1990 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, JUNE 18, 1990

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

10377 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

B.C. Senate vacancy. Mr. Harcourt –– 10377

Government flight logs. Mr. Rose –– 10377

Air ambulance service. Mr. Lovick –– 10377

Environmental Appeal Board appointments. Mr. Cashore –– 10378

Proposed ALRT extension. Mr. Mowat –– 10378

Air ambulance service. Mr. Clark –– 10379

Mr. Lovick

Alleged abuses of medical system. Mr. Perry –– 10379

Ministerial Statement

Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the B.C. Tree Fruit Industry.

Hon. Mr. Dirks –– 10379

Mr. Barlee

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Environment estimates.

(Hon. Mr. Reynolds)

On vote 26: minister's office –– 10380

Mr. Cashore

Mr. Zirnhelt

Mr. Peterson

Hon. Mr. Michael

Mr. Sihota

Mr. Mowat

Mr. Perry

Ms. Cull

The House met at 2:04 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. VEITCH :

Mr. Speaker, in the members' gallery today we have some members of the

board of directors of the Burnaby-Willingdon Social Credit constituency

association, who are conducting today what we hope is an annual meeting

in Victoria. They are president William McCarthy, Elva Williams, Ed

Snider, Mildred Snider, Manzur Jamal, Yasmin Jamal, Terry Hewitt, Joe

Grosso, Evelyn Grosso, Corey Coyle, Steve McGavin, Cliff Murnane,

Virginia Kirkham, Nancy Hawkins and Diane Moore. I would ask the House

to bid them welcome.

MR. LOVICK : Visiting the House

today are two friends: Ms. Carol Swan and Mr. David Nonni. I would ask

the House to please join me in making them welcome.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN : I'd like to ask the House to please welcome Art and Ruth Riedlinger from North Vancouver.

Oral Questions

B.C. SENATE VACANCY

MR. HARCOURT :

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Provincial Secretary. Has the

government decided to give the people of British Columbia an

opportunity to vote in a democratic election to fill the current B.C.

Senate vacancy? Could the Provincial Secretary let us know if there has

been agreement on an election date in the near future — say, a

convenient date like November 17, the date of municipal elections?

HON. MR. DIRKS : I believe the hon. member opposite knows that that's future policy and that I therefore can't talk about it.

MR. HARCOURT :

I asked whether a decision had been made; I didn't ask about future

policy. Has a decision been made by the government about holding a

democratic election? I leave it to you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER :

If the Chair felt the question was out of order, the Chair would have

said so at the time the minister rose. However, it does not preclude

members from answering questions even if they are out of order, as all

members will be witnessing.

HON. MR. DIRKS : Mr. Speaker, I'll take that question on notice.

GOVERNMENT FLIGHT LOGS

MR. ROSE : Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask a question of the Minister

of Government Management Services.

Does

the minister intend to table the documents currently on display in the

Maple Room, so that a reasonable examination can be made in the brief

time given to the examination of these documents?

HON. MRS. GRAN : Mr. Speaker, I'm simply following the established process from the past.

MR. ROSE : It would be interesting if the minister changed it, because it's certainly frustrating as far as information is concerned.

supplementary. Is the minister aware of the ridiculous peep-show going

on in there right now? It's disguised as open government, but it is

physically impossible — and I repeat, physically impossible —

for anyone to study the vouchers. Does she believe this is really

furthering the public's right to know?

HON. MRS. GRAN :

Mr. Speaker, I find that question incredible. I am providing exactly

what was asked for — and more. I was asked to provide the flight

logs, which I have done. I have also provided the passenger manifest.

MR. ROSE :

The minister well knows that with the time allotted and the number of

documents, it's impossible to look at all those and examine them. Will

the minister table them in this House so everybody can see them?

HON. MRS. GRAN :

Again I say: I am following the process established by those before me.

If there is a time problem, I don't have any difficulty in extending it.

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

MR. LOVICK :

I have a question to the same minister, the Minister of Government

Management Services. It's now been widely reported that some 70 percent

of medical evacuation flights undertaken in the last year were made by

private chartered aircraft rather than by the government-owned air

ambulances. Can the Minister confirm for this House that in each and

every one of those instances the air ambulances were not being used as

a political taxi service by members of her cabinet?

HON. MRS. GRAN :

Mr. Speaker, given the prominence that this issue has received over the

last week, my answer is very important, not just to this House but to

the people of British Columbia.

First of all, I want to say

that B.C.'s air ambulance doesn't operate any differently today than it

did in the 1970s, when it was established by the NDP. The mandate of

emergency air services is to save lives. No British Columbian has ever

gone without air ambulance.

I want to remind the opposition

that the dispatchers choose the type of aircraft to suit the emergency.

In 1989-90, air services moved 1,029 patients –– 38 percent of the air

service's total flying in that 12-month period. I also want to say that

my ministry is

[ Page 10378 ]

not

satisfied with just that performance. We're working with emergency

health services to better those hours and to better serve the people of

this province. I could give you thousands of examples of how lives have

been saved and human suffering has been helped by air services. Today,

for example, as we sit in this House, the Challenger is bringing two

critically ill patients from the Peace River area. On Friday, a woman

whose high-risk pregnancy required her to receive immediate treatment

was flown from Prince George to Vancouver.

Mr. Speaker, I

think the facts speak better than any number of newspaper stories for

the value of government air services to the health and welfare of the

people of British Columbia.

MR. SPEAKER : Order,

please. While the answer is very interesting and everyone was attentive

on this particular occasion, I must say that I thought the answer went

beyond the scope of the question and perhaps could be debated at

another time, because time in question period is limited.

MR. LOVICK :

Mr. Speaker, you just used my

preamble for the question. Instead, a

very direct question: can the minister explain why the Ministry of

Health committee cannot get the information on the air ambulance

service that it has requested? If the service is so wonderful, why are

your government and your ministry not cooperating with that committee

in giving them the information?

Interjections.

MR. LOVICK : Did you forget the question?

HON. MRS. GRAN :

I don't believe there's any reason for us to be rude to one another in

this House You asked a question, and I intend to answer it. I have no

knowledge of the comments that come not from your mouth, Mr. Member,

but from a newspaper report. So I'll be happy to take the question on

notice.

MR. LOVICK : A moment ago, in a rather long

answer, the minister told us that the air ambulance service is being

used at about one-third capacity That's what she read into the record.

Can the minister confirm for this House whether this service is still

being used in any way sufficient to justify the expense, or whether she

has decided to conduct a review of the air ambulance service to find

out if it still functions as an air ambulance service? And that means

better than one-third, Madam Minister.

HON. MRS. GRAN :

As a matter of fact, we've been undergoing a review in air services for

the last two months. The report is almost ready and will be going to

cabinet. And yes, we can always do better.

[2:15]

ENVIRONMENTAL APPEAL

BOARD APPOINTMENTS

MR. CASHORE :

A question to the Minister of Environment. Last week the former

chairman of the Environmental Appeal Board appeared before the board as

an industry lobbyist and said he drank herbicides because he had a

moral responsibility to prove they were safe. While hearing an appeal

last February, chairman Ralph Patterson similarly offered to drink the

herbicide Vision. Is it now government policy to select appeal board

members who have a taste for toxins?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

Mr. Speaker, I will advise the member, as he knows, that we have just

made appointments to the Environmental Appeal Board, and neither of

those gentlemen has been reappointed.

MR. CASHORE :

Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. That does not reassure me, in view of

invitations to reporters to eat crabs that glow in the dark. It's a

matter of concern that the environmental safety of British Columbians

depends on government appointees who show such appalling judgment on

matters of personal safety. Will the minister finally agree that an

independent review of the appeal board's operations is urgently

required to restore the legitimacy of this important environmental

agency?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : Mr. Speaker, question

period, if I read the rules correctly, is supposed to be for urgent

questions. As the Speaker knows, my estimates are before the House this

afternoon; we could probably get into a lot more detail. The

Environmental Appeal Board, as I said, has just been appointed. If the

member goes through the list of the present Environmental Appeal Board,

I'd love to know who he would criticize.

PROPOSED ALRT EXTENSION

MR. MOWAT :

My question is to the Minister of Transportation and Highways. I

recently attended a meeting of over 700 Vancouver citizens at Point

Grey Secondary School to discuss the proposed alternative routes for

the new rapid transit link between Vancouver and Richmond. Can the

minister assure this House and the constituents of Vancouver, who have

a very keen concern, that there will be ample opportunity for public

input into the choice of the route and the mode of service that will be

provided in order to meet the new transit needs of the city of

Vancouver?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : We have recently set up committees to deal with

the extension to both Richmond and Burnaby-Coquitlam. In both cases the routes

will be determined after much public consultation. In the case of the Vancouver-to-Richmond

extension, not only will the route be decided by way of public consultation,

the type of service will be decided as well. I would suggest that there will

be more opportunity for public input than we have ever seen

[ Page

10379 ]

on any other project in the lower mainland, and to

such a degree that I would think the general public will probably get

tired of hearing about all of the public information meetings.

But

I think we learned from the early experience. The SkyTrain extension

from Vancouver to New Westminster did not call for sufficient public

input, and on that basis there was great concern expressed. That will

not be the case, and the public will be given a great deal of

opportunity.

I should at this time clarify that in neither

case have we predetermined the routes. In the case of the

Vancouver-to-Richmond extension we have not predetermined the type of

service.

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

MR. CLARK :

A question to the Minister of Government Management Services. A week

ago last Saturday at 4 o'clock, young Tony Bertoia, a six-year-old,

entered Kamloops general hospital. The air ambulance didn't arrive

until 11 o'clock Sunday morning. Could the minister undertake to inform

the House why the air ambulance took such a long time to come to

Kamloops to pick up a seriously ill child for surgery that was

necessary at Children's Hospital?

HON. MRS. GRAN : Yes, I will.

MR. LOVICK :

Again to the same minister. Minutes ago we had an explanation from the

minister about how well the service is performing, and the minister

suggested she would stand by its record. Would she be good enough to

explain to the House why, when these questions were first posed, she

refused to give answers because she was concerned they would be

politically volatile? Does she regret having stated that, or would she

like to explain that comment?

ALLEGED ABUSES OF MEDICAL SYSTEM

MR. PERRY :

A question for the Minister of Finance. Since the House is in such a

jovial mood today, I wondered whether the minister might be more

forthcoming and divulging than he was recently when I asked him this

question. Has he informed the patterns-of-practice committee of the

Ministry of Health of the name of the doctor who saw the patient every

day and billed for that service?

HON. MR. COUVELIER : Questions in question period are supposed to be

urgent and relevant, Mr Speaker. That question seems to indicate the opposition

have run out of gas. The subject matter is neither timely nor relevant to any

of the current issues facing the House. In my judgment, the answers to the question

have been provided during debate on my estimates — the interminable debate on

my estimates — and all of the previous discussions we've held in this House

on that same subject. So the question, in my judgment at least, has already

been answered.

Ministerial Statement

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION OF INQUIRY

INTO B.C. TREE FRUIT INDUSTRY

HON. MR. DIRKS :

As Provincial Secretary, I take pleasure in tabling before this House

the report of the Commission of Inquiry into the British Columbia Tree

Fruit Industry compiled by commissioner Dr. Peter Lusztig.

am pleased to advise the House that as we speak, the Minister of

Agriculture and Fisheries (Hon. Mr. Savage) is already in the interior

preparing to meet with the industry stakeholders and the public to

receive their response to this report. Having received the report of

the tree fruit commissioner and his recommendations, the government

wishes to enter into an immediate dialogue with the industry

stakeholders and the public to hear their responses before any policy

is set. Therefore, between June 21 and 22 we will be holding meetings

in Kelowna, Vernon, Creston, Penticton, Oliver, Salmon Arm and

Chilliwack to give orchardists, processors, marketers and the public

the opportunity to respond to the contents of the report before

government policy is finally set.

I hereby table the report.

MR. SPEAKER : The minister tables a report.

Mr. Clerk.

MR. ROSE :

Usually in our experience, Mr. Speaker, when a minister tables a

report, even on behalf of another minister, he seldom goes into such

detail about what, why and where. I wonder if this really shouldn't be

considered a ministerial statement, not just a tabling statement.

MR. SPEAKER : There was no one standing to respond, and therefore I called the Clerk.

MR. ROSE : No, we are asking about your ruling on the subject.

MR. SPEAKER : I introduced it as a ministerial statement, and therefore if another....

MR. ROSE : Well, I'm sorry, because I didn't hear it, and I apologize for that.

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please. Would the member behind you please take his seat.

the member would listen or check the Blues, at the beginning I said

"Ministerial statements, " and at that point a ministerial

statement.... I was expecting the second member for

Boundary-Similkameen to rise in response. However, since he did not

rise in response, I called for the Clerk to go to the next order of

business. If the second member for Boundary- Similkameen wishes to make

a statement now, it would be in order.

MR. BARLEE : Thanks very much, Mr. Speaker; it's my oversight.

[ Page 10380 ]

This

report is 175 pages, and has just been put in our hands several minutes

ago. It will take some time to look it over. I do appreciate the

Provincial Secretary handing me the report. We'll have our comments on

it later on today.

MR. SPEAKER : Just prior to

calling Committee of Supply, I would advise all members who peruse the

Blues on a regular basis that there has been a change made to them.

Those of you who sit through Committee of Supply and wish to look at

the Blues will notice that the amount of time used in discussing a

particular estimate and in estimates completed is now added to the

Blues so that everyone is privy to those matters.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT

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

MR. CASHORE :

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to say at the outset that I don't think the most

recent report of the Ministry of Environment has been tabled. It's

unfortunate that we don't have that in our hands at the time of

estimates, because it would be helpful to be able to relate to some of

the material in there.

Having read at least part of the

Blues from last Thursday, I just wanted to respond to a couple of

comments that the minister made. In response to a point I had made

about the need for support for people in the line staff of the Ministry

of Environment, given the fact that there was at least a 30 percent

loss in the line staff during the early 1980s and that this has had the

effect of shooting the Ministry of Environment in the foot and

crippling it in terms of its ability to fulfil its role with regard to

investigations, research and simply staying on top of issues, the

minister said that the restraint program must have been okay with the

public, because the government was returned in 1986. Ergo, the public

must have been satisfied with the cutbacks to the Environment ministry.

Not

so, Mr. Minister. The public is very clearly not satisfied with the

cutbacks to the Environment ministry. It wasn't until 1987-89 that we

saw the groundswell of public opinion — granted, after an

election, but nevertheless a very important groundswell of public

opinion —

that has been causing consternation to this government about the

environment. There have been polls indicating that the environment is

the number one issue in Canada and in British Columbia, and polls

indicating that people want to be part of the process of helping to

resolve those problems. I dare say that the minister's statement is not

reflective of the current mood among a public that is increasingly

concerned with sustainability and their children's future. In order for

that to be assured, there is a need for the line ministry to have the

tools required to be able to fulfil its job.

I just wanted

to say that I don't think the point the minister made really carries

water. There has been a failure to support the line ministry. We know

that there are morale problems. We know that the public relations

approach, which seems to be the major thrust, is simply wrong. What is

going on is stressful to staff and no help to the environment.

[2:30]

The minister also spoke about the appalling evidence of the number

of charges under the Waste Management Act and the appalling record in

the collection of fines. The minister was able to come out with some

fairly impressive percentages, saying that there was a 483 percent

increase in the number of charges laid between one year and the next.

That certainly sounds impressive when you stick with the percentage.

But when you go from 18, which is an admitted failure, to 105 in one

year, which is still woefully inadequate, it's not that impressive. We

have to go far beyond that if we are going to be able to send out a

message that the pollution of the environment must stop. Granted, the

process of bringing polluters to court and laying charges and the

investigative work that must be done is not the only game in town when

it comes to putting a stop to pollution.

As I made the

point the other day during the debate on Bill 38, there should be a

very careful look taken at the fees, which range between $9,000 and

$12,000 for permits to pollute the air and water. It's simply

inadequate. We have to take a very careful look at the habit of

slapping $100, $200 and $300 tickets on polluters when some of these

polluters are making hundreds of thousands of dollars a day. There has

to be a whole new approach. Obviously going from 18 to 105 charges in

one year is nothing to brag about.

Again it reflects the point I've been making, which is that this budget — purported to be a 24 percent increase —

really does nothing to enhance the line ministry or to be a vote of

confidence to the people who work within the ministry and provide them

with the support they so need to fulfil their task.

The

minister cited that the fines increased by 35 percent or something like

that. It went from $50,440 to $60,785 during the two years that the

minister compared. When you think of that amount of total fines under

the Waste Management Act in one year, $60,785, by any stretch of the

imagination, is not a deterrent. All you have to do is compare that to

the fines collected from ordinary Joe Citizen for offences under the

Motor Vehicle Act. There we're looking at significant fines which

indeed have a deterrent effect when people are hit by those fines.

What

is happening in this ministry is not a deterrent; the minister knows

that. He is quick to cite that the industry is spending half a billion,

one billion or five billion dollars — depending on the time line

he's talking about — on putting in new pollution and control

equipment. It's true that that's significant. But surely, Mr. Minister,

when fines are

[ Page

10381 ]

being collected as a deterrent, they should not be

seen as a collection that reflects future planning of those mills, but

should reflect the sins of the past. They should reflect the wrong that

has been done to the environment. Therefore it's not just a case of

saying that the industry is now starting to wake up, pay attention and

spend money. Of course, that should be the case. But when people have

committed a wrong, justice says that they should be made to make up for

it.

Part

of our system says that in making up and paying

the price for that wrong, they should be fined appropriately. It is

simply inappropriate that here we have industrial polluters getting

away with murder; yet we have a much more diligent administration of

justice with regard to the ordinary citizen, the ordinary

taxpayer — whether it be a traffic offender, someone who comes

into conflict with the criminal justice system, or whatever —

when those procedures are followed through at least in a way that has

meaning to it. I'm sure the minister will admit that the total fines

collected will have to increase in quantum permutations before the

message goes out that violation of existing law will be dealt with

swiftly and with justice.

This is simply not happening at

the present time, and the reason it isn't happening is because we still

do not have sufficient staff to fulfil the task. That is recognizing,

with appreciation, that there have been special environmental

prosecutors hired. I do recognize that, and I do recognize that some

steps have been taken in the right direction. But the statistics still

show that we are not beginning to show the appropriate amount of

attention to this so that a clear message is sent out. With that, I'll

hear the minister's comments.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : I

thank the hon. member for his comments and wisdom. I would remind him

that he seems to play down the number of charges that are laid. If they

were 1,000,I guess it wouldn't be enough. I would suggest to him, and

I'd like to know whether he agrees, that if we could get those down to

zero, that's when we would be successful — when there's no more pollution taking place.

say that we are understaffed or that our staff are not doing their jobs

when you've got figures that show a 483 percent increase and fines are

up.... I look at the number of people we have in the province —

there are 131 of them in the enforcement staff — and wonder how

many more he would like out there

don't agree with him that our staff has a morale problem. I would

suggest he do as I did: go around from office to off ice and visit

them, as is his right, and say hello. Find out what they're really

thinking Visit the unions in the pulp mills and find out what they're

really thinking.

Again, to make it very plain and very clear for those who might have the habit

of reading Hansard when they have a hard time sleeping at night, we don't

set the fines. The judges do. The other side always seems to want to attack

this side for not making the fines big enough. This government increased the

fines to $3 million and put serious jail terms on them. By how much more does

that member want to increase the fines? As he knows, there are people before

the courts right now who, if convicted and if the judge made the decision, could

be fined the maximum amount.

He has correctly said that we have more people with Crown counsel —

which was very necessary. Obviously when you have the increases in

charges and in successful investigations that we've had, it's because

we have a hard-working staff with good morale and a very good team of

Crown counsel who can proceed through the courts with the cases.

MR. CASHORE :

I would submit, since the ministry did appoint some additional staff to

deal with prosecuting these offences, that there was some improvement.

I expect that's going to continue even with present staff levels. I

think, though, it's an indication that it is a step in the right

direction. That was a small step, and several larger steps need to be

taken in that direction.

I agree with the minister.

Certainly we will have achieved a great accomplishment when the time

comes that we have this almost utopian situation where there are no

fines or charges because everything is functioning perfectly. I'm sure,

however, that the minister does not want to imply that we are anywhere

close to that, given, for instance, the

article that was in the Province on the weekend with regard to the pulp mills. We're a long way from being able to see the light at the end of the tunnel.

the meantime, all we ask is that polluters be treated with the same

appropriateness that a general member of the public is treated. The

proof of the pudding is in the eating. For the general member of the

public and traffic offences.... It's well documented — the

thousands and thousands of people who are arrested and pay their

fines — and it's a deterrent that's concomitant with the earning

power of those people and the degree of damage that they commit.

Having

said that, I'd like to move on to the question of pesticides, just to

make a few points about what seems to me to be real problems in the

administration of pesticide applications within the province, and the

way in which the general public — if we are to be consistent with

one of the principles of the Brundtland report — is really not

able to participate in the open way that is needed.

It's

my understanding that currently there is no provision in the provincial

regulatory process for public consultation before pesticide application

decisions are made. I'd like the minister to comment on that. It means

an application has to be made, and it goes through a certain step

before the public can begin to be involved. Then they have to go

through this process of appealing to the Environmental Appeal Board

after a decision to issue the permit has been made. At that point we're

into an adversarial process. I'd like the minister to reflect on

whether that is the most creative way to be dealing with those

applications at that time.

[ Page 10382 ]

have a real problem in this province of getting bogged down in many

adversarial procedures, or procedures that in the long run, because of

their inadequacy, result in delay. That can also be seen in the

procedures used in examining major projects that are coming before the

province. In that case there's a fear that they might be bogged down in

the courts. It's far better to have a process that brings the public on

board at an early stage and that recognizes that the public can be

enlisted to be part of the solution from the very beginning. That kind

of public trust is what is going to begin to turn around the problems

we're having over so many conflicts with regard to the environment.

Another

thing I would like to raise is the policy of this government of

charging $1 for photocopying each page of material relating to a

pesticide permit. This limits public access to information. The public

should have it readily available to them. It has been a barrier to fair

and effective participation.

Someone who's living on the

banks of a river where there's an application to spray a pesticide,

where an individual is concerned about the effects on the river, on the

surrounding flora and fauna, and on their family.... That may very well

be someone who's eking out an existence — possibly a very good

quality of life-growing their own vegetables and meat, and finding that

they have a very worthwhile existence, but who is certainly not in a

position to start shelling out the money they would have to shell out

if they wanted to get a copy of a 300-page report so that they could go

through it with a view to protecting their own interests.

seems that there are no policies or legislative provisions to reduce

pesticide input into the environment, to promote the development of

ecologically sound pest management strategies such as cultural and

biological practices, or to encourage pesticide use only as a last

resort. The minister probably read in the Times-Colonist

on the weekend about some efforts being made here in the Capital

Regional District with regard to using biological methods of pest

control and introducing predator bugs.

Interjection.

MR. CASHORE : You never read it?

Interjection.

MR. CASHORE : Well, If I can find the article, I'll send you a copy of it.

Mr.

Chairman, the public is not generally provided information on specific

times, dates and places of particular pesticide applications, because

there's no statutory requirement to make such information readily

available. That protection should be entrenched in law, and it isn't.

Such

a provision would assist in minimizing the risk of harm to health, as

people could take precautionary measures such as staying out of an area

during spraying and closing their windows. But quite often people are

not aware of it. I realize steps are taken, but it's applied somewhat

willy-nilly across the province. Therefore, depending on the type of

administration and the workload of the people in a particular area,

some areas will be more well protected than others.

During

pesticide application, a risk exists for the applicators, for public

bystanders and for the environment. Provisions in provincial

legislation require the certification of applicators under certain

circumstances. The fact is that there are circumstances that relate to

farming and urban pesticide users — homeowners — that are not

subject to certification requirements. Surely the minister is reviewing

that, and I'd be interested in his thinking on it.

There

are widespread problems with regard to community groundwater where

there's pesticide contamination. That has been found in the U.S. and

Canada. This province does not have legislation protecting groundwater

from pesticide contamination.

Those are a few concerns

about pesticides, the lack of legislation to protect the public and

some of the issues in that regard. I'd like to hear the minister's

comments.

[2:45]

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to tell the member that Paul Jarman is

working on a new set of regulations. We expect a fair bit of public

input. The draft process for user groups will be ready early this fall.

If the member would like to be part of that process, we can make sure

he gets a copy of the draft so that he can give us all of his comments

and suggestions.

I can also tell him that a while ago I

asked for a review of the $1 charge for photocopying. I don't think it

can be nothing, because we have to make sure that we cover the cost,

and that the office isn't kept busy with one person photocopying for

other people. But we will have a review of that cost to see how it's

working out and to see what kind of hardship, if any, it is on people

who come into the office.

MR. CASHORE : Thank you for

that answer. I appreciate that Mr. Jarman is reviewing the regulations.

As the minister knows, I have called for a complete review of one part

of the process, which is the Environmental Appeal Board and the way it

functions. But I'm glad to hear that the regulations are being reviewed.

would still say to the minister that in the interest of justice,

legitimate members of the public should have this information made

available to them without charge. We're dealing here with people who

really, in many instances, are not in a position to afford this. When

it comes to a matter of health and safety for their families, this

should be made available to them. I am sure there are ways that can be

done.

The public currently does not have access to specific

information on where pesticides are stored. Because pesticide storage

can present a risk of exposure to bystanders, will the minister look

into providing public access to information on storage sites so

[ Page

10383 ]

the public will know where those pesticides are stored?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

I would mention to the member that if he has any comments about the

Environmental Appeal Board, he should talk to Mr. Jarman, who will be

giving me a report at the end of this month as to recommended changes

in the operations of the Environmental Appeal Board; the same with any

of these suggestions he is making to me. I hope he will put them in

writing or have a personal meeting with Mr. Jarman to give him all his

suggestions. We will certainly listen to any suggestions that the

member makes, and they can be part of the report that Mr. Jarman makes

to me when he is finished doing his assessment.

MR. CASHORE :

I take it then that the minister doesn't want to comment on this

question about informing residents of where pesticides are stored in

their area. That was my question, and it will be interesting to discuss

that with Mr. Jarman. But I would appreciate having that on the record.

minimize the risk of harm to public health, I would be interested in

knowing if the government will make it a requirement by law that the

public is made aware of the times, dates and places of particular

pesticide applications. Again, I know the minister will say that Mr.

Jarman is reviewing that, so I am just getting on the record that I

would like the minister's opinion on the record at this point. I think

it's an appropriate question for estimates, and assuming that the

minister's answer is likely to be the same, I'll go on to the next

question.

Given

that pesticides are dangerous chemicals — even though there have

been those in our history who have seen it as their moral

responsibility to drink them — will the government require

certification of others who are not presently certified when making use

of pesticides?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

I am sure the member will appreciate that I have no problems with any

of his suggestions. But rather than interfere with the process, I would

rather let Mr. Jarman, who is talking to user groups, farmers, the

forestry industry and others, bring his report out before we let you

know what the government policy is going to be.

appreciate that you have concerns. I certainly hear some of those

myself as I'm traveling around the province, and you can be assured

that we will come out with policy changes very soon after we receive

the report from Mr. Jarman.

MR. CASHORE : I'd like to

move along to a related topic. We canvassed part of it during question

period with regard to the Environmental Appeal Board. The first thing

is the fact that we have a former chairman of the Environmental Appeal

Board appearing on behalf of a proponent as a lobbyist — a mere six months after Mr. Hillier left the board.

It points up that apparently the government does not have guidelines — that

I would see as guidelines — that reflect natural justice, in that someone who

has been in a significant position that by definition requires impartiality....

I am sure the minister will agree that to have an Environmental Appeal Board,

it must be a fundamental point that the chairman and all the members of that

board uphold a principle of impartiality in the way they approach their task.

Here

it becomes apparent by statements Mr. Hillier made in the press that

his reason for leaving the Appeal Board was that the government was

slow in enacting legislation that he felt was necessary. I can only

assume that he wanted legislation enacted that was less in the interest

of the public than it presently is, putting it in the context of the

statements that Mr. Hillier made on the weekend.

Here we have the situation of Mr. Hillier appearing just a few months after his removal from the board —

whether it was by firing or by resignation is beside the point. Isn't

there some standard in the application of justice, where it comes to

impartial hearings that are in the public interest, that the

chairperson of such a board should be prohibited, at least by

regulation or by guidelines or by standards, from appearing on behalf

of a proponent for a significantly set period of time?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

I guess we probably should have some legislation that prevents the

chairman from drinking toxic substances. But I would say to you that I

can't really comment on the former chairman, because I did not know him

very well; I only met him, I think, once. But I would suggest that the

new chairman, Linda Michaluk, has got the integrity, the experience and

the public awareness.... Her experience in operating an ombudsman

environment show on a local radio station has given her the experience

required to make sure that she operates the Environmental Appeal Board

in a manner that is acceptable to the majority of the people. If you

look at the list of people, without going through every name on the

list.... There is Olga Barrett, who's a well-known environmentalist, an

active member — not of our party. And there are other people

through the list who have got the kind of experience that is needed to

give us the results we want.

As I mentioned, Mr. Jarman

will be presenting me with his recommendations. He's been doing a study

on the Environmental Appeal Board since he took over; he has been

discussing it with groups. As the member knows, I'm a great believer in

public hearing and the public right to know, and I can assure you that

all the recommendations that come forward will go through in that

manner. We've selected a person with Linda Michaluk's experience

because of her knowledge of dealing with the public and making sure

that the public not only is perceived to be heard but is heard.

MR. CASHORE :

Mr. Chairman, I've stated to the minister privately, and I'll now state

publicly, that I compliment him on having moved quickly to make changes

in the Environmental Appeal Board. I think it's very important as a

matter of public process that

[ Page 10384 ]

these

boards not become static and that there should be regular changes. I

appreciate his having moved quickly to do that since becoming minister.

Also,

I would make it apparent for the record that I wrote to the minister

about the issue of gender parity on the board, and I notice, with these

appointments, that the minister has taken a good step in that

direction. We have a way to go, but there is a much better reflection

that moves towards gender parity on the board, and I commend the

minister for it.

But commendable as that is — and I say what I have just said with all sincerity — there

is absolutely no excuse for not having guidelines that protect the

process of natural justice in the application of such a process. Those

guidelines should be in place. I say that as a provincial appointee who

was the senior chairperson of the mental health review panel of this

province for 11 years. It becomes abundantly clear that there need to

be very definite guidelines with regard to how that work should be

conducted. While some of the recent history of the Environmental Appeal

Board is not a reflection on these people as individuals, it

nevertheless is a reflection on the need for there to be guidelines and

controls. We only need to look at stories in the daily news with regard

to elected officials, in all the provinces and in the government of

Canada, to realize how often people who should know better simply don't.

I'm

sure these are all good people, but there should be training for them,

and there should be very clear guidelines, such as the one I mentioned,

that would state that someone having been a member of this board, by

law or at least by a very clear regulation and agreement, should not be

permitted to appear on behalf of a proponent as a lobbyist for a

significantly set period of time. The minister will ask me to come

forward with how long it should be, and again, Mr. Chairman, I know you

will remind the minister that I'm asking the questions, not the

minister. But I would say at least three years, and that's off the top

of my head. I think, though, that if I had the infrastructure of

government, I would be asking my staff to review other jurisdictions

with regard to this, to try to identify other jurisdictions where this

issue has been addressed, with a view to learning from the experience

in those other locations.

I believe my point is still a

very valid one, and that's no reflection on these people. But let's say

this. If those guidelines aren't in place, chances are that these

people, or at least one or two of these people, are going to be causing

embarrassment at some future date. That seems to be the pattern based

on the experience we're having with elected officials in the various

provinces of the country. So it is true that good people do make

mistakes, and when it comes to the public interest, there should be

guidelines on a standard they have to achieve. And if they step outside

that standard, they can be dealt with appropriately.

[3:00]

Having said that, Mr. Chairman, since I've been the

environment critic, I have received a great many criticisms with regard

to the functioning of the Environmental Appeal Board. The Minister of

Environment has heard more of these criticisms than I have, especially

with regard to the Environmental Appeal Board process up at Cache

Creek. And I know that the minister has filed a report stating that

they could find nothing inappropriate in what had happened there. But

the fact is that when the people of a region believe their legitimate

interest has been denied because of lack of access to information,

because of the requirement to fork out $300 to get a copy of a report

that was put in place by the proponent, and because of the way in which

a person or persons on the Environmental Appeal Board panel speak to

them or treat them, and when people feel they are being treated with

disdain when others in the room are not being treated with disdain,

they at least have a right to have that concern expressed.

There's

no way that we can go back and conduct hearings into how a particular

panel was operated, but we have to listen carefully to that feedback.

And we hear that feedback a lot. I am sure it is the hope of this

minister that, given these new personnel, we won't be hearing that kind

of complaint anymore. The guidelines set out very clearly the

importance of the impartiality of that process so that they're

reviewing information that both the proponent and those opposed have

equal opportunity with regard to.... That's when there will be no

longer justice delayed and justice denied.

With regard to

Mr. Hillier, it's bizarre to think of this kind of evidence coming

before an Environmental Appeal Board hearing and him saying he had a

moral responsibility to drink it. It might be of interest to the

minister that he actually violated the federal pesticide control act by

disobeying the instructions on the label. It clearly says on the label

not to drink the product, so he was in violation of a federal act in

conducting his "research" — highly inappropriate.

There's

another issue here. If there isn't a training program in place to train

these people appropriately for their jobs, it shows how these mistakes

can be made, because again it's a rule of natural justice that when

somebody gathers evidence, all interested parties should have

appropriate opportunity to examine the evidence. But if somebody

conducts experimentation in private by drinking pesticides and never

brings that evidence forward as one of the circumstances whereby the

decision was made to allow an application to go ahead, that calls into

question the legality of virtually every review that Mr. Hillier

conducted. It calls this decision into question, because he has

admitted that he made decisions based on evidence that he got by his

own experimentation — evidence that presumably he did not read into the record of the Environmental Appeal Board hearing.

Therefore

he is now saying long after the fact that he made decisions based on

evidence that was not available to those who were involved with him in

the decision-making process. It was not only the other members of the

appeal board who were not presumably privy to that evidence; there were

also those who had reason to want to comment on the validity

[ Page

10385 ]

of that evidence but did not have the opportunity. Again we have a situation of justice denied.

have to put the question to you. Since I have made the point that the

appeals Mr. Hillier conducted with regard to application of pesticides

during the time that he chaired.... Since we now have evidence that has

come before the public through the media that he conducted

experimentation which he saw as a moral responsibility to help him make

up his mind, and since that evidence was presumably outside the aegis

or the scope or the venue of the hearing itself, has the minister

decided to consult with the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith) with

regard to the validity of those decisions?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : No, Mr. Chairman.

MR. ZIRNHELT : I'd like to ask the minister a question about testimony

before Environmental Appeal Board hearings by members of his department.

understand from the limited knowledge I have about Environmental Appeal

Board hearings that there is occasionally an expert from the federal

Department of the Environment to comment on, for example, the impact on

fish. I'm wondering if you can comment on whether your officials have

leave to comment as independent witnesses. Are they called? Do they

have leave to speak their minds and present data as witnesses?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

Yes, they can go to any Environmental Appeal Board meeting, and

obviously they are under oath, so they would obviously be telling the

truth.

MR. CASHORE : Mr. Chairman, in response to my

question about the hearings, the minister has said no to whether he's

decided to take this matter up with the Attorney-General. I would like

to ask the minister to comment on the points that I made, which I

believe I outlined quite carefully, raising the question of the

validity of evidence that only he was privy to and which he has stated

was significant in the process of his making decisions.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

I might suggest to the opposition critic that it might show poor

judgment to do what they did in drinking the toxic chemicals, but I

remember 20 years ago when George Mussallem drank the Fraser River, and

he's still around kicking. I don't think it had anything to do with

their decisions

I would suggest to him that if he looks carefully.... We could talk about the

past. Meech Lake is something in the past. You don't go back and do everything

all over again. We have appointed some very top-quality people. Just look at

the rsums Look at the very top one. It is the top one on the list because

of her initial: Olga Barrett, PhD in biochemistry; research associate in the

department of chemistry, University of British Columbia; co-editor of the Coenzymes

and Cofactors book series; a member of numerous professional associations including

the Canadian Institute of Energy, the Canadian Biochemical Society, the New

York Academy of Sciences and the Air and Waste Management Association. You can

go on and on. The quality of the people that were put forward this time to join

those who remain on the board is really second to none. With the recommendations

that we'll get from Mr. Jarman, of which I'm sure some of the suggestions....

agree with the critic that there should be some guidelines with regard

to where you go when you leave, much like we have for deputy ministers

and others In government, and I hope that he'll make those points to

Mr. Jarman, because he'll be one of many who have made the same points.

MR. CASHORE :

The minister cites Mr. Mussallem. Also he could have cited the very

well-known public servant Gordon Shrunl. He also drank a substance. I

forget what it was, but I remember that it got a lot of publicity at

the time.

That's not the point. The point is that Mr.

Hillier has admitted that he saw it as evidence. He has admitted that,

and there are decisions that have been made. I know the minister wants

us to look to the future; everything he just said about the future is

valid. But we still have to consider the injustice of the past, because

we are also responsible for that. Maybe that helps put into context the

statement we often hear that we have a responsibility to our

grandchildren with regard to the environment that they are going to

inherit and that therefore we have to take responsibility for the

errors that are made in our day and generation.

While there

is a whimsical, humorous side to this story, and I recognize that, it

would appear that in view of the struggles that a great many people in

British Columbia have been involved in — this Mr. Manchester is a case in

point, who is seen by Mr. Hillier as somewhat of an adversary in his

comments — it is obvious now that these people have been denied justice

in that they have not had fair and reasonable access to information

that went into the making of a decision.

MR. ZIRNHELT :

I'd like to ask the minister some questions about the use of pesticides

and whether or not there has been a major review of their use as a

forest management tool. I too have experienced the problem of trying to

find out what the game plan was for a forest region so that we could

anticipate some of the trouble spots that might come up, only to be

told that it's on a permit-by-permit basis, by which time the

prescription has already been made for the treatment of the forest

site. I attempted to find out how much was going to be spent, what the

strategy was and what they expected by way of increased production for

the forests, and so on, fully cognizant of the fact that we have a

major problem with, for example, grizzly bear habitat — because there are

major problems with wildlife habitat in the logging plans. I'm

interested in knowing if you have done what I would call a major review

of the use of pesticides and made your views known to the Ministry of

Forests?

[ Page 10386 ]

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

I can advise the member that we're doing a technical review on the

types of pesticides being used. That should be finished sometime in the

very near future.

MR. ZIRNHELT : My question really

related to whether or not the prescription to spray deciduous or

broad-leaf plants was advisable, considering the broad range of habitat

needs. So my concern is really not so much the technical impact or the

impact of micro-impacts, but the effect on changing the vegetation

regime.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : That's included in the review.

MR. ZIRNHELT :

Leading on from this, as you may be aware, there have been some very

successful alternative methods of treating forested sites. I'll ask the

Minister of Forests this as well, but it does concern your department.

I've

become aware of opposition by your department to using sheep as an

alternative method of treating these herbaceous plants — fireweed and

so on. The reason given is that there's a line on a map, inside which

line is grizzly habitat, and your officials don't have the time to do

the assessment and fine tune that line. So if there are cut-blocks

inside the line, it could be that the Ministry of Forests would like

sheep being used, yet your department is not in a position to fine-tune

the management plan in the area so that the sheep can be used. Would

you care to comment on that?

No? Well I'll ask your

colleague that. But I think it's important to realize that we're going

to need alternative management tools for some of the habitat for trees.

I think that your department should make that a higher priority.

[3:15]

The problem that I relate to is that we're destroying grizzly

habitat, and we're not changing the management practices for

silviculture to adapt to the needs of other wildlife. I'm going to come

back to you on this one by way of a letter if I don't get satisfaction

here, but it seems to me that this is an issue that is very serious and

would solve a lot of problems if it was addressed seriously at a senior

level.

My other question has to do with the problem — I'll

call it a problem — of your department reviewing forest management

plans at the PHSP — the preharvest silvicultural plan — level. It's a

cutting permit level; It's a very small level, and there are a lot of

these. On top of that there's a five-year development plan, and beyond

that there's a TSA plan.

Your habitat biologists are often

spending a good amount of time just dealing with the higher order of

planning — not always successfully — and trying to net down the forest

base or develop strategies that can deal with more integrated resource

management But your officials, I think, are quite beleaguered by the

fact that the forest industry has the jump on them in terms of

proposals. Do you consider your response capability to the preharvest

silvicultural plans to be adequate at that level?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

I'm advised that we receive well in excess of 10,000 of these

referrals a year. At the present time we're working on some guidelines

so that we'll know which ones should be attacked first. On the previous

question, I appreciate the point you're making. I think it's a valid

one, but we don't have the details. I would like from you in writing

exactly what your concerns are. You can be assured they will go down

through the staff, and they will come back to you with some answers.

MR. ZIRNHELT :

Okay. The reason I raised that particular one was because this is also

at the level that they prescribe herbicides as a possible treatment.

It's becoming clear that it is not an acceptable method of treatment in

the eyes of the public.

In the Robson Valley I understand

there are some contractors who have developed a technique that is

cost-effective in dealing with herbaceous competition to seedling trees

that have been planted in the area. What it amounts to is cutting a V

instead of clearing three feet around each little tree. They cut a V

from the base of the tree up; that is about half the volume that has to

be cut, and it can be done twice. There are contractors who are

bidding. This obviates the need for pesticides.

I'm

wondering if your department is actively pursuing some of these

alternative brushing and weeding techniques that are labour-intensive,

more environmentally sound and have more public acceptability? Are you

actively pursuing that and initiating some kind of process to make

these techniques acceptable in the eyes of the Ministry of Forests?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : Yes, it's all part of the review that is going on. He can be assured that we appreciate his input.

Mr.

Chairman, while I am on my feet I would like to introduce Mr. David

Pontin. He's just graduated from Ridley College and will be going to

the University of British Columbia in September. He's the son of our

deputy minister. He is up in the gallery, and I would like the House

would make him welcome.

I thank the member for his question. We'll look forward to his letter.

MR. PETERSON :

It's with great pleasure that I take my place in the debate on the

minister's estimates. If I could, I would like to spend a few moments

talking about the Environmental Youth Corps. The young people who are

involved in the program most certainly deserve full credit for their

commitment in terms of the time and effort they put in to improve the

environment In British Columbia. It's a two-way street. Not only are

they helping to improve the environment by specific projects sponsored

by communities throughout B.C., but at the same time they are being

trained to respond to unfortunate incidents or accidents that threaten

our environment.

[ Page

10387 ]

I'd like to maybe just spend a few moments and focus on a project

that the Environmental Youth Corps was involved in in my constituency

of Langley last fall. It was sponsored by the city of Langley. A group

of the Environmental Youth Corps worked diligently cleaning up the

Nicomekl River. I had the opportunity to take our Minister of

Environment and show him the project when he was visiting the

constituency during Douglas Days when, in fact, the government holds

their cabinet meeting at Fort Langley. On this day — I believe it was

November 19 — the weather was very inclement. The minister, myself and

some local residents went out and observed the work of these dedicated

young people in the province. They were in muck up to their knees, and

they were fishing out debris and collecting garbage and everything.

They did a wonderful job in terms of cleaning up the Nicomekl.

certainly want to compliment them. I want to compliment the minister

for taking the time to join them, because they were very enthusiastic

to see the minister there. It was just tremendous. It was a tremendous

program.

We netted the benefits of the training program,

because lately, as you know, there was an unfortunate incident where we

had an oil spill in the Nicomekl River. In fact, the Environmental

Youth Corps came to our rescue. They knew what to do. They had been

trained, and it was in the very same river they cleaned up last fall. I

want to give them full credit for the tremendous job they've done not

only in my own constituency but also in other constituencies.

HON. MR. MICHAEL :

I'd like to echo the remarks made by the member for Langley. I have

been spending the whole weekend, Mr. Minister of Environment, up in my

constituency doing a tour of some of the travesties as a result of the

extreme flooding As you certainly are aware, we have had tremendous

heavy rainfall in the interior. As a matter of fact, the greatest area

of flood damage in my constituency is certainly in the Mabel Lake area.

There's one stretch there, about a mile long where they've had

about seven, eight or nine slides. It's quite a serious situation. A

number of families have been hurt; Indeed, a few are in very bad shape.

think it shouldn't go without mentioning the tremendous number of

compliments that I received, not only from the people of the Mabel Lake

area but people in Sunnybrae, Chase and the Mara Lake areas. In fact,

there hasn't been one negative word from a single constituent about the

actions of the various ministries who have responded to the problems

that the constituents have endured during this last week or ten days.

Tremendous positive compliments to the Minister of Environment and his

staff, and lots of compliments to other ministries as well.

There is one little story that I picked up on Saturday afternoon when I had

the Solicitor-General (Hon. Mr. Fraser) up in my constituency. We met with the

rapattack crew in Salmon Arm. This is a young group, Mr. Chairman; I'm sure

you're aware of them There are about 40 of them working out of Salmon Arm,

providing emergency assistance to the Ministry of Forests in putting out forest

fires.

They

have helicopters. They're trained. They slide down the rope onto the

fire site. They've got all the equipment necessary. They do an

absolutely fantastic job. Needless to say, there haven't been any fires

in the area during the slide period and rain period, so the ministries

have called upon the rapattack team to go in and assist with

sandbagging and projects like that. And they've responded in spades.

can tell you that that example, along with many others throughout the

constituency, certainly shows the leadership, the teamwork, the spirit

of cooperation that exists with the Minister of Environment and other

ministries in government, and I'd like to compliment the minister.

MR. ZIRNHELT : I thank members from the other side for filling in time. It puts us right on schedule.

have a last question on pesticides for the minister. It deals with the

practice of the Ministry of Forests of putting up what's called the

"Stand-Tending" sign. Most people think they're going to do something

to the stand other than spray it with pesticides.

I want to

raise for his attention the fact that I had a constituent who was quite

ill after riding after cattle through a sprayed area. When you're

riding, you don't always follow roads. So I think that the way people

are notified is totally inadequate. I realize that it's really the

concern of the Ministry of Forests, but the impacts are environmental

and therefore I think it's within the jurisdiction of your department.

There needs to be a vast improvement. Are you aware of the notification

procedures for the spraying of pesticides? And are the people likely to

be affected by it notified in any official way?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned, Mr. Jarman is doing a public review right

now of pesticides. We will make sure that in the new regulations he's

recommending there will be a public review. I would also suggest very

strongly that for the instance you mentioned you write him a letter or

sit down with him and tell him what your thoughts are in those areas,

because he'll take them all into consideration.

MR. ZIRNHELT :

Okay. I'd like to move now to the topic of resource inventories. During

the submissions that your ministry made to the Forest Resources

Commission, you stated that some work needed to be done on inventories;

in particular, I believe, that improved inventory information is needed

for wildlife species other than ungulates, which you have been

concentrating on — namely carnivores, fur-bearers, raptors and non-game

species, including reptiles and amphibians.

I think the

ministry recognizes the need for improved, integrated inventories for

decision-making purposes. I also note that $1.3 million of the

sustainable environment fund is going to implement a variety of

resource management initiatives, including

[ Page 10388 ]

the

increased funding for monitoring and assessing the impact of

development on fish, wildlife and integrated resource inventories. Can

you tell us if these inventories will involve the 18,000 or so lakes

that have not been inventoried yet?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

Mr. Chairman, with regard to resource management initiatives, there's

$5 million in the budget in total. A small amount of that money will be

allocated for the inventory that the member is talking about.

MR. ZIRNHELT : Can you describe in some more detail the inventory work that's going to be done?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

Mr. Chairman, I have not yet received the report from my staff, but

they're working on it. The budget has not even passed yet. But they're

working on it, and I expect to have a report from them. Again, it's not

secret information. When it's available, the member can be fully

briefed.

MR. ZIRNHELT : At the Forest Resources

Commission the ministry also stated that it was initiating

comprehensive state-of-the-environment reporting for B.C. This is

described as something that will give information on a number of

indicators of environmental quality and the resources being expended in

this important area. Can you tell us what the budget for this

state-of-the-environment reporting is, and where it's coming from?

[3:30]

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : That's part of our base budget, and we would expect the report to be ready within about six months.

MR. ZIRNHELT :

I'd like to talk a bit about watershed planning and ask you the extent

of the involvement of your ministry in community watershed plans. I

note that water quality and quantity are becoming increasingly

important to people, especially as logging in the hinterland has forced

logging closer to communities. There are communities where the quality

of water is becoming critical.

Can you tell me how many

community watershed plans have been completed, which these are, and

when more of them will be completed?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : Three of them have been completed: one in the Okanagan and two in the Kootenays.

MR. ZIRNHELT : My other question was: when will the others be completed? I understand there are eight more plans nearing completion.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : Mr. Chairman, I am advised during the year — this year.

MR. ZIRNHELT : Can you be advised as to where they are — the eight?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : Mr. Chairman, I am advised they are mostly all in the Kootenays or the Okanagan.

MR. ZIRNHELT :

There are 300 community watersheds in the province, and the ministry

chose 40 that needed management plans. Can you tell us how the ministry

came to choose those particular 40?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : With the experts in our department.

MR. ZIRNHELT : Would you be prepared to provide us with the criteria used in selection?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

I am more than pleased at any time to have any member of the opposition

sit down with my staff to review how they come to their decisions.

MR. ZIRNHELT :

I'd like to address this question to the minister. If an individual or

a community had an interest in a watershed or if there was heavy

recreational use on the shore of a lake, and an individual or community

wanted to stop the logging until there was a plan in place, how would

they go about that?

I can give you a number of examples

that I am intimately familiar with, but I think the general question

stands: what is the process involved?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

I would imagine they would probably write me — as some have done — or

come to see me, and we would sit down with forestry and review the

program. Quite often in some of these cases we do come to a solution.

MR. ZIRNHELT :

On a related subject: watershed management. It appears that the only

place where the Ministry of Forests undertakes an integrated watershed

management plan is where there are licensed municipal users or water

licence holders. But as we know, watershed is much more broadly defined

than that. Does your department have a set of regulations — or intend

to develop a set of regulations — that deal with integrated watershed

management planning?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : We do have a set of guidelines.

MR. ZIRNHELT : Are the guidelines followed with respect to the development of forest management plans?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : The guidelines set the prescription for the forestry companies.

MR. ZIRNHELT :

The next area I'd like to explore with the minister is the base flow

needed for fish habitat. I am aware that in the Kamloops area, where

waterways are fully licensed under the Water Act and in dry periods

don't leave any significant amount of

[ Page

10389 ]

base flow, it has been necessary for your department to take out

licences for the fish. But they're on a lower priority than the other

resource — the irrigation water users, for example. Does this generally

point to the fact that we have a general problem that fish habitat is

not protected under the Water Act or under any other piece of

legislation?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : It's not adequately protected, and that's why we're reviewing it and coming out with some new programs.

MR. CASHORE :

I'd like to get on to some questions with regard to the staff of the

Ministry of Environment with regard to forest plan approvals on private

land. We understand from the submission made by your ministry to the

Forest Resources Commission that staffing levels decreased in the order

of 30 percent in the government restraint program of the mid-1980s.

Recently staffing levels have some increases, but the result is a net

decrease of approximately 20 percent over the last decade. We have to

recognize in that context that the annual volume of timber cut from the

Crown lands of British Columbia has increased from approximately 37

million cubic metres in 1970 to some 73 million cubic metres in 1988.

HON. MR. MICHAEL : That's sustainable.

MR. CASHORE :

Well, it may be sustainable, but we don't know that, Mr. Member. We

don't know that if we don't have it in the context of appropriate

logging practices or in the context of an appropriate inventory that

includes all values: wildlife values, values of bio-diversity, values

with regard to fibre, but also values that relate to the fishery and to

tourism and archaeology. There are a number of values that have to be

addressed. I'm sure the minister is aware of that. In that context,

it's all very well for this minister to stand up and glibly say that

it's sustainable, but I don't think he's able to define sustainability

in the context of the urgent and pressing inventory issues that need to

be addressed, in saying in what context one would define

sustainability. It's all very well for this member to make these glib

statements, but I don't hear the Minister of Environment making glib

statements about this, Mr Chairman. Obviously he's trying to get a

handle on these issues, and I don't think this minister's comments are

that helpful.

The point is that staff has declined. There's been a net decline in the

context of a phenomenal increase. Concurrent with this increase, there has been

interest in other forest resources that have increased. Accordingly, the minister

has recognized the need for additional staff in the area and has prepared an

issue paper to cabinet requesting staff and funds for integrated resource management.

The cabinet has recently approved $5 million from a sustainable environment

fund for integrated resource management programs in the ministry. Where insufficient

ministry staff are available, it has been the experience that approvals have

gone ahead without sufficient input by the Ministry of Environment; that, again,

is to paraphrase from the Forest Resources Commission. The ministry has recognized

this as a priority issue for allocation of new budget and full-time employee

resources in the fiscal year.

its submission to the Forest Resources Commission, your ministry said

that timber harvesting on Crown land had increased 97 percent between

1970 and 1988, given those figures that I stated a while ago, which has

meant that the ministry processed about 8,000 forest management

referrals annually. This year volume of work is one reason there are

problems with assessing each permit. This information implies that the

Ministry of Environment does not do the assessment of the environmental

impacts of timber harvesting on private lands as one of its

responsibilities. Is that correct?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

All I can say is that there's no question that the percentages of staff

are less than they were. If you want to be realistic, you look at the

fact that this government in 1983 had about 47,000 civil servants.

Through the restraint program to date we have about 23,000 civil

servants. This government believes in privatization. It believes in

having a civil service that works hard for the people of British

Columbia, and I am very proud of the quality. I mean, look around me at

the quality of this staff. We only had, over that whole period of time,

about a 20 percent reduction from the staff we had in this department

in '83. In essence, we're way ahead of most of the other ministries,

and that shows our commitment to the environment.

MR. CASHORE :

Mr. Chairman, I would appreciate it if the minister could become a

little more focused on the questions that are being asked. We've had

this ideological discussion about privatization and the restraint

program and everything, and it is on the record that the Ministry of

Environment was cut back 30 percent. The question is in the context of

the increased volume of harvesting that is being done, the increased

volume of applications that are being made. I have to ask: if timber

harvesting plans are not adequately assessed, do they go ahead anyway?

The

fact is that the evidence given by the ministry at the Forest Resources

Commission was: "Where insufficient ministry staff were available, it

has been the experience that approvals have gone ahead without

sufficient input by the Ministry of Environment." That, Mr. Minister,

is stated by a member of your staff. It goes on to say: "The ministry

has recognized this as a priority issue for allocation of new budget

and FTE resources in this fiscal year." But the categorical statement

is made by a member of Environment ministry staff that where

insufficient ministry staff were available, it has been the experience

that. approvals have gone ahead without sufficient input by the

Ministry of Environment.

Realizing that there are some

plans to improve the workload situation at least in some way — although

it still isn't very clear how — there still seems to be a

[ Page 10390 ]

standard

stated here that approvals simply go ahead when there isn't sufficient

time for input from the ministry staff. What do you say to that? That

means that there's a voluminous amount of forestry applications going

ahead with a rubber stamp, simply a perfunctory passing of it across

the desk, a paper chase, a paper shuffle and a rubber stamp without

anybody ever having looked at it to see if the application is

appropriate. Mr. Minister, that's unconscionable, but evidence came

before the Forest Resources Commission that that is in fact the case.

[3:45]

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

I would say to the critic on the other side that it just shows how

honest and open this government is that my officials would go to that

meeting and tell them what some of our problems are.

As he

knows, the coastal fish and forestry guidelines have been out just

about a year. We are working on interior fish and forestry guidelines

that should be out within the year. Nobody has said the system is

perfect, but we are working at it, and I am hoping that over a period

of time we will get it to where we would all like to see it.

MR. CASHORE :

But you see that the crisis we're having in this province with regard

to the management of resources is reflected right there. The fox is in

the chicken coop, and nobody's doing anything about it. It's a waste of

money to even pretend that this is being looked after when these

approvals are being issued without any review whatsoever.

Many

of the ministry's direct or indirect activities with regard to what

occurs on private land.... It's because it is recognized that these

activities can have a very definite impact on surrounding land, water

and animal resources. When we think of the effects on aquifers, on fish

habitat and on the ungulates, it's a wide-reaching issue. Does the

minister not feel that the same is true of the potential effects of

logging on private land, particularly with regard to the effect on

watersheds, animal habitat and soil quality? These are environmental

concerns that the Ministry of Environment is mandated to address. It's

all very well to say that sometime in the great beyond things are going

to be better, but what about the importance? We're not just talking

about trees on stumps We're not just talking about wood-fibre here.

We're talking about integrated resource management.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

I told the member what we're doing. Maybe he'd like to see it done a

lot quicker, but we're working as quickly as we can. The staff are

working as hard as they can. And I'm sure he's aware that logging on

private lands is an issue that comes under the Minister of Forests.

This whole debate is touching on a lot of things that are basically his

responsibility. We may have concerns and share in part of his process,

but in legal terms they come under his mandate. I'm sure you'll all be

quite anxious for his estimates to come up. I'm sure the member knows

that logging on private land is before the government right now for

consideration.

MR. ZIRNHELT : I take it from your

answer and from the estimates that there's going to be one wildlife

habitat biologist added to the staff of the ministry. Is that correct?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

There are 20 new staff in integrated resource management. I haven't got

the final report from staff yet as to exactly where they're all going

to be placed.

MR. ZIRNHELT : I'd like to raise some

questions about wildlife management generally. During the debate on the

sustainable environment fund, I started to deal with the problem of how

you integrate when there isn't a level-playing field between

ministries. I noted that your brief to the Forest Resources Commission

stated that the fish and wildlife branch has a responsibility for:

"...protecting and conserving wildlife species as well as regulating

the consumptive recreational use of wildlife resources in the province.

Though the ministry is responsible for managing the province's wildlife

resources, the habitat base on which the resource depends is primarily

under the control of other government ministries, except for areas

designated as wildlife management or critical wildlife areas."

This

is beginning to point to the problem we have — legal niceties aside.

The ministry has designated wildlife management areas to place land

important to fish and wildlife under the management of the Ministry of

Environment. These wildlife management areas are managed to protect

endangered or threatened species and to facilitate the management of

more abundant fish and wildlife populations. They include areas

critical for spawning, rearing, calving, denning, overwintering and

other important life cycle phases. Existing wildlife management areas

are site specific and have not been used to conserve larger scale

habitats. We understand that there are maybe ten wildlife management

areas, and they generally tend to be small.

The ministry

also supports the development of a comprehensive strategy to address

the preservation of critical habitats and the issue of biological

diversity, since the maintenance of biological diversity should be a

primary objective of young forests as well as old-growth stands.

The

interior wildlife fish and forestry guidelines are currently being

developed, as you mentioned a little earlier. In the ministry's

submission to the commission, it was stated that other government

ministries have primary control over wildlife areas. The submission

also noted that one of the few exceptions to this rule lay in the

Ministry of Environment's ability to designate wildlife management

areas or critical wildlife areas. These are designated on a

site-specific basis but are not used to preserve larger habitat areas.

My question is: what tools does the ministry have to use to protect

larger wildlife habitat areas?

[ Page

10391 ]

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : Obviously we're part of the process, part

of the influence within government in making those decisions. I would

also suggest that if the member has any other suggestions as to how

that might be done, he might appear before the Forest Resources

Commission.

HON. MR. MICHAEL : In traveling my

constituency by helicopter on the weekend, I noticed that Mara Lake is

in the worst shape for debris on water that I think I have ever

witnessed anywhere in British Columbia. The minister is certainly aware

of the severe flooding there. All of the area that is flooded has

drained into Mara Lake. If you flew over Mara Lake now in a plane or a

helicopter, you could look down and see literally thousands and

thousands of logs, stumps and items of debris in that lake.

would just like to put forward a request to the minister: would he be

kind enough to perhaps have his staff review what might be done about

that? I know it would certainly be possible to sweep that lake. I know

that there are tugs available. I'm sure that boom logs would be made

available by the forest products company in Canoe. For about $5,000 or

$10,000 you could go into that lake now, before the water starts to

recede, sweep it, corral all of that debris into a corner and have it

disposed of properly, perhaps sometime this fall.

It's

quite a serious matter, and I would appeal to the minister to please

have a look at it, because both Mara and the Shuswap.... I know the

minister is well aware of that part of the province. It's a big tourism

area. There are a lot of houseboats and watercraft. It's a great

holiday resort for the province. It would be very important to get that

debris out of the way so that we don't have accidents and create

hazards for the marine traffic.

Just before I sit down, I

couldn't help hearing the remark made by the member for

Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Cashore) about the fox being in the

chicken coop. The last time we ever let any fox into any chicken coop

in this province was back in 1972 to '75; 1 hope we don't see that ever

happen again, because things have not changed too much among the

socialists. One only has to spend a short time looking at the disasters

in Manitoba, which had two terms of socialism. They ended up with the

highest taxes and the worst Crown corporation debt of any province in

Canada, a real boondoggle in their hydro, development, where they sold

to the Americans for something in the neighbourhood of half the price

that we're getting for our hydro here in British Columbia. It has the

poorest rating of any province in Canada with a small business

community.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Sorry, I must interrupt you.

HON. MR. MICHAEL : I do hope that we don't have any fox in any chicken coop here in the province of British Columbia ever again.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Vote 26, hon. members.

MR. CASHORE :

Mr. Chairman, I was going to respond to that member's remarks, but then

you ruled him out of order. I can just say, though, that his comments

purported to relate to comments that I had made, and he was talking

about such things as the economics and making a rather weak doctrinal

argument.

But the fact is, we're in the Environment

estimates, and the environment is our children's future. Therefore

money has to be spent frugally and appropriately. However, the

resources have to be in environment as a very high priority so that we

do not continue this process of spoiling our nest, whether it be in

activities that destroy the livelihood of those who fish crabs and

shrimp, or whether it's the destruction of a lifestyle of those native

people who eat fish that are downstream of mills where there are found

to be dioxins in the fish that they eat and where they have to have

warnings from the Health ministry not to eat too much of it. It goes on

and on.

When this member stands up and makes that

ridiculous statement.... He somehow believes the old thinking that the

world is your oyster and you can just go out there and do whatever you

want with it; it doesn't matter. To do it any other way, according to

this member's thinking, is wrong thinking. I leave him to think the way

he wants to think, because obviously the way he's going about it is

ominous in terms of our children's future.

MR. ZIRNHELT :

I think we have a problem if we expect the Forest Resources Commission

to solve all the problems. It may come up with some solutions; it may

not. In the meantime, I think we have to understand why we're in some

of these binds. It's because there's no legislation to protect habitat,

for example — no habitat protection legislation that would save us from

getting into some of these binds that we're in, where we find one

resource user running over top of other resource users and there's no

integration.

A question to the minister. Are you

considering bringing in habitat protection legislation of a

comprehensive nature that would protect more than just critical

habitat? I mention that because islands of critical habitat for certain

parts of the life cycle or the year are not going to protect the

wildlife. They need to be able to get from island to island and not

have a sea of inappropriate habitat between these critical areas.

So the question stands: is the ministry considering enforcing broad habitat protection in law?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

Yes, the forestry commission can't be expected to do everything, but it

is there and should be approached with his ideas. We also have funded

the Round Table, as he knows, and the Round Table has people from all

walks of life on it and can be used as a disputes mechanism base to

solve some of our problems.

As the member knows, we will be

coming out with a report called "Environment 2001, " which will have a

major public process in it. We will be reviewing our

[ Page 10392 ]

environmental

legislation from top to bottom. The review will be done by Mr. Tanner

Elton, who is the deputy minister of the government of Manitoba; he

will be coming here. Before you say "Why somebody from Manitoba?" he is

a British Columbian, knows the province very well and has experience in

the system and how it works. He will be going through the public

process on the 2001 paper right around the province and seeking input.

[4:00]

MR. ZIRNHELT :

So we wait for commissions to respond before we take initiatives to

protect critical habitat and generally wide-based habitat needs. I

think there's going to be too much too fast if we wait and wait. It

seems to me that we're just putting it off.

Again, in the

submission that the Ministry of Environment made to the commission, you

stated that the ministry also supports the development of a

comprehensive strategy to address preservation of critical habitat and

the issue of biological diversity, since the maintenance of biological

diversity should be a primary objective. Are you developing a strategy?

When do you expect it to be available and codified in law?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

The same answer: we've said we're bringing out "Vision 2001, " and to

intimate that we're standing still in the meantime is not accurate.

would say to the member that you can't have it both ways. If I was

standing here today bringing in legislation.... I only have to go back

to the last two pieces that were passed. You all complained about there

being no public process and not enough time. Now we're saying we're

having a public process to discuss these matters, and it's not good

enough: "Bring in the legislation." You can't have it both ways.

I've

been taking some very quick steps in certain things, but I think this

is an issue — as that member knows very well in his part of the world — where there is great public discussion needed. There are differences

of opinion in different regions of the province. It needed a person to

handle the public process who's got the ability to do that and to come

back to this ministry with recommendations as to exactly what we should

be doing.

MR. ZIRNHELT : Could the minister confirm

that the Ministry of Environment has no greater standing than any

member of the public when management working plans for TFLs are

developed — that is, they are asked to review and comment on the plans

after they're developed by the licensee?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : The answer is no.

MR. ZIRNHELT :

Would he like to elaborate a bit on that? I have a bit of difficulty

understanding such simple answers. We need to get into some dialogue on

this in order to find out what's going on in your ministry and what

you're going to be spending your money on.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : Mr. Chairman, the process is within government, where we have integrated resource management.

MR. ZIRNHELT :

What do you integrate? What departments do you integrate, and how do

you do it? That is the frustration. You have primary land use

decisions; 85 percent of the province has timber as a primary land use.

That drives the process.

There isn't an integration

process. What we're trying to find out about a bit more is what steps

you are presently taking to do this. On the one hand, you're waiting

for the commissions to make some recommendations; but in the meantime

you're going ahead with some initiatives. You're creating a new branch,

for example. What is it going to do? How are you going to integrate the

decision-making? To me, integration sounds like the putting together of

equals. My line of questioning has to do with what you are doing to

restore the importance of habitat and resources other than timber.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

Mr. Chairman, we are going to have workshops for the staff, if the

member wants to know how we will do it. We're bringing in Dr. John

Naysmith, who is world-famous in this field, to work with our staff to

make sure that we do the best job we can in the integrated resource

management field.

MR. ZIRNHELT : I appreciate the

steps that you're taking, but I'd like to illustrate the ongoing

structural problem we have. Very recently, for example, on TFL No. 44

on the Island, when MacMillan Bloedel came forth with its plan for the

Carmanah Valley — which is a pretty high-profile management plan, I

must say — the ministry confidently presented their plan to the

Ministry of Forests. That management plan did not include detailed

ecological classification of a large portion of the valley. There was

no floodplain mapping, and it had wildlife data that was based on

13-year-old surveys.

We find it amazing to see that happen

in 1990. Basically that plan was developed without the involvement of

your ministry. I wonder if you consider that process to be adequate.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

Mr. Chairman, the member may not feel that it's adequate, but to say

that there was no consultation whatsoever is not accurate.

MR. ZIRNHELT : My question was: do you consider it to be adequate consultation?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

Mr. Chairman, I never consider anything we do to be totally adequate. I

think there's always something we could do better, and we strive to do

that every day of our lives.

[ Page

10393 ]

MR. ZIRNHELT : The next area I'd like to pursue has to do with

the planning of pulpwood-harvesting areas. We've had discussion on this

in the past.

Recently the government made plans to proceed

with several pulpwood licences, which amounts to allocating large

amounts of timber and a large land base which, to this point, hadn't

fallen into the land base under timber management. During the hearings

on pulpwood licence No. 19, it became obvious that the definition of

timber for the timber supply process was the same as pulpwood timber;

some mills were sawing pulpwood timber. So it became very confused, and

the ministry persists in not planning for pulpwood stands, which are

areas that your department had assumed up to this point were available

for habitat protection for a number of the species under your

jurisdiction.

I'd like the minister to confirm the Ministry

of Environment's role in the whole pulpwood agreement process, and

confirm whether that's just one of reviewing the plans submitted by the

department, or whether there's a real role in putting forth your plans

at the same time the pulpwood-harvesting advocates put forth their

plans.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : Again, integrated resource management works here, and we have put money into this area for inventory.

MR. ZIRNHELT :

Well, I think money for inventory.... In the meantime there are

decisions being made, and there is some inventory, some knowledge out

there. In the absence of detailed inventory information, is there a

process where your department assembles those various licensed and

unlicensed users and rolls them into the process to take advantage of

the knowledge they might have or to consult them on the management

plans they might have for the resources that they need to carry on

their business? I think about guides, outfitters, trappers, or whoever

uses the resources. There appears to be no integration with the normal

timber-supply planning. Can you elaborate a little more on just what

your ministry does to evaluate pulpwood agreements?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

We talk to forestry; we talk to guides; we talk to people involved in

the area. There's a full consultation process. As the member knows full

well, when they're set aside they're set for inventory and may never be

touched.

MR. ZIRNHELT : I think "may" is risky. I think it's a long

way down the line, and we've relied on the assessment of five-year plans

and cutting-permit applications rather than looking at a general overall plan.

I — and I think most other resource users — would consider that there's been

inadequate planning in the past. We want to be reassured that your ministry

is right up there on an equal basis with the Ministry of Forests when it comes

to the decisions to make pulpwood agreements available. Can you assure the public

of the province that your ministry is there, and that your technicians and professionals

have an equal say with respect to the decision to make a pulpwood agreement

available?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : I can assure the member that we do have a say.

MR. ZIRNHELT :

Is it an equal say, or is it as the Ministry of Forests commented

during the hearings before the commission — that they are the

pre-eminent resource manager?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : It's obvious; that's the legislation. But we certainly have a say.

MR. SIHOTA :

That may be the legislation, and that may be the attitude in terms of

what the ministry would like to see, but the practice, the result over

time, is that everything the chief forester said at those hearings

would seem to be the case: it really is the primary function of the

Ministry of Forests, and they are the big player on the table. You guys

in the Ministry of Environment have been sitting on the back seat;

you've been taking a secondary role with respect to this kind of stuff.

The impression one is left with is that what your ministry has to say

in the concerns that your ministry raises are peripheral considerations

in the overall plan.

It's nice of you to say yes, things

are put this way in legislation, and that may well be. But has it not

been the policy of government over the years to basically say that what

the Ministry of Forests says will be the rule, and to heck with what

the Ministry of Environment says? That seems to be the conclusion that

one arrives at when looking at all the outcomes.

Consequently

I think the member from Cariboo is quite correct in raising the issue

in the fashion he has, because it seems to me that your ministry is a

rather puny player in the overall game. Give us examples, if you can,

of where the contrary has been the case. Can you provide us with

evidence in this House that would support your contention that your

ministry carries some significant weight at least equal to that of the

Ministry of Forests?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : It's nice to see the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew now become an expert on forestry and pulp mills.

says that we're a puny player. He's absolutely wrong, and it's a puny

statement. Let me just tell the member, just to be accurate here....

We've been having some very good discussions and have not got into

yelling and screaming — until that member comes into the House, which

is not unusual.

All decisions made come to the Cabinet

Committee on Sustainable Development, and as the member knows, I'm the

co-chairman of that committee. I don't know how much more power you

expect me to have. It was never that way before. So I have the clout

and the power. I think the member would have seen that if he had been

here through all of the bills we passed on the sustainable environment

fund. Everything is funneled through that committee, and I'm

co-chairman of it. I don't know how much more he wants.

[ Page 10394 ]

MR. ZIRNHELT :

The problem is that we have some 200 — to pick a figure; it's close to

that — documented resource use conflicts that are serious. I don't see

how you're going to resolve those if they have to come to the cabinet

table every time. That's the point we're looking at. If the major

decisions were truly integrated and were provided for all land and

resource uses at the regional level, then you wouldn't have to deal

with them on a crisis basis.

So as I read the mission

principles and priorities of your ministry management plan, I see you

have an agenda for 1989-90 and 1990-91. Under "Sustainable Development"

you say: "Establish formal integrated resource planning mechanisms at

the provincial and regional levels." Can you tell us what you're doing

in this respect?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : Mr. Chairman, we

just got the $5 million and the 20 staff. We're working at it very

hard. I would suggest to him that in his own area — the Quesnel TSA —

with our request and proposal, we reduced the annual allowable cut

there by 20 percent to protect the environment. That's something we

recommended, and it was accepted by forestry and the companies.

MR. ZIRNHELT :

You reduced the cut from an inflated cut that was set to deal with the

beetle kill. There's a net increase in the allowable annual cut. There

has been an increase in the amount of land base put into

timber-harvesting in the area. I'm familiar with the Quesnel TSA plan.

Can you confirm that there has actually been a net decrease of the cut

due to wildlife exclusions in that area?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : No.

MR. ZIRNHELT : We're really trying to help you, Mr. Minister. We're just trying to....

Interjection.

MR. ZIRNHELT : We are helping, and I think you'll recognize that.

What

I was saying has to do with integrated resource planning mechanisms — not

staffing. You don't wait until a quarter of the way through the fiscal

year to develop a plan. You know there's a reasonable expectation that

you're going to get the money — or enough money. Even with existing

resources, you could do more if there was a mechanism in place. So can

you elaborate on some of these formal integrated resource planning

mechanisms?

[4:15]

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

As I explained to the member, I don't think he will ever have the

opportunity, but if you ever have to deal with a Finance minister, you

don't take for granted what you're going to be doing next year until

you see the budget I'm still waiting for the total plan from our staff.

When it's available, it's available to that member to sit with our

staff and make suggestions. He can do that beforehand if he wishes to.

MR. ZIRNHELT :

I notice in the same document that under "Environmental Management" —

and I'm not sure that's the same as integrated resource management, but

I take it to be because of some of the things in there; it's pretty

close-one of the items there says: "Fish and Wildlife Habitat

Enhancement." Then there are a number of other specifics: the

acquisition of land and so on. I don't see habitat management in there,

and by that I mean global, overall management of the total resource

base. Can you tell me if it is specifically excluded? Where, as an

activity, do you take this comprehensive, large picture of habitat

management that I was talking about?

I see a lot of

piecemeal activities, and I understand that they're necessary. Some of

them, like aquatic weed control, are specific program areas, but the

document doesn't seem to include that. Do you expect that to be part of

your plan?

It's one thing to say it's all going to be in

the plan, and we'll never get to debate it in this House. We are

debating the estimates, which are basically the resources put to these,

so we're going to press to find out where in your ministry's plans or

in the budget specifically you are providing for this mechanism for

comprehensive habitat management.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : That is in the base budget.

MR. MOWAT :

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to join in this debate. First of all, I want to

commend the minister and his staff for the leadership they've shown in

the environmental initiatives in our province. We have many new and

exciting programs. I just want to take a few moments to say that I'm

sitting here in the debate, and I want to look at some of the positive

things that the ministry has done under this minister's leadership. I'd

like to discuss them in point form, Mr. Chairman, and then maybe the

minister would like to enlarge on some of them for the constituents in

the greater Vancouver area.

I think that the initiatives

taken by this ministry on environmental concerns in greater Vancouver

are really to be acknowledged with a great deal of thanks from the

citizens, but with a bit of attention to the many programs that are

con-ting down from the drawing-boards and are to be put into place.

I'd

like to commend the minister on the Hazardous Waste Management

Corporation, which will implement a comprehensive hazardous waste

management system in the lower mainland. But for the record, I think we

should talk about the goals that the corporation will bring. The first

is to encourage industry to reduce or eliminate hazardous ingredients

at the source, or to reuse and recycle wherever possible. I commend

that kind of goal. The next is to encourage households to reduce their

hazardous waste through the use of non-toxic substitutes or by buying

hazardous materials only in the quantity needed for household chores.

So often we find stored

[ Page

10395 ]

in garages, under sinks or in various parts of the house an

extraordinary number of hazardous materials that were not needed to do

the job, when only a small amount was needed.

The

corporation will work with municipalities in the Greater Vancouver

Regional District to establish safer and more efficient and effective

disposal of household hazardous waste, I commend the minister and his

staff for getting together with the mayor of the city of Vancouver to

have an opportunity for the citizens to bring their hazardous waste to

the garbage site on two different occasions, and then to the Manitoba

work yards. With the minister there and the number of citizens who

turned out, I think it demonstrates that the public and the citizens of

Vancouver and the Greater Vancouver Regional District are ready and

very receptive to participate in these new programs that have been

brought about by the ministry and this government.

I've got

to speak about the environmental hotline that has been set up for

greater Vancouver. The number is 732-9253, or dial RECYCLE. We're

getting a number of calls in our constituency office asking: "What do I

do about this substance? Is it toxic?" or "What can I do with it?" We

just redirect them to this number. It's giving a great many people in

the Vancouver region access to news about the environment, advice on

what they can do in their homes, and information on how to dispose of

hazardous waste and on many of the new, exciting recycling programs

happening in Vancouver and their own neighbourhoods.

think we have to look at the city of Vancouver, which is just

introducing a blue box recycling program. It will take a while for it

to go all across the city, but I thank the ministry for working with

our city, for making the recycling part of the program available and

also for starting to have boxes available for composting material that

we can certainly reuse in gardens.

The joint consultation

between the Ministry of Environment and the Greater Vancouver Regional

District has led to many programs to reduce the amount of garbage. I

hope it will also eventually eliminate the fly ash coming from the

Burrard waste incinerator. The Greater Vancouver Regional District has

agreed to further this process by working with the ministry to reduce

the ash and by researching the ash produced by the incinerator and

studying methods to stabilize it. They will also call for proposals for

the long-term treatment and utilization or disposal of the fly ash, and

will implement new measures to recycle lead-acid batteries and other

materials containing lead.

I know we're going to be

recycling tires, and I hope the minister will look at an amendment so

that we don't have to pay tax on wheelchair tires. I spoke to the

minister earlier about that.

MR. RABBITT : You want another free ride.

MR. MOWAT : The member for Yale-Lillooet says it's another free ride.

Well, as a bit of a distinct society, we think the minister might see some way

of taking off tires used in the medical area.

want to commend the minister on the Environment Youth Corps. Already

the numbers trained — now getting into the hundreds — are very useful in

two areas. It gives the corps a purpose for environmental rescues, and

it also teaches the young people of British Columbia the need to

protect the environment, because this is the globe that they are going

to inherit. Also, the Youth Corps has made the parents, friends and

relatives aware of what the corps has been doing, can do and will be

doing for British Columbia. It brings the message very directly to them

that we, as the adults now looking after the globe, have to take our

place. It really has made thousands of people more aware of the natural

environment and developed more understanding of the importance of

environmental awareness.

One example of their concrete

benefit to the community was their assistance with the cleaning up of

the Burrard Inlet oil spill this winter in Vancouver harbour, where the

ministry had the Environment Youth Corps out on the job very quickly.

They were able to assist in that cleanup operation, particularly with

the wildlife.

I was very fortunate to be able to

participate in parts of Globe '90, which allowed thousands of Vancouver

residents to attend this major international conference and trade fair

to learn about our global environment crisis and how they can

contribute to solutions that are happening in their own neighbourhoods.

Many of the people I met at the conference were not from Vancouver or

from British Columbia; it truly was an international conference.

am very pleased the minister is going to continue with Globe '90s. In

'92, this conference will be again held in Vancouver. It will help

establish Vancouver as an international centre for the environment and

will give a major boost to local public awareness as well as to

environmental issues. I again commend the ministry and the staff for

all of the work they put into making Globe '90 an area of great

awareness. It also created a lot of job opportunities for exporting

much of the environmental equipment that is being designed, developed

and produced in British Columbia.

Another exciting project

is the development of the environmental industry's strategy plan, which

will help to further assist businesses in British Columbia to

contribute to the development of more environmentally friendly products

and new recycling plants. The plants will process recyclable materials

from all over B.C. Possibly even Alaska, Washington, Alberta and other

areas will be bringing materials to British Columbia.

I've

touched on a few issues, Mr. Chairman, that I think the ministry has

shown great leadership that will benefit us in greater Vancouver. I am

very proud to be in the House today to speak to these initiatives and

the new direction the ministry has taken in so many areas. I want, in

closing, to commend the minister. If he has any thoughts on any of

these particular items I mentioned, I think the programs that have been

put to us are well laid out. I don't

[ Page 10396 ]

want

to get Into a long debate, as the opposition does, but I commend the

ministry for the progress we've made. We all have a long way to go.

We'll achieve a lot more by not sitting around debating it, but getting

out and doing the job.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : I thank

the member for his comments and advise him that under the sustainable

environment fund, vehicles under the Social Service Tax Act do not

include wheelchairs. Those tires will not be taxed.

[4:30]

MR. ZIRNHELT :

I'm referring here to

section 154 of the Forest Act. It deals with

appeals of a decision made by the Forests ministry. Can the minister

confirm that, if the Ministry of Forests chooses not to follow a

recommendation or to disregard a recommendation from the Ministry of

Environment with respect to a new licence in an area, the Ministry of

Environment has recourse to appeal that decision?

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

When I look at the rule book and at our estimates, I find

section 154

of the Forest Act is not in my estimates. But I'll go back to the same

answer again. If something is done that is not acceptable to me or my

ministry, we can push it back up through a committee of which I am the

co-chairman.

MR. ZIRNHELT : So basically the only

appeal procedure is directly to cabinet. Again, we're dealing with one

of the problems: you'd be loaded if your ministry asserted itself at

the local or regional level. These decisions are going to float to the

top. It serves to underscore the point that I've been trying to make:

we need mechanisms at the regional and local level for integrating

resource management so that there can be a way of sorting it out that

doesn't always become a conflict, or so that the Ministry of Forests

doesn't always get its way.

I'd like to ask you a question

about the introduction of elk as a native species in the

Cariboo-Chilcotin. There have been plans ready to go, pending approval,

to introduce elk. Can you tell me what provisions there will be to

ensure that concerns put forth by the ranchers in an area will be taken

into account, In the form of guaranteeing that any negative impact on

their operations will be mitigated?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : We are holding off any decision in your area until after the Closkey report has been decided upon for the Kootenays.

MR. ZIRNHELT : Will that report encompass the matter of compensation and a mechanism for deciding on compensation?

HON. MIL REYNOLDS : Compensation has never been accepted, but mitigation has been accepted.

MR. PERRY :

I'm afraid I'm not feeling terribly well so I may not be as feisty as I

usually try to be, but I'll do my best to provide some interest.

Maybe

I could just begin on a polite note by complimenting the minister on

how handsome he looked in the advertisement the other night about

recycling in British Columbia. It was nice to see him looking informal

in a sweater, and I just wondered if he would be willing to share with

the House the cost of that advertisement to the taxpayer.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

I want to thank the member for his comments and tell him that I quite

often go around in an informal way. I think the total cost for the

present advertising project is around $1 million. I don't have the

details of the actual cost of what we're paying the different

television stations for time, but our budget is around $1 million.

MR. PERRY : Thank you to the minister. I wish we could expect the same frankness from some of his colleagues.

Could

the minister elaborate for us, then, on what the Ministry of

Environment expects to achieve by this advertising campaign — the

current television one — aside from general public knowledge of how

informal the minister sometimes looks?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

I think, as I am sure the member would be aware, that advertising is a

very powerful weapon — as the doctors of this province are finding out

with the multimillion-dollar program, or whatever it is they've got

going right now.

Our program is not only television; it's

newspapers, magazines and radio. As you know, we have just started the

hotline. I just met with the Recycling Council of B.C. this morning,

which is absolutely thrilled at the success of the hotline.

met with two members of my staff, who were getting on the helijet to

come over here at 12:20 when I came over, who have just met with

McDonald's. They were offering to put the hotline number on the

placemats that they pass out to people so that more people will get to

use the number. I've had numerous phone calls from businesses saying:

"How can we participate to get the number out?" It's all part of a

program of education — getting people to phone that number.

Sunday I was in a wine store in the Park Royal shopping centre — one of

the few places you can get a bottle of wine. My children were coming

over for Father's Day, and I wasn't sure whether they were going to

bring me what I wanted, so I went in myself. The lady behind the

counter said to me: "Can you tell me where I can get rid of my boxes? I

get about 150 a week." She's obviously doing a pretty good business.

She'd been phoning people trying to find a place to ship her boxes so

she wouldn't have to keep on throwing them in the garbage. I told her

to phone the hotline and they'd give her an answer. There are a number

of independent people around the lower mainland, as the member knows,

who will pick up

[ Page

10397 ]

boxes free of charge and take them in bulk to Weyerhaeuser, Canadian Fibre or wherever.

The

whole idea behind the program being done by Steve Vrlak and his agency,

which is a very well-recognized agency.... I don't mind talking about

it. I think it's part of government and part of doing business. They

are professionals at what they do. They were the ones that came up with

the "handle with care" logo, etc. It's a program they're providing to

educate people and advise them how they can recycle and reuse. So far

it's working extremely well.

MR. PERRY : I couldn't

resist thinking to myself that if McDonald's is keen on the widest

distribution of the recycling number message, perhaps it would be

appropriate to put the number onto some of the plastic and styrofoam

containers that are likely to end up out in the waters of Georgia

strait and washed up on beaches as far away as perhaps Japan or Chile.

Then people all over the world will have access to that number through

some of the dispersal of refuse from McDonald's and other throwaway

packages.

I'm sure the public is appreciative of knowledge

of the recycling number. I'm not quite so sure that the traditional

government propaganda attached to it is equally valuable.

Let

me just turn to another question. I've been troubled for a long time,

Mr. Chairman, by issues of air pollution on the lower mainland. I'm

quite pleased to recognize that there has been some shift in government

attitude since I stood in this same spot last year and the former

Minister of Health reassured me that the air in Abbotsford was some of

the cleanest air in the world. I do believe we've made some headway in

beginning to recognize how serious our air pollution problem is, but I

wonder whether we're really....

MR. MOWAT : Talk about pollution! I think you should go back home. You're spreading germs to all your colleagues.

MR. PERRY :

Mr. Chairman, I'm tempted to honour the suggestion from the second

member for Vancouver–Little Mountain, but we're here doing the people's

business; it's serious business, and I think it's incumbent on me to

represent my constituents' interests and for their interests to take

precedence over my health.

I wonder if the minister will give us some hints as to what, if any, action

his ministry is actually planning to take in dealing with the air pollution

problem. I remember a few weeks ago noting with amusement his response to a

question from my colleague the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Cashore),

who asked in question period about response to the lower mainland air pollution

problem, and the minister responded that he was thinking of adding one or two

more monitoring stations in the lower mainland. I couldn't suppress some

amusement, because, while it's perhaps true that we have an insufficient

monitoring network, the real problem is, of course, dealing with the sources

of the pollutants.

I think most of us are aware by now that the single largest source of the more

dangerous pollutants is the private automobile and that the record of this minister's

government — not perhaps this particular minister, but the government he represents — has been pretty darn atrocious in dealing with air pollution from private automobiles.

I'm

still a youngster, but I am old enough to remember that there used to

be inspection stations for automobiles. They weren't stations that

concentrated on the pollution emissions, but they at least made sure

that cars were safe. I used to drive the family car through those

stations, and sometimes it failed and we had to fix it. That was a very

progressive measure that, if I remember, was brought in by the

government of W.A.C. Bennett; yet it was done away with not so long ago

by a Social Credit government.

We've had promises year

after year that mandatory motor vehicle inspection will be demanded to

control the emission of air pollutants from private automobiles, yet

we've never seen any action on that. I wonder if the minister would

tell us what exciting plans he has in mind to begin to deal with this

issue.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : I might mention first off

that, with regard to McDonald's, one of the interesting things I heard

was that, as you know, they are recycling their styrofoam containers in

12 of their locations. They send them back to the eastern United States

and are actually making the plastic trays they use in the stores out of

that material. I would hope that in the next few months when we

announce that Super Wood and some of these other companies are finally

getting their factories installed in British Columbia, we'll be able to

include all of their stores and other stores that have the same type of

material and have those types of things manufactured right here in

British Columbia. We buy a lot of trays, whether it's for B.C. Ferries

or other people, and there's a good market for them in the province.

With

regard to air pollution on the lower mainland, a number of things: a

task force on smoke pollution that is out there working, and the car

emission testing in cooperation with the GVRD. Also, it might be

interesting for the member to know that the big three auto makers are