1983 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 33rd

Parliament

Hansard

The following electronic version is

for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

( Hansard )

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 20, 1983

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 2893

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions.

Provincial participation in Nishga land claims

negotiations. Mr. Passarell –– 2893

Transportation for school children. Mrs. Wallace –– 2893

Pornographic film-making in Victoria. Hon. Mr. Smith

replies –– 2895

Sabotage at Riverview Hospital. Hon. Mr. Smith replies

–– 2895

Lien Amendment Act, 1983 (Bill 32). Hon. Mr. Smith.

Introduction and first reading –– 2895

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Municipal Affairs

estimates. (Hon. Mr. Ritchie)

On vote 65 –– 2895

Hon. Mr. Gardom

An Act To Provide No-Smoking Areas In Public Places

(Bill M205). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 2895

An Act To Provide For Adequate Motor Vehicle Liability

Insurance (Bill M206). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 2895

Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 1983 (Bill 23).

Third reading –– 2896

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Municipal Affairs

estimates. (Hon. Mr. Ritchie)

On vote 65 –– 2896

Mr. Blencoe

On vote 66 –– 2896

Mr. Blencoe

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Lands, Parks and

Housing estimates. (Hon. Mr. Brummet)

On vote 61 –– 2897

Hon. Mr. Brummet

Mr. Mitchell

Mr. Blencoe

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Environment estimates.

(Hon. Mr. Brummet)

On vote 31 –– 2906

Hon. Mr. Brummet

Mrs. Wallace

Mr. Passarell

Mr. Lockstead

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Human Resources

estimates. (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy)

On vote 49 –– 2911

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy

Mr. Barnes

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 20, 1983

The House met at 2:08 p.m.

Oral Questions

PROVINCIAL PARTICIPATION IN

NISHGA LAND CLAIMS NEGOTIATIONS

MR. PASSARELL: There are very few of them over there, Mr.

Speaker –– I was going to ask the Premier a question, but he's not

here, so I'll put my question to the Attorney-General.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's not here either.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Speaker, I'll try for three now. I'll put

my question to the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations, since this

is a federal-provincial matter. Mr. Robert Exell, coordinator of

native Indian programs, advised the Nishga in September that he had not

been instructed to attend the Nishga land claims negotiations with the

federal negotiator, and that he had no minister from whom to seek

instructions. The question to you, Mr. Minister, is: will you advise

why the province of British Columbia failed to give such instructions

to Mr. Exell, and why no provincial representative attended the

September negotiations?

HON. MR. GARDOM: In answer to the member for Atlin's

question, Mr. Speaker, that question should be properly addressed to my

colleague, the Attorney-General, and on his behalf I shall take the

question as notice.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Attorney-General is coming through the

door.

MR. PASSARELL: Come on, hurry up and get in here.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. PASSARELL: A new question to the Attorney-General, Mr.

Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ask him the old one. Repeat it.

MR. PASSARELL: Okay, I'll go back over it. Since the Minister

of Intergovernmental Relations took it on notice, I will state it to

the Attorney-General. Mr. Robert Exell, coordinator of native programs,

advised the Nishga in September that he had not been instructed to

attend the Nishga land claims negotiations, and that he had no minister

from whom to seek instructions. The question is: will the

Attorney-General advise why the province of British Columbia failed to

give such instructions to Mr. Exell, and why no provincial

representative attended the September negotiations?

HON. MR. SMITH: I don't know whether this member is aware

that since March 1976, 25 meetings have been held between the band, the

representative of the government of British Columbia has chaired four

of the last five of those meetings. I don't know that this member is

aware of that: the position he has put here in this question suggests a

lack of interest on the part of this government in native matters. This

government, Mr. Speaker, has been in the forefront nationally, in

making representations on native matters. It also pioneered in this

country the progressive settlement of the Fort Nelson Indian band

claims in the field of natural gas, which are a model across this

country. I will take the rest of this question as notice.

MR. PASSARELL: Maybe if you give me $20 I won't ask the

questions any more.

I have a question to the Premier. The Nishga have requested the

Premier to advise whether Mr. Exell will be attending the October 25

and 26 negotiations. The question to the Premier is: has the government

decided to send a representative to these very important land claims

negotiation meetings?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I'll have to take that

question as notice.

MR. PASSARELL: My last question to the Premier, Mr. Speaker:

will the Premier advise what instructions have been given to Mr. Exell

regarding participation in the Nishga land claims negotiations?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Well, Mr. Speaker, I have taken the

question as notice. As the Attorney-General, in conjunction with the

Minister of Intergovernmental Relations, will be handling this for the

government, I think it would be inappropriate for me to respond to that

question.

TRANSPORTATION FOR SCHOOL CHILDREN

MRS. WALLACE: I have a question to the Minister of Education,

Mr. Speaker. The minister is aware of a serious danger to children

crossing the Island Highway in the Cowichan School District, and the

minister has told local parents that the revised transportation

allowance would be available by October 15. In view of the fact that

this date has now passed and conflicting information is coming from the

minister's office and his department on a new date, will the minister

advise when this situation will be resolved?

[2:15]

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I'm aware of the serious

accident which did occur to a young lad on the road between Shawnigan

and Cobble Hill. This particular accident has given rise to

considerable concern among parents in the area. I advised the member as

well as some of her constituents that the matter of transportation

allowances was under considerable review. As a matter of fact, a

bulletin has been issued to all school districts in British Columbia

with respect to transportation allowances, using the previous year's

actual costs. That bulletin was issued on Friday, October 7, and the

school district is very much aware of it.

I've also requested, as a result of this particular incident, that

someone in my ministry contact School District 65 with respect to the

accident which occurred. I can assure you that it did occur within a

distance of two miles of the school. I don't think that we need go into

the details of it at this time, but it certainly was well within the

three-mile radius. The last point that I would like to make on this is

that the member well knows — and we have had this discussion on more

than one occasion — that the autonomy of the school district must be

preserved....

[ Page 2894

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I'm serious about this. Because this

particular incident involved transportation, it is the school district

which must make a decision about transporting children within that

distance if they so wish. I don't think that, as a result of a decision

which the school district made which some of the residents are not

happy with, they can immediately proceed to the provincial government

and ask the provincial government to intervene in the affairs of the

district, particularly on a matter like this.

MRS. WALLACE: That's all very interesting, and as the

minister says, we've had that all before. Maybe the minister would now

listen to the question. He apparently told the parents that he would

have this transportation reallocation finished by October 15. He told

me that it would be ready by October 31 or November 1, and now his

ministry is telling me that it won't be ready till November 15. My

question was: when is he going to have this information available?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, the information was released

to all school boards in British Columbia, I believe, on Friday, October

7. At that time we advised them in a bulletin where there were 17 other

items as well as the one on transportation — the statement which was

made as a matter of policy; that is, that the transportation costs

incurred by each school district in the province would be based on the

previous year's costs. That information has been communicated to all

districts, and I made the additional effort to ensure that someone in

the ministry communicated that information directly to School District

MRS. WALLACE: I assume he's talking about information

circular no. 15. Is that correct?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I can't remember the number.

MRS. WALLACE: It talks about the regular bus transportation

and says: "This will require districts to negotiate annually

transportation budgets with the school facilities division, and

guidelines will be published shortly."

What I'm asking is: what is the status of the negotiations and the

guidelines? When are the parents of these kids going to know whether or

not the kids are going to have transportation?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Again, we have advised the school district

that for the transportation budget which they are to prepare for the

next fiscal year, being a calendar year in the case of school

districts, they are to use the transportation figures from the previous

year. What the member is really getting at is a matter of policy of

School District 65 with respect to transportation of children within

the three-mile radius. That is a policy which has been established. If

the school district wishes, on its own, to provide that transportation

within the three-mile radius, then that's up to that school district

and up to the parents to make their case to that board. It's not for

the province of British Columbia to make a decision with respect to

transportation within the three-mile distance.

MRS. WALLACE: Does the minister not agree that children have

the right to be transported to school without undue danger?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Certainly I agree with the statement made

by the member. But we also have an additional problem, and that applies

throughout British Columbia. Yes, I recognize the concern of the member

with respect to children crossing the major highway travelling

up-Island. I recognize that fact; the school district recognizes that

fact. When the original budgets came out, those matters were not taken

into consideration. The framework was revised. If they rely upon the

money spent in the existing year.... That is entirely up to the board,

and how the board wishes to allocate those funds is entirely up to

them. Surely the school board must take some responsibility for the use

of those funds and how they want to allocate them. That's exactly the

onus that has been placed upon them. They are answerable to the

citizens whom they serve.

MRS. WALLACE: Inasmuch as funding was provided for those

children to be transported last year, are you telling me that you have

now revised the budget for Cowichan to allow extra funds — more than

they were getting previously so that they can be transported if the

board so desires?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: There are no additional funds provided for

the specific transport of children in School District 65, particularly

in the area to which the member refers — no additional funds for that

district or for any other school district of the province. The decision

of School District 65 was to transport the children who resided within

the three-mile radius. That was their decision. They allocated funds

and were prepared to do it. Interestingly enough, as I recall going

back into the fiscal framework for School District 65, it seems to me

that they are to receive something like 101 percent of the actual 1983

budget. It's really a reasonably well-managed school district, and I

must mention that. What the member is looking for is a preferred

benefit for children within School District 65,

whereas I can look to a

number of school districts in the province where the climate is much

rougher and the transportation and highway problems are identical. I

cannot turn around and ask for a specific benefit to be bestowed upon

School District 65. The school district can do it, and I have discussed

this with the member on a number of occasions.

MRS. JOHNSTON: I ask leave to make an introduction, Mr.

Speaker

Leave granted.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery this afternoon

are two guests: Mrs. Barbara McNair, visiting from London, England, and

Louise Pelton, wife of our distinguished Dewdney MLA. Would you please

make them welcome?

MR. BLENCOE: On a point of order, and for clarification, Mr.

Speaker. Yesterday or the day before I brought to the attention of the

Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) a rent

increase in Vancouver of 112 percent. He stated there was no such rent

increase for 1185 Haro

[ Page 2895

Street. I would like to table the notice of rent increase for 1185

Haro Street, signed by the landlord, for 112 percent.

MR. SPEAKER: The member asks leave for tabling.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to answer questions

taken as notice earlier in the session.

Leave granted.

PORNOGRAPHIC FILM-MAKING IN VICTORIA

HON. MR. SMITH: The member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown)

asked what steps had been taken to investigate pornographic film-making

in Victoria. I wish to assure the member that that report is under

active investigation by the Victoria police department. The

investigation is proceeding well, and I cannot comment further.

ASSAULT OF MIGRANT WORKERS

HON. MR. SMITH: The member for Burnaby-Edmonds also asked me

a question about an alleged assault on three migrant farmworkers and a

child in the vicinity of Keremeos. The RCMP have charged four

individuals in connection with that incident. There have also been four

other incidents in the Okanagan known to the police. Charges were laid

in three of the cases; in the fourth the individual who claimed to have

been assaulted left the province and no charges were laid.

SABOTAGE AT RIVERVIEW HOSPITAL

HON. MR. SMITH: Finally, the member for West Vancouver–Howe

Sound (Mr. Reynolds) asked me a question concerning the damage done to

the laundry facilities at Riverview Hospital. There was $100,000 worth

of damage. I'm able to report that the RCMP have concluded an

investigation into the matter and found no physical evidence at the

scene and no direct evidence leading to the laying of any criminal

charges as a result of personal interviews. That investigation has been

concluded at the present moment.

I will also file an answer to question 46 on the order paper put to

me by the member for Burnaby-Edmonds.

Introduction of Bills

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

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Builders Lien Amendment Act, 1983.

Bill 32 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.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: I would ask for leave to proceed to public

bills and orders.

MR. SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted?

MR. HOWARD: With respect, I think the House Leader should ask

leave to proceed to the item first on that subject matter, namely

public bills in the hands of private members.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Well, I asked leave to proceed to public

bills and orders.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Somewhere along the line we have

begun a debate. All that was asked for initially was leave. Shall leave

be granted?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: I hear a no, hon. member.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I call Committee of Supply.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS

(continued)

On vote 65: operations and administration, $9,349,891.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I move the committee rise, report progress

and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit

again.

[2:30]

HON. MR. GARDOM: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill

M205.

AN ACT TO PROVIDE

NO-SMOKING AREAS IN PUBLIC PLACES

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleague the

Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen), I move adjournment of the debate

until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill

M206.

AN ACT TO PROVIDE FOR ADEQUATE

MOTOR VEHICLE LIABILITY INSURANCE

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, I move adjournment of this

debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Report on Bill 23, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 2896

MOTOR VEHICLE AMENDMENT ACT, 1983

Bill 23 read a third time and passed on the following division:

YEAS — 25

McCarthy

Nielsen

Gardom

Smith

Bennett

Phillips

A. Fraser

Davis

Kempf

Brummet

McClelland

Heinrich

Hewitt

Richmond

Ritchie

Michael

Johnston

R. Fraser

Campbell

Strachan

Veitch

Segarty

Ree

Parks

Reynolds

NAYS — 11

Howard

Lauk

Nicolson

D'Arcy

Hanson

Lockstead

Barnes

Wallace

Mitchell

Passarell

Blencoe

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call Committee of Supply, Mr. Speaker.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS

(continued)

On vote 65: operations and administration, $9,349,891.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, before the adjournment for lunch

this afternoon I was asking the minister to clarify something. Perhaps

he's got the information before him now. Under vote 65-1.4, policy and

research, there is a major shift in policy, with a 50 percent cut in

financing. He said it was for financial reviews, yet under financial

services there is a 24 percent cut as well. I am wondering if the

minister could give us some more detail about it. He said it was

consulting; I would like to know what kind of consulting and those

sorts of things.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, I've had the time to dig out

some of the details. First of all, I would like to advise the member

that the figure of $434,824 was an estimated figure for 1982-83;

however, the actual expenditure was $305,000 so the reduction isn't so

great.

Financial consulting had to do with the cost of various programs.

For instance, Mr. Chairman, it was considered that we should do a study

of the downtown revitalization program and have it evaluated. There was

an amount for a property tax review committee report. Restructure

studies is another area where there has been considerable money spent.

It was the decision of the ministry that we should look into the cost

of that and the value of it. Fiscal study is another one. It was

considered that we should look into the value of ministry

communications policy. That's some of a number of programs.

Now, Mr. Chairman, the member should know that while we didn't spend

these dollars, we did carry out some of the studies, but we did it

in-house. Therefore there was no need to spend the money on consulting

fees.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, under 65-2.6, there is

approximately an 11 percent cut in funding for the Islands Trust.

Perhaps the minister can clarify that and give us the details.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: The difference there, through you, Mr.

Chairman, to the member, is the result of a change in salaries because

of some changes of staff within that particular group.

MR. BLENCOE: Staff reduction?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: No, not staff reduction, but change of

positions.

MR. BLENCOE: One very quick one, and then we will leave this

one and we can carry the vote on, unless someone else wants to speak,

Mr. Chairman. The building standards branch is an important branch in

terms of advice to municipalities on handicapped access and this sort

of thing. You are showing a fairly substantial reduction, according to

my figures, of 33 percent. Perhaps you could give us some details on

that.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: We had anticipated spending more money in

here, Mr. Chairman, in looking at the buildings standards act. It was

considered that we could have some expense in that regard. That wasn't

proclaimed, and therefore there was no need for that expenditure.

MR. BLENCOE: I'll accept that, except that I would hope the

minister will be careful with that particular branch — building

standards particularly. The advice has been given to the

municipalities, and cities and towns are now looking at the

handicapped. That's the one area that I'm familiar with; I used it, and

the staff they have there are excellent and provided really good

background for me and for our city. I just hope that kind of support

and advice won't be eliminated. I have no other questions under this

particular vote.

Vote 65 approved.

On vote 66: municipal revenue-sharing, $210,000,000.

MR. BLENCOE: This, of course, is a very important one.

Revenue-sharing is always a bone of contention or concern for local

government. I don't intend to spend much time on it; I've already

expressed my view and our party has in terms of what we perceive to be

a shift in terms of revenue-sharing for local government. I would just

like to get some clarification from the minister. Last year there was

$235 million in revenue-sharing and this year there will be an

allocation of $210 million — about a 12 percent shift, I believe, at

this time anyway. Mr. Minister, do you anticipate that there will be

any further reduction in revenue-sharing?

[ Page 2897

HON. MR. RITCHIE: We can't predict exactly what the figure

will be at this moment. I can only give the member my assurance that we

are endeavouring to provide as close to last year's amount as we can. I

expect that the decision on that will be made within a matter of days.

MR. BLENCOE: Will the decision on total revenue be made in a

matter of days?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: No. On the unconditional portion, which is

the portion that is in question at the moment.

MR. BLENCOE: There is not much more to be said about this,

except to reiterate that municipalities are very much in a delicate

position in terms of their financial arrangements. I hope the minister

can indicate to them, as early as possible, exactly what their position

is going to be. I know last year and the year before, for instance, we

were doing our budgets for many months, but we had this unknown which

really made it difficult to come to terms with our budgets and what we

were doing, because we never quite knew what the province was going to

do. They left it and kept putting it off, and it wasn't until the end

of our process that we knew from the province what was going to happen.

It does play havoc with municipal operations in trying to come to terms

with their budgets. Can the minister indicate that that's a process he

wants to try to improve, and that this year we're going to have full

information much earlier than usual? Is that possible?

[2:45]

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, in my address at the UBCM I

did commit myself to providing this information as early as possible,

and certainly earlier than has been the practice in the past. I had

hoped to have it out by this date; however that has been impossible,

simply because we haven't had the final figures with us. But

understanding the importance of having early information at the

municipal level as they move into doing the budgeting for next year, I

fully appreciate the value of it. I really and truly expect that I

should have that information to them by next week, hopefully early in

the week.

Vote 66 approved.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

LANDS, PARKS AND HOUSING

On vote 61: minister's office, $176,639.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a few

comments, and perhaps abbreviate what I had prepared. I am certainly

pleased to be able to present the estimates of the Ministry of Lands,

Parks and Housing for the 1983-84 fiscal year.

As everyone knows, the economic restraints now facing the province

and the rest of the country have, as with all of the ministries of the

provincial government, presented my ministry with a very formidable

challenge and many difficult decisions in its preparation to meet the

needs of the coming year. My ministry has made a strong commitment —

and I'm just going to touch on some of the areas here — to the parks

system, and I am pleased to be able to report that despite the tough

economic times, we have been able to secure a little bit of additional

funds this year to improve our level of capital maintenance in a number

of parks throughout the province.

In the years to come the ministry will continue its efforts to

achieve the greatest possible efficiency in the disposition of Crown

land in British Columbia. Ministry programs will be based on the

principle that pricing of Crown land will remain comparable to the

private sector land market, and will not influence the cost of adjacent

private lands. Automation in the Crown land information system will

considerably shorten the time factor in providing information in the

process of land disposition, and will be speeded up by the provision

for legal surveys by the ministry for most Crown land being prepared

for marketing. I might say that a great deal of effort has been made in

the last year or 14 months by me and senior members of my ministry to

speed up the land disposition and applications and to simplify the

process.

In the matter of housing, the government is committed to encouraging

the private sector to provide the wide range of housing required by

British Columbians throughout the province, with a minimum of

government intervention. I can report, with some pleasure, that the

outlook for those seeking to purchase a home, and for those in the

housing construction industry, has improved significantly during the

past year, and there are strong indications that this will continue

into the year ahead.

I would like to comment on the British Columbia home program, which

was introduced in September 1982 and has so far assisted nearly 53,000

British Columbian homeowners to cope with the burden of mortgage

interest rates. This program provided assurance and confidence at a

time when it was needed most by people who were purchasing or seeking

to purchase a home of their own. It should not be overlooked that some

$70 million has so far gone into the economy to allow people to spend

it and, in effect, borrow it interest-free from the government to help

them through those difficult high-interest times. It's also worthy of

note that when we introduced the B.C. home program, the figures of what

it might cost over the three- to four-year period were quite high, but

with the dropping interest rates.... Of course, those projections

were the worst-possible-scenario projections; in other words, interest

rates would have had to stay above 18 percent, and they have not, so

therefore we have not been forced to raise nearly the amount of money

that we gave as the worst scenario at that time.

One other area that we're involved in very heavily is the provincial

government's commitment to provide Crown land for residential

development. This remains unchanged, and such major land developments

as Riverview Heights and the Westwood Plateau project in Coquitlam —

among other smaller ones in various parts of the province — are

certainly significant milestones in that area.

As always, Mr. Chairman, the government has remained firmly

committed to the principle of adequate housing for our senior citizens

in all areas of the province. I recently announced that my ministry

will provide assistance for an additional 600 housing units for senior

citizens, with an emphasis on small communities where there are no

alternatives in the private housing market. We have a commitment to the

seniors. Of course, in these times we have some difficulty, so we tried

to target the homes for seniors into the areas that don't have

alternatives. I might point out, too, that we have had some great

success in lowering the end price of units through a proposal-call

system, rather than a construction system and supervision as we did

before. We have had some

[ Page 2898

remarkable successes in that line. I might point out that these 600

units will add to the 18,570 units and 393 projects which already

exist across the province. So our contribution to the seniors' housing

projects has certainly not been insignificant.

In addition, this spring we announced an extra effort to provide

funding for housing units for the disabled in all areas of British

Columbia. This is in addition to the 300 units that have been provided

over the last two or three years, with particular emphasis during the

Year of the Disabled. But in this coming year, of course, we're

allowing for 230 additional units. I should recognize also, at this

time, the contribution of those community organizations that apply for

these facilities and, in effect, make them possible. As with the

seniors' projects, we have many organizations that take the lead role;

we assist them financially and technically to bring about better

housing for the citizens in their communities.

Just to get back to our parks system, the 368 parks in the

provincial system attracted over 15 million people. A recent survey of

the park-going habits of British Columbians revealed that the majority

have a high opinion of the scenic beauty of our parks and visit parks

throughout the system repeatedly. With this in mind, of course, we

continue our commitment to our provincial parks system and to the

preservation of some of the many beautiful scenic areas in the

province. As members probably realize, two major new parks were created

last year: the world-famous Valhalla Park and the Mount Terry Fox Park,

named to honour the heroic British Columbian who came to mean so much

to so many people.

My ministry also provided assistance to local governments through

the provision of free Crown land for parks and recreational facilities

in all areas of the province. In addition to approximately $1.2 million

granted to 22 communities and regional district authorities, Crown land

grants totalling 334 hectares, worth approximately $3.5 million, were

made to 19 municipalities for local parks, and approximately $70,000

was given to 13 non-profit groups to assist projects ranging from trail

construction to wilderness survival courses.

We've worked in coordination with some of the other programs — the

NEED program, the job action programs and so on — with our staff as

supervision, to provide many other facilities from whatever funds were

available.

I present these estimates with the confidence that the challenges

facing us in the year ahead will be met and overcome, and that despite

the difficulties of these times, the high standards set by this

ministry in past years will be maintained.

I would like to comment briefly on a couple of the more pleasant

experiences that I've had during the year. I visited Fort Steele. I had

visited it in its early stages long before I came to government. I saw

how much more has been done there, what a wonderful attraction it is to

the province as a tourist facility and what a heritage it is for the

people of this province in historic terms. I was also fortunate to be

at Barkerville in June. I would strongly recommend that any British

Columbian who has not gone to Barkerville and spent a couple of days

there is really missing a wonderful experience, because it is history

brought alive. It is mentioned in the new edition of Encyclopedia

Britannica as probably the most authentic historic reconstruction in

western North America, if not in all of North America. In addition to

some openings of senior citizen projects and other facilities that we

are involved in, there are a couple of the experiences that I wish all

British Columbias could share in — economically. They would be a

worthwhile experience for anyone, and if they have children, take them

along, because there is something for everyone.

I would like to commend the members of my senior staff in Victoria

and our people out in the field who carry out the programs that we

discuss here and make British Columbia a better place for people to

live in. I would like to acknowledge their efforts and also the efforts

of the many volunteers and organizations that help us to bring a better

way of life to British Columbians.

MR. MITCHELL: I have taken over the role as parks critic for

this particular minister. I have not had the opportunity to travel

around to all the parks, because I inherited this position late in the

session.

I think when we review what has happened in this particular session,

we have to go back to what has happened to our park system over the

last three years. Let's be very honest. The province of British

Columbia, going back over 30 years or more, has built up one of the

finest park systems in North America. There was a program that not only

developed a better standard of parks in areas that were easily

accessible but designed a program to open up areas throughout British

Columbia that had never been serviced by any type of facility for the

citizens of our province. This was a program that developed over many

years, through three major administrations — or four if you go back to

when it started under the coalition government. It was carried on under

the first Social Credit government, expanded under the NDP government,

and for the first few years after 1976 it was supported by the present

Social Credit government. Not only did they build parks, but they built

a group within the public service that became specialists in laying out

facilities and designing a way of life for British Columbians and

tourists to enjoy the wilderness of our province.

I think through those years what had happened was that the people of

this province and the tourists who came because of the publicity of the

tourism and parks branches came to accept a high standard of parks. I

am one who, with my family, has travelled through many of the parks

throughout the province, up through your riding of Prince George and

down to Terrace and Lakelse. In fact, I got there just after the first

park was wiped out by a landslide. I do know a few of the parks. I also

know, as one person who shared the ideas of the majority of citizens of

B.C., that the parks branch was providing an excellent service and

top-grade accommodation.

[3:00]

But in the last three years there has been a purposely designed

program within the government to cut back from the standards of park

facilities that the people believed they had a right to enjoy. I think

it all started when they put in the safe where you can put your licence

number in and you put in your money for that particular night's stay in

the park. When they started that, they took out of the park someone who

was there patrolling the surroundings. As an individual I'm bringing to

the minister the concerns of many families who travel the wilderness

areas of British Columbia. They travel those areas, in many cases alone

in their own cars or campers, and they're going into an area where they

are unsure of who's living next to them, who's staying in the camp, and

they are kind of isolated. It was always a certain amount of assurance

that if you had a regular park attendant in the park 24 hours a day,

you knew that there was going to be a certain amount of patrol, a

certain amount of policing, and that there wouldn't

[ Page 2899

be what has happened in so many parks over the last three years: an

awful lot of vandalism, a lot of parties, a lot of terror that has been

given to families who are new in an area. I know from talking to so

many of my constituents, and so many letters that I've got in a short

period of time, that the lack of full patrols in the parks has been

occurring over the last three years. With the economic problems we have

in this area with a lot of unemployment, the citizens of this province

cannot afford it and they do not want it.

It's too bad that we're in this cut-and-run attitude that we have in

British Columbia today. Services that the province has been able to

afford in the past are being cut under the guise of so-called

restraint. I think the minister is being very derelict in his duty when

he doesn't fight harder and stronger within his ministry to build up

the patrols that should have continued in the parks, to get away from

putting the money in a box and having someone come around the next

morning to pick it up. We can't afford that lack of security in the

park system.

I say this in all sincerity. When you look at the parks, they are

not just some frill that citizens of this province enjoy, but the park

system that has been built up has been a stimulus to the economy in so

many ways. For those of us who have got the camping bug.... You

know, we go out every year and buy a little more new equipment, another

sleeping-bag, another tent, and we move up through that into the

tent-trailers. Then we get into trucks and campers. But every one of

these purchases made by the 15 million people — using the statistics

presented by the minister — who travel throughout our parks....

They are purchasing goods and services from all over the community, all

over the province. Those parks do stimulate the economy. They stimulate

all types of business.

When you look at the parks throughout this province, the parks

branch has gone into areas that were never serviced. They attracted

people from all over North America to go to those areas. Because of the

promotion from the tourism industry, and from word of mouth of other

people who have travelled that route, the popularity of various parks

grew and grew. There was in many cases a need for additional parks.

This overflow was taken up by the private campsites. As one who has

also been forced to take a port in a storm, I have used some of the

private campsites. I have found that when you compare the standards of

the majority of the private campsites with the facilities and services

provided by the parks branch, there is no comparison. It's like moving

from an apartment to a refugee camp. When it's 7 o'clock at night and

you can't find a place to park your tent or trailer, you'll go in

anywhere, even to the refugee camps with the other people who are

suffering the same problem as you are for not stopping at 3 o'clock,

even when your wife told you you should have. You go in there and

you're happy.

But what I'm saying, Mr. Chairman, is that these refugee camps — the

private campsites — are designed to take the overflow. Now we're

hearing a lot of lobbying pressure from the private campsite owners

that they want the provincial parksites.... They're saying that

these provincial sites are competing with their particular facilities,

when in fact in so many cases it was the provincial parksite that

attracted the public to that particular area, and the private campsite

owners got the overflow. It's the old parable of the goose that laid

the golden egg. The king or the farmer was quite happy with the golden

egg produced by the goose, but once he killed that goose.... The

stimulus that has taken place over the years by the parks branch will

not be there. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr.

Hewitt) thinks it comical, but once the provincial parks branch stops

stimulating the parks program that has been built up over many years,

you are going to end up by killing the goose that laid the golden egg.

It will not be beneficial to the province of British Columbia.

I feel we cannot afford to cut back on park development in this

province. It's penny wise and pound foolish, as the old slogan goes. We

must continue to realize that the changing economic and industrial

development of this world is going to be reflected in this province. We

must stimulate the tourist industry and the service industry. We must

build something that is going to be a network throughout this province,

that is going to be beneficial not only to those citizens of British

Columbia who, like myself, like the outdoors, but to those many, many

citizens of this province who do travel and want to take their families

and their children. Also, retired senior citizens who have worked many

years in the lower mainland want to travel throughout the province and

see where the great wealth comes from in the north and want to see the

great development that has taken place.

[Mr. R. Fraser in the chair.]

As a minister, you have a responsibility not only to the outdoors

community but to the business community. You have a responsibility to

the whole economy. You are one of the parts of a jigsaw that is going

to make this province turn around from going down in a depression

style.... We are going to build up and stimulate the economy to

take up the slack of lack of employment. We have to diversify. Over the

last year in my riding, you have been cutting back in the parks branch

department that designs the signs and that did a lot of the building

within the area. It wasn’t that you were cutting down on something in

my constituency, but you are taking out and losing to this province a

lot of the artisans, tradesmen and people who over the years have

become the technocrats at putting out the best type of signs, ones that

are conducive to the surroundings.

Some people will say the type of park benches and tables we have are

too rich and we should go back to plywood and 2-by-4s. I disagree. I

think because they are rich and stylish they do give a certain feeling

that when you move in there you are sharing some of the wealth of this

province. That type of construction encourages people to come out and

travel through the park system. I know you could go out and say

yes.... I don't know what the price is of building one; maybe $200

or $300. You could put it out for $150 and it will be made out of

2-by-4s and plywood. You can say, "Well, that's good enough for the

campers because they're happy; look what they're using in some of the

private campsites," and it's quite true. But I think the community is

losing an awful lot. We are losing a lot of the style that the people

of British Columbia rightfully have grown accustomed to. I think it's

wrong.

In my own riding we had an opportunity to preserve 80-odd acres of

land surrounding Sombrio Beach, one of the last areas on that west

coast out to Port Renfrew that still had virgin timber growing, when

you still had an example of what British Columbia looked like 500 or

600 years ago. The parks branch had an opportunity, in conjunction with

the Ministry of Forests, to preserve this very unique area — an area

with beaches, with surf, with seal caves. They never got off their

[ Page 2900

butts and fought within the cabinet to preserve that particular

area. If they had put in 200 or 300 camping sites in that area and made

it accessible, the money that that would have generated in the business

community from those additional people who would have travelled out

there, who would have bought another tent or another sleeping-bag,

another tent trailer.... Those senior citizens who like to travel

in the spring or fall when the school children are not in the campsites

would have gone out and bought another camper or another motor home.

This is the type of stimulation that this minister can lead, but

instead he allowed that 80-odd acres to be cut.

They say it was going to create winter jobs for 60 people for three

years, but they are cutting it right now, and it's not winter. It was

sold to the public that we had to preserve these jobs, and British

Columbia lost — not only my riding but British Columbia: the business

community, the citizens of this province, the tourist industry —

because that area is easily accessible to the cities and to tourists

that come from the States. It's an example of some of the west coast

areas that are going to be destroyed because the ministry failed to

take positive action.

[3:15]

We have the same situation with an area that a lot of the people in

the outdoor clubs have been promoting, which was a mini West Coast

Trail running from Jordan River out to Port Renfrew. It attracts many

thousands of people who have taken the hike along the West Coast Trail.

Those who are into the outdoors know that the money that is spent just

to outfit somebody who is crazy enough to go out there for five to

seven days.... It's not something for which you just pick up your

goods from home. You have to prepare yourself, you have to take the

training and you have to buy the equipment.

AN HON. MEMBER: The last time I went outdoors with you you

got me into trouble.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, will you ask the minister over

there to keep quiet? The last thing I want is for some of the capers

that he's led me into ever to get out into the public. I would never,

ever like that to be entered into Hansard , and I will deny it.

Mr. Chairman, the outdoors clubs and various groups have approached

the parks branch and the Forests ministry. They should build a shorter

mini West Coast Trail from Jordan River along the property lines right

into Port Renfrew. It would encourage a number of tourists to stay in

our area because they can make the hike in one or two days; there is

French Beach and China Beach, and there should have been the Sombrio

Beach campsite where they could stop off as they made the trip. Not

only would it encourage tourists, but if this minister had used the

clout that I know his size indicates he has — and I know from sitting

on the same side of this building at one time the volume of his voice

and his persuasive capabilities in cabinet — the building of that trail

and of those parks could have been integrated with creating job

training for a lot of young people that are unemployed.

I know the minister is very much aware of some of the job training

that has been a spinoff from the EBAP program, where you have taken

unemployed youths who have never had an opportunity to work in the

woods, who never had a chance to use chainsaws.... The EBAP is a

program that has trained and given some work skills and work

opportunities to a lot of people. If that minister had used the same

attitude to enlarge the parks of this province, and had taken some of

those who are at the present time collecting unemployment or welfare

and developed some opportunities for those people to go to work to

build the necessary additions to our parks, that spinoff would have

been positive not only to those who are unemployed but to the whole

tourist industry and business community. It would have been something

more constructive than the idea that we are cut back and save money. We

are already paying that money in the way of UIC and welfare, and we are

not getting trained people from that money the province is paying. We

are not encouraging more people to come into the province. We are not

selling the idea that we have parks throughout this province that have

regular park rangers or wardens on duty 24 hours a day and that there

will be some security if you go into a park. This is what we must

stimulate. I say very honestly that the parks branch has been negligent

in their long-range programs.

There's another part that I think the ministry should be looking at

— and I believe stories I've heard that a study has already been made,

namely the study on the proposed park surrounding Robson Bight. The

Ministry of Environment did bring in Robson Bight area as an ecological

preserve to protect the killer whales that come down Johnstone Strait

and congregate in the Robson Bight area. But if we are going to

preserve that particular habitat of killer whales, there is going to

have to be some long-range planning to protect the shoreline so that

you will not have a lot of people wandering in and out of there

disturbing the whales. If the province is going to make an honest

attempt to protect the killer whales, which should take place, we

should also provide, if we are going to invest that kind of money, the

opportunity for people to come and view the killer whales when they

congregate in that particular area. It has to be designed so that they

can come down and we can watch them, but they can still have the

protection of the shoreline. You can still have people — park wardens

of some type — who can explain what is happening and not just allow

it....

It's going to receive an awful lot of worldwide publicity. Robson

Bight is one of two unique areas on this whole coast; the other is on

the American side, in the Juan de Fuca area, where killer whales do

come and congregate, and come up and rub their bellies on the beach.

The only other one that is known is Robson Bight in British Columbia.

This is something that is unique and is going to attract people. The

publicity that has gone out already has attracted an awful lot of boats

up there and a lot of people going into the area without knowledge of

how they should behave. I believe that right now that area is under a

tree-farm licence with MacMillan Bloedel, and there are certain areas

behind that area that should be protected.

AN HON. MEMBER: Time.

MR. MITCHELL: I have a lot more. Either the minister would

like to answer, or my colleague would like to....

MRS. WALLACE: I've been very interested in what my colleague

is saying, and I would like to hear him continue: I wonder if he would

be prepared to carry on and tell us more.

MR. MITCHELL: I would just like to finish up what I had to

say. I feel that the parks branch has a unique opportunity for British

Columbia to do some long-range planning now. I sincerely hope that the

minister will look at the area

[ Page 2901

surrounding Robson Bight before it is logged off and the logging

road and trucks come right down to the beach, so that an area three or

four miles back, or maybe more, can be preserved. Did you realize that

the Tsitika River is one of the most productive salmon rivers of this

area? Not only does it have all five species of salmon spawning into

it, and a fairly substantial number go up there every year to spawn,

but it also has two or three different types of trout that are in the

river regularly and come back to that area to spawn — the steelheads,

the cutthroat and the char.

This is an area that we can lose; it can be destroyed. If we look at

the penny-wise and pound-foolishness of worrying about the amount of

timber that will be cut out of that area.... Right now there is a

shortage of a market for logs, but we'll say that there is a $3 million

or $4 million value in the timber of that area. I think that the

long-range money that can come out of using that unique place in

Canada, where the killer whales can be viewed by the public.... We

can, with proper protection of the shoreline, with proper viewpoints,

campsites and park wardens, make that site one of the big money

attracters to this province. It is unique, and let's not lose it

because we're worrying about $3 million worth of timber — I don't know

the figures; maybe it's $5 million or $10 million. I think that over

the next 10, 15 or 20 years, with that location and the long-range idea

of what we can do in British Columbia, that area is something that we

cannot afford to lose.

Some of my right-wing friends over there say we have too much land

in parks. If you took at your hand and say this is Campbell River and

that's the north end of Vancouver Island, all the areas that are right

now held for parks would cover your thumb, little finger and maybe a

part of your ring finger. Of all that land that is presently being

utilized for timber and everything else, such a very small amount has

been preserved for parks. We can't afford to put blinkers on our eyes

and say that we've got to log everything and to hell with the future.

In the future, people are going to be paying for the massive debts that

this government has got into, and we have to look at other things

besides cutting timber and selling it and running. We have to build up

that secondary industry and stimulate our economy.

Interjection.

MR. MITCHELL: I've never had the opportunity to travel all

the park areas, but maybe next spring I'll go to a few more.

I think what the minister said is so true, when he said that....

One of the parks we have started to preserve is the Valhallas. The

reason that the Valhallas park was created was not that it was a

popular thing to do. The pressure from the mining and forestry industry

was to cut and develop that. When they did the in-depth study of how

many jobs would be created by cutting all the timber and taking out all

the mineral wealth, and then compared all the money that would come

back to the community if it was promoted as a park — the secondary

spinoff of the tourist industry — it was a better investment to develop

the Valhalla as a national or provincial park. That same attitude and

the same sort of economic studies will show that in our parks

throughout British Columbia. Whether you take them individually or as a

group, it's the parks that will bring people into our areas, and these

parks must be made safe.

[3:30]

I would ask the minister to give serious thought to creating a park

warden system to ensure that every park has people who are in instant

communication with the local RCMP, and that if there are any problems

or rowdy parties, or anything that even resembles something that

happened in Wells Gray Park, there is protection to the community. When

you took at it, it's something that we can't afford not to have.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I would like to ask the minister about one other thing before he

gets up. Last year an amendment came in dealing with the problems that

were created when they brought in the 21-year land leases. At that

time the amendment was that the public could cross areas that were

given as leases providing they were in possession of a fishing or a

hunting licence. At that time, I know the minister will recall, I was

opposed to it because it created a whole new set of problems for

policemen, that they had to go out and if you didn't have a licence you

had committed an offence; that people who were out bird-watching or

hiking, or taking their family for a walk, never had access. The facts

are that the type of people who go bird-watching or take their families

on picnics and camping are not the ones who cause the damage compared

with the ones who are packing guns into the woods. I say this from

talking to many companies that have a lot of logging equipment out in

the woods. When they allow people in those areas there is a small

minority of those who pack guns who create an awful lot of damage.

In closing I notice, in going through the minister's estimates, he

is indicating that last year his office had an expense of $187,000

under vote 61. This year the estimate book indicates that his

minister's office is being cut to $176,639. I would like to bring to

his attention, before he takes the plaudits for cutting his ministry,

that last year under his budget, in that $187,000 there was also

$22,400 for travel. If you add that, and I believe now it's all hidden

away under the Provincial Secretary's estimates.... Even without

any increase in travelling, if you add that $22,400 to the figure he

has for this office, it will actually show that he has increased his

minister's office vote to $199,039.

I feel, Mr. Chairman, that the minister has not given to this House

any long-range programs of what the parks branch can do. He's indicated

by press releases that they're going to cut here, they're going to cut

there, they're going to save money, when in fact these books are really

cooked. They don't really say....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. That term will have to be

withdrawn, please.

MR. MITCHELL: All right. If the word "cooked" is....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, just a simple withdrawal.

MR. MITCHELL: They're misleading for people, because I had to

go and look, and do a lot of research to find out where his travel

money was. It took us a little while. We had to drag it out of the

minister of municipalities.

Anyway, I feel that the minister does need a shake-up. He does need

to take a stronger position in this cabinet. He's got

[ Page 2902

to give some leadership. He's been a junior member, which really

doesn't help British Columbia. It doesn't help the outdoors. It doesn't

help the tourist industry. It doesn't help the business industry. For

that I would like to make an amendment. Mr. Chairman, I would like to

move that vote 61 be reduced by the amount of $1.

I know this is very traditional, but I really believe that if that

minister listens and looks and does the proper studies, enlarges the

provincial park system in this province, gives the security that our

provincial parks need by installing park wardens, preserves those

national sites that are unique in British Columbia — I use one, Robson

Bight — and develops parks there, we can stimulate the tourist industry

for something that is not available in the wild state anywhere else in

this country. I move this motion positively hoping that this minister

will take that position and will look ahead for British Columbia and

not try to close it down and ruin our park system, which has been built

up over three or four governments, and that we will do something

positive with our parks that is needed for B.C.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment is in order.

On the amendment.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Needless to say, Mr. Chairman, I will have

to speak against that amendment, which I believe is a standard form of

expression of non-confidence in the minister. It is a bit difficult to

accept, of course.

The member has covered a great deal of territory. I'd like to touch

on a few of the areas he has covered, with perhaps a bit of resentment

at comments such as "the books have been cooked" and "hidden" and so

on. It's been made plain and clear to you, without my having to say it,

that the travel fund for the minister's office has all been put under

the Provincial Secretary's budget. It is there, and you know it.

AN HON. MEMBER: They weren't last year.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Even if the member does take the $187,000

up to $199,000 and work it out as a percentage increase, knowing the

staff got increases and so on, it is basically the status quo in the

office. So we'll leave that part of it.

The member started out by saying we were cutting back and causing

harm to the parks system. It is a little difficult to accept that when

you consider that the capital maintenance budget in the parks under

this minister has gone up from $2.3 million to $3.9 million during

difficult times; an increase of $1.6 million in order to develop our

parks. Our operation budget has stayed basically the same. When the

member gets into how much less supervision is being done in parks,

perhaps we are victims of our own success. We have created a great many

more parks in the last couple of years, not to mention Valhalla Park.

That proposal, which came in way back in 1961, was raised and dropped,

raised and dropped. It went through the three years of the NDP, who

believe in parks, but nothing happened. We were able to do it six

months after I entered the ministry. So I feel a little resentful when

that member says we have done nothing to add to parks. We have added

parks and many campsites, and have done a lot of park development during

this time.

Let me touch on Robson Bight. The member says we should be

developing that to attract thousands of people from all over the place.

I find that a little difficult to accept, because the reason for

setting aside Robson Bight was for the protection of the whales, The

technicians tell me that if you bring a lot of people to view the

whales and throw rocks at them, or whatever, it will really undermine

the purpose of the Robson Bight protection area. So we don't want to

attract thousands and thousands of people from all over the world to go

out there and molest the whales. We want that to be preserved. We are

looking at what can be done further back there and in a lot of other

places in order to develop our system of recreation areas for the

people.

The member does mention that we have developed one of the finest

parks systems. I am certainly proud of the work my staff has done, even

under the restraint program. And under the restraint program, as I

think the figures indicate, we've increased our capital amount and kept

our operations the same for our parks. What we are doing — with a great

deal of credit again to the people out there — is trying to

maintain and improve the services by doing them in perhaps a little

different way. In our provincial campsites, we now spend $5 million or

so more each year than we take in in revenues. The member is suggesting

full-time supervision in every campsite everywhere in the province, so

that would quickly go to $50 million, I would imagine.

If you want to do all that the member is suggesting, it would be

ideal. It's a great ideal. But where do you get the revenue? To pick up

on the analogy the member used, we don't want to kill the goose that

lays the golden egg. Certainly we don't. That's our whole objective.

Remember, as the cost of supervising the parks grows in relation to the

revenue that is realized from them, it's the taxpayers who pay for it.

That's the goose that lays the golden egg — which we don't want to

kill. We think we can have a very fine parks system. We think we can

supervise the parks adequately, and we think we can find new,

imaginative ways to involve people. He says the money is going on

welfare, so put a warden on. When you put on three shifts of wardens a

day, you are not simply replacing welfare, you are adding immensely to

the cost, and you have to get the money from somewhere. That is what we

are saying. It is easy enough to say: "Well, if you save Sombrio Beach,

that will attract all the people there to camp." Efforts have been made

to preserve a strip along there, the essential strip that will work on

behalf of the tourists and the tourist industry, and we recognize that.

But you can't simply say that every area that is unique and beautiful

in British Columbia....

[3:45]

Again, we're victims of our own wonderful success. We have so many

unique and beautiful areas. People come to me as the minister, or to my

staff, and say: "This area must be preserved. You don't want to log

everything." If that member had any concept of how many of these

proposals come to my desk alone, never mind to ministry staff, saying

we mustn't log everything and so on. When you add them all up, in

effect we could save the whole province, because the whole province is

beautiful. Maybe that would be great. But in the meantime, even the

people who buy the sleeping-bags and go to enjoy our parks have to have

jobs from which they get the money to buy this equipment. There is a

compromise that has to be looked at.

It's not a so-called "guise of restraint," as the member says. We

are dealing with restraint. We are involving people. We are trying to

find a better way to do the same thing because we too believe in the

preservation of our parks

[ Page 2903

system. But we cannot add up all of the areas where

they say: "Don't

log here. Don't mine here. Don't do this here, don't do anything here."

We can't do that. You say that the percentage of parks in the

province is very small. Yes, it's perhaps 4.8 percent of the land area

in this province. But you have to keep in mind, Mr. Member, that all

the arguments are over 10 or 12 percent of the land in this province.

There's a lot of barren land and mountaintops, and some of it is in

provincial parks. But you can't put them all into campsites.

Furthermore, we do not want to develop them. I get one pressure to

preserve a piece of land in its natural state. The next pressure I get

is to put in roads, trails, campsites, etc.; in other words, do away

with the natural state. So there are these various and conflicting

pressures that come at you.

I'm trying to cover briefly some of the things the member said. He

mentioned long-range planning. I'd like that member to know we are into

long-range planning. Instead of dealing with each little ecological

reserve by itself, instead of treating each park proposal by itself, we

have been pulling together all of these so that we get a composite

picture and know where the in-filling needs to happen in this province,

and there is some that needs to be done. We are into long-range

planning, for both the development of new parks and of existing parks,

and in what way they should be developed.

I could speak for many hours on the parks. I think we have one of

the finer systems, one model, and we're trying to refine that.

Briefly, on the grazing lease amendment that came in, the member

will recall that it was to allow those with hunting or fishing licences

to be on the land at a particular time. We find out that it didn't

cover the rest of them; that it didn't really do the job. So I have

been consulting for the past year with the various wildlife groups,

organizations and the ranching community. We've said: "Look, we don't

want to pass a regulation that doesn't do the job and can't be

enforced. It defeats the whole purpose and it won't work." Cooperation,

coordination, and then perhaps some rules and regulations as a result

of that. Within the next month or six weeks I expect to have a joint

meeting with some of the various interest groups to try to resolve that

one. I'll leave that with the member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The question is that vote 61 be reduced by the

amount of $1.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 10

Howard

Lank

Sanford

Hanson

Lockstead

Barnes

Wallace

Mitchell

Passarell

Blencoe

NAYS — 25

Brummet

McClelland

Heinrich

Hewitt

Richmond

Ritchie

Michael

Pelton

Johnston

R. Fraser

Campbell

McCarthy

Nielsen

Gardom

Smith

Bennett

Phillips

A. Fraser

Davis

Kempf

Veitch

Segarty

Ree

Parks

Reynolds

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division

in the Journals of the House.

On vote 61.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

MR. MITCHELL: I would just like to follow up on what the

minister said on the particular amendment we brought in last year

dealing with allowing people to cross Crown grazing lands. The minister

now is agreeing with what I said last year: that the particular

amendment did not solve the problem that it was created to solve. At

that time there was a certain amount of pressure from the outdoor

communities and the fish and wildlife groups. We cannot afford to give

away the province in 21-year leases for grazing and not allow the

general public some access to the lands behind. We don't want to build

up that area or balkanize it by putting in land leases between them.

Mr. Chairman, that particular amendment which was brought in touted

that this was going to solve the problem and allow people to get into

the rest of British Columbia. I don't want the impression to get out

into British Columbia that this was only a smokescreen and that the

minister does not intend to give access to British Columbians; that he

is going to allow the leases and all the rules and regulations that

they brought in to protect those leases, and block off access to the

Crown land behind them for the rest of the community. I just don't want

to see it left in limbo. You've had a year now to go over it and study

it, and I am hoping that we'll get some announcement somewhere down the

line that there is going to be something positive that's going to be

working.

[4:00]

Also I would like to comment again on the attitude that I seemed to

get from the minister when he made light of the protection of the

whales in Robson Bight. He seemed to have missed the point of what I

said. Certain groups feel that maybe we should just keep it there and

no one be allowed to get to that particular site in British Columbia.

Because of the publicity and because it is such a unique site people

will be attempting to go to Robson Bight and watch the 100 whales that

come down to that area every day in the summer. Either people will be

going there or the boating community will be going there. Maybe campers

will be going to it. I'm asking the minister to look at preserving the

area — not putting a wire fence around it or shutting it off, but

developing that historical, ecological site so that people can get down

there and watch the whales without throwing rocks or taking potshots at

them. The area could be developed and the whales protected. It's easy

to say: "Oh, well, we'll just put our head into a sand bucket and then

it will go away." It may go away. The whole site may be destroyed, and

then you'll say: "Gosh, we should have done something."

I know there are studies being made on that particular park area. I

would like to see those studies released. I would like the minister and

his staff to consult with those who are sincerely concerned with this

historical site. Parks Canada are looking at it, as the minister is

aware. Let's not lose it like we lost Sombrio because it's going to

cost money. This is the only one in British Columbia; there are only

two of these sites in the whole North Pacific where whales come in that

close. Don't make fun of it; don't say: "Some people say do this; some

people say do that." I say do what is best to protect that area. It's

your responsibility to make sure it is protected so that years from now

no one's going to say: "It was the minister back in 1983 who ruined it."

[ Page 2904

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I'll respond briefly to the two points that

the member raised.

On the issue of pressure on the grazing leases, there never has been

and will not be prevention of access through the 21-year grazing leases.

It has been built into any grazing lease that any existing roads and

trails can be registered when the lease is granted — and must be so

shown — and the ministry retains the right to retroactively put in a

trail or a road or some form of access across a grazing lease if the

need becomes apparent. So that is protected. The problem has been

access onto all of that land by anybody. There is where we're trying to

resolve it rationally, rather than just by making rules and then having

to fight — we've gone through that process. We're trying to resolve

rationally this problem of access onto the land, because those people

with grazing leases have the right to do developments and feel that

they have some protection. Since it is Crown land, and leased, not

owned, the outdoors people — not just hunters and fisherman, but all —

feel that they should have a right to go onto that land where they have

traditionally hunted or hiked or rock-collected, or something of that

nature. I don't argue with that. What we're trying to do is come up

with a compromise solution for that. Access has been and is guaranteed

throughout the 200,000-some hectares involved.

I should point out, too, that no additional land has been set aside

for grazing leases. These were lands that were held under grazing

leases previously; anything else now goes under the permit system,

which doesn't give the owner nearly the security or the requirements

for development. So it's simply restoring something that the ranching

community had. We're trying to work out a system whereby they can have

the protection that they want and people can have the access that they

want onto the land. Overall it is not really a problem, and it's

unfortunate that that illusion exists out there.

Just a brief reference to the Robson Bight whales. I was responding

to what the member said. He wanted development. He was talking about it

attracting thousands of people from anywhere, and that was not the

purpose of setting that aside. The thing was to protect those whales.

And the other thing — again, I'm not clear on this — is that the member

said we should develop that land back of there at the same time as he

talked about an ecological reserve. You do not develop ecological

reserves. Ecological reserves are to prevent usage of a particular

area; probably the strongest form of protection that we have in this

province to leave things in a natural state is an ecological reserve. I

think, however, that I'll read the intent of what the member was saying

as being that since people will likely be attracted there and want to

go and look at it, whatever steps possible should be taken to try to

control that access. In that, we're fully in accord with you.

MR. BLENCOE: I would be remiss if I didn't take the

opportunity, brief though it might be, to make a few statements about

the housing component of the minister's ministry. The issue in terms of

the housing portion is the apparent lack of a really clear policy in

terms of a public initiative in the housing field. I suppose it has to

do with this government's general philosophical position that

government has no role to play in the housing area and that it should

not be establishing or helping to establish public housing

corporations. For instance, we used to have a Housing Corporation of

B.C., which did a lot of things for housing for those who couldn't

always afford the market housing.

AN HON. MEMBER: Boondoggle.

MR. BLENCOE: No boondoggle. The facts are that that

corporation did a lot of good things in this province. This government,

of course, has virtually removed itself from a major responsibility in

the housing area.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, we on this side have given all

cabinet ministers the opportunity to be uninterrupted in their

discussion. Maybe that could be given to the opposition, and some

respect could be shown to this side of the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Go ahead, please, hon. member.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: I would ask the member to withdraw that remark.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry, hon. member, I didn't hear it.

MR. BLENCOE: Well, he knows what he said, and if he hasn't

got the decency to admit it and withdraw, Mr. Chairman, I'll let it go

by.

Housing is a very important component of a civilized society, and it

has always been a component of a society that believes there are those

who cannot always achieve decent housing in the existing marketplace.

Unfortunately this government in its wisdom has decided to remove

itself, virtually in total, from participating in the housing area. Not

only has it done that, but in this particular session it has also

decided to eliminate the first-home grant, which was and is a major

blow to all prospective first-time home buyers. Not only is the

government doing very little on the rental side in terms of assistance

— or, if it is, it is participating with the federal government and

utilizing their funds — but it is also eliminating one of the major

ways that a tenant who might not have the opportunity without this

grant would have the opportunity to buy their first home. Everyone, I

think, would like to own their home sometime.

That grant was in place for a number of years and was a major

support for those first-time buyers. It gave a little support not only

to the first-time buyers but to the person who perhaps didn't have as

much income as some others did to purchase their home. We on this

side of the House were very sad, and I think a lot of people in the

province of British Columbia were disappointed that the government

decided to put that grant as a low priority, and therefore eliminate

it. After giving many young families starting out in life a chance to

purchase a home, that extra $2,500 is not available to them any longer.

It is, I'm sure, providing some hardship to those who would like to own

their own home. I think it was a bad move, and hopefully the government

will reconsider it down the road.

The other thing about the elimination of that grant was that it was

a tremendous blow to the co-op housing movement. The minister has

denied this in various question periods, but the fact is that it was a

blow to the co-op housing movement. The co-op members, who are

considered homeowners, were eligible to receive the grant of $2,500. As

you

[ Page 2905

know, Mr. Minister, there is usually a share to be bought in a

co-op, and that $2,500 allowed many of those people on lower incomes to

buy that share and get into some decent housing. Now that is not

available to those prospective co-op members, and it has had a major

impact on the co-op movement, which is one of the programs that the

federal government has continued to support. Everybody on all sides

agrees that it's a good program.

In an area where it is doing very little else in housing, the

provincial government's move has had a major impact on the co-op

housing movement, not only to individual members, who could use the

allocation for their initial share in gaining a place in a co-op, but

also, of course, the money that was used to purchase that share made up

much of the savings accounts for those co-ops in terms of their

maintenance. They no longer have that kind of funding which allows them

to maintain themselves properly. On behalf of co-op associations — and

there are hundreds in this province — who feel very badly affected by

this move of the government, I would again ask the minister and the

cabinet to reconsider the position. Given the fact that you have

decided in your wisdom to do very little else in the public housing

field, this is one area where you were giving some incentive and

encouragement to the co-op housing movement.

I don't have much else to say, Mr. Chairman, except that it's

unfortunate that the government does not recognize, particularly in

recession or depression times, that there are thousands of British

Columbians who can't always participate in the marketplace in terms of

housing.

MRS. JOHNSTON: We understand that.

MR. BLENCOE: You would be doing far more in the public

housing field if you did understand that.

MRS. JOHNSTON: There is a limit.

MR. BLENCOE: You've virtually got nothing in place at all

now, but I don't particularly want to get into a debate with individual

members.

The issue is that you have virtually removed yourselves from the

housing area. I believe that in the long term it is going to have some

traumatic effects. If there was ever a time — when the vacancy rate is

high and the private sector is managing to keep up to some degree —

that the government should be preparing for future problems, this is

it. With this massive crying out for public involvement, the government

should now be looking to the future when these crises, in terms of

housing shortages, will come upon us. All the estimations by CMHC and

other experts are that approximately a year from now we are going to be

in another housing crisis in the province of British Columbia, and the

government is going to be facing some of these same kinds of concerns.

Now is the time, Mr. Minister, to be preparing for those things, and to

be initiating housing programs that could alleviate those potential

problems in the future.

We on this side really wonder if the government is serious about

housing and the fact that many British Columbians continue to face

serious problems in this recession. We would hope that the government,

in its wisdom, in the next year or so, would look at its priorities in

this particular field. I can assure you that there is need out there.

It's documented. The minister and his cabinet colleagues have

virtually removed themselves from that particular operation.

[4:15]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: There is enough material in housing policy

to talk for days, but I'd like to just respond briefly. I think we are,

probably more than ever before, looking to the future and preparing for

the future of the housing needs in this province and hopefully in this

country.

What the member doesn't realize, or doesn't wish to realize, is that

for too long we have been looking at psychological illusions in the

marketplace. We've found statistical evidence that once the first-home

grants are in place the cost of houses is up the equivalent or a little

more. So the person is not actually saving anything. All that happens

is that it's added to the sale price of the home. So it's been done

with the federal grants, the provincial grants.... You can take a

look at the picture, and you see that actually happening.

What we are trying to get into is homes and houses that people can

afford and that the taxpayers can afford. If you look at one narrow

concept of it, it may sound great. For instance, you mentioned the

co-op housing. You mentioned some of the social housing, if you like to

put it under that title. Would you recognize, Mr. Member, that with the

federal and provincial assistance programs combined some of these units

are being subsidized to the tune of $1,000 to $1,100 per month? We

cannot, as a society, afford to keep building housing that is

subsidized to the tune of $1,000 per month from the taxpayers. Our

program is to let that private sector build this. Our program and our

policy is clearly spelled out in the policy booklet. What we are trying

to get around to, not only in our own thinking but in meetings with

other Housing ministers across the province.... It is being

recognized that if we target that same amount of money to help people

who need the help we could provide help to two or three times as many

people as we are doing by actually getting into the house-building

subsidy programs ourselves. I can't make it any plainer than that.

MR. BLENCOE: I can't let one of the minister's statements go

by: that there isn't enough money for such an important component of

society as adequate housing for all British Columbians, and that it

costs too much — $1,000 subsidy. If you give us the example of that

particular family — maybe that family is in great need, and needs

$1,000. I would say, Mr. Minister....

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: Hang on! I would say, Mr. Minister, to you and

to your cabinet colleagues...

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BLENCOE: ...that you take a look at your priorities

and your spending habits. You can spend millions and millions of

dollars on information to try to convince the people of British

Columbia that you're a good government, but you can't spend money on

ensuring you've got an adequate housing program. Politics is about

priorities, Mr. Minister. You've got $20 million and $30 million for

Doug Heal, but you haven't got enough money to ensure good housing

policies. That's priorities, Mr. Minister.

[ Page 2906

Vote 61 approved.

Vote 62: ministry operations, $63,038,679 — approved.

Vote 63: ministry enterprises, $10 — approved.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT

On vote 31: minister's office, $164,475.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, normally the minister likes to

speak on his ministerial vote. I would be quite happy to let him speak

if he wants to speak first.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I'm sorry, I was just changing books. I did

want to make a few comments. They will be very brief.

It's been a very great experience and a pleasure for me to be

involved in the Environment ministry since the end of May. I found very

quickly, as I think many members are aware, that it is a far more

comprehensive ministry than many people recognize. It does not just

deal with fish and wildlife. It gets into the full range of air

management, fisheries management, marine resources, pesticide control,

waste management, water management, surveys and mapping. Certainly

there are many jurisdictions. It's a fascinating field. It's a ministry

that has a lot of people working in a lot of different areas. I would

like to welcome my deputy minister and senior staff here and commend

them for the compressed education that they have given to a new

minister and for the fantastic work that they and the other people out

in the field do on behalf of the people of this province.

It seems that so much of what we have to deal with are the

criticisms and whatever breaks down. If there is a spill, our attention

is called to that. People don't recognize that there are hundreds of

people out there in the field preventing spills, looking after them and

doing all of the good things that protect our environment. So much of

the public attention focuses on the very few exceptions that happen,

rather than on the many good things that people carry out. I would like

to point that out.

Some of the activities I've been been pleased to be involved in

there are.... I've been trying to overcome some of the overlapping

jurisdictions between ministries to simplify things. I'm fortunate

enough to have two ministries that overlap occasionally, so I can fight

with the same minister on occasions. I can give you one example,

traplines, which might be a miniature thing in the whole package.

Things such as trapper's licences come under the Ministry of

Environment, the land on which they build the cabins is under the

Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing, and then the Assessment Authority

puts a value on it. We're trying to get that into one simple package. A

certain amount has been done. There are other areas where we're doing

the same thing.

One of the other projects I got involved in fairly quickly is in the

lower mainland. The landfill for waste disposal in the area had reached

a point where there are complications. We were able to pull together

all of the representatives from the municipalities and reach an

agreement. We gave ourselves one year to develop the waste management

plan and to coordinate all those activities. I see a lot of good things

happening, and I see a good long-range plan for the future.

The other things that come at you in this ministry are the

disasters. If it's flood, fire or things of that nature we are somehow

or other involved in it. I know it's impossible to compensate and

restore all of the things that people lose in a disaster, but I am

happy to say that we were able to deal with the Lions Bay and Williams

Lake disasters in the form of disaster relief. You can't really

compensate for all of the damage or injuries done during a disaster,

but at least you can help people in that way.

One of the other areas that I'm very pleased to be involved in,

because it's been a concern to me, the ministry and a lot of people in

British Columbia, is the area of what we call special wastes. Other

people call them toxic wastes or hazardous wastes: special wastes that

can't be disposed of in the normal sewer systems. They cause concern,

health problems and this sort of thing if they're not dealt with. I

find that the technology is certainly available to deal with any and

all of the hazardous wastes that we have in this province. They are

mainly generated by ordinary, common usage and not just the factories

and industries. There are wastes generated in this province.... At

this point in time it is not a disaster, but we don't want to wait

until it is and then try to pull back from that. Through proper

special-waste management, which the Waste Management Act allows, we

think that we can actually prevent harm to the environment. We can

protect people from this. One of the three problems that we face is the

will to do it. Fortunately this summer we have been able to convince

government that doing nothing was the worst option, even though it was

the easiest road to take. So we rejected that option, and we have a

special waste management proposal put forth which involves Genstar, IT

Corp. and the Ministry of Environment. It involves various areas.

We are dealing with a three-phase program: treatment, reduction and

recycling and all of those things that are one part of the proposal; a

final disposal site, a secure landfill that is going to be safe, that

is not going to harm the environment or anyone.... You know, we

could go into great detail about that, but it is not the sort of hole

that you dig and pour in all these horrid chemicals, as has happened in

the past. We're long past that; the technology is way beyond that in

this day and age. Virtually inert solids go into the secure landfill,

but all of the measures that would be taken are as though it were

dangerous, and so we feel we've got double and triple security. Of

course, I say it's a proposal at this stage. I'm sorry, the third

element in that was of course the transportation, which involves

collection, storage and so on, because you've got to bring it together

before you can deal with it. So there are three elements.

I've said that it is a proposal, because by and large when the

company that we have appointed is put in place to do this, when they

can do all the necessary testing to say, "Yes, this can be done safely

in this place," they then can apply for a permit and they have to

satisfy our ministry people. We have some very competent technical

people. They have to satisfy us, on that permit, that what they say can

be done can actually be done and would be done. Any safeguards are

built in for any possible fluctuations from the program or any possible

spills, if you like, that go out of the pipeline that we're trying to

create — a pipeline in theoretical terms. That permit application does

allow for the public input that many, or some people at least, are

screaming for at this time. They're saying there is no public input.

There will be public input from our ministry — people on behalf of the

people and from the people themselves before the permit is approved. So

we have not eliminated public participation.

[ Page 2907

We do say this: if the program is to succeed, the treatment facility

must go somewhere and the final disposal site must be placed somewhere.

A lot of the problem that we have to overcome there is misinformation,

and the other part of it is the "not in my back yard" syndrome. In

other words, I think we can get almost 100 percent agreement in this

province that we should do something about this. The problem is, where?

We think that by the time we're done we can show that the sites that we

select are going to be safe, well protected and will cause no problem.

[4:30]

That comes under what our ministry is about: general environment

protection — air, water, all of those things that make up our

environment.

In connection with the wildlife concept of the province and there

again I could get into quite a bit — more studies are happening,

experiments are happening about how to enhance wildlife through

management, through various activities, through predator control; a lot

of those studies are going on. One of the things that I am pleased to

say is that I can assure all those people who are paying surcharges on

fishing and hunting licences that that money — I don't care which bank

it sits in — is specially earmarked for the habitat conservation fund,

and there is a committee that accepts applications besides. So there is

no need to concern ourselves that that would be taken and put into

general revenue.

There is of course a great deal more that I could say on this, but I

am sure I'll be able to answer some questions for some of the members,

if they have them.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the

minister for giving us a nuts and bolts description of what's involved

in his ministry; he hasn't had too long to be in that position, and he

has certainly learned the titles of all the sections of his ministry

and knows something of what they cover. I'll talk more later about that

nuts and bolts approach to environmental protection.

I have several unrelated things, but I'll move through them and I

know the minister will take notes. I want to start with dollars and

cents, because after all we are talking about estimates. I know it's

been raised before — it was raised under Lands, Parks and Housing — but

I am looking at the minister's office estimates for Environment. This

year as compared with last year I note that they are down by something

like $41,500. Well, it's interesting to note that there are no travel

expenses in this year's estimates. Last year there were $45,000 travel

expenses in that minister's estimates. The former minister must have

really gotten around. That's not there this time.

So there are two questions I would like the minister to answer. Has

that $45,000 been included in the Provincial Secretary's estimates? Has

that been a request that's gone forward and been included along with

the amount that he has requested for his other portfolio? Are they both

in the Provincial Secretary's estimate, or is that one completely gone?

Of course, when you take $45,000 off last year's, you wind up with an

increase in this year's office budget rather than a decrease, as it

might appear from looking at the estimate books.

This minister has a lot of titles. He's the Minister of Lands,

Minister of Parks, Minister of Housing and Minister of Environment.

Does he get a ministerial salary for all those ministries? If he

doesn't, how come the salary vote is no lower? In fact, it's higher

than it was last year. If he's not even getting his salary paid out of

this vote, if his salary is being paid from Lands, Parks and Housing,

it looks to me like some fancy footwork with figures to come out with

what appears to be a reduction, but which is probably quite an increase

in the minister's office budget.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

There's not too much you can say about the figures in the budget for

the various accounts for which the minister is responsible. The only

one that I really have a question about is the grants. That seems to be

twice as much this year as last. It's gone up from $465,000 last year

to $846,000 this year. I am wondering why, in a year of restraint,

those grants are going up so much? What is proposed to cause him to

give so many more grants under the Ministry of Environment this year as

opposed to last? We see some reductions, mostly in salaries. But the

total salary reduction in the total budget is not that great. In fact,

it's not great at all. It's just a shade under, if you total them all

together. But there is not much difference.

So we hear about all these layoffs and terminations, and how we're

going to save a lot of money, and yet the salary budget is not that

much lower, as I total it up, in the total accounts for the ministry.

We know we have had a lot of layoffs. We know that all the auxiliaries

have been terminated. We know that the Minister of Environment wrote to

his staff some time ago, talking about the throne speech and saying

that the policy of restraint was going to affect them. It's a very

strange letter, because it says that they're going to do certain

things, and then they say they're going to have consultation with the

staff. I think if you're going to have meaningful consultation, you

should have it before you decide what you're going to do, not

afterwards. This is a letter dated July 7, the day of the budget, from

the deputy minister over there, which certainly got a lot of people up

on their ear. I don't think you realize that people know they have to

be careful about funding. I think people would like to cooperate.

I believe if you approached it by going into the field and asking

for suggestions, rather than telling them what you're going to do and

then asking for suggestions, you would have come up with a lot better

answers. Perhaps if you had moved a little more slowly — you're not

saving that much money at this point in time — and allowed a little

more participation on the part of the people who worked for you, there

would have been a lot better feeling about the thing. You might have

got cooperation, instead of confrontation, which has certainly been

fairly evident — not just confrontation but a great drop in staff

morale. People who work for your ministry — not only yours, but others

as well — are really discouraged. Some of them find themselves

extremely overworked.

I mentioned this to you earlier in another venue during the course

of debates in these chambers. I know of one conservation officer who,

because of attrition, is being forced to cover two areas. His own area

was already very large. On top of that, he has lost his secretarial

help. That fellow was working days, nights and Sundays trying to deal

with the problems. That's one isolated example, but I'm sure there are

many others where that same situation is occurring. We've had a

shortage of enforcement officers, conservation officers and people in

the field for a long time. We've been letting those things go by

attrition, and now we're going to chop it even more, simply by getting

rid of a certain percentage

[ Page 2908

without really listening to the advice of people who are in the

field. I believe the people in the field could have helped.

A 20 percent reduction in your budget this year translates into 402

full-time staff positions, if you actually reduce that much. That's a

major loss in a preventive field. As you said yourself, prevention is

the major part and certainly should be the major part of your

portfolio. I'm not sure that those positions that we're talking about

were all filled. They may have already been vacant, some of them. When

you have that amount of curtailment in staff, certainly you're going to

have a curtailment in programs.

There have been concerns raised by many groups and organizations

around the province. We expect a lot of environmental organizations to

react because they have very definite concerns about various areas, be

it fish and wildlife, waste management, pollution control, spraying or

the use of chemicals. I thought it was rather interesting that in

August of this year the chamber of commerce came out with a statement.

They said: "While the British Columbia Chamber of Commerce clearly

recognizes the need for continued economic development in the province,

the chamber also believes that the impact of such development on the

environment must be minimized. There are a number of environmental

concerns to which we feel the provincial government must address itself

in order to come up with a suitable solution." They deal with water

quality, acid raid, air quality, energy and fossil fuel development and

hazardous wastes, and the recommendation that they make is "that the

Minister of Environment, in conjunction with federal and regional

governments, work toward one set of clear jurisdictional administrative

guidelines." I think that it's probably rather important that you think

about what an organization like the Chamber of Commerce is saying.

I want to talk a bit about one of my favourite topics: the control

of groundwater. This is something that I have dealt with with every

Minister of Environment that's come along through that seat, and I

always get assurance that it's being reviewed, and is almost ready,

that you're looking at regulations, that the thing is well in hand.

When I talk to the well-drillers — Pacific Well-drillers' Association,

or whatever it is — they are always saying, yes, they are working in

conjunction with you. But they are extremely anxious, for their

protection, that this be brought in. I'm extremely anxious that it be

brought in for the protection of people who depend upon groundwater.

It's an extremely vulnerable thing. Surface water is well controlled

under the Water Act, but there are no controls for groundwater. I would

like the minister to tell me what the status of groundwater is at this

time, because it seems the status is the same as it was back in 1975

when I first started raising it: "It's going to happen right away."

It's that corner around which groundwater regulations never come.

The minister and I have had a lot of discussion relative to water

quality in Shawnigan Lake, in my own constituency. Surface water, of

course, is a problem, because surface water is fast becoming the sewer

water of the fast-developing areas of this province and on this island

in particular, in the highly populated areas.

I would certainly urge the minister to review the time delays,

because it's no good after the problem has occurred. It's something

called planning, Mr. Chairman, and it has to be undertaken well ahead

of the time that the need is actually going to arise. The minister

talked about prevention, and that's the key word that I picked up.

Prevention really means moving in ahead of time and being preventive,

not waiting until the problem occurs and then saying: "Well, how do we

prevent this, after it's already occurred?" You have to move in ahead.

[4:45]

Another problem, certainly one that I know is difficult to handle —

I'm not sure it's even in the right jurisdiction under the Minister of

Environment — concerns the small water systems that are operated by a

hundred and one developers around this province. Because of the need to

sell some property as a subdivision, and for the permission to do this,

they provide a haywire type of water system and write into the

prospectus that water is available. Then there is nothing but trouble

after that. Of course, one of the most important requirements for us to

be able to function is to have pure water in our homes. Again, that's

something that is going to take planning. It relates not just to

surface water, but also to groundwater. You can put in a perfectly good

and operative system dependent upon groundwater, and then if another

one taps into that same reservoir at a lower level, they can simply

drain the wells of the system next door. There is nothing to stop that

happening, absolutely nothing. So that's another concern I have

relative to the water rights section.

I'd like to talk a little bit about chemicals. The minister is aware

that I've had a lot of questions on the order paper. I have read with

great interest the answers he has provided, one of which I managed to

pick out of a delayed Hansard today. It hasn't even been

printed yet but I did get hold of it. I'm a bit surprised at the amount

of chemicals that the minister has been.... We'll deal with that

one first.

I asked him about the quantities and costs of pesticides, where they

were used, the purpose and so on, whether it was stored or disposed of.

It is interesting, the cost of these; there're a whole two pages of

them here. Over $75,000 worth of chemicals were purchased in one year

by various branches of the ministry, a lot of them relative to

fisheries. Another thing that's a bit startling is the fact that there

are over 4,000 kilograms of Aqua-Kleen, which contains an ester of

2,4-D, of course. I imagine that's left over from the experiments at

Okanagan Lake, which fortunately have been stopped. But that's in

storage, in possession. Now that's a fairly expensive thing to have in

storage, but it is probably far worse to use it. What is the minister

going to do with it? I hope he isn't going to try to use it.

I guess most startling were the answers to questions about pollution

control permits: how many permits were reported to the minister, how

many were found by the ministry, how many amendments were issued, how

many charges were laid, who was charged, how many fines, and so on. It

is interesting to note the number of companies charged as a result of

these violations. There are two and a half pages of companies that were

charged, and yet the information on the number of pollution control

permits reported or detected is not available. And of those two and a

half pages of companies that were charged, only 30 fines were levied, in

the amount of $26,000. It would seem that the minister is involved in a

continuation of his predecessors' actions over many years of issuing

permits to pollute.

I asked him how many permits were actually issued. I find that in

1983 there were 182 waste management permits issued and 192 amended,

and up to June 30, 79 permits were issued and 127 amended. I am

concerned about the amendments. He tells me that many of those

amendments were simply changes in names and so on. I notice that many of

[ Page 2909

those amendments relate to forest companies. Can the minister tell

me if in fact any forest companies have been given permits, or have had

their permits amended, to allow them to burn contaminated wood — wood

containing PCPs? Have any of the forest companies' permits been amended

to allow them to discharge greater than the original amount of

pollutants? It is something that happens when we are in dire economic

times: people try to bend the rules relative to the environment.

Short-sighted, in my opinion, and in....

Well, it's short-sighted period, because the long-term costs are

going to be much greater. I would like the minister to advise me

whether or not that is the case.

I am also very concerned about the changes in procedure that have

taken place for appeals. Under the new act, of course, we have fees; we

have something that is really intended to deter people from expressing

sincere concerns, and what could be well-founded concerns. I submit,

Mr. Chairman, that we do not have all the answers relative to these

chemicals. One of the instances that has come to my attention is a

request by the West Coast Environmental Law Association to the ministry

relative to the use of two chemicals, allidochlor and chlorbromuron.

Because of delays and incorrect answers, it was too late for West Coast

to file an appeal by the time they got the information back. The

questions that they were asking were relative to the adverse effects of

those chemicals. The ministry had indicated that they had been cleared

by the federal authorities and they had no authority to do anything

about it. These were two chemicals that were tested by IBT, the

Industrial Bio-Test Laboratories in the U.S., where, we all know, there

have been fraudulent studies. These were two of the 113 chemicals which

were registered in Canada. Some new studies have been completed, and

Health and Welfare Canada approached the manufacturer of those two

chemicals and requested that they do new safety studies, but the

manufacturer refused. Health and Welfare Canada then discontinued the

registration, and three provinces, of which B.C. was one, applied for

permission to continue to use the chemicals, because they are used in

agriculture. My point is that we do not know how safe those chemicals

are. The minister and the ministry are doing nothing to assist people

who are trying to evaluate whether or not they should be used; in fact,

they seem to be standing in the way.

I have a letter here which was written by the chairman of the

Environmental Appeal Board to a woman who happens to live in Maple

Ridge. The letter is a bureaucratic nightmare. I don't want to take the

time to read it all into the record, but I'm going to send the minister

a copy. I'll just send it across the floor to him now. I think the

minister has good common sense, and I'd like him to read it and put

himself in the place of a genuinely concerned individual who received a

letter like that. Everything that can possibly be done to discourage

people from making legitimate appeals before the pesticide control

appeal board seems to be being done.

Moving on to something else, the minister mentioned that the habitat

conservation fund was in place and that it would be used, and that

there was a committee which was set up.... My green light is on,

Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, I'll try to respond to the

whole range of activities that the member has covered, and perhaps deal

with some of the issues at the end. For instance, the member mentioned

— I've just had a chance to skim it — the "bureaucratic nightmare"

which go out from the ministry. However, when people start getting into

technical, chemical questions where there are no clear-cut, yes-or-no

answers.... I have read and signed a number of letters that on

first glance appeared to be very technical and bureaucratic, and have

gone through them, but you have to realize the question being asked. If

it's a complicated question regarding chemicals or pesticides, there is

no simple yes-or-no answer to many of these. On some of them there are,

and then the letter can be plain. You cannot answer a highly technical,

not when you're getting into those terms.

[5:00]

For instance, the member mentioned the pesticides, allidochlor and

chlorbromuron. I think your

summary was that the ministry has done

nothing about it. Well, when the ministry learned about this, as often

happens, Agriculture Canada did deregister them. The ministry

deregistered them mainly because the company chose not to do the

expensive studies that would either prove them correct or not — to

replicate the studies that had already been done in the States, which

you brought into question. When they say "deregister," that does not

necessarily mean there is something wrong. Our ministry then moved them

from class 4 to class 1 herbicides; in other words, they are fully

protected and could only be issued under permit. They put a course on

for farmers — I believe there were 13 — who were applying these to make

sure they were applied appropriately. Time may prove that they

shouldn't be applied at all. But it would be a little difficult for us

to just automatically eliminate everything that somebody raised a

question about. I think you have to be overcautious on that side. But I

don't think, if someone says, "There's a question about this," you

automatically discard it. I think the ministry would be irresponsible

if they didn't do some work. They do work on this, and they do respond.

I'm amazed at how quickly they respond to some very complex problems.

The member also went into the amount of chemicals and so on. Most of

that is for weed control and storage. I guess 2,4-D is no longer with

the dioxins; anything containing dioxins is no longer being

manufactured. I don't think there are any detectable dioxins in the

Aqua-Kleen we use for spray. Nonetheless, the program was cut back, not

so much — from what I've been able to learn — from actual empirical

data that there was harm in destroying the milfoil but because of

emotional reaction to it. I'm not technical enough to know whether that

it is exact or not. On the other hand, you should see the letters that

I'm getting now saying: "Why did you stop killing the milfoil? It's

growing." You can't win on some of those.

Control of groundwater. I think a great deal is being done.

Certainly there is a lot of cooperation between our ministry and the

well drillers. I'm not quite sure whether the member wants a licence, a

permit or an inspection for every well. We do what we can to test the

groundwater and to control seepage. Again, I'm not quite sure what the

member wants.

Getting back to the beginning of her presentation and

questions....

Interjection.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Yes, I think some question can be raised

about it, because I happen to hold the portfolio for

[ Page 2910

both ministries. There are ministers' office expenses proposed. I

can assure the member and the House that I get one salary, even though

I have two portfolios. I have one staff who manages to handle both;

it's a combined staff. If this remains and the staff is not needed,

then it will not be spent. I can assure the member of that.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I thank the minister for his

answers. They don't really resolve my problem relative to the dollars

in his ministerial vote. Certainly he has had a very extensive increase

in that vote if, in fact, his salary is not in there and there are no

travel expenses. It would appear that he has a good-sized increase in

that vote.

There are a couple of things I want to raise with the minister. I

know we have discussed them before, but I am extremely concerned about

his decision not to assist intervenors in various public hearings in

any way. Again, that is bridling the people who would be unable, for

financial reasons, to make presentations without that kind of

assistance. It's worked well before. Certainly it worked well in the

case of the Site C hearings, where, in fact, as a result of those

interventions the decision came down. Had it not been for those

interventions we would have been well embarked on a program that would

have cost us a considerable amount of money.

Hazardous wastes. The minister has mentioned that program. Certainly

I think he is correct. We all agree that there must be a

hazardous-waste site. I agree that nobody wanting it in their back yard

is a problem. But I do have some concerns about choosing a site at the

confluence of two rivers. The Fraser is a mighty fish river. Perhaps

it's not so much the leachate from the site, but it's the

transportation that bothers me. I notice in Genstar's waste management

proposals, which they have sent me, that they say there will be very

small amounts transported up and down that Fraser Canyon. There are

something like 86,000 tonnes of material sitting at Endako mine waiting

for such a site. You start transporting stuff like that down the canyon

and then back up, if you're going to bring it down to some central

point where you're going to treat it....

I'm concerned, too, about the proposals. It's definitely not a

contract; they say that this is just a sort of mutual agreement but

it's not binding in any legal sense, so we could find that it's much

looser when the final contract is drawn up. But even in this, the

statements are very loose, relative to the monitoring. It would appear

that there are going to be some committees set up, and the data is

going to be basically provided by the company. That bothers me very

much. I think we have to have a stronger kind of control in that.

I mentioned the nuts and bolts early on. Yes, the minister has

mastered the nuts and bolts, but it's obvious that that minister, like

his predecessors, lacks any real philosophy or commitment to the

long-term environmental issues. I would refer him to a report that was

done by the Science Council of Canada — it's in the library here — as

of January of this year, which goes into the good economics of

following the environmental way. It talks about the whole concept of a

conserver society, about utilizing the things we now are spending

dollars to get rid of, and about living in harmony with our environment

rather than confronting it. That's prevention at its ultimate, Mr.

Minister, and that's the kind of commitment that I have failed to

recognize in what you have said today. Maybe at some later time that

will come, but if it does it will be a first for a member representing

that side of the House.

MR. PASSARELL: These will just be short questions to the

Minister of Environment — very short, like within about 45 seconds if

possible. The first one is regarding the game warden in Atlin. I've had

discussions with the minister before, but just to put it out....

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Minister of Industry and Small Business

Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), we've gone two days with fairly good

debate in this Legislature, so why don't you be quiet and just let it

go by, and show that you do hold some type of intelligence.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Don't lecture to the House.

MR. PASSARELL: I'm not lecturing to the House; I'm lecturing

to you, Mr. Minister, to show some maturity in here.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. To the vote, please.

MR. PASSARELL: The present system that we're having without a

game warden up in the community of Atlin is that we have a Fish and

Wildlife officer flying in from Cassiar four hours a week, at a cost —

depending on what airline he goes on — of $420 to $460 for the return

trip. What I would like....

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: As the minister of noise has just said, there

is a lot of poaching going on, and I would hope that the minister could

look at some type of plan for next year in which a local person could

be deputized over the hunting season. Because there is a lot of

poaching going on from the Yukon and Alaska in this particular area,

and we would have one individual sitting in the area for the two months

of the hunting season to put a little control on the poaching.

The policy of not having the game warden in Atlin has also caused

difficulty to the outfitters, because the foreign hunters coming and

working under licences of the outfitters need export permits for

transportation of the meat out of the province. Not having the officer

there, or someone who can sign for the forms, has caused problems,

particularly when the hunts start in August when the weather is much

warmer and the meat has been spoiling. If we could have someone in

Atlin — someone local — who could sign the forms, that would help that.

The last issue I'd like to talk about is the wolf program. A recent

Yukon study....

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: Yes, we're in agreement on this one.

My hon. friend from Omineca would probably be interested in these

statistics. The Yukon government has just concluded a study for the

northwestern British Columbia and southern Yukon area in which it is

shown that there are 11 moose per wolf in that immediate area, while

the figure should be 50 to 60 moose per wolf, I would like the minister

to look into some type of elimination program, because those figures

are just getting too low. When you're talking about 11 moose per wolf,

that's much too low. It's a detriment to the

[ Page 2911

hunters and to the individuals who live in that area who have to

depend on the moose. That figure should be five times higher than

what's presently being shown in studies. I would certainly hope the

minister could do something so my hon. friend from Omineca and

myself....

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: Just be quiet, Mr. Minister for Industry and

Small Business.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Let's retain a little bit of

decorum.

[5:15]

MR. PASSARELL: That's right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We're

just about ready to conclude on this issue.

I would certainly hope that the minister would look at some kind of

program to have some kind of stringent control over this, because the

moose are losing in numbers. When you start talking about 11 moose per

wolf, when it should be 50 or 60, there is a problem with wolf control

in the far north. I would certainly hope the minister could look at

something to replenish the moose in the far north.

Interjections.

MR. PASSARELL: You know, Mr. Chairman, at times I find it so

difficult, and I know you do too. If he could just be quiet fo