1989 Legislative Session: 3rd

Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The

following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, JULY 4, 1989

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 8079 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Parole Act (Bill 53). Hon. Mr. Ree

Introduction and first reading –– 8079

Motor Vehicle (All Terrain) Act, 1989

(Bill M219). Mr. Serwa

Introduction and first reading –– 8079

Offence Amendment Act, 1989 (Bill 63).

Hon. S.D. Smith

Introduction and first reading –– 8079

Attorney General Amendment Act, 1989 (Bill

64). Hon. S.D. Smith

Introduction and first reading –– 8080

Electrical Safety Amendment Act, 1989

(Bill 65). Hon. Mrs. Johnston

Introduction and first reading –– 8080

Science Council Act (Bill 72). Hon. S.

Hagen

Introduction and first reading –– 8080

Presenting Reports –– 8080

Oral Questions

AIDS prevention video. Mr. Perry –– 8080

Sale of New Westminster property. Mr.

Williams –– 8081

National milk marketing plan. Mr. Barlee

–– 8082

American fruit imports. Mr. Barlee –– 8082

Vancouver property taxes. Mrs. McCarthy ––

Committee of Supply: Ministry of State for

Cariboo,

Responsible for Environment estimates,

(Hon. Mr. Strachan)

On vote 55: minister's office –– 8083

Hon. Mr. Strachan

Mr. Cashore

Ms. Edwards

Mr. Sihota

Mr. Loenen

Mr. Rose

Mr. Gabelmann

Mr. Barlee

Land Title Amendment Act, 1989 (Bill 61).

Hon. S.D. Smith

Introduction and first reading –– 8109

School Act (Bill 67). Second reading

Mr. Sihota –– 8109

Mr. Perry –– 8111

Mr. Rose –– 8113

Hon. Mr. Brummet –– 8115

Independent School Act (Bill 68). Second

reading

Hon. Mr. Brummet –– 8119

Ms. A. Hagen –– 8120

Mr. Jones –– 8123

Hon. Mr. Brummet –– 8125

Committee of Supply: Ministry of State for

Cariboo,

Responsible for Environment estimates.

(Hon. Mr. Strachan)

On vote 55: minister's office $127

Mr. Cashore

Ms. Edwards

Mr. Serwa

Mr. G. Janssen

Mr. Sihota

Mr. Williams

Ministerial Statement

Supreme Court decision in ICG case. Hon.

S.D. Smith –– 8137

Mr. Sihota

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Visiting us today

from Seattle are some very special guests: a longtime school buddy and

certainly a good friend for many years, Mr. Gerald Hughes, his wife

Gay, their daughter Ardis and a friend, Miss Pamela Peeler. I would ask

the House to bid them welcome.

MR. SIHOTA : Just outside Manchester,

England, is a community known as Southport, and visiting our

Legislature today is Miss Doreen Shaw from Southport. She is

accompanied by her sister, a constituent of mine, Elizabeth Davies.

Would the House please give them a warm welcome.

Introduction of Bills

PAROLE ACT

Hon. Mr. Ree presented a message from His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor. a bill intituled Parole Act.

HON. MR. REE : Mr. Speaker, this act will

provide a legislative basis for the existence, organization and mandate

of the B.C. Board of Parole. Currently the board operates under the

federal Parole Act and under sections of the provincial Correction Act.

The introduction of a provincial parole act is part of the ministry's

response to public concerns about the justice system. In the last

session, government introduced legislation and programs to help victims

of crime.

Interjections.

HON. MR. REE : Mr. Speaker, if the members

will be quiet, they will have adequate opportunity during second

reading and in committee to ask questions and review the bill and the

method of appointment of members of the Parole Board.

Other concerns were addressed in the report of the justice

Reform Committee, and the Attorney-General (Hon. S.D. Smith) is

undertaking a number of initiatives in this regard. The release of the

Green Paper "Parole: Earning the Privilege" in April 1988 created a

greater public awareness of parole, how it works and how it might be

improved.

While the province is constrained by federal jurisdiction in

this area, it can now nevertheless achieve several tangible benefits

through a provincial parole act. In addition to providing a clear legal

basis for the existence of a provincial parole board, the act will

enable persons sentenced under provincial statute to be eligible for

parole.

It will also establish a stronger identity for B.C.'s Parole

Board. The board will be able to establish and retain its own

administrative practices rather than having such practices imposed by

the National Parole Board.

Finally, the act provides an opportunity to affirm the

independence of the Parole Board in statute, as recommended by the

ombudsman.

A provincial parole act is overdue in this province, and I am

sure it will have the support of all members of this House.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to move first reading of Bill 53.

Bill 53 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed

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

House after today.

MOTOR VEHICLE

(ALL TERRAIN) ACT, 1989

Mr. Serwa presented a bill intituled Motor Vehicle (All

Terrain) Act, 1989.

MR. SERWA : The Motor Vehicle (All Terrain)

Act, 1989, is designed to regulate the broad range of all-terrain

vehicles that have appeared on the market. All-terrain vehicles have

become very popular throughout the province. Regrettably, the increased

utilization has also resulted in a corresponding increase in private

and public property damage, injuries and fatalities. Many of the

accidents involve children. It is imperative that steps be taken to

implement measures to mitigate the potential for head, neck and back

injuries. In 1987, reports indicated that 116 British Columbians

suffered serious injuries and four persons died while riding

all-terrain vehicles.

This act is comprised of ten parts and addresses basic rules

of safety and operation, operator licensing, financial responsibility

and other issues, such as registration and identification.

The objectives of this act are to reduce the potential for

accidents, to provide a means of reducing ecological damage on public

land, to control such factors as required to protect private land and

crops and to provide for financial responsibility of the registered

owner.

Bill M219, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be

placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of

the House after today.

OFFENCE AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

Hon. S.D. Smith presented a message from His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Offence Amendment Act, 1989.

[2:15]

HON. S.D. SMITH : Mr. Speaker, this bill

provides two principal amendments to the Offence Act. The first one

parallels amendments that have been made to the Criminal Code and

provides for a telewarrant system of search warrants under certain

circumstances. It provides as well for safeguards that, again,

[ Page 8080 ]

parallel the provisions of the

Criminal Code. This will be most frequently used in circumstances where

people enforcing the Wildlife Act have difficulty physically getting to

the location to get a search warrant because they are many miles out in

the toolies. This provision will provide for that circumstance and

ensure that safeguards are in place to prevent abuses.

The second amendment is very important to the effective

enforcement of our environmental laws in particular. It will allow the

Crown to recover the costs associated with the investigation of

offences under certain provincial statutes; those costs being able to

be collected by the Crown after a conviction has taken place. The

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council shall prescribe those enactments by

regulation. The first such act to be so prescribed will be the Waste

Management Act.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation and the legislation it

contemplates, particularly in the second amendment, will give a new

power, a power unique to the province of British Columbia, a power

that, in my view, will be the toughest in the free world for enforcing

this kind of legislation.

Bill 63 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed

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

House after today.

ATTORNEY GENERAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

Hon. S.D. Smith presented a message from His Honour the

Administrator: a bill intituled Attorney General Amendment Act, 1989.

HON. S.D. SMITH : Mr. Speaker, Bill 64,

which amends the Attorney General Act, will allow the Attorney-General,

in consultation with the Solicitor General, to use the proceeds of

crime for the purpose of fighting crime. Recent amendments to the

Criminal Code allow the courts to order that assets which are the

direct or indirect result of certain enterprise crimes be forfeited to

the province or that a fine equal to the value of such proceeds be paid.

This bill will enable the province to allocate these funds for

the purpose of criminal law enforcement. The funds will be held in a

special account, the forfeited crime proceeds fund, established for

this purpose. A protocol has been developed by the Solicitor-General

(Hon. Mr. Ree), the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations (Hon.

Mr. Couvelier) and myself regarding guidelines for the disposition of

that fund.

This bill is a most appropriate addition to the administration

of criminal justice in British Columbia and will see the ill-gotten

gains of criminals used by the police to go out and catch even more

criminals.

Bill 64 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed

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

House after today.

ELECTRICAL SAFETY

AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

Hon. Mrs. Johnston presented a message from His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Electrical Safety Amendment Act,

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : Bill 65 contains

measures designed to allow the electrical industry to assume a greater

share of responsibility for meeting safety standards. This bill will

provide for regulations to proceed that are necessary for continued

safety assurance and public confidence in the new system of shared

responsibility.

Bill 65 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed

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

House after today.

SCIENCE COUNCIL ACT

Hon. S. Hagen presented a message from His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Science Council Act.

HON. S. HAGEN : This bill will strengthen

the organizational structure of the Science Council and recognize its

expanded mandate in the field of science and technology. The government

has made a commitment to support the growth of science and technology

in British Columbia, and the proposed revisions will reinforce our

support.

Bill 72 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed

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

House after today.

Hon. S. Hagen presented a report commissioned by the women's

secretariat, entitled "Free Trade and Women in British Columbia —

Potential Impact and Policy Directions for the Future."

Oral Questions

AIDS PREVENTION VIDEO

MR. PERRY : A question for the Premier. I

must say I sometimes wonder whether we have a different understanding

than the Premier on what the meaning of the free world is. Over a week

ago the Premier blocked the release of a video financed by his own

government advocating the use of condoms as protection against the

fatal AIDS virus. He stated that he found the video personally

objectionable because the promotion of condoms encouraged teenagers to

engage in sexual activity. In light of the subsequent flood of

criticism from educators, doctors, health experts, parents and

teenagers themselves, is the Premier now prepared to reverse his

decision and allow the distribution of this important educational and

healthful video?

[ Page 8081 ]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : I think the second

member for Vancouver-Point Grey must be speaking about someone else,

because he's attributing words to me that I've not spoken.

MR. PERRY : Mr. Speaker, I'd like to

reiterate the question. The Premier has personally in effect censored

and banned the distribution of a video prepared with $70,000 of public

funds out of the Ministry of Health budget. It's the Premier's decision

and his responsibility. Is he prepared to live up to his responsibility

as the first minister to protect the children of British Columbia?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Again, the member is

making statements that are erroneous. I don't know where he gets the

figures and the so-called facts. As a matter of fact, it rather

troubles me, because I was looking at a community report put out by the

members for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams and Mr. Clark) which says in

part: "The rules of the Legislature require members to back up any

statements they make in the House, so you can be sure when we claim

government mismanagement or wrongdoing, it's based on facts." Given

that statement by the two members for Vancouver East, I'm wondering if

they would consult with the member for Vancouver-Point Grey and give

him the facts so that he can get his question correct.

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

the release of the AIDS video into theatres, as was the original

intention of the Ministry of Health?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Mr. Speaker, I'll be

pleased to answer that question.

The Minister of Health made a decision with respect to the

appropriateness of the video, but since it could be matter of public

debate, the minister informed me of his decision, and I concurred with

his decision. We obviously have been successful in our efforts to date,

since in B.C. there is a greater awareness than we find anywhere in the

country. B.C. is ranked number one in a national survey as to awareness

of AIDS.

There is more that can and must be done, not only by

government but by other public and private bodies and by parents. A

further video or videos may be one such effort. The Leader of the

Opposition has spoken on this particular subject, and I regret that, as

so often, he is not in the House today. The Leader of the Opposition

objects to societal moral considerations when programs are assessed,

and I would ask the members of the opposition and in particular the

Leader of the Opposition why he does not think that society's standards

or morality should form some part of social and health policy In

British Columbia.

Once again the NDP displays their situational standards or

ethics. You wrap yourselves around the issue of the day, and that's

what your standards are

Whatever the situation of the day, those are your standards.

The purpose of the video was to warn young people about the dangers of

AIDS, but while the video does an excellent job of displaying and

selling product, the mere mention of AIDS is almost an afterthought.

This, in the opinion of many who viewed it, is not sufficient to

caution the viewer about the dangers or how to prevent contracting AIDS

or other sexually transmitted diseases.

I discussed the video with the western Premiers, all of whom

believe such videos must be done in good taste, with a balance and with

discretion. Both Manitoba and Alberta have videos, but each gives

consideration and recognition to the various views as to the

appropriate presentation. I have asked my Minister of Health to take

the video to various community leaders and groups to receive further

opinion on its effectiveness and appropriateness.

MR. PERRY : A new question then. Will the

Minister of Health please explain why, if the Premier is willing to

release the controversial video to the public, the minister would not

release it for viewing when I phoned his office last week and asked for

a copy of it to display to members of the Legislature in this building?

HON. MR. DUECK : Until this video is for

public viewing, we are keeping it to ourselves and will do so until we

are ready to release it, if at all.

MR. PERRY : I'll return to the Premier, Mr.

Speaker. Will the Premier then direct his minister to release the video

for members of the Legislature to see? If he is prepared to have the

rest of the public see it, why do we not have the right in this House

to see a video, paid for out of public funds, that has already been

broadcast on three television networks?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : I think it's fair to

ask that members of the Legislature be given an opportunity to view the

video. I think when the minister is ready to show it to community

groups and community leaders, as he intends to do, he will arrange for

the second member for Vancouver-Point Grey to perhaps have a personal

viewing of it. Someone in the profession that he is in will, I'm sure,

be objective in his comments and not political — and objective and

constructive comments would be much appreciated.

[2:30]

SALE OF NEW WESTMINSTER PROPERTY

MR. WILLIAMS : To the Minister of Government

Management Services, would the minister confirm the sale of the public

market on the New Westminster waterfront along with two other sites for

$1.5 million?

HON. MR. MICHAEL : Mr. Speaker, I don't know

to what the member refers. Perhaps if he gave some

[ Page 8082 ]

further information, some more data, I

would know what the member is talking about.

MR. WILLIAMS : It's 1.75 acres at the foot

of 8th; 330 feet of water frontage. It's something the Development

Corporation applied for building permits for which totalled

$2.6 million — $210,000 and $650,000 in 1985 and 1986, prior to the

sale of the site.

HON. MR. MICHAEL : Mr. Speaker, I know of

the parcel; I don't know of the details. I will have to take the

question as notice. The only thing I've had time to research is that

when the property was sold, there were no old age pensioners or

disabled kicked out of the property as there were on Hemlock Street.

MR. WILLIAMS : Mr. Speaker, one of the areas

in question was actually transferred in 1988, when this minister was

the minister responsible: the parking area adjacent to the public

market. Does the minister not recall approving the transfer?

HON. MR. MICHAEL : Mr. Speaker, I will

immediately have my staff — as we have on other occasions — do a full

research. We will get back to the House at the earliest opportunity. I

am sure that there will be a very reasoned story told by the staff, as

there has been on all the other famous stories that the member opposite

seems to bring forward, including the stories on the Foursquare

tabernacle, the Songhees lands, Westminster Quay, the so-called

giveaway of the Expo lands — and the list goes on. The most recent one,

which was inflammatory, was brought up by the member last week

regarding the so-called giveaways at Whistler. There will be full

explanations to all those who choose to listen, and I'm sure there will

be one for this as well.

MR. WILLIAMS : The minister does not recall

the transfer of the parking site, which was a lease until the year

2045, at a nominal amount with no rent for ten years. The minister does

not recall that one. Is that what he's saying, Mr. Speaker?

HON. MR. MICHAEL : Mr. Speaker, I repeat:

the question has been taken as notice. We will certainly research it

and get the full story, rather than trying to get shotgun approaches to

very serious questions. If the allegations on this particular subject

are no more serious than the other flamboyant, irresponsible,

exaggerated assertions put forward by that member, I'm sure it will not

take that long to investigate.

NATIONAL MILK MARKETING PLAN

MR. BARLEE : Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of

Agriculture. Several days ago, under a carefully conducted vote

supervised by a company called Thorne Ernst and Whinney, the British

Columbia dairymen voted against opting out of the national milk

marketing system. The vote was 671 to 38. That's almost 95 percent, an

overwhelming rejection. Can the minister assure this house that British

Columbia will now not pull out of the National Milk Marketing Plan?

HON. MR. SAVAGE : No, Mr. Speaker.

AMERICAN FRUIT IMPORTS

MR. BARLEE : Again to the Minister of

Agriculture. The Okanagan cherry growers have had one of the finest

crops in probably ten years. Unfortunately their market has been

flooded by the Americans. They pay something like 19 to 20 cents to

have cherries picked, and they get about 22 cents a pound, so they are

losing money. Can the minister tell this House what specific steps he

has taken to protect this industry from low-cost American imports as

the tariff protecting B.C. growers is being phased out under free

trade? Secondly, has the minister any staff delegated to study the

impact of the free trade agreement on British Columbia tree-fruit

growers?

HON. MR. SAVAGE : We are well aware of the

cherry problem. We have had staff working on it. We have been in

discussions with the president of the B.C. Fruit Growers' Association.

Certainly it is well recognized that the price is devastating to their

producers. But we have also informed them that there is action that can

be taken with Ottawa to seek countervailing action, and we have

encouraged them to do so. I have had almost weekly discussions with the

president of the fruit growers and his advisers on that issue.

VANCOUVER PROPERTY TAXES

MRS. McCARTHY : My question is for the

Minister of Finance. I know the minister has met with the small

businessmen in Vancouver in the past week and has firsthand knowledge

of exorbitant tax increases there. Can the minister now give some hope

to these small business people as well as to homeowners in British

Columbia that our government will undertake a complete study to find a

better alternative to the present tax regime so as to ensure that next

year will not see more of the same inequities in the tax system that we

have endured this year and that the small business men you met with

last week will have to endure?

HON. MR. COUVELIER : Owing in no small

measure to the hon. member's raising the issue and bringing it to our

attention last week, I am pleased to advise that the provincial

government was in a position to respond quickly and sensitively to the

request of aggrieved businessmen in Vancouver. The issue there was

that, to a large extent by virtue of actual values rising on industrial

property basically because of potential development rights, tenants who

were commercial-retail business people found themselves the victims of

a much higher tax than they had historically experienced.

Insofar as this was primarily a matter of local government

collecting taxes from local constituents

[ Page 8083 ]

and that government's decision about

which group of constituents would pay which part of the costs, we were

able to provide satisfaction to Vancouver city council, and my

colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mrs. Johnston) and I

were pleased to provide that accommodation.

To the larger question — that is to say, the whole study of

assessment principles as they apply in British Columbia — I am happy to

advise the first member for Vancouver-Little Mountain and the House

that the Union of B.C. Municipalities has created four different task

forces to look at four different aspects of this question and that

those task forces are coming to some conclusions and some

recommendations. The intention would be that they would bring their

recommendations to the annual UBCM convention in September.

I haven't yet had the privilege of seeing the material

produced by the task force, but I can assure the member that we will be

made aware of the contents and the recommendations in time for us to be

able to respond at the convention itself. In the expectation that that

is the event and that matters will unfold in that way, we will be able,

I think, to provide the level of comfort the member desires in terms of

government's willingness to study the matter more seriously.

Not having the task force material at hand at the moment — and

it will probably be another couple of weeks before that is obtained — I

rather doubt that I can be more specific today for the hon. member. I

certainly would be pleased to bring the matter forward to the House,

and we can have another useful question and another useful answer.

MR. B.R. SMITH : May I have leave to make an

introduction, Mr. Speaker?

Leave granted.

MR. B.R. SMITH : Will the House welcome Tom

and Sandy MacMillan. Tom is the executive vice-president of the Financial Post. He

is here with his three children from Toronto: Jolie, Kelly and Heather.

Would the House make them welcome.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF STATE FOR

CARIBOO, RESPONSIBLE FOR ENVIRONMENT

On vote 55: minister's office, $286,884 (continued).

HON. MR. STRACHAN : Mr. Chairman, for my 15

minutes now, or whatever it is going to be, I'd like to carry on from

where I was when I adjourned on Thursday and discuss a bit more about

the Cariboo development region and the quality of life we enjoy there,

and how much that's seen as a very desirable thing.

As I pointed out on Thursday, the per capita income of Prince

George is the highest in the province. You can find that generally in

the Cariboo area, because it's heavily industrialized, with sawmilling

and pulp-milling. People there generally have a tendency to be younger

and quite productive; It is a high-income area, without question. If

you talk to people and assess what they really want, it's clearly a

higher-quality lifestyle. As I said before, and I'll say again now,

probably our number one priority in terms of economic and social

development is a full-fledged university, without question. I don't

think there's any argument about that, the reason being that we know

that from the establishment of a university will come all of the

economic development we need. That is really the cornerstone of any

serious development in our area.

In January the mayor of Prince George and I, along with the

regional development officer of the Prince George Region Development

Corporation, went to Sudbury, Ontario, and then later I went on to

Thunder Bay, to look at what northern Ontario communities have done in

terms of economic development and how they've tried to lift themselves

up. Sudbury, of course, is one of the better examples of rural economic

development, because there is a community that was struck with

disastrous unemployment and had to really pick itself up by the

bootstraps. That was the basis of our trip to Sudbury. They quite

clearly told us in Sudbury that if any community were to achieve sound

economic development and sound growth, it had to improve its social

amenities. They were quite clear on that, and they pointed out what

they had done. Of course, the establishment of a university was one of

the cornerstones of development in that community.

With that said, I want to stress that we as an economic

development group — that includes the seven mayors who sit with me on

my economic development commission and the two chairman of the regional

districts — do see the establishment of a sound social base, sound

social amenities and a sound quality of life as the most important

thing we can do with respect to economic development in our area. That

gets a far higher priority than any specific industry, which we know is

going to come anyway.

We've seen, particularly in Prince George, because of

environmental standards — which I put in, coincidentally — the

establishment of major chemical industries catering to newer, cleaner

pulp mills: the FMC hydrogen peroxide plant and a major investment by

B.C. Chemicals with respect to the production of chlorine dioxide, or

ClO 2 , as it's called in the pulping industry. So we are seeing that

development come. But just let me emphasize again that social

development is by far our highest priority; from that we know that the

economic development will come.

Just to get back to recapping the points of view from the

Ministry of Environment, as I said earlier, and as I said in the budget

debate, we have had a remarkable increase in our budget: 30 percent

this year. Waste management, of course, is a major concern; that's been increased considerably. We recog-

[ Page 8084 ]

nize that we have to put our money where our mouth is if we're

going to be seen as being proper stewards of the environment.

[2:45]

I'd also like to point out to the committee members that in

spite of all of the debate that we're probably going to hear today and

maybe tomorrow about the pure NDP position on the environment, I think

it's difficult for any thinking person to accept that a political party

that has policy dominated by trade unions is going to have any

enlightened environmental initiatives in place. I think the recent

problem the opposition has with establishing a position on the Carmanah

is one good example of that.

I'd like to close these comments. I welcome the criticism from

my critic and other members of the committee by saying that I do

believe that we have really turned the comer in terms of environmental

management. I don't say that everything is perfect. It's going to take

some time, but we do have the money in our budget now and the resources

and the management skills to lead Canada in environmental legislation,

environmental management and showing proper government concern. That

said, I'll take my place, Mr. Chairman, and listen to my critic.

MR. CASHORE : It's wonderful to hear

thunderous applause from both sides of the House.

Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to rise and respond to the Minister

of Environment during the canvassing of his estimates as Environment

minister and as a minister of state. I think the Minister of

Environment of this province at this time has an extremely difficult

task. It's not an enviable job trying to live down a legacy of

political interference in environmental protection. It's a legacy that

he cannot take total personal responsibility for creating; after all,

he can't be accused of presiding over the destruction of the

Environment and Land Use Committee secretariat. He can't be given all

the blame for having eroded the agricultural land reserve, and he can't

even take the blame for all the past failures of his government in

failing to enforce environmental protection laws.

My comments are directed to him insofar as he is a member of

the cabinet and is responsible for the kinds of policies that have been

followed by this government and by its predecessors. What we have as a

result of that is an accumulation of a situation that has made this

very marvellous province of British Columbia with its incredible beauty

vulnerable to a wide variety of impacts that have been brought to bear

on that environment. This is indeed tragic, given that the environment

is such an important part of the amenity of this province, such an

important part of what it is that enables us to have an economy, and

given that the environment is something that is increasingly precious

to the people of this province.

Just in connection with that, it would be the role of a

government that is bent on moving in tune with the kind of reference

that we heard the minister make to the Brundtland report.... I would

think it would behoove such a government to start adhering to policies

that truly indicate that that government is not only verbally wanting

to say and do some of the right things but really feels deep down that

it espouses a philosophy that supports the environment. Yet there

almost seem to be these uncontrollable urges on the part of members of

this government to say things and do things that constantly indicate

that they really aren't in tune.

The minister made comments at the conclusion of his speech

when he decided to take a swing at trade unions and questioned how we

as an opposition could have an appropriate environmental policy given

that among so many of our citizens we also recognize the value of

working people and the history of working people. I'm sure that one of

the things that has been a nemesis to this minister, especially during

the last 18 months, has been the outstanding environmental work that

has been done by members of trade unions. Working people in this

province certainly do have every right to seek to be known as

environmentalists as they go about fulfilling their role as British

Columbians in the workplace.

I think the minister is aware that there have been some

outstanding environmental briefs presented to him and copies sent to me

from none other than the Pulp, Paper and Woodworkers of Canada and the

IWA and, indeed, others of the trade union movement. It certainly is

true that the working people are as familiar as the minister is and as

familiar as I am with the Brundtland report, and with the procedures

that have led up to the development of that whole new opportunity for

us to develop a new perspective and a new vision with regard to the

environment. I think it's just unfortunate that the minister would

conclude his remarks with a statement that is more to set people on

edge and create conflict than to deal with the situations that we need

to be working together to resolve.

The fact is that an accumulation of Social Credit government

policies over the years has resulted in a failure to enforce effective

waste management and a failure to keep a promise with regard to setting

anti-sapstain standards in a situation where we find that the rivers of

the province are being impacted by that, knowing that a deadline was

allowed to pass when it was promised that these standards would be

coming forward. There has been a failure to respond appropriately to

the Grays Harbor oil spill. The best that can be said about it for the

minister and for his government was that it was hopefully a learning

experience, but one that would seem had more learning in public

relations than actual effective work on behalf of responding and taking

a leadership role on such an important issue and on such an important

disaster.

There has been a failure to resolve the issue of

transportation and destruction of hazardous wastes. There's been a

failure to even recognize that they are hazardous wastes. In the Waste

Management Act that was brought before the House recently there was no

attempt to call a spade a spade and call dangerous toxic waste what it

is; instead it persisted in calling it "special waste" and therefore

creating a false sense of security on the part of the public.

[ Page 8085 ]

There has been a failure to bring in changes to the Litter Act

that reflect the recommendations of "Taking Action," which is the

report of the task force on municipal waste. There has been a failure

to release information on plans of mills to reduce dioxin levels, and

there has been a failure to ensure that freedom of information be as

readily available to the people of British Columbia as it is in other

jurisdictions in Canada, and as has been decided and enacted by the

Parliament of Canada.

There has been a failure to ensure meaningful public

participation in environment and land use decisions. There has been a

failure to ensure that independent staff of the Ministry of Environment

are involved in monitoring emissions, rather than the industry

self-monitoring, which often uses equipment that we cannot even be sure

is telling the true story with regard to the kinds of emissions taking

place.

There has been a failure to ensure that the training and

experience of the Environmental Lab employees were not lost, and we'll

be going into this in some detail later. Many of those employees — not

having been absorbed into areas within the ministry or lab where they

would be able to make use of their experience and expertise — have been

dealt with in a shabby way. In some instances many years of training

and expertise have been lost, as some of these people are now being

retrained to work in liquor stores. Not that there should be anything

wrong with that, but it's a very sad thing that the expertise, training

and ability to be in the front line of protecting our environment has

been lost.

There has been a failure to ensure that there would be a lab

functioning effectively within the province, and we have a situation

now where the federal government has found it necessary to monitor the

effectiveness of the result of that privatization.

There has been a failure to fulfil the ombudsman's

recommendations with regard to pesticides in British Columbia. There

has been a failure to protect watersheds.

That's a partial list of some of the failures that are the

legacy this government has to deal with. Yet we hear a great deal of

optimism and talk about a government that has decided to change its

ways. We heard the minister say — during his initial words to his

estimates on Friday — that millions of dollars are being added to his

ministry. We've heard him say that enforcement is going to be improved.

We've heard a lot of things said. In quite a well-canvassed debate in

the House a few nights ago, we heard the minister's comments and

comments from this side of the House with regard to plans to increase

maximum penalties. On the one hand we had this statement of all these

wonderful things that were going to happen to improve environmental

protection, and on the other hand we had very devastating evidence that

there is not any indication that this government has the political will

or the ability to do what it says it's going to do. As a matter of

fact, that feeling is so entrenched among the members of the public of

British Columbia that when such statements are made, they are received

with a great deal of skepticism — and so they should be received with a

great deal of skepticism.

The minister frequently refers to his consultative

relationship with Professor Rankin, who, along with Professor Brown of

the University of Victoria, produced a report using ministry data that

they had to agree not to release. I think it was last November during a

CBC interview when the devastating information in the Rankin report

came out, and the minister said: "Yes, but that report deals with the

time prior to me becoming minister. Since becoming the minister, things

have changed." Then he said: "Just watch me. I'm an enforcer."

Mr. Chairman, not at this point but later on in the debate I

will be sending over to the minister some information that comes from

the Ministry of Environment indicating the amount of fines levied under

the Waste Management Act since he became minister and up until the end

of the fiscal year 1988-89. Apart from one cumulative set of three

fines in Prince George, totalling $65,000, the fact is that in the

previous year — '87-88, the first year he was minister — the amount of

fines under the Waste Management Act was just over $18,000 for the

entire province. During the following year, the most recent fiscal

year, is the dramatic leap that the minister likes to point to, where

the total goes to something like $73,400 for fines under the Waste

Management Act.

[3:00]

Yet any review of records of fines under the Waste Management

Act going back five years would indicate that those three cumulative

fines totalling $65,000 in Prince George are an aberration. If you

remove that aberration, it would mean that the fines under the Waste

Management Act actually went down during the second year that this

minister was Minister of Environment.

So we have some need for accountability for this declaration

that this minister is an enforcer. This underlines the point I think we

need to make, which is that as long as this government sets about

saying, "Look at these new regulations we are bringing in; look at

these new maximum fines we are putting on the books," the public also

has to know that since the minister said he had become involved and was

an enforcer — apart from that set of fines in Prince George, which is

an aberration — the fact is that the total fines under the Waste

Management Act declined.

Even if that $65,000 cumulative fine was not an aberration,

less than $100,000 in fines under the Waste Management Act in one year

is a pitiful condemnation of waste management in this province. You

could increase the total amount of fines paid by several hundred

percent and it would still be too low to send out a message to

polluters that they are not to be polluting British Columbia. I

recognize that it is not the only approach available to us to deal with

polluters, but it certainly is an important aspect of it.

If we were to take a look at, for instance, other aspects of

enforcement dealt with under the Offence Act — say a traffic offence as

a matter of comparison

[ Page 8086 ]

— we would find that there is a level of fines being levied

against traffic violators that does have an impact and gets a message

out there.

I don't want to get into too much personal detail, but I can

tell you that a member of my family having to pay for a couple of

traffic offences really had to take a look at driving habits. I notice

that the Solicitor-General (Hon. Mr. Ree) is nodding his head; he is

pleased to hear about that. Certainly if enforcement resulting in fines

is going to be a factor in protecting the environment, then we are

going to have to make leaps and bounds in order to improve it. If we

are going to make those leaps and bounds, again we are going to have to

canvass during these estimates the efficacy of the stated intent with

regard to conservation officers and just what exactly is going to be

delivered to enable a vital part of the process of bringing about

effective enforcement. I submit, Mr. Chairman — and I will be

interested in the minister's remarks on this — that when we examine it

carefully, we will find that what has been touted is really not going

to be adding significantly to the capacity to do the necessary

investigative work for waste management enforcement.

I would like to turn now to something the minister referred to

during his remarks on Friday: the Brundtland commission. As I said

earlier, a number of sectors in our society have recognized that the

work of the Brundtland commission has been marvellous in terms of its

role of awakening people the world over with regard to environmental

issues in the context of development decisions. The minister, I think,

gave a lot of the background to the Brundtland commission report during

his comments, so I won't reiterate that history, but I did want to

point out that we really need to take a careful look at some aspects of

what we see happening there.

I wrote a letter to the minister on May 24 concerning the

process for setting up the round tables. I pointed out in that letter

that I did not think the round-table process of itself was going to

effectively resolve our environmental problems in Canada but that it

was an important part of the process, and we needed to be diligent in

the way we went about it. I also pointed out to him that the report

made to the CCREM ministers had recommended the provincial round table

be appointed at a much earlier date to ensure that the British Columbia

round table was represented on the federal round table when it was

appointed so that there was a continuity between the federal and

provincial round-table processes. I pointed out to the minister that

waiting until after the recommended deadline to appoint the task force

meant there was going to be an incredible delay in getting down to the

task of getting that round table into place.

Now things have happened backwards: the federal round table

was appointed before the provincial round table. The recommendations

have been made by the task force to appoint the provincial round table,

and it's my understanding from that report that it is going to take at

least two years to get the process up and running to the point where

the developmental decisions in the province have the appropriate kind

of environmental input. I don't think our province can put up with that

kind of foot-dragging. I don't think our province can really tolerate a

situation where process is used to delay taking action while enabling

the use of noble words. You can actually use process skillfully as a

means of doing nothing, a means of foot-dragging and delay, a means of

increasing the rhetoric but decreasing the action. I think there's an

excellent example of that in the way the round-table process has been

handled. This province, except perhaps for Alberta, has been one of the

last to act on that process. We're still awaiting the appointment of

the round table to make sure there is an appropriate representation of

people from all aspects of the community so that it's not tilted

unfairly in one direction or the other.

Having said all that, we now have to recognize that while

there is one person from British Columbia on that federal round table,

it is not someone from the British Columbia round table; therefore one

of the principles of Brundtland is lost: that is, the principle of

continuity.

One thing that interested me a great deal during the throne

speech was that the throne speech stated as follows — and this is in

Hansard on page 5589: "The mandate for our environmental programs must

be strengthened." Agreed. The throne speech then goes on to say:

"Accordingly, a ministry of environment will be re-established,

focusing solely on those critically important programs." Something I

would like to ask the minister is whether he could tell us when the

Ministry of Environment was demoted. I don't think this House and the

public of British Columbia were ever formally told that this government

had demoted the Environment ministry. I think I heard the term "line

ministry" used, so I guess there are different hierarchies of

ministries.

Just to recognize that the minister himself understood the

point, he said in his part of the throne speech debate on March 20,

1989, page 5610 of Hansard: "...I was pleased to see the ministry get,

as we characterize it, a full ministry recognition again." This is a

good point at which to stop and reflect on the issue of political will

with regard to this government. I don't think this minister could be

faulted for this, but the fact is that not so many months ago a

decision was made to demote the Environment ministry. I would

assume it had something to do with the setting up of the regional

fiefdoms, as they are sometimes called, and that those ministries that

were tied in with the ministers of state were somehow moved into a

different category of importance. I don't believe it was ever

acknowledged to this House — not overtly; maybe implicitly, but not

explicitly — and I don't think it was ever pointed out by way of news

release to the media. I would certainly be pleased to stand corrected

on that. It might be that the minister won't be able to clarify and we

will have to canvass it during the Premier's estimates.

What does that say about the political will of this government

when we realize that only a few short months ago it was decided that

the environment

[ Page 8087 ]

wasn't that important and could be demoted? What changed the

Premier's mind and decided him to announce in the throne speech that he

was going to elevate the Ministry of Environment once again? To my

knowledge it hasn't happened yet; the Ministry of Environment is still

where it was at the time of the throne speech.

We have heard all this rhetoric, talk and enthusiasm about the

environment, all these things that are going to happen. Yet if we go

back to Brundtland, he points out that if the ministries of the

environment worldwide are not given the highest possible recognition

within the hierarchy of the decision-making procedures of whatever

government, then the ministries of the environment are relegated to a

role of having to do the cleanup after the developmental decisions have

been made. Where the environmental input has not been sufficient, the

environmental ministries are left with the situation of having to deal

with the damage that some other ministries have had a role in creating.

That's not fair to a minister of the environment; it's not fair to the

people who work for the ministry.

The Premier admitted in the throne speech that he had demoted

this ministry. One has to assume that he still hasn't got the point,

because he hasn't followed through on that promise. I suspect the

reason is that he is wanting to manage it for his own beneficial public

relations needs, not for the needs of the environment. This is what it

says about political will: that the focus is not on how to improve the

environment but on how to improve this government's fortunes. The focus

is on anything but the environmental improvement that is necessary in

order for this ministry to fulfil its mandate appropriately.

[3:15]

I think it's a really sad situation. What it has resulted in

is.... Maybe my way into making this comment is to reflect on something

that the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) said the other

night. He said something that was somewhat complimentary to the

minister: that this minister has an incredible ability to dance among

the cow pies. I think it's true. This minister, given what appears to

be the perspective and the needs of this government to try to save

itself, fulfils that role rather well. He is quite effective in dealing

with questions as they come along, in defusing issues and in avoiding

coming to terms with the actual issue before him. But one thing he said

in the throne speech debate that I found rather interesting was that

one of the factors in the oil spill was the hysteria of the media. I

would suggest that this is an attitude that indicates that the

perspective just isn't there.

Surely when we have an issue with regard to an oil spill,

there needs to be an effective respect on the part of the media and on

the part of those who have to act on behalf of the environment so that

each can fulfil its role in the most creative way possible. The

minister went on to say during the throne speech, on page 5611 in

Hansard: "The site is clean now, and again, I think the media hysteria

was the most outstanding feature of that spill.. . ."

MR. CHAIRMAN : Hon. member, your time has

expired.

MS. EDWARDS : I was absolutely engaged in

what my colleague was saying, and I would like to have him continue.

MR. CASHORE : As I said, the minister

usually dances quite well among the cow pies, but on that statement he

stepped right in it. As time has gone by, some lessons have been

learned about the necessity of responding to such situations, but again

the legacy of the oil spill indicates that this government really

doesn't have the political will required to produce the environmental

protection needed for this province.

With those opening remarks, I will sit down and listen to what

the minister has to say.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : There's a lot to cover

there; I'll deal with it as best I can.

In terms of the ALR, Mr. Member, if you look at the balance —

I'm chairman of ELUC, so I know what goes in and what goes out — I

think you'll find that we're staying about even on exclusions and the

denial of exclusions, and land is continually being added to the ALR as

fine-tuning proceeds. We would have to examine the maps in detail to

arrive at any conclusion, but there's no wholesale sell-off or

exclusion of agricultural land, and there hasn't been for some time,

while we've been government. It's a fine-tuning process; it goes

through rigorous scrutiny before any land is excluded. In many cases

exclusions are denied by ELUC if they get that far.

I'd like to speak a little about the comment on trade

unionists. The member will recall that I said it's difficult for a

party that has policy established by trade unionists to be seen as

enlightened environmentalists. I mentioned the Carmanah situation,

which I understand is personally regrettable at this point, but I think

that generally sets out a concern that when you have economic forces

that are concerned about land use as opposed to environmental forces,

you are bound to have a conflict. The conflict does exist; it exists

for us and it would exist for you if you were government. If you talk

to your colleague the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams)

and ask him about the Rayonier decision at Port Alice, you'll

understand that they had those serious problems when they were

government as well. In that case they had to back down on environmental

policy at Port Alice; they had to lower their standards. I'm not

questioning why they did it, but the record is that the NDP, when they

were government, did back down on environmental standards. The example

I give is Rayonier at Port Alice. You can look that up when you get

home.

On the oil spill, the hysteria of the media was not only a

statement that I made; it was also made by the mayor of Tofino, Penny

Barr. Just to give you a scenario, the Grays Harbor oil spill hit

Carmanah Lightstation on New Year's Eve at about 6:30. The provincial

emergency program, PEP, was alerted at

[ Page 8088 ]

7:30 by the lighthouse keeper after he saw the magnitude. They

get oil there all the time from bilge dumps, but it took them about an

hour to ascertain that this was very serious and probably was the Grays

Harbor spill.

I have a Canadian Press story here dated January 6. Cleanup

measures by a variety of agencies were in place and everything was

going very well. That medium was quite responsible: the Canadian Press

story reported what we and the federal government were doing, and what

other people were doing to clean up the area. It's a well-balanced

story. It wasn't until the weekend when the Province newspaper realized

that they had nothing to write about and blasted me for not going there

in a helicopter. The fact is that the reaction to the spill was well

underway before the Province woke up.

That's the hysteria of the media that I was referring to. As I

said earlier, my comments were corroborated by the mayor of Tofino,

Penny Barr, who recognized it as a media hype thing more than anything

else — not that the spill was not disastrous, because there's no

question that it was, but in terms of the response. The facts that the

member is trying to bring to this committee are just not correct. The

response was first-class, and it was done by a variety of agencies. If

you read the proper media — look at this Canadian Press

article of

January 6 — you'll see that to be the case.

Carrying on, there's a rambling of issues here. Let's get back

to environmental land use and the Brundtland report and that type of

thing. First I'll advise the committee that there are no provincial

members, from any of the provinces that do or do not have round tables,

on the federal round table. They've all been selected by the federal

government. The representative from British Columbia is a researcher at

Forintek. I don't think we're at all out of sync. Plus we did what we

wanted to do. We didn't see it as appropriate just to set up a round

table under our direction. We thought it would be best to give this

task to a task force which we would select, which would be well

balanced in composition and which would bring a recommendation back to

us as to how British Columbia should establish a round table. They did

that. I'm pleased with the results, and I make no apology for the

format; it has worked out very well.

The other thing I want to point out regarding Brundtland, in

terms of our response — you alluded to it, Mr. Member, where you said

that governments have to give environment a high profile — is that we

have been doing so for many years. For example, we are the first

government to have a Ministry of Environment. When you were government,

there was no Ministry of Environment.

Secondly, Brundtland points out that the Ministry of

Environment should have membership on the important cabinet committees,

and that has been the case since we had a Ministry of Environment. For

example, the Minister of Environment has been a member of the economic

committee of cabinet.

MR. SIHOTA : Look at that; he got demoted.

He used to be House Leader. He used to have a ministry on the front

line.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : Oh, no. We're just as

important as ever — more so.

Getting back to what I was saying, since 1977 it's been

administrative policy in British Columbia that the Minister of

Environment sit on the economic development committees of cabinet and

that there always be an environmental land use committee. As a matter

of fact, that's old W.A.C. Bennett legislation — the ELUC legislation —

which came into place in 1970 or '71, and that's one of the things

Brundtland comments on. As a matter of fact, it's only since the

appointment of Lucien Bouchard to the federal cabinet that the feds

have had a Minister of the Environment in their economic development

inner circle; before, that position did not exist and the federal

Minister of the Environment sat with the social services policy

committee of cabinet — or whatever that's called in the federal

government. Also, most provincial governments have the same

administrative organization for their ministries of environment.

So we have for some time been doing what Brundtland says

should be done as a government. Some of the areas I mentioned — for

example, the Minister of Environment sitting on the economic

development committee of cabinet — were ideas put in place well before

Brundtland had published.

To get to Professor Rankin, the member seems to take great

glee in talking about the Rankin report, losing sight of the fact that

Rankin came to the Ministry of Environment in 1986 and asked if he

could do this report, and the ministry gladly agreed to do it and

supplied him with the numbers. I don't know if the member has thought

it through, but Rankin would not have had that material unless it had

been voluntarily given to him by the Ministry of Environment. In that

case, the ministry staff realized.... I have a letter from the former

deputy. As a matter of fact, our current chairman of committee was

probably the minister in July 1986, which would have agreed to the

Rankin study, because we realized that we had some compliance problems.

We realized that we didn't have the research capacity to look at it, so

when Rankin came to us to do this study, it was agreed to; it was

welcomed, and Rankin has done us a great service.

You seem to think that there's some disservice and that we

were trying to hide something. In fact, we wanted Rankin to provide

that information and he did. It's helped us immeasurably in terms of

budget allocation and knowing how to be better prosecutors, and the

Rankin work has resulted in what we see now, where we have a markedly

increased budget, a special prosecutor in place and legislation that's

good and tough.

I won't mention legislation much further, because we are going

to be discussing that in another form, but Rankin did a great service

to the ministry and to the people in British Columbia with his research,

which was first-class and desperately needed. The

[ Page 8089 ]

notion that somehow Rankin peeked in and found us trying to

hide something is total nonsense. We volunteered that information, and

Murray Rankin did a superb job and was able to point out to us where we

were coming from and where we had some serious errors in the

administration of waste management, and for that I'm thankful.

In terms of the ministry reorganization, it was felt in July

1988, when the cabinet mini-shuffle came, that if we're going to look

at the environment and the economy, it should be rolled into ministers

of regional development — of which I'm one — and then the portfolio

would come into that as well. As it happened, it didn't really have the

administrative capacity that it was supposed to have, and staff have

felt a bit curtailed in the way they would like to operate. In terms of

actual performance, though, it really hasn't had much bearing.

I would admit that the morale could have been higher, and

after the July 6, 1988, shuffle, morale did slide a bit, but I see it

coming back now. We made the change back in the throne speech of 1989,

and gradually we're putting the administrative capacity back in place.

It was something that was tried. With the environment and the economy

and the whole concept of Brundtland, it was designed to work in that

area, and I think to some degree that it could, but it did somewhat

stifle our administrative capacity as a ministry, and that's the reason

we made the change back.

The member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) takes great

glee in saying that I've been demoted, but you've also got to remember

that with that change came a remarkable increase in the ability to do

regional development work in the portfolios shared by me and my four

colleagues in that area. We essentially become regional ministers of

economic development in our own region and have considerable resources

available to us from that aspect. So it's not a demotion in any sense

of the word.

[3:30]

In terms of not being House Leader anymore, I can tell you

that job is a penalty box if there ever was one. There wasn't a happier

guy in the province when my good buddy from Kamloops got that job. That

job really is taxing, particularly if you have two full portfolios such

as I do, and if you don't live on the lower mainland and have to

commute a lot. I found that a real load off my shoulders, I can assure

you.

I have one more comment. The member points at one record that

he's not too happy about in his mind — the fine level. You could say we

should be fining more. But if you take our job to its logical

conclusion, zero fines.... If we're doing a fine job, and if no one is

polluting, zero fines would be the ultimate. It's like the dentist who

wants to have zero cavities, because he's assured that everybody has

carried out the best practices they can. I don't think that's ever

achievable, in terms of pollution control or speeding tickets, as the

member pointed out. But the dollar amount of fines should not be the

sole criterion one looks at. There are many other measurements that we

should put in place before we start drawing conclusions about how

effective the ministry is.

I know you're going to see a considerable increase in the

amount of convictions we have, and that's the important thing. We have

close to 30 people coming onstream now; postings are in place in waste

management enforcement. As I said earlier, we have Peter Ewert coming

on as a special prosecutor dedicated to the Ministry of Environment.

Peter was the one who led the case in Prince George, and as a matter of

fact, he is from Prince George. He'll be training our people in

gathering the appropriate evidence. The Attorney-General introduced a

bill today, which I won't get into. But if you examine it, you'll see

that it has impact as well. I think that in terms of examining our laws

and our ability to enforce proper waste management, you'll see that we

are leading in every area we can.

With that said, I see the green light is on, Mr. Chairman. So

I'll take my place and listen to further response.

MS. EDWARDS : In our region we have a great

deal of interest in the storage of PCB-contaminated waste. I want to

ask the minister quite a few questions about that, but I'm going to

start with the positive part: that is, the attempts that the regional

district has made to answer what they think the problem is, because we

as yet do not have a method of getting rid of PCB-contaminated waste.

But we do have a lot of PCB waste. We now have legislation that

requires they be registered. They must be stored in permitted sites by

the first of next year. All of these problems are coming together to

sit on top of the major problem that we had in Cranbrook about

PCB-contaminated waste being brought in from outside the community.

The regional district has done a lot of work this year to find

a way of setting up a single storage site for PCB-contaminated waste,

They have been working very carefully with their member municipalities,

with industry in the area and with waste management branch personnel.

It is the one region in the province, as I understand it, where waste

management personnel have been extremely supportive. In fact, they

would probably be described as being proactive, as far as working

towards the consolidation of storage of PCB waste in a single spot.

Mr. Minister, at the last meeting I was at last week there was

a proposal as to how we could accommodate the waste of the industry in

the region, plus the waste from several utilities and other waste, at a

site which would be administered by the regional district if — and the

big "if" was — the regional district could be assured that they had

control of waste within the regional district. But they have a very

great fear — and quite a justified fear — about the possibility that

even if they set up a site, which could be a fairly costly operation,

and everybody who is currently there decided that they would store the

waste from the area within the site, the regional district is doing

this partly because it prefers not to take PCB-contaminated waste into

the region from

[ Page 8090 ]

outside the region. There is no way under current legislation

the regional district can manage that.

They could set up a site to be a central storage facility and

then find that there were other storage facilities within the regional

district. They cannot keep anyone else from establishing a storage site

within the regional district, and that has been proven by the fact that

the city of Cranbrook tried to do exactly that thing. When the city of

Cranbrook set up its bylaw, which said that they would not accept

PCB-contaminated waste that was generated outside its boundaries, the

ministry went ahead and allowed a permit to go ahead. So there are a

number of questions around this.

First of all, if a regional district were willing to set up

the central storage site for PCB-contaminated waste, would the minister

arrange the legislation and/or regulation required to allow that

regional district to exclude PCB-contaminated waste from outside the

region?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : I can't answer that on a

couple of technical grounds. First of all, we can't discuss legislation

or regulations in committee. Nevertheless, I'm going to give you an

answer as best I can. I also have another constraint which is that in

all likelihood, no matter what happens, it would be subject to an

appeal to the Environmental Appeal Board, so I'm constrained from

answering on those grounds as well.

Let me tell you what's happening generally here. Since the

abandonment of the Cache Creek proposal, we have sought consulting

advice. We have, of course, increased our own budget funds for capital

facilities for special waste storage, and we are doing everything we

can and moving as quickly as we can without causing more political

upheaval, such as we experienced in Cache Creek. Generally, let me

state that it is my policy — and I think it's the policy of anyone who

looks at the problem — that central, safe, secure storage is by far the

best way to go in storing special waste until we have a treatment

destruction facility. We cannot face the prospect of a

St.-Basile-le-Grand, a site that was obviously not secure, because the

fire was a

result of criminal action. That is unacceptable to me and to the people

of British Columbia; we have to have secure, safe storage.

Whether or not that involves me bringing in legislation or

regulation is another question, but generally I support the notion that

in every area of the province — whether it be a regional district or

however you want to draw boundaries — there be facilities in place. I

have the budget for some capital expenditure, and I will certainly

support any other governments making similar funds available for

capital expenditure.

I know that doesn't totally answer your question, but it

answers it to the extent that I can. I can't comment about legislation.

I find it very difficult in this case when I know full well that no

matter what happens there's going to be an appeal to the Environmental

Appeal Board, and it would be inappropriate and offending the rule of

anticipation for me to comment further on your particular questions.

MS. EDWARDS : It seems to me the issue can

be fairly well analyzed — taken apart, looked at and responded to — on

its own basis. Suppose a regional district, for example — and I use

that as an example because I think there are other divisions that could

happen — were to get the entities within its own boundaries together

and decide on a central storage site. Why would they have any incentive

or initiative to go ahead with establishing that site if they could see

that perhaps a commercial group were going to establish? Let us even

suppose they already have a permit to store PCB-contaminated waste,

they have all sorts of room and a permit is for a place that is not in

a preferred location within the region, which has happened, of course,

in our regional district. If that regional district cannot, by

establishing a site, say to some other entity within that regional

district, "You can't store over there because we have established a

central storage site here," then that regional district hasn't got

enough power to encourage it to spend the money necessary for this, or

even to attempt under circumstances where there has been a precedent

set that their legislation would be overruled by provincial

legislation.... Again, we are back to a legislation situation, but the

issue seems to be one of whether the minister is willing to allow the

regional districts to have that kind of excluding control as well as

the control it now has.

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

HON. MR. STRACHAN : No, Madam Member. It's

an interesting suggestion you make. I can tell you I'll think about it,

but at this point the answer would be no. A permit has been issued to

the private sector facility. It is still open for appeal, and the

appeal period is not yet extinguished. So until that happens one way or

the other and an appeal is launched, there is very little I can say

about it. Your idea has merit — there is no question about that — and I

can see where it might be beneficial to us. As of this date, July 4,

given the circumstances that exist in Cranbrook, I cannot comment

further.

MS. EDWARDS : Another issue that goes with

this is the whole business of who controls the storage of the PCB

material, because we are not talking about destroying it right now; we

are only talking about storing it. There is a question about various

locations across Canada, just to limit it to our country, and about

where that particular responsibility should remain. There is some

suggestion that regional and/or municipal government should have some

say in what goes on with the storage of PCB waste.

If a municipality were to pass a bylaw, would that be what the

minister would call a technical issue? Is it a technical issue, or is

it something else? If it is, would he call a bylaw in a city a legal

technicality?

[ Page 8091 ]

HON. MR. STRACHAN : If you are fishing for a

response with respect to the city of Cranbrook's bylaw, the answer is

simple. The bylaw passed by Cranbrook was in conflict with the Waste

Management Act, would not be enforceable in court, and therefore was

not a bylaw. The provincial government does take precedence.

Let's get to the more general question: would we give

jurisdiction to regional districts or other governments to do this type

of management or to control it? That's a good question, and probably

one that bears investigation. If you look at, say, the very expensive

high-temperature destruction units, similar to what you have in Swan

Hills, you only need one in the province, so you wouldn't want to have

one for every regional district or community. There is an economy of

scale there that would argue against everybody sort of doing their own

thing.

If you look at other forms of special waste treatment, which

could include some chemical stabilization.... We do have one company

doing it now. If we look at, say, what the dry cleaners are doing with

respect to their sludges, that could be something that could be

entertained on a local or regional basis; I wouldn't have any problem

with that. But if we are into high-temperature multimillion-dollar

destruction units, of which we only need one, then I can't see having

them spread around like that.

[3:45]

I hope that answers your questions, but if you want to get

into more detail, I will be more than happy to provide it.

MS. EDWARDS : The problem, as the minister

may or may not see it, is that we have a situation here where we are

told that the needs and desires of the local citizens of the city of

Cranbrook were overridden by the requirements of the Waste Management

Act.

It may well be something that the minister decides can't be

taken into account now. But the problem, as you may be able to see, for

people who live in Cranbrook and see how powerless they become in the

face of a situation where the waste management branch tells the people

who appeal the decision to give the permit: "We're sorry, we can't do

anything but give the permit because it meets all the requirements of

our legislation...." "Why can't you?" "Well, of course, we are only a

technical board. We can't do anything but agree technically." Where do

we come in with the reality of the situation that this region told the

ministry they didn't want that site permitted? They said it by an

appeal by the regional district, by the municipal government, by the

MLA and by a local group. Now we're told: "We're just technical."

All right. I'm willing to say we're going to get to the

political part, but it seems to me that there is a crazy, great gap

here where the reality of the situation is being missed, Mr. Minister.

In fact, we are talking about the technicality, I suppose, of whether

they have certain-sized barrels and a certain thickness of steel in the

container. If that's all you have to meet in order to store I don't

know how many hundreds of gallons — it won't be in gallons, but dead

weight — of PCB-contaminated wastes in a spot that is considered

inappropriate by the people who live there.... I want to ask the

minister whether he has considered some other way of dealing with the

technicality.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : I have considered lots

of ways of dealing with special waste. Probably no one in this room,

outside of my colleague the Chairman, has been more concerned about

special wastes, I can assure you.

However, to get back to your situation: if we have technical

compliance — which obviously we have, because we've issued a permit —

there is an appeal process available to those people who feel

aggrieved, who have standing. That appeal process is their avenue at

this point. It is my responsibility as minister to ensure that these

wastes are properly contained, properly cared for in a secure, safe

facility. That has been done. Those questions have been answered;

otherwise, the permit would not have been issued. I have met that

responsibility. The appeal avenue is open if there is technical flaw.

If there is another flaw in terms of the permit issuance, but outside

that, there is not much more I can say. It is ultimately my

responsibility in the end that these materials be safely, securely

stored.

MS. EDWARDS : In allowing this permit to go

ahead, or in not being able to prevent the permit from being granted,

what the ministry has done is override the goodwill of the city of

Cranbrook, the people in it and the people in the whole region, who in

fact were quite willing to say: "We're not going to shrug off all

responsibility. We recognize that you can't simply get rid of

PCB-contaminated waste right now, and we are quite aware of the

resentment of people who are being put upon with somebody else's

contaminated waste. So we will take care of our own contaminated

waste." Then they see the problems that occur now.

The regional desires of the people are not being recognized,

because the legislation says that if you meet what you're calling the

technical requirements, which are the thickness of the steel, the

number of locks on the doors, the number of people around, the height

of the fence, the fact that it's sealed, etc.... I have some questions in a

minute about that, too.

Nevertheless, even if you do that, anybody can get a site to

store PCBs. Everybody would say: why would anybody want to do that if a

regional district does it? I'm not sure why they would, but there is a company that now

has a site which will be under permit very soon and which is so much

too big for the waste that it itself has to accommodate that there

seems to be some major question as to why they wouldn't want to use

that permitted site for more storage.

Now, if all that's required to get a permit is to have it meet

all the technical requirements of the Waste Management Act, then that

site has already met the technical requirements, and any amount of

PCB-contaminated waste can go in there just by

[ Page 8092 ]

definition. So where is it and when is it that the people of

Cranbrook and the people of the East Kootenay have a say in this?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : When they attend the

Environmental Appeal Board, if they appeal.

MS. EDWARDS : Does the Environmental Appeal

Board go beyond the technicalities and into the actual political

reality?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : The last thing you want

is an appeal board going into politics. I do politics; they do

technical comment.

MS. EDWARDS : What you're saying then, Mr.

Minister, is that we're going ahead to another appeal process which is

going to be very costly and very time-consuming, and then we're going

to get to the basic political question. I want the minister to

understand the frustration of what is going on here. He may have a very

good defence — and if he has, he can put it up — but the people in

Cranbrook are extremely frustrated over this issue.

It's very frustrating to make your point, and to make it under

due process, and then be told we can't do anything but give them the

permit because in fact they have the right-sized steel can. Then to

have the whole process go ahead and the regional district try to do

something about it, and be told that the regional district can go ahead

and set up a central site if it likes.... We have no idea whether

everybody will want to be in it, and they can't exclude anybody else

from still storing their waste all around the regional district. That

may well be enough to prevent this action, which the regional district

had hoped to put forward as a pilot project and to lead the way in the

province for how we will deal with the storage of these special

contaminated wastes until such time as we have some way to destroy them.

I also want to ask the minister a question about

PCB-contaminated wastes. Has there been any consideration of liability

for seepage or any kind of event that might occur in the case of

central storage of these wastes? What happens, and who is responsible?

I'll leave it fairly general right now, although I have a few specifics

to ask if that will be helpful as to who is going to be liable when

something happens at a central storage site where a lot of people have

hazardous wastes.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : The operator-owner of

the site has the responsibility.

MS. EDWARDS : That's not quite the way we

thought it would be when we discussed it the other day. It seemed there

was some suggestion that it might depend on who owned the particular

waste that was there. If the regional district sets up a central

storage site, you are telling me the regional district will be liable

for anything that happens at that site or as a result of something that

occurs because of the storage being central.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : The permit-holder has a

responsibility. If the regional district went ahead — and, by the way,

there is nothing stopping them from going ahead and doing what they

want to do and setting up a model facility, a storage facility for PCBs

— I think they could provide a very useful service. I don't think it

would conflict with the other permittee, because that permittee is, as

I understand it, addressing their company — the wastes that they have

accumulated as a distributor, and the accumulation of the contaminated

electrical equipment that they have in their various warehouses. There

is nothing stopping the regional district from going ahead and building

a facility and operating it, and I would encourage them to do so. It

would certainly be of benefit to me, and it would certainly be of

benefit to the environment.

Back to your original question. The permit-holder is the one

who is liable if there is a spill.

MS. EDWARDS : First of all, the greatest

encouragement you could give to the regional district to go ahead is to

assure them that they could also exclude the building of any other

storage sites within the regional district. As for the liability, if

there is seepage inside, if a barrel ages after a couple of decades —

maybe it was a faulty barrel or whatever — the regional district

itself, if they had a storage site, would be liable for any damage that

came out of that and any cleanup that would have to be done as a

result, and there is no charging it back to the people who owned the

waste and who generated the waste in the first place?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : I just had some advice.

My first answer will stand — the permit-holder. However, I understand

that because of the complexity of this, because of the question of what

sort of law you put into place when you are tracing back — who built

the barrel, who had the stuff in the first place.... There is a

considerable investigation going into that now. I am unable to provide

an answer at this point. It's in an area of law that we want to canvass

and that we are going to have to adopt policy on, but right now the

only policy is that the permit holder is the one who is liable.

MS. EDWARDS : I wonder if the minister would

give me some idea as to the precedents you are looking at. Who has this

kind of law, and what examples are you looking at? Where and what kind?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : In terms of precedents,

I guess the Expo lands is as good as any. As I said, it is very

complicated. I attended a seminar last year in Los Angeles hosted by

the American Society of Municipal Engineers, and there were excellent

lectures from one of the senior California law firms on the whole

aspect of liability. It's a very complicated process in law, I can

assure you, and it is being tested every day.

There was one interesting example given to us of a company

which had bought what they thought was

[ Page 8093 ]

an old dairy. Really it was an old paint factory that the

owners had torn down; they built a brand-new building that was designed

to look like an old dairy and sold it. The new owners thought it was an

old dairy and it couldn't be contaminated. When they got into the soils

work, they found out that in fact there had been a paint factory there.

They then looked at aerial photographs and understood that they really

had been duped badly to the extent of millions of dollars of soil

reclamation that they had to do.

It's a very interesting area, but in terms of policy I can't

give you anything solid at this point, other than to tell you that we

are looking at it with the advice of the Attorney-General's ministry.

It's an area of law that is very confusing and very preliminary at this

point. I don't think you would find an answer anywhere. Some of the

California laws I saw were extremely onerous. I don't know if that is

the right way to go. People who are concerned about environmental law

in this type of situation are racking their brains. As I said, we are

trying to develop policy that will be appropriate and will protect the

environment.

[4:00]

MS. EDWARDS : Perhaps we've found something

you could do that would be even more important than giving the legal

power to the regional districts: to assure them that the people of the

regional district are not going to be stuck with the liability for the

waste from what is probably going to be at least 80 percent of the

waste that they would store. It may well be that they could find a way

of charging that back. But it seems to me that there's a major question

of whether the liability for all this waste is going to be at the

public's expense or put back to the generator of the waste. As I

understood you to say when we were dealing with hazardous waste, the

responsibilities and the costs would revert to the generator of the

waste; the polluter pays. That isn't happening if in fact a regional

district were to set up a central storage site and you were all of

sudden to let the permittee — i.e. the regional district — take the

liability for all the wastes at the site.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : In the first place, no

one has polluted. Kelly Douglas has picked up electrical equipment

containing PCBs, but there's no pollution. They're just required to

store it, and they are doing that. If the regional district obtained a

permit and took in that type of material for storage, again there is no

pollution. Their permit would make them liable if the shipper, or

generator, had fulfilled all his obligations, whatever they might be —

safe storage, proper disclosure of what the material is — as long as

that paper trail was correct, then there wouldn't be any problem. Of

course, the regional district, in managing the site, would be charging

and taking responsibility for the material that they're permitted to

handle. So they would have the responsibility, but there would be a

revenue to them for doing that.

MS. EDWARDS : I'm not too worried about the

possibility of Kelly Douglas and their liability, because I am

expecting that in the long term, Mr. Minister, we will not have that

storage site there. We are determined in our area and will do our best

to assure that it doesn't happen. We do want to see that there is some

public control of the central storage site. If that's the case, we

expect, with all probability, that there will be no pollution. But if

there is some pollution, the question is: who is liable for it? It

seems to me that if you are going to follow up on the principle of "the

polluter pays," you do not then all of a sudden lay the liability onto

the people of the region. Because if you do that, then you are giving a

fairly substantial risk — let's call it a risk — and you're giving it

to the public purse instead of leaving it with the generator of the

PCBs, who is a potential polluter. That's my point. Again I encourage

you with every bit of my persuasive power — if I have any — to look at

that when you're making policy and find some way to keep the liability

with the generator of the waste, because it will militate against a

public body doing this kind of thing, if they have to take on that

liability, which they don't have to take on if they leave people to

establish their own waste storage sites. It will work against having

central, secure, safe storage for PCB-contaminated waste.

I have one other question. What happens when the municipal

government — in the case of the city of Cranbrook right now — is going

to the Environmental Appeal Board? They are put in the position of

having to go through these many steps, whether or not they recognize or

agree — let me put it that way — that their argument is political and

not technical. One step in the appeal process has been eliminated, I

know. But now you tell me that we'll again go to the appeal board on

the basis of a technical appeal. Now the city must make a stronger

technical case, I assume, than they did at the original technical

appeal. They have a number of expenses to go through to make their

case. Will there be some assistance from another level of government

for them to take this step — and lead the way in the province, by the

way, Mr. Minister, because they are the first to be clarifying what's

happening with the storage of PCB-contaminated waste?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : I have a couple of

comments here. First of all, back to "the polluter pays" I'll have to

reiterate: Kelly Douglas is the owner of this special waste and will

have to look after it under permitted, approved conditions. If the

regional district wished to build such a facility, it would have a

permit. As it went to them under current law — and it could be changed,

as we do our policy review — they would be responsible for the safe

containment of the material. If there was a spill or an accident, then

they are the polluter, and they would be responsible for cleaning it

up. But as I said, it would be appropriate that if they accept the

special waste, they charge a fee for it, and that would give them the

comfort and also a resource to use to clean up a spill if it occurred.

With respect to what the city of Cranbrook is doing and

whether I'm going to assist them finan-

[ Page 8094 ]

cially, the answer is no. I'd be the last person to assist

them financially, because I'm, in essence, the court. They might go to

the Ministry of Municipal Affairs for that type of assistance, but I

can't see myself assisting someone at an Environmental Appeal Board

hearing; that would really be in conflict with what we do. We have an

Environmental Appeal Board. It has legislation, staff, resources and

remarkable expertise in just about all fields that we administer under

our various pieces of legislation, and it has the ability to make good,

sound judgments on the evidence that it hears. That's why it is in

place. Certainly, though, I would not entertain funding it, because

that would be considered by some to be a serious conflict. I think the

member can understand that.

MS. EDWARDS : What I would call it, Mr.

Minister, is intervener funding. I was afraid to call it that in the

first place because I knew you would say "no" right off, but that

didn't get me very far, did it?

Anyway, the point is that it seems to me that there are some

issues to be made, that this is a brand-new case and that it is

important that the appellant come in with as many resources as possible

at their disposal. In this case it's the municipal government, which

represents a large number of people, and I think it's important that

they have the resources to make a very good case at the appeal, when it

comes.

I certainly don't think that if there were some provision for

intervener funding at the various hearings that happen in this province

it would necessarily be a conflict of interest if it were managed

correctly.

I do have another question. Again, it has to do with the idea

of central, secure, safe storage sites. There are none in the province

right now, as I understand it. I know that there have been some other

areas where some persuasion has been put forward and regional

government has not been as receptive as it has been in East Kootenay. I

am putting forward a question to the minister: what is the ministry

doing in other areas of the province to encourage this kind of

activity? Would he not like to have a model?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : First of all, it is not

correct that there are no sites. There are 487 waste PCB storage sites

in British Columbia.

Would I be prepared to undertake a study of a model? Of

course. Anything the regional district wants to send me I will be more

than happy to review, whether it be in Cranbrook, the Kootenays, the

Cariboo or whatever. My job is to ensure that we have safe, secure

storage and, hopefully, at some time destruction and treatment. If

anybody has an idea for a better mousetrap, whether legislatively or

technically, I will be more than happy to entertain that idea.

MS. EDWARDS : Just one more question. The

minister mentions fairly frequently the idea of a central disposal

operation. Is he looking at other possibilities such as portable

disposal facilities or, I presume, biological... ? I understand that

there are bacteria now that are eating things that probably aren't good

for their health. Are those sorts of options being looked at by the

ministry?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : I don't know if I said

it earlier, but if I didn't, I regret it; I should have. We have

engaged a consultant. We are looking at other provincial models; for

example, the notion of a Crown corporation. We are looking at a variety

of remedies and methodologies.

I think, as I said earlier, that when it comes to the very

expensive process of a high-temperature incinerator, probably one would

suffice and enable us to handle all our needs. In terms of other

remedies, such as phys-chem stabilization and bio-leaching, which is

what you referred to, those could be site-specific. We could also

consider a portable burner. The federal government, as you know, ever

since St.-Basile-le-Grand, has considered a portable burner. We are

looking at many remedies.

The bottom line is that we will look at any suggestion that

will help us out of this situation, because it is serious. We do want

to be in control. We realize that we can't continue to rely on the

United States, which we do in some cases for some of our special

wastes. I would not entertain the notion of using Alberta, even if

Alberta would take, say, PCBs, because I think it is very important

that governments have the ability to manage their own problems within

their own borders and not be dependent upon other governments. Those

governments can change their mind, and then you are left without a

process for looking after your own problem.

I will look at any remedies and suggestions, because it is a

serious concern, this issue of special wastes, and they are growing

every day. It is not something that's going away, but in fact it is a

problem that is with us. As long as we have high-tech industries and

the consumer demands of the 1980s, we are going to have special wastes.

Every time you get your suit dry-cleaned, you create a special waste.

Every time you have film processed, you create a special waste. Every

time you change the crankcase oil in your car or discard a battery, you

create a special waste. Our lifestyle ensures that there is going to be

an accumulation of special wastes for the rest of our days. When you

talk about the polluter paying, don't lose sight of the fact that you

and I are the polluters, and we are going to have to pay to sort this

problem out.

MR. SIHOTA : I thought there was a bit of a

shift change going on here. I see some of the ministers going, some of

the ministers coming, and the Minister of Crown Lands (Hon. Mr. Dirks)

is here. I see the second member for Richmond (Mr. Loenen) is here.

Usually the second member for Richmond comes in, pompoms waving, and I

thought he was going to give us a break and extol the virtues of the

government, but even he can't find words for the government.

MR. CHAIRMAN : I'd just like to remind the

member that we are on vote 55, the Minister of State for Cariboo and

the Minister Responsible for Envi-

[ Page 8095 ]

ronment. If the member cares to proceed on a relevant matter,

please do so.

MR. SIHOTA : I will. I was just saying that

it is certainly a pleasure for me to see the member for Columbia River

(Mr. Crandall) back in the House today. We were wondering where he was,

and it's great to see him here.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Order. Let's proceed, please.

MR. SIHOTA : I didn't realize it was out of

order to welcome members back to the House.

HON. MR. REID : You're the only one who goes

home for lunch, cuts the grass and comes back to work.

MR. SIHOTA : Who, me?

HON. MR. REID : You're the only one in the

House who can do that.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Mr. Minister, please.

MR. SIHOTA : Well, I was just trying to put

a question to the Minister of Environment, dealing with his estimates,

but the minister can come and cut my grass any time he wants to.

The other day it came to my attention that in my riding in

Port Renfrew there was a matter involving the finding of material which

had been plowed into the ground and buried approximately five and a

half years ago. I understand B.C. Forest Products had up to 31

containers containing various pesticides and herbicides at their site

at Port Renfrew. Subsequently they decided that something had to be

done with those, and they were buried at a site in Port Renfrew.

Needless to say, after five and a half years the stuff started to leak.

There was some concern by the community and someone thought that there

was something buried in that area, and indeed it turns out that that

was the case. The conservation people with the ministry undertook to

take a look at the site and did, and lo and behold discovered these

containers filled with various types of contaminants, including some

which were of an arsenic compound.

[4:15]

I listened with interest when my colleague our critic for the

environment was speaking about prosecutions, fines and all that kind of

stuff, and the minister was going out of his way to talk about

prosecutions and the government's intent in terms of proceeding with

prosecutions in the next little while on these types of matters. Could

the minister tell me whether or not the government or his ministry

intends to prosecute the culprits in this case with respect to those

contaminants that were found in the soil in Port Renfrew?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : At the outset I'll

advise the member that I'm getting details on that incident now, and I

don't have them at hand.

However, the process would be.... And obviously it's in place

now if conservation officers have been out there, because they are the

peace-officer arm of the ministry, if you will. Conservation officers

will be investigating, as any other peace officer would in this case,

and they will be presenting the material to the ministry. We will make

a decision at that point as to whether we should proceed with

prosecution. That's the standard process of investigation and analysis

and then making a decision as to whether or not you will prosecute.

That's about all I can say at this point, but I will try to

provide more details to you. It should be on its way now.

MR. SIHOTA : I'll wait for some of those

details if time permits. But I want to ask the minister some other

questions in general terms.

First, about the provisions of the Pesticide Control Act. I

take it that this type of prosecution would come out under that act.

Could the minister tell the House how many prosecutions took place

under that act last year?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : If we have herbicides or

pesticides and if there is prosecution to be done, it would be under

the Waste Management Act, not the Pesticide Control Act. That does

different things.

In terms of the numbers, I'll get a number for you.

MR. LOENEN : The member for Esquimalt-Port

Renfrew asked me just a few minutes ago to sing the virtues and praises

of this government. I'm delighted to comply with his request; I have no

trouble in doing that at all.

In fact, speaking to the Minister of Environment, I think

environment is of primary concern to this government, as we've

demonstrated and continued to demonstrate time and again. We've made

mention of the very substantial increase in the budget for the Minister

of Environment, and obviously we applaud that. That shows that our

commitment lies with the environment.

But I have to go back to earlier this spring when the Premier

of the province spent part of his Easter weekend personally

investigating. Where was the Leader of the Opposition? Perhaps you

could tell us. Was he sitting in his living-room? We had the Premier of

this province spending part of his long weekend up in Alaska to

personally investigate and take note, and he followed that through with

some very striking initiatives with neighbouring states. Our Premier

and this government took a leading role in that. He appointed David

Anderson, eminently qualified to address the concerns related to oil

spills.

That was this government's response to the needs we see for

the environment. Indeed, it is a record that we can be proud of. As I

said, I am just delighted to accept the invitation of the member to

speak about what our government is doing concerning the environment.

Just a few other items. The gas pipeline to Vancouver Island

is first and foremost an environmental

[ Page 8096 ]

initiative. Too few people realize that it will allow us to

convert these industries and the homes up and down the Sunshine Coast,

as well as Vancouver Island, away from oil to that purest of all fuels,

natural gas. In addition, it will allow us to do away with some

300-plus oil tanker movements right here in the Strait of Georgia. We

know how dangerous it is to have oil tankers up and down the Strait of

Georgia. When we talk about the Vancouver Island natural gas pipeline,

we are talking about an initiative that first and foremost is an

environmental initiative.

We have a lot of things to be proud of, and I want to commend

the minister for initiating so many things. One of the things that I am

proudest of, and of which I think this government can be truly proud,

is that we have created 1,000 summer jobs for students and young

people to be out there guarding the purity of air, water and land

throughout this great province. That's an achievement that we can be

proud of, and it's great to see that we are gaining experience and

those young people will gain experience this summer in terms of being

good stewards of the natural resources that we have been entrusted with.

In addition, we of course have legislation. I won't get into

the legislation; we will have time to get into that later. All told —

and I have just hit some of the highlights — we indeed have reason to

sing the praises of this government when it comes to concern for

environmental issues, and we are responding to them.

One of the things that I particularly wanted to ask the

minister about relates to the water quality of the lower Fraser River.

As the minister well knows, I represent a community surrounded by

water, surrounded by the Fraser River. We are right there in the delta.

We have some concerns related to that.

When I was a youngster I used to swim in the Fraser River. We

used to swim across the middle arm from Lulu Island to the airport.

Today, unfortunately, most people would keep their children away from

the Fraser River water. They wouldn't even allow their children to put

their feet into the water, and with good reason. That's a sad state of

affairs, and we have to address it. I know the minister is concerned

about it, but I'd like to get a response from him.

I know that the GVRD is concerned about what is happening to

the liquid waste and the control of that, and what it does to our

waters in the Strait of Georgia and particularly in the lower Fraser

River. When we talk about liquid waste, we are talking about waste

water that is discharged to sewers from households, businesses and

industry. In addition, we also talk about the rainfall runoff from the

rural and urban areas.

The GVRD put out a liquid waste management plan, stage 1, in

February this year, and it shows, based on very limited data, that some

14 out of 21 major water bodies in the Vancouver region are rated

either fair or poor. What that means is that water quality is not high

enough some of the time to support designated uses such as bathing,

crop irrigation and habitat for fish. The district's sewage treatment

plants discharge about 300 billion litres of primary-treated waste

water each year. To put it in other terms, that is enough to fill B.C.

Place Stadium 160 times.

MR. SIHOTA : You're on the wrong estimates.

We left that.

MR. LOENEN : Mr. Chairman, I take it that we

are dealing with Environment.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Please proceed, member.

MR. LOENEN : I would be pleased to continue

to speak about environmental concerns as they relate to my community.

The combined sewers in Vancouver, New Westminster and Burnaby

overflow about 62 billion litres of mixed sewage and rainfall runoff

each year. I want to get these numbers into the record, because it is

important for us to get a handle on how big the problem is. The urban

runoff was once believed to be clean, but is now known to carry

significant amounts of contaminants from the street surface to the

receiving waters. About 365 billion litres of rainfall runoff from

urban areas discharge into local waters each year.

We need to tackle this problem on many fronts, and one of the

ways is through education. Certainly, homeowners are responsible for

ensuring that harmful household contaminants are not dumped or flushed

down the drains. The GVRD estimates show that as much of 60 percent of

some contaminants in sewage originates from homes. I was pleased to

note that the Sunshine Coast Regional District, for instance, regularly

puts out information to all its residents on how we can better guard

against these kinds of harmful household contaminants. They tell their

residents that non-biodegradable materials such as disposable diapers,

sanitary napkins, rubber goods, cigarette filters or butts, hair, etc.

should be dumped in the garbage and not flushed down the toilet. In

addition, there are acids, caustic cleaners, gasoline, oil, turpentine

and those chemicals used for developing photographs that should never

be dumped into the sewers. I believe we need to address this through a

vigorous campaign of education directed to the people who do the

polluting.

In view of those concerns in the GVRD about liquid waste, I

would like the minister to respond to a few questions. First of all,

what is his role in terms of monitoring the levels of pollution in the

water there and in terms of enforcing the standards that his ministry

sets? I would also like to ask a question related to the fact that the

GVRD has asked for provincial funding to address this problem; I would

be pleased to know whether or not the minister can supply a response at

this time.

I noticed that in his opening statement the minister talked

about the fact that water management in his budget this year is up some

$2 million. What is the total dollar budget item for water management,

what is it used for, and how does that relate to the

[ Page 8097 ]

particular needs in the Greater Vancouver Regional District?

[4:30]

HON. MR. STRACHAN : A lot of questions

there, and I'll try to deal with them as quickly and as relevantly as I

can. It was interesting to watch the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew

(Mr. Sihota) squirm a bit. They probably find this debate a little

embarrassing inasmuch as their leader, as a former mayor of Vancouver,

has probably contributed more than anyone else to water pollution in

the Fraser by not doing anything. It is only Mayor Gordon Campbell who

has finally taken the bull by the horns and done something in terms of

putting a waste management plan in place. Then what really bugs me is

that as a taxpayer in the city of Prince George I have been paying for

proper waste management treatment since 1971, and I am advised that I'm

going to be paying for our waste management treatment facility until

the year 2003; yet we have Victoria, Vancouver and other areas

continually polluting with absolutely no leadership, until now, at the

local level in terms of developing some sort of waste management plan.

The study they've proposed is at $1.5 billion. That's for

liquid waste management. It's very expensive; it just boggles

everybody's mind. I can assure you, Mr. Member, that I don't have that

in my budget, and Lord knows where it's going to come from. But

inasmuch as I, as a Prince George taxpayer, pay for my sewage treatment

and planning, I don't see why the good people of the GVRD shouldn't pay

for theirs as well.

By and large, the Fraser River, believe it or not, is slowly

but surely being cleaned up, I think in large part because many of the

communities such as Prince George on the Fraser River have developed

proper sewage treatment, and that's in place all up and down the river.

We are monitoring industry more and more every day. There is a

federal-provincial task force which deals with Fraser River management,

and all members get an annual report from me on what they're doing. So

we do have considerable input into how the Fraser should be managed.

It's a remarkable resource for our province, and there's no way that we

want to see it any more polluted than it is. But it is cleaning up to

some degree, and if we can wrestle with the ratepayers in the GVRD area

and with other people who are contributing to the problem and get them

to address the problem, because they are the problem, then we'll see

some improvement in the Fraser River.

The member mentioned rainwater runoff. Needless to say, it is

quite dangerous. It does contain contaminants. Automobile lead, for

example, from cars that use leaded gasoline will deposit on the

roadway, and then if you have a heavy rain, such as quite often happens

in the lower mainland, that lead will be deposited into the water and

not carried away. One of the problems we see with respect to the fish

tumours in Burrard Inlet is runoff lead from roadways that has

contaminated that soil. So you will have those problems the member has

identified.

Saying that it's going to be done quickly or taking any sort

of a Pollyanna or cheery approach to it is not the way to go, of

course. It's going to take an awful lot of money. It's going to take

dedicated taxpayers in the Greater Vancouver Regional District to

recognize that they are responsible for cleaning up those waters and

for cleaning up the discharges at Iona Island and Annacis Island. Until

the taxpayers of the GVRD realize that, we're going to continue with

this pollution problem. To date the bill is $1.5 billion. I certainly

don't have it in my ministry. My budget is only $120 million or

thereabouts. It is going to take a concerted effort by GVRD taxpayers

to clean up that problem.

MR. LOENEN : I appreciate the response from

the minister. I had also asked a question about his budget, and perhaps

he could refer to that. I acknowledge — and I think we all do — that

the taxpayer, the polluter, is the one who ought to foot the bill. I am

a little concerned that the magnitude of the problem is such that the

local taxpayer will simply not be able, with the best will in the

world, to foot the bill for those initial projects that need to be

done. It also seems to me — and I don't know the particulars about the

Prince George case — that many of our communities throughout the

province do benefit from the revenue-sharing program through the

Ministry of Municipal Affairs, and it would seem to me that Prince

George has also benefited, and I'm not entirely sure that they've paid

the whole way themselves.

In view of the great need, I would ask the minister whether

the province might be prepared under his ministry to help the GVRD

approach the federal government to see whether we could get funding

from them; I'm told they did participate in the case of the city of

Halifax. If that is the case, I think we as a province owe it to the

GVRD and the taxpayers there to go along with them and make our case

before the feds. Could the minister respond to that?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : Firstly, in answer to

the question of what my budget is for water management, it is $23

million. So if the GVRD has a waste management plan calling for the

expenditure of a $1.5 billion, you can see that we are a little short.

In answer to your question about federal assistance, we have

approached on a regular basis the federal Department of the Environment

at our CCREM meetings for this type of assistance. To date the answer

has been no. In terms of federal assistance for this ministry and for

some of our environmental problems, I think we could see some remedy

with respect to dealing with special wastes and contaminated soils.

Currently we're at the point of negotiating a $275 million deal

nationally, if Lucien Bouchard can get that in his budget, and they

would come in for 40 percent in terms of helping us with our

contaminated soil problems. That's very much in the discussion stage,

and Mr. Bouchard was not able to substantiate at our last meeting that

he could enter into those types of agreements. That is the position

[ Page 8098 ]

we're taking right now. We'd like to see him come across with

$275 million and that money be allocated 40 percent to the provinces

that have soil contamination problems. We, of course, would use this at

our most immediate concern, which is the Expo 86 soils and other

industrial properties — orphan properties — as they are discovered.

MR. ROSE : I have a particular riding case I

wish to discuss with the minister. I touched on it here the other

night. It has to do with the real or imagined emissions from one

chemical plant in Port Moody called Reichhold.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

Before I get started on that, the minister just received a

letter on that subject. I would think he has the letter, anyway; I have

it here before me. I don't know whether he has had an opportunity to

read the letter or not. Also, I have to tell you that while I have

contacted the air standards officer, Mr. Smith, at the GVRD on this

subject, and I understand they have the responsibility delegated to

them — devolved to them is, I think, the current buzzword — by the

ministry, what has been done so far has not really met with a great

deal of comfort and satisfaction by the concerned residents.

The other thing I wanted to tell you is that while I have been

to the GVRD, I have not given the waste management people any

opportunity to comment on this one way or the other. But I want to be

fair, and to be fair, I'm not an expert. I don't live in the area;

they're not my relatives who are in danger, but I can understand the

concerns of the people. I visited with a representative group of them

on Saturday last and also went around the plant. But the chemical plant

to me looks like a can of spaghetti — I can make neither head nor tail

of it. My viewing the plant or going through it would have little

effect on whether it was operating properly or not.

Reichhold, though, does not have a very savoury record across

the world. According to Citizens' Clearinghouse for Hazardous Wastes,

one example was in 1977, when their chemical plant in Mississippi

exploded and burned, destroying most of its buildings. Reichhold

abandoned the site and the town years later, and the EPA listed it as

one of the national priorities for super-cleanup. There's another story

out of the Washington Post describing the same incident.

Another story has to do with Reichhold in Tacoma, and I'll

read you a couple of excerpts. I think this is a Greenpeace publication

— but I don't have the source, so I'm not certain. It says, "Why

Reichhold?" and concerns the tidal flats around Tacoma where Reichhold

has a plant.

"A major contributor to this ongoing

crisis is Reichhold Chemicals Inc. While Reichhold is not the sole

polluter of Commencement Bay, its history of extremely dangerous

product and waste generation, poor waste disposal practices and a

singular lack of cooperation with the community leads to the conclusion

that Reichhold is probably the most imminent toxic threat in the Tacoma

tide flats."

Let's not paint them indelibly as villains with these two

isolated opinions. I hope I'm not doing that, because above all else, I

try to be reasonably responsible. But here's a clipping from a

publication of the Dow Chemical Co. — they're in a similar business:

"'And what about our products?' asks the president." Frank Popoff is his

name, I believe; yes, president of Dow in the U.S.A. "'We must design

products for the future that meet the needs of our customers and are

judged by the public to be environmentally neutral or positive. Public

involvement in the process will be crucial.'"

There's an attempt by the public — the residents who live

upstream or above this plant — to have some little effect on the air

they breathe. Regardless of whether Reichhold predated the residents on

the hillside, certainly the municipality passed the zoning bylaws

necessary for residential development, and the municipality has a

responsibility to see that those people are not in the middle of an air

quality which is really very much like a sewer.

I hate to say this, but over the years Port Moody has been

known as the fly ash capital of the world, the sulphur-in the-seawater

capital of the world, the ozone capital of the world, and now the

concern is with formaldehyde, a well-known carcinogen that plays a

large

part in the production of that plant. The GVRD, under Mr. Smith,

has been down and made comments about it. It has made some efforts;

Reichhold has made some efforts. I can give you a

schedule of the

things they've attempted to do. But there are an increasingly large

number of complaints, and I don't think this is just the result of a

few cranks living on the hillside.

My colleague from Vancouver Centre lives very close to that

place, too, and he confirmed to me that he has been living with it for

years. He perhaps is not as concerned, since he has no small children

at home — at least he didn't the last time I looked — therefore he

hasn't been involved to such an extent.

In this letter to you, Mr. Minister, their group says, in an

admission or emission partway through the letter: "Although stack

emissions will prove to be well within the ministry's guidelines" — in

other words, if the GVRD under Mr. Smith comes down and measures with

those guidelines — "there's no proof that other sources of emissions

are within the guidelines." They're essentially saying that, sure, they

might have put in a scrubber that works most of the time — an old

scrubber, not a new one, not state of the art — and they also have an

incinerator that works some of the time, they claim.

All these things I'm saying today are really only allegations

and requests for confirmation or denial in order to reassure the people

or else get Reichhold to do something about their operation.

Going on with their quote: "We feel the investigating staff of

Pollution Control are exhausted trying to understand the complexity of

this type of industry, and we are trying not to fault that governing

body." In other words, they're not laying blame, but they're saying we

don't have the expertise.

[ Page 8099 ]

This morning I phoned a chemical engineer. He is, of course, a

scientist and is naturally reluctant, without a full study, to go down

and make any charges whatsoever.

I am also told that t