for the milfoil

control program. Since I've been the MLA in Shuswap-Revelstoke, the

amount of funding for the milfoil control program has been increased

approximately five times. I believe that in the last fiscal year the

minister placed somewhere in the neighbourhood of $145,000 into the

milfoil control program for the Shuswap Lake. The results look very

positive at this time.

[ Page 8057 ]

Mr. Chairman, I read the last letter that the Minister of

Environment sent to the regional district regarding their request for

additional funding, and I was extremely pleased with the quality,

content, tone and feeling of that letter. I thought he did an excellent

job in pointing out to the regional district the fact that a good job

had been done up to now, that he was monitoring the situation very

closely, and that when he examined the results in the fall of 1986, he

would at that time make a consideration to further additional funding.

In the meantime, he has renewed last year's program, which is five

times what it was just three years ago. I think great progress is being

made in that area, and I think the residents are pleased with the work

and the emphasis that the Minister of Environment has put into this

particular control program.

Another subject has to do with the small community of Pritchard. It

has been discussed by myself and the minister on several occasions, and

by myself and members of his staff on several occasions, but once more

I would like to emphasize to the minister that Pritchard is a small

community. There are only about 110 lots. There's no industry on which

they can draw additional funds. A treatment plant for that community is

going to be extremely expensive. It's going to be far beyond the

financial ability of the taxpayers to put in a proper plant. It's no

fault of theirs that they are living in a particular area where,

whatever type of plant is installed — other than a land disposal site —

the effluent will end up in a river that passes several communities

before it reaches the outflow into the Pacific Ocean.

What I'm trying to get across to the minister is that it's a small

community, they have no industry to draw on for taxation, only those

110, 120 lots. I would appeal to the minister to examine this problem

one more time to see if he cannot come up with a better funding formula

than the 25-75 situation. I know that's a problem in many other areas

throughout the province. Perhaps I'm somewhat biased here, Mr.

Chairman, but because of the nature and size of this community, and

because the outflow flows into a river that passes many other

communities which draw water from the Thompson system, perhaps

something could be done to satisfy and resolve this situation in

Pritchard, B.C.

Moving on, Mr. Chairman, I would again like to thank the minister

for his cooperation in the progress of the Salmon Arm sewage treatment

plant. I understand the tenders are being let now for further expansion

and improvement of the plant in Salmon Arm. This money is coming from

the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and the municipality, but I know the

minister has been deeply involved in the planning and authorization of

the improvements. I'm confident that this will further improve the

water quality of the Shuswap system, and in doing that will improve the

water quality of the Thompson system and the Fraser system.

I can also report to the minister that the Chase plant is

operational and everything is going well there. As a result of

cooperation from the Minister of Municipal Affairs and the Minister of

Environment, most of the problems in my constituency are in hand or are

being investigated at this time.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, I had the privilege of driving over the

Coquihalla Highway before its official opening on May 16, 1986, which

is one week from this Friday. I've also read a lot of the material

regarding the Coquihalla Highway — the amount of dollars being spent,

the input from the Ministry of Environment and the planning divisions

of Highways — and I can tell you that we're all going to be very proud

when we travel over that highway in the future weeks, months and years,

because we will see one of the prizes of all highways anywhere in North

America, from the city of Hope to the city of Merritt, and now being

extended on to Kamloops. We will see a four-lane freeway, and

environmental concerns are absolutely second to none.

I can tell you that the creeks and streams have been well looked

after as a result of the efforts of the Ministry of Environment, and I

can tell you that there are many animal underpasses. I'm not sure how

many I counted, but there were certainly several underpasses where

animals can travel east and west, and the creeks and streams looked as

if they were in their natural state, although I know, having read a lot

of the material, that several of them had been relocated. But you would

swear, looking at them, that they were in their original form.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Minister of

Environment and the Minister of Highways (Hon. A. Fraser) for their

sensitivity and their concern for the environment. As I said earlier,

without clean water and clean air, life is not really worth that much.

I can understand all of the frustrations and anxieties that that

minister must experience because of all the pressures coming from a

number of ministries flowing into his. Of course, he has to put his

name on the dotted line on most of the approvals and things that happen

in the province of British Columbia.

So with that I will close and look forward to working with that minister in the coming months and years.

HON. MR. PELTON: Mr. Chairman, I really enjoyed that one.

Interjection.

HON. MR. PELTON: No, sincerely, I must thank my colleague

from Shuswap-Revelstoke for his comments. He covered an awful lot of

area in that relatively short period of time, but let me just add to

what he said about the Coquihalla and the measures that have been taken

to ensure that the wildlife is protected — not only the wildlife, but

the fisheries as well. I must say quite candidly that the whole thing

was really made possible through the cooperation that the Ministry of

Environment received from the Ministry of Transportation and Highways.

They actually put out relatively large sums of money to assist us in

doing the studies that were necessary to determine what the migratory

routes were, for example, of some of the deer and other animals that go

through that area. My understanding is that you can have all of these

underpasses and all the fencing and everything else in the world to

protect these creatures, but they are creatures of habit, and so they

have certain routes that they follow all the time. So if you don't have

the underpasses in the right places, then your chances of really

achieving what you set out to achieve are minimized indeed.

The matter of the Eurasian milfoil in Shuswap Lake — the ministry is

more than pleased to become involved in this, because it has been an

ongoing problem that we've experienced over the last number of years,

particularly in the Okanagan area. So we found no difficulty at all

with getting out there and supporting the program to try to rid Shuswap

Lake of the noxious weed Eurasian milfoil, or at least to keep it under

control.

The Pritchard situation is one of those, I guess, that we face on an

ongoing basis. We want to help as much as we possibly can, but we're

inhibited by the amount of dollars we

[ Page 8058 ]

have to put into the project. Yes, Pritchard is a very small

community — 110 or 115 dwellings, I think — as stated by the member for

Shuswap-Revelstoke. They have a horrendous problem. We did have the

study done, and we've got some recommendations as to how it might be

carried out, but there's the matter of dollars now.

The programs that are presently in place for that particular area

and other similar areas around the province only see a support of 25

percent in the cost. We know full well that the good people who live in

Pritchard certainly couldn't afford to amortize that expense. So we're

having another look at it. My colleague the Minister of Municipal

Affairs (Hon. Mr. Ritchie) is looking at it at this very moment, and I

think we're going to have to come back with some kind of proposition. I

can't say what it will be, but at the moment the only programs we have

in place would see us providing 25 percent of the total cost.

Of course, we certainly have a problem with dumping anything into

the river. As was mentioned, it bypasses a number of other communities,

one of them being Kamloops. If I remember correctly, they put something

like $9 million into ensuring that the effluent that enters the

Thompson from that area is just as clean as possible, almost to the

point where you might require tertiary treatment. If we got to that

point, we'd be into a different ball game, but we haven't quite arrived

at that point yet.

The member made mention of the problem of the nuclear meltdown or

the breakdown they had in Kiev. We have been monitoring it. The

responsibility for monitoring this type of thing rests primarily with

the federal government through the environmental protection service of

the federal Environment ministry. They monitor radioactive fallout at

28 stations across Canada. We have been in touch with them through our

provincial emergency program people to keep a handle on what is

happening. We heard just before coming into the House today that there

was a report on American radio stations that some radioactivity was

being monitored in the jetstream — I don't think it was specifically

mentioned which state it was passing over — at about 30,000 feet. But it

wasn't considered that the levels were all that high or that there was

any real danger to anyone; as a matter of fact, it would just continue

and pass right over the U.S. unless it came into some precipitation

where it was brought to the ground through rainfall.

I can't help but agree wholeheartedly with what the member for

Shuswap-Revelstoke suggests with respect to the lack of information

that has been received on this problem. We are making our feelings

known to the federal Minister of the Environment. I believe something

was brought up today at the first ministers' conference that is being

held in Japan with respect to the lack of informati