1986 Legislative Session: 4th

Session, 33rd

Parliament

HANSARD

The

following electronic version is

for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, MAY 6, 1986

Morning Sitting

[ Page 8065 ]

CONTENTS

Columbia Bible College Act (Bill PR402).

Mr. Schroeder.

Introduction and first reading — 8065

Committee of Supply: Ministry of

Environment estimates.

(Hon. Mr. Pelton)

On vote 25: minister's office — 8065

Mr. Michael

Ms. Wallace

Mr. Howard

Mr. Stupich

Mr. Mitchell

Mr. MacWilliam

TUESDAY, MAY 6, 1986

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

Prayers.

Introduction of Bills

COLUMBIA BIBLE COLLEGE ACT

On a motion by Mr. Schroeder, Bill PR402, Columbia Bible

College

Act, 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

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT

(continued)

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

HON. MR. PELTON: During the lively

discussion which we

carried on late yesterday afternoon, with respect to sewer outfalls and

other such delightful subjects, the first member for Victoria (Mr.

Hanson) raised a question of problems with the Clover Point outfall.

There was a misunderstanding, I must say, on this side of the House

when he mentioned the Clover Point outfall, because we were thinking of

the Macaulay Point outfall. I certainly wouldn't want to mislead

anybody; neither would I want to cause any concern to the Capital

Regional District or to those wonderful people in the engineering

departments of the city of Victoria. I'm sure the first member for

Victoria would also not want to cause disconcertion on this particular

matter.

I would like to have that into the record, Mr. Chairman, and

just a

short interim report that I'd like to bring on this matter. I ran it

through the ministry last night. The ministry have been in contact with

Capital Regional District engineers, who advise — I notice it was in

this morning's paper that they know of no break in the Clover Point

outfall or the diffuser, the line is completely intact and continues to

perform as designed. Further, there is no knowledge of any problem with

the structural support of the outfall.

With regard to the Macaulay Point outfall, where the

misunderstanding occurred, it has been public knowledge for several

years that a part of the diffuser

section has separated from the

outfall, but environmental monitoring has shown no problems to exist

and the rest of the line is intact.

So once again, both the Macaulay Point outfall and the Clover

Point

outfall are functioning as they were designed.

MR. MICHAEL: Although I'm the MLA for

Shuswap-Revelstoke, on

behalf of the city of Victoria — I notice that neither of the members

for Victoria is in the House this morning — I thank the minister for

his response. I was somewhat concerned regarding the discussion

yesterday on that subject. I will see that the information that the

minister has relayed to the House this morning is indeed relayed to the

city of Victoria, because of the absence of the two members for

Victoria this morning.

MS. WALLACE,: Well, it's very generous of

the member for

Shuswap-Revelstoke to take this on his shoulders. But I can assure you

that the members for Victoria are quite aware of what is going on in

this House even at this moment and are quite aware of the situation. It

seems that the minister misunderstood what the location was, but I

think that that applies to the minister rather than to the people on

this side of the House I just want to set that straight: the members

for Victoria certainly are quite aware of the situation and don't need

to get in touch with the city, because they are in very close touch

with what is going on with the city and with the regional district.

We were discussing chemicals at some length yesterday as well,

and

at this point I would like to deal with a couple of specifics with the

minister. I am sure he is aware of the situation at the little town of

Topley, where we had the Texada Lime silos located. That was a real

travesty, the length of time that was involved before those people even

had a permit to operate. I wish the minister could have been at those

public hearings and heard some of the things that went on there. I

don't know if he has a transcript of them or not. What we saw happen

was the company, Texada Lime, come in and tell how careful they were

and how everything was in hand and there were no problems. Then we had

the evidence given by the local residents, testimony that was just

astounding. It was something like a revival, Mr. Chairman, after that

happened, because suddenly the president of the company went to the

microphone and said: "Look, I know we've been remiss. We trusted the

trucking company. We didn't regulate this the way we should. But if you

just give us a permit, we've seen the light and we'll behave ourselves

in future." Then there was more testimony given and more of the same.

Just as the thing was about to close down, suddenly the representative

from the trucking company went to the microphone, and it was the same

thing. Suddenly he had seen the light. He had been remiss, and if this

permit was just granted, they would do a good job in the future. It was

more like a revival than a public hearing.

I think what it points out is that the ministry is so thin

that they

are not able to be on top of these things. Either that or else they

just don't really care. I think the people who work for the ministry

care, but I am not sure that the minister has the real concern of those

people at heart.

They now have issued a permit, and of course the local people

are

appealing it because they feel that those silos should be moved, that

they should not be placed in the middle of a residential area. The

permit has, actually, some very good conditions in it. There are

certain things that are supposed to be done by I'm not sure whether

it's the beginning of June or the end of June. But the last time I

checked up there, none of those things had been done — no fencing,

nothing. None of those things had been done. They have till the end of

June, and I'm just wondering whether or not the minister is aware that

nothing has happened. Mind you, they're being more careful about how

they handle the stuff, but they're not taking the precautions of

fencing off the yard, putting up the signs, doing the kinds of things

that will prevent the school kids, who are right next door, from

getting in there. Now they have, as I say, till the end of June, but

nothing has happened to date. I would hope that the minister will make

sure that that is closely watched.

Now the material involved is quicklime — calcium oxide. This

leads

me into another topic that relates very closely to the transportation

of dangerous goods. The minister spoke

[ Page 8066 ]

at some length earlier about how he's

working so

closely, and gets

the manifests and so on on every piece of material that is transported

— dangerous cargo.

I wonder if he is aware that Texada Lime has applied to the

federal

government, to the board — I just don't recall the name of the specific

bureaucracy to which they have applied — to have calcium oxide removed

from the hazardous goods list. I have certainly protested this, and I

am wondering whether or not the minister has taken any steps in

protesting. [10:15]

In the discussions on hazardous goods, it is interesting to

note

that we've had a tremendous number of narrow escapes recently; talk to

the people around the area where he lives where we've had the

derailment of cars. It seems that we're just waiting for a really

serious accident to happen. Now I know he gets all the lists, but I

just wonder what he's doing about it and whether or not he has any

influence with the federal authorities to ensure, first of all, that

things like calcium oxide are maintained on the hazardous goods list —

also, any precautions that are taken when we know that those shipments

are coming through. Because we seem to be having an undue number of

spills and accidents lately relative to the transport of dangerous

goods. Just for those few questions about that lime silo and about the

transport of hazardous goods, I'll take my place and await the

minister's response.

HON. MR. PELTON: Mr. Chairman, l suppose I

should have

started off this morning by inquiring after the member's health again,

because the very vicious attack that was made against me on this lime

issue is something that I really didn't expect on such a beautiful

morning.

However, I have some information which I'd like to pass along

to the

member. I'm sure she knows about this, but she didn't mention it when

she was talking about the Topley situation. It goes back quite some

way. It goes back to January of 1985 when the waste management branch

of the ministry began to get some complaints from residents of Topley

regarding Texada Lime's silos in that area. At the time waste

management investigated the problem, they determined that the company

had not been very diligent in maintaining and operating the facilities

to minimize the amount of lime dust that was emitted, and in February

the company was advised to apply for a permit under the Waste

Management Act. In April and early May of 1985 the company initiated

some repairs, and conducted a general clean-up of the site.

In the same month, in May, the member for Omineca (Hon. Mr.

Kempf)

wrote to my office to express his concerns on behalf of his

constituents, and in the reply to that member it was indicated that an

informational meeting would be held in Topley to give the company an

opportunity to explain the operation of the silo, to give the citizens

of Topley the opportunity to express their concerns and to give their

recommendations to the ministry before a decision was made by the

regional waste manager as to whether or not a permit should be issued

under the Waste Management Act.

In November of '85 the member for Cowichan-Malahat called our

office

to determine the status of the situation, and as a result of that

telephone call a letter was written to the member advising about the

informational meeting that was to be held in Topley in January 1986. In

November again the member for Cowichan-Malahat wrote asking a number of

further questions with respect to the public meeting. So the member is

very diligent in her duties as critic for the environment.

The meeting was held in Topley, and it was on January 15 at

the

community hall. There were about 100 people there, including the member

for Cowichan-Malahat, and there was also TV coverage. The residents

were very angry about the lime silo, and their concerns were based on

the company's poor performance in the past. The silo is approximately

100 metres away from a number of the residences, and their concerns

were for possible health hazards from the lime dust, nuisance

conditions, and property damage to lawns, gardens and other things. The

company stated that it would send a qualified industrial appraiser to

the community to estimate the amount of property damage that had been

caused by the lime emissions.

The current status, Mr. Chairman, is that a permit was issued

February 14, 1986, with very strict operating and maintenance

requirements, including the requirement to measure lime dust in the

ambient air in the community. The residents of Topley, as was to be

expected, have appealed the decision, and the appeal process is in

motion. I can't say specifically when the appeal will be heard, but the

appeal will be heard.

As for the matter of toxic chemicals and other such things

being

controlled, in the meetings that the ministry has had with the federal

government through the CCREM, we are developing a list — I think I

mentioned it yesterday — that we hope will gain acceptance across

Canada.

We are at liberty to put different chemicals on that list for

discussion, and the member will be pleased to know that we have

included lime.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I'd like to ask leave

to make an

introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: In the gallery today

we have a large

group of grade 10 students from Brookswood Secondary School in Langley,

our largest secondary school. l understand that there will be three

groups visiting us today because of the size of the delegation. They're

accompanied today by Mr. Lloyd Rutten, and I'd like the House to make

them welcome.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, there are two or

three subjects I'd

like to deal with and talk to the minister about, relating to the

report and the considerations given to matters by the Wilderness

Advisory Committee. These may have been dealt with already by the

minister in the operation of this department. If so I'm sure he'll tell

me what has happened. In a couple of them we've had correspondence with

the minister, and in one of the three that I want to deal with there

hasn't been.

I'd like to deal first with the area around a community called

Cedarvale along the Skeena River, about halfway between Terrace and

Hazelton, and a mountain range there identified as the Seven Sisters.

There is a very active Seven Sisters Society in the area that has been

working for some time to promote the preservation of that mountain

range and the area surrounding it for purposes other than resource

exploitation. The Seven Sisters Society and a number of other people

who are not members of the society but who see the potentials of the

Seven Sisters think that it has a far greater potential both for its

natural aesthetic qualities in themselves and also for tourism. There

isn't anything of this nature anywhere in that part of the country that

lends itself so

[ Page 8067 ]

admirably to tourism or to an easily

accessible

wilderness area —

accessible right alongside the highway. People who promote it think

that it would lend itself to that purpose.

There seems to be a unanimity on this matter as between the

constituency association of the New Democratic Party and the

constituency association of the Social Credit Party in Skeena. I say it

seems to be the case, because representations have been made by the

Seven Sisters Society to the New Democratic Party constituency

association and to a number of other groups in the area, advocating a

moratorium on resource exploitation in the area, or at least a

limitation of some of the potential of that, in order that an

examination could be made of its tourist potential. The constituency

association of the New Democratic Party earlier this year passed a

resolution to that effect, a copy of which was sent to the minister,

wherein it was referred to in another letter. I just heard from the

constituency executive of the Social Credit Party in the riding that

they had considered this matter as a result of my having written to

them in March and had dealt with it and passed it on to the minister.

That's why I said earlier it seems to be unanimity, because from the

covering letter that I received from the Social Credit association it

didn't specifically say they approved of this, but they dealt with it

and passed it on to the minister. So that's one subject matter I think

needs to be dealt with as expeditiously as possible, in order that we

can look at the potential from a long-term job-creation point of view

around tourism and recreation in an area admirably suited to those two

activities.

Now the Wilderness Advisory Committee did not deal with the

Seven

Sisters proposal in its report, but when a portion of the committee met

in Terrace, representations and a presentation were made to them by the

Seven Sisters Society, but they made no comment about it, maybe because

it was not within the focus of the committee in the first instance,

maybe because in that sense their focus was too circumscribed and too

narrow and they felt that they didn't have a mandate to examine the

Seven Sisters Society's wilderness proposal. But it is worth examining

and dealing with, and worth receiving the support of the ministry to

set it aside for the purposes I've mentioned.

I also want to deal with a portion of the report involving the

Gitnadoix River or the Gitnadoix watershed. Gitnadoix is a Tsimshian

name of the Tsimshian nation of native Indian people. It was the

homeland of a phratry of the Tsimshian people, the Gitnadoix, who lived

in that area, and who, so history seems to indicate.... A smallpox

epidemic visited itself upon the Gitnadoix around the time that the

non-Indian came to the north coast. The Hudson's Bay Company

established its trading posts on the coastal area around the mouth of

the Nass River and subsequently at Port Simpson. Because of the

combination of those two factors — the most notable one being, I would

think, the smallpox epidemic — the Gitnadoix moved from their homeland,

along with other tribes of that nation who lived along the lower

reaches of the Skeena River. The Gitnadoix people are now a part of the

Port Simpson band; it is one of the seven tribes that merged to form

the Port Simpson band. The head chief of the Gitnadoix lives at Port

Simpson.

The wilderness advisory committee gives recognition to the

fact — as

it says in one of its recommendations — that the Gitnadoix traditional

interests and use should be recognized, etc. I think it should go a

little bit further than that, and the Gitnadoix should be consulted and

involved in any activity that takes place with respect to that

watershed. That's one aspect of it. I don't think there would be any

difficulty in dealing with the Gitnadoix in terms of identifying it as

a class A park and a conservancy area, which has been proposed for some

time now. There appears to be no impediment whatever in the way of

following the recommendations of the wilderness advisory committee with

respect to Gitnadoix. They go back quite a number of years in assessing

the interest that has been shown in the area. They deal with the

resource question, point out that it is minimal and that the Gitnadoix

watershed lends itself admirably to a class A park and a wilderness

conservancy.

[10:30]

That's something the minister could have done beforehand,

without

the Wilderness Advisory Committee, because all of the relevant

information has been available for some time. All that the wilderness

advisory committee did was sort of look over the information and the

material that had been available and say: "Yes, we should do what

should have been done some years ago." That would be an admirable move

to make in conjunction with, as I said earlier, the Gitnadoix

themselves in Port Simpson.

I want also to deal with the reference to what is called the

Khutzeymateen, or the headwaters of Khutzeymateen Inlet, just outside

of Prince Rupert. This one is not quite so easy, I suppose would be a

decent enough word, to deal with as the other two. It seems to me that

the Wilderness Advisory Committee erred in assessing the relevant

information insofar as using that information to come to a conclusion.

I think the committee erred in the conclusion.

Let me read some portions of the report itself, which the

minister

has. It talks about the background and is fairly short. There's a page

and a half of a sort of analysis of the Khutzeymateen proposal. It

points out from the very beginning that the Khutzeymateen has "high

ecological significance," and I quote those words from the report. It

goes on to say why: coastal watershed, high fishery, high wildlife,

high forest values, high quality grizzly bear habitat.

What has occurred over the years with the population

increasing and

"civilization" coming further and further into the area is that people

drive grizzly bears away. Grizzlies don't like people any more than

people like grizzly bears. Civilization does that; they move away from

the areas and back into their natural location. There used to be quite

a number of grizzlies along the middle and lower reaches of the Nass

River. But Columbia Cellulose's logging activities there, going back

some 20 or 25 years, working and logging along the lower reaches of the

Nass, drove grizzly bears away from that area and gradually moved them

back into a pocket; and one of those pockets is the Khutzeymateen

Inlet. It's almost the last refuge in that area for grizzly bears.

That's mentioned in here as well.

Then the report goes on to say: "Despite the significance,

despite

the high ecological potential or values that are companion to the

headwaters of the Khutzeymateen, surprisingly little research has been

conducted in the area." They recognize all of these factors, but

surprisingly little research has been conducted.

Then it goes on to point out that the Ministry of Environment

has

developed some alternative schemes with respect to the Khutzeymateen

valley. It says that one is to establish either a permanent ecological

reserve or a temporary wildlife management area; and the second is a

timber management option. Then it goes on to point out.... I think this

is where the committee errs. It says, first, that surprisingly little

[ Page 8068 ]

research has been done to identify

what impact

industrial activity

would have upon that area of high ecological value — all across the

board: fish and wildlife, terrain, flora and fauna, and everything

else; there's surprisingly little information about that. It points out

that Ministry of Environment staff are critical of the timber company's

logging consultant's opinions about the area. It points out that the

consultant for Wedeene River Logging, the company that wants the timber

in there, confirmed that he had never had an opportunity to visit the

valley. It sets this out as the background: high ecological value,

worth preserving, surprisingly little research done, errors in the

timber company's consultant's position about things — an admission that

he or the consultant firm had never been in the valley at all. Then

they go on to say: "The lack of adequate information in support of an

ecological reserve of this size for scientific study makes it difficult

to justify." The lack of adequate information for ecological purposes

makes it difficult to deal with the ecological question, but it's okay

to log it. That's why, I submit, they are in error.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

I submit that the Wilderness Advisory Committee should have

said

something of this sort: that the lack of adequate information with

respect to ecological matters should be used as the foundation to get

that information first, before coming to a conclusion about ruining the

area by logging. The minister would be well advised to ignore the

committee recommendations about logging in there. Admittedly it is

diluted somewhat by saying that logging should only be permitted if

sufficient field studies, acceptable to the wildlife branch, are done,

and that sort of thing. But we know from experience that once logging

starts, once the devastation of a high-lead logging operation takes

place, which is what would be happening in here, you can cause the

damage beforehand and then it's too late. I would submit that the field

studies need to be done first, that the research needs to be done

first, that the area needs to be examined from the point of view of

preserving it.

I would suggest the minister take advantage of the first

option

developed within his ministry — that is, establish either a permanent

ecological reserve or a temporary wildlife management area over the

entire watershed, or all lands below 500 feet above sea level. In other

words, preserve that area below 500 feet — that's one of the

possibilities. The minister would be serving the interests of that

whole area by following what I've just suggested he follow.

As an afterthought, it seems, from my reading of some relevant

information about the Wedeene River Logging proposal, that the purpose

is not to acquire sufficient volume of logs from that area to justify

the building of a sawmill in Prince Rupert, but to get a sufficient

volume of logs out of that area so that they can export the logs —

which would be number one, top-quality logs — to have cash flow in

order to assist in the building of the sawmill. That seems to be what

the rationale is for that purpose. It's not to acquire logs for the

purpose of a value-added aspect here in British Columbia, but to

acquire them for export for cash flow. If that's the case, and that

seems to be what it might well be, then running in that direction is

just simply going to injure the thing. I submit the minister shouldn't

permit that. Do the studies and the research first. Expose to the

general public what the results of that research are and what the

analysis is, and then get involved in the discussion as to whether

something other than an ecological reserve is worth pursuing.

HON. MR. PELTON: Well, I really sincerely

appreciate the

comments of the member for Skeena because, having talked to him on one

or two of these issues previously, I understand his deep and abiding

interest in this particular subject. I not only appreciate his comments

but I am going to make a point, because there was a lot of substance in

what he said, of rereading it in the Blues and letting it soak in.

I just might say, because the member's statement was more that

than

a series of questions, that he is absolutely right in many of the

things he says. For example, the mandate of the wilderness committee

was relatively limited, and of course that was because of the

time-frame that was allowed for them to do their work. That is one of

the reasons, I suppose, why they didn't study the subject of the Seven

Sisters and Cedarvale, the place where they are or near where they are.

It wasn't on the list.

I'm sure that most people in this House know that there are

many

such areas that have been brought forward for discussion. I am very

excited about the report of the Wilderness Advisory Committee, and

there are areas in there which will have to be looked at — like the

member suggests, the Khutzeymateen particularly. We in the ministry

have no problem in admitting that we must get in there and do more

research on the grizzly bear population, because it is one of the

largest in British Columbia and one of the few large grizzly bear

populations left in North America, I understand. They don't like

people, and we mustn't drive them away, so a great deal of

consideration must be given to this particular problem when we do get

in a position to deal with the report and the recommendations therein.

As I said before, I'm excited about the report. There are a

lot of

good things in there, and I believe that when we find ourselves in a

position to take some constructive action on the suggestions that have

been made, the report itself will provide almost a blueprint for how we

will deal with the matters that were placed before the committee for

their consideration and recommendation, as well as for other matters

which come forward, like the Seven Sisters. I think one of the pillars

or the foundation of the report is the recommendations which come

forward throughout the report in various ways that consultation is the

order of the day. I am sure that that will be part and parcel of any

ongoing process which is developed out of the report.

In the matter of the Gitnadoix, I hear very clearly what the

member

says in that matter as well, and I'm positive that when we — and I hope

it happens very soon — arrive at the point in time where we can begin

to take the actions necessary to implement some or all of the

recommendations in that report, that will be looked at in a favourable

way.

Yes, I guess not all of the recommendations would be

completely

palatable to everyone, but they do give us something to work from.

Unless the member has some specific questions, I think he knows that

this is the subject I enjoy talking about and that I take a great deal

of interest in. I can assure him, as I said at the outset, that the

suggestions he has made and the points that he has made are very well

taken, and I'm going to make a point of getting the Blues and reading

them again. Thank you.

[10:45]

[ Page 8069 ]

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, I know the

minister's last few

words were "enjoys talking about these subject matters." I'm interested

in having something done about them, rather than talking about them. I

enjoy talking about them as well, but I don't have the power to do

anything about them. Maybe that will change.

I understood the minister to say that yes, they were desirous

getting into the Khutzeymateen to conduct further studies or research

in that area and find out what the situation is. The companion to that

then I think should be no movement on the logging side until those

research studies are completed. Could the minister give us that

assurance?

HON. MR. PELTON: I can't do that, because

at this point in

time the report of the wilderness committee has not been officially

received.

MR. HOWARD: The report of the wilderness

committee — is that

what the minister said — has not been officially received? I may be in

error, but I've got a copy of it here that says: "We, the Wilderness

Advisory Committee duly appointed by the Hon. Austin Pelton, Minister

of Environment for the province of British Columbia, have prepared the

following report, 'The Wilderness Mosaic,' and fully endorse its

conclusions and recommendations." It's dated at the city of Vancouver,

March 7, 1986; then there are the signatures of all the committee

members. If it hasn't been officially received, where is it?

HON. MR. PELTON: I don't think that we're

here to play a game

of semantics. I know that the member knows precisely what I mean. The

report was filed by the committee, and the report has been examined for

some time now by senior officials of the ministries involved, but the

report has not been approved to this point in time by the government.

Therefore it would be presumptuous on my part to suggest any specific

action related to any specific recommendation until I have the approval

of the government to proceed.

MR. HOWARD: Then the minister's use of the

words "officially

received" was incorrect. The minister was in error. It wasn't a

question of playing semantics. I was taken by the words "officially

received," that's all. But it has been officially received and it's

being studied, so that's fine and dandy.

All I was asking for was that the minister said that his

ministry is

interested in getting into the Khutzeymateen area and doing the

research work and doing the studies and finding out what's happening,

even in the absence of any approval or disapproval on the part of the

government in terms of this. He won't make that commitment, so I have

to repeat it: could he guarantee that no damage as a result of

industrial activity decisions made by his government will take place

before the studies and the research are completed? If we can't get that

guarantee, then there's not much point in talking about it any further.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I've just got a

couple of matters

that won't take long to present and I'm sure won't take the minister

long to deal with. One of them arises from a letter that was written to

the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith), but I think it might well have

been copied to the Minister of Environment. It won't take long; I'd

like to read it now, Mr. Chairman.

"I have recently learned of a conviction

under the

B.C. Wildlife Act in which a Mr. Taleghani was fined $50 for killing a

five-point bull elk in the Lake Cowichan area last September. There is

no open season there for these animals, and the offender, a graduate of

the CORE program, I understand, cannot claim he mistook an elk for a

deer. To put it bluntly, the penalty was a bloody disgrace.

"I have participated in elk translocation

projects on

Vancouver Island in the hopes of re-establishing viable elk herds

already badly depleted or annihilated by poaching, and I am disgusted

to learn that the considerable time and effort I and others have

expended are being negated by your government's refusal to increase the

maximum penalty for such offences and by your ministry's refusal to

instruct regional Crown counsel to not treat these offences in such a

cavalier manner.

"I note from recent media reports that

both the

federal Minister of the Environment and the Alberta government are

currently pursuing the implementation of maximum fines in the amount of

up to $150,000, thus giving the courts more latitude to impose a

deterrent rather than a poaching licence fee. What action, if any, is

your government taking to bring maximum fines in B.C. more in line with

today's economic reality, and with the aesthetic value of our wildlife

resource?"

This is signed by Mr. Harling.

I know the subject has been raised in general, but this is a

very

specific incidence raised by an individual. I know that the letter was

written to the Attorney-General. The Minister of Environment may not

have had this case brought to his attention, but my concern at the

moment is whether or not he supports this constituent's request that

there be a much higher fine, at least, available to the courts; whether

or not they impose it is up to the judge, I suppose, but something that

would act as a deterrent rather than, as my correspondent suggests, as

a poaching licence fee. I wonder whether the minister supports this,

whether he has any intention.... I can't ask what he's doing in

cabinet, but I would hope that he's making representations to the

Attorney-General to have some changes made.

The other matter is something that I would normally raise by

simply

sending a letter to the minister or to his ministry, but I just came

across it as I was reading some correspondence waiting for an

opportunity to address the first issue that I discussed. In this

particular instance the minister probably doesn't know about it, and I

think perhaps his ministry may not even know — at least not at the

level represented here this morning. It's about a proposed rezoning of

residential property in Lantzville. The applicant is a Josie Robertson,

and it's dealing with rezoning lot 2, district lot 27-G, formerly known

as district lot 27.

As I say, it's the kind of thing that I would raise with the

minister, and I will. I think he won't know the specifics of it. It's

addressed in this case to the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr.

Ritchie), but I'm asking the Minister of Environment because there is a

reference in this letter to the Ministry of Environment taking a

position with respect to the sewage problems. There is no sewage system

in that area. The proposal is to develop a restaurant where there

already is a sewage problem.

[ Page 8070 ]

I'll just read this one

section of the letter: "The area does

not

have sewers. The septic fields in the area have now reached the

saturation point, and a restaurant in this area would create serious

drainage problems for the surrounding properties. The Ministry of

Environment has apparently expressed concerns in this regard, and I

trust their report is available to you."

I intend to be contacting the Minister of Municipal Affairs

about

this, and I wonder whether the Ministry of Environment can provide me

with any information about this reference to their involvement in this

particular instance. Now, Mr. Chairman, I'm quite prepared to send a

copy of this to the minister because, as I say, I doubt very much that

he'd be aware of this at this point.

HON. MR. PELTON: The first item that the

member for Nanaimo

brought up.... Most of the correspondence does go across my desk, and I

think I recall that one.

MR. STUPICH: It went to the A-G, not you.

HON. MR. PELTON: Yes, but we got a carbon

copy, I believe. I

think we did.

But in response to, I think, the main question that the member

had,

we are in the process of making representations to have the fines

increased. Certainly it is correct — and it was stated not too many

days ago by our Attorney-General — that we were talking about the

levying of these fines, that the decisions that are made in respect to

how much the fines will be are not ours to adjudicate. But yes, the

member has my assurance that we are in the process of seeking increased

fines for poaching and for this type of thing.

I don't have any knowledge of the Lantzville thing. I'd be

more than

happy to provide the member with any information that we have available.

MR. MITCHELL: There are a couple of things

that I think we

should discuss. I know the minister has been skirting around them and

failing to accept his duty as Minister of Environment, especially when

it was the minister who set up the committee known as the Wilderness

Advisory Committee to study many — and I say many — environmentally

sensitive areas in British Columbia that should be protected. It's not

for me at this time to make any attack on the members of that

committee, but the job that was given to that committee was an

impossible job. I say it was an impossible job for any of us as human

beings to really do the studies from a regional point of view and come

up with the answers that the people of British Columbia demand; that

is, an intelligent development of our resources.

I kind of feel that the minister, being a nice man like he is,

and

very acceptable, very friendly, was used as.... He was suckered in by

the rest of the cabinet to lay a smokescreen. And that's all he did —

lay the smokescreen so that they could hide from doing and making the

decisions that have to be made.

When you go through this "Wilderness Mosaic," as it's

called....

It's a beautiful name, and it has some excellent recommendations in it.

But at the top of the list of areas that they were to study was south

Moresby. South Moresby has been studied and studied and studied. It has

had one of the best types of committees ever set up. It was a local

regional committee that was set up with residents of that area. They

had the support of the technical staff of forestry, the technical staff

of park development, and the technical staff of the environmental

ministries. They studied it for three years and they brought in four

recommendations, or not so much four recommendations but

recommendations that allowed four different options, and it was up to

the government to make a decision.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The previous Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing who was

faced with

that decision has shifted into another ministry. But we have to start

making decisions if we're going to protect these areas that are

environmentally sensitive. We can't continue to have smokescreens and

study after study and allow this ministry to continually allow these

areas to be logged, to be exploited or, worst of all, not to be

developed and to realize the potential that is needed to create jobs in

this province. I say, Mr. Chairman, that the one recommendation that

should be before this House right now is a recommendation or some kind

of bill to set up a wilderness study committee that is permanent. As

part of that group, before any type of legislation is introduced or any

decisions are made, there should be some regional input.

[11:00]

I say to this minister, who is kind of protecting the upper

bureaucracy of his own ministry — this is not an attack on individuals

but an attack on a philosophy — that nobody in Victoria or nobody in a

central area, including me if I was on the committee, can give an

honest report knowing all the local problems that exist in that area.

You can look at all the maps, you can study all the reports, but it's

the people who live in that area who have the technical input and the

knowledge of the area's potential. There has to be input, not only from

the forestry ministries, the park ministries, the environmental

ministries, but local input.

When you go through this you will find a very cut-down version

some really thoughtful briefs that have been prepared by people who

have had the time to study one issue, and they have become experts on

that. When you're going through hundreds of reports of hundreds of

experts, you miss some of the important positions that they have taken.

They're lost in the shuffle. I don't say that is anything detrimental

to the individual, but it's something that all of us as human beings

would do in the same position.

This is why we have been asking from this side of the House

that you

do have some regional development, that you do have some regional

input, and that you do build on the resources that we have there in all

their potential. Logs for export are not the only potential; there is

potential for tourist development in every part of this area. There are

areas that can be developed as destination points to go to, with input

from the government, with input from the community, and input from all

the industries.

Let us not have another study and then sit on it, and then get

up in

the House and say: "Well, it hasn't been officially accepted." Well,

the one that has been official accepted was the one that was done on

south Moresby four or five years ago. It sat around and I imagine it's

still collecting dust, because the government will not make a decision.

They will not give the people in that area an opportunity to start

working towards a final solution.

Every one of these areas has great potential. I know when I

brought

up, under the Parks ministry, the Brooks Peninsula, I was quite shocked

that the minister didn't even know where

[ Page 8071 ]

it was. I was quite happy to see that

the present

Minister of

Environment managed to find it. They managed to study it, and they

brought in a report. There is great potential in the Brooks Peninsula.

You talk about Robson Bight. The Parks ministry have done a

study on

that area. They have made recommendations for a class A park, and it

took two years to get the ministry even to let me see it. So we have

another study on it. I don't think in any of the recommendations did

they really take seriously the recommendations that were in the study

made by the technical staff of the parks branch that indicated that

Robson Bight is a potential destination place for all of North America.

It is one of the few areas where you can go and you can watch the

killer whales rub on the beach. I know when you talk to the people in

that area they say the big problem with it right now is because it got

too much publicity. Now everyone is going up there, and boats are going

into that area where the killer whales come in and are harassing them.

You can have 20 boats up there. It only takes one idiot with a tenhorse

outboard motor to go out and harass that resource. That is a potential

tourist resource of the killer whales.

The Americans have spent millions on a geyser in the states,

and we

have a far bigger potential and absolutely ignore it. The government

sits there and makes their snide little remarks, and they don't look at

that potential. They don't even look at the report. They move the

boundary away, the recommendations to put it under the parks branch and

have some protection, which is needed. The people who have been

studying it and who are experts on it have been saying this year after

year, but the government does nothing. They hide behind their

smokescreen laid down by this minister, laid down by this minister to

do nothing, and they have no intention of doing anything.

By the time the NDP come to power, all the trees will be cut

down

and the whales will be dead, and the Senator over there will be saying:

"Why don't you do something? Why don't you bring them back?" We'll have

to hire his running-mate to find out what happened to the whales. But

this is what is happening, Mr. Chairman: you are doing nothing. You're

not looking and you're not listening. That's worst of all: you're not

listening to those who have studied it, those who have been involved,

and you're not accepting the responsibility that a government should

accept.

Every one of these issues can be solved. Every one of these

areas

must be solved. If a moratorium was put on every one of the areas that

the government has identified as being environmentally sensitive, it

would add only another 2 percent to the timber that can't be harvested.

So either do something positive or put a moratorium on all the areas

that you have recommended to be studied, and at that time bring in the

proper legislation to do the fine-tuning. None of these areas — I say

this in all due deference to the minister and his whole ministry — can

be fine-tuned by running a line around a flat piece of map.

It is a lot easier for a bureaucrat to come to the minister

and say:

"Now this is the area I think it should be." He runs a nice black or

red or purple line around it, and the minister, who doesn't know the

area.... As the critic I know that some of the areas I can't even

pronounce, let alone know the areas in detail. But you have a nice line

around it and politically you can get up in the House and say: "Now

we're going to do this and we're going to do that." But you don't know

the area. You don't know the potential, and you have to listen to the

groups from those areas like the one in south Moresby and the Queen

Charlottes, the Cascade wilderness areas. There are groups, such as the

Lovers of the Stein, or whatever their particular group is.... Every

one of these groups has studied it, and every one wants an opportunity

to sit down with somebody in the ministry — the Ministries of Forests,

Parks, Tourism and Environment.

Until we start doing something — instead of smokescreens and

talk —

that is going to be constructive, that is going to create a potential

for more jobs, we're going to continue going from one disaster to

another. I find it embarrassing for all those people who worked on that

particular committee, who made recommendations, who travelled at great

inconvenience all over the province, who heard briefs presented by

hundreds and hundreds of well-meaning British Columbians, who believed

this government was going to do something, who didn't believe the

cynical opposition when they said it's just another smokescreen, just

another dodge to get away from facing the issues. The minister gets up

and says: "Well, it hasn't been officially received." It could sit

there, and he could get up until the end of his term of office saying

it has not been officially received. I don't know what it takes to be

officially received, but I imagine someone paid for this printing. And

it didn't come to me in a brown envelope; it came with a nice card from

the minister — for my information, to study. This is the issue that I

think the minister.... Don't be suckered into doing something that the

rest of the cabinet are afraid to do. Come on in and make a

recommendation. Take a stand. If you take that stand, good or bad, we

will support it.

MS. SANFORD: During last year's estimates I

raised with the

Minister of Environment an issue which is quite significant within my

constituency. It relates to the Mount Washington copper-mine, which

closed down some years ago, and which is now causing untold problems as

far as the fishery is concerned. I'll just review with the minister the

fact that many years ago there used to be over 200,000 pink salmon in

the Tsolum River every year. That diminished and dwindled down, mostly

as a result of logging practices over the years. Stocks began to come

back, until the leaching from the Mount Washington mine began. Now

there are absolutely no salmon in the Tsolum River. I mentioned this to

the minister last year, and I subsequently had correspondence from him.

It's almost a year ago that I had a letter from the minister,

indicating that it is an issue of concern and that the Ministry of

Environment is collaborating with federal Fisheries, via Environment

Canada, and the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources in

analyzing the historical water quality data.

They say they've already set up contact with these various

organizations, but I would like to know whether or not, at this stage,

there is any ministry that will assume responsibility for the cleanup

involved there. Based on the preliminary information that I have, the

costs could be quite extensive. Will it be a joint federal-provincial

project? Are the Mines people going to be involved? Has anybody assumed

any responsibility, at this stage, regarding the cleanup of that

particular project?

The second issue that I would like to raise is one that has

already

been raised in this Legislature, but I feel that I must say something

on it as well. This relates to the use of herbicides and pesticides in

the province. We have within the constituency of Comox two watershed

areas that are now going to be sprayed, according to permits that have

been

[ Page 8072 ]

issued through the Ministry of

Forests. The people

in our area are

very concerned about the use of these aerial sprays in watersheds. It

may be that they don't have all the information that they should have;

it may be that some of these herbicides and pesticides are quite safe

to use; but it may also be that they are not safe to use. I think that

the experience we have all been through this last week, with the

nuclear power plant in Chernobyl, has given us some kind of insight

into what can happen with the way in which we are galloping ahead in

terms of the use of nuclear power, and various herbicides, pesticides

and poisons that we are putting into our atmosphere. We've all been

assured about the safety of power plants. We see what can happen. We've

all been assured that it's safe to use these sprays in various parts of

the province, but we can also wonder at the impact that these poisons

are having not only on wildlife but on humans as well.

I think if you look at the increase in the number of diseases

that

seem to be afflicting people in British Columbia, Canada and North

America, for that matter, it's time that we had a second look at the

ways in which we are allowing people to get permits. I realize a lot of

this is approved under the federal government, through Agriculture

Canada, but I think that the minister, in his concern for the

environment and for the impact that some of these herbicides and

pesticides may have on people, should use whatever influence he can

with the other members of his cabinet — Forests, Agriculture and others

that are inclined to have a lot to do with these herbicides and

pesticides — and with his federal counterpart, in terms of let's have a

second look, let's ensure that the safety is there when we approve

these products.

[11:15]

People are alarmed. I know that based on a meeting that was

held in

Fanny Bay, where most of the community was out; they were, to a person,

opposed to the use of Roundup within the Fanny Bay watershed. There are

alternatives. I think this is what the minister should be looking at.

There are alternatives, certainly in terms of brushing and weeding

within the industry. Many of the people in the communities are now

attempting to convince the Forest Service that if they are given the

job themselves within that community of ensuring that that brushing and

weeding is done, it will be done.

Already the Forest Service has granted people in the Merville

area

the right to do the brushing and weeding in exchange for no spraying.

The Forest Service has at least bowed, to a certain extent, in

recognition of the fact that people are alarmed about it. They're

opposed to it. Who knows what effects these various sprays have on

people? I would like the minister to comment on those two issues.

HON. MR. PELTON: First of all, on the Mount

Washington mess —

and I think it's only fair to call it that — although it has taken what

might seem to be an inordinately long time, a report is in its final

stages. It's being prepared. I haven't seen it yet, but I'm told within

the ministry that it is in its final stages. Dealing with this subject,

the parties to that report were the federal Environment department, our

provincial Environment ministry, the Ministry of Energy, Mines and

Petroleum Resources, and the federal Fisheries people. I haven't any

idea what's in the report, but I expect that it will deal with the

extent of the problem and with what might be done to clear it up. I'd

be pleased to share that with the member for Comox when it becomes

available.

The matter of the herbicides and pesticides.... I'm sure

everybody

would agree, in spite of the things that are tossed back and forth

across this room, that the Ministry of Environment, or the province of

British Columbia, is very concerned about pesticides and herbicides and

the use thereof. We feel very confident that we have in this province

probably the toughest regulations and rules in the whole of Canada with

respect to the issuance of these permits. l know that the hon. member

realizes that this is all we do. We issue the permits. But we are

involved because of the concern that we know everyone has, and that we

have, about the use of pesticides and herbicides. The member can be

assured that to the very utmost of our ability within the ministry,

before permits are issued, we endeavour to acquire every possible bit

of knowledge and information that we can that will ensure that the

decision that we make as to whether or not to issue a permit is the

right decision.

I might also mention that for some time, nine or ten months

now, we

have been — and this came about as a result of a CCREM meeting that we

attended in Toronto — arranging to get more information out of Ottawa,

out of the federal Ag people, on the background they have on a lot of

these pesticides and herbicides. Some of these things are protected

under the Patent Act. That makes it a little difficult to get the

information that we require, but we're actively pursuing it. I think we

are gradually making some inroads. We have the federal Department of

the Environment on our side, and all of the other Environment

ministries — the provincial ones — throughout the land are also

concerned about this. I'm hoping that as time goes by we will get more

and more information about the various types of pesticides and

herbicides that are being used.

I would just close by once again saying that we do our utmost

ensure that we consider everything. In watersheds we consider the

fisheries, we consider all of these other things that are so important

and so crucial to the people of our province, before pesticide or

herbicide permits are issued.

MR. MITCHELL: The biggest thing that this

ministry has done

is to set up the wilderness committee. I asked the minister a number of

questions, and he didn't even have the decency to make any comment. I

think that the people of British Columbia have a right to know that

this government and that ministry that he leads is going to do

something on the biggest thing he's done so far, which was set up the

committee.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Reflections on another

member's honour are most

unparliamentary.

MR. MITCHELL: I've asked a series of

questions....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The comment

with respect to

decency was quite unparliamentary.

MR. MITCHELL: I've asked a series of

questions. What is the

government going to do? Is it going to take any of these

recommendations, or is it going to continue to sit there with this

report as long as they sat on the report that came from the south

Moresby study group? Are they going to do anything? That's all we're

saying. There are some excellent recommendations in there. Are we going

to pick them out? Are we going to do any fine-tuning, or is this

ministry just going to ignore it? It's not a personal attack against

the minister. The environmental, forestry and tourism people have a

right to

[ Page 8073 ]

expect some leadership from this

government, not an

indication that we haven't even officially received it.

You start looking at other reports. It took two years for me

to get

the report on parks, knowing it had been in production for another two

years before that.

Are we going to do anything? From his silence I take it that

we're

going to do nothing. If what they intend to do is nothing.... If not,

give some indication what we can expect out of this report and when,

and not go through the record of the previous reports on many other

areas that have come in and nothing has been done about it.

HON. MR. PELTON: It's very difficult indeed

to ignore such

erudite statements as come out of the member for Esquimalt-Port

Renfrew. The reason that I didn't leap to my feet to respond was that

it seemed to me I had covered most of those questions during the answer

I gave to the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard). But we can talk about

these things. I'll stand and talk about it all day.

To start with, I'm sure that those very hard-working and

talented

members of the Wilderness Advisory Committee will be flattered to know

that the hon. member has referred to them as being nothing more than a

smokescreen. That will be very well received, particularly by those

members who served on the committee who I know have the same political

philosophies as the members opposite. They'll be most pleased to know

that their talents are looked upon in such a demeaning way.

The points made by the member are points that were made all

through

the news media when the committee was first struck: smokescreen, no

public information, no input, studied to death. But you know that the

committee was very well received in the community. When we first set

the committee up, there were a number of people who refused to appear

before the committee because they said it was nothing but a

smokescreen, nothing but stalling for time. The hon. member would be

interested to know that by the time the process was completed,

everybody had appeared before that committee, except one who had said

previously they wouldn't appear.

Interjection.

HON. MR. PELTON: It was one of the

environmental groups. I

don't recall which particular one it was. We have many of those in

British Columbia, and they feel very strongly about the things they

represent.

The report is in now, and the member knows, having been around

this

assembly for many years, that a minister cannot stand up and comment,

in the way he would like me to comment, before the report has been

received by cabinet. I have high hopes that this will happen very

shortly. I can assure the member that I feel very strongly that the

recommendations and comments made in the "Wilderness Mosaic" will serve

as a blueprint for what happens in this province from here on in

respect to these matters.

From time to time — and I say this with all due respect — I've

had a

feeling the member was kind of talking in riddles. He would talk about

protecting wilderness areas, not logging, and then in the next breath

he would say we should be in there developing and this kind of thing.

The whole process, the basic thing we were looking for in the report of

the committee, was to look at this matter of multiple use within our

province. It is the only way to proceed. We can't isolate areas from

one thing or another. We've got to talk about multi-use. That's what

the report has done, and I'm glad the member had time to read it. It's

an excellent report, and I'm pleased that I sent it to him even if it

did come in a brown envelope. If I'd known he had a problem with that,

I would have sent it in a white one.

The member has the report, he's had an opportunity to read it.

think it's a good report. I admire the work of the people who were

involved. They were a dedicated group of people even though they came

from diverse parts of the community, from the point of view of their

professions. They did a super job and I'm very pleased with it. As I

said before, I think it will provide the groundwork as we go forward

and try to resolve some of these problems that have been lying around

for a long time.

Another thing mentioned was, why hadn't some of the previous

recommendations been acted upon. There was no consensus available. You

can't act upon something if you haven't got a consensus. Now we've got

something to work from — from a new perspective, a new point of view. I

think it's going to work very well for this province.

MR. MITCHELL: I would like to correct two

errors in the

minister's speech. I didn't say that the committee was a smokescreen; I

said that setting up the committee was a smokescreen by the government

to diffuse the issue. These people did an excellent job, and I've said

it in my speech. They brought some good recommendations. It is up to

the government to start doing something. As I say, we have all kinds of

studies — on south Moresby, Brooks Peninsula, Robson Bight — but they

don't do anything. That's all the public wants to know.

The second thing is that I didn't say it came in a brown

envelope. I

said it didn't come in a brown envelope, it came from the minister. The

minister sent it to me and I read it. And other people who work on my

committee have read it, and some they endorse and some they point out

the flaws in.

The main thing I'm saying is that if we're going to do

something, we

have to set up regional committees of people who are experts in that

particular area — who know something about killer whales or about the

historical trails in the Cascade/Manning Park study area. There's no

sense in expecting either the minister or myself to intelligently

discuss where a logging area should go in. I know those Cascade

heritage historical trails were put where they are because they follow

the line of least resistance, and when logging firms go in to put in a

logging road they're also going to follow the lines of least

resistance. They're not going to be able to put them 100 metres up a

hill. This is an engineering fact. Some of these recommendations that

have come out of various committees.... "Don't touch the trail, but put

it 100 metres away" — whatever bureaucrat or person came up with that

idea doesn't know the area.

[11:30]

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

All I'm asking is that before they do any major destruction of

these

areas they meet with the people who know that particular area, who have

studied it, who can give some positive input. Don't leave it to the

politicians; don't leave it solely to the senior bureaucrats sitting

down here. Go out into the communities and the areas and talk to those

who have

[ Page 8074 ]

been studying some of these

environmentally

sensitive problems for

years and years and have sent in report after report that have been

ignored by this government.

Don't attack me because I'm asking for some action, but listen

what I'm saying, and meet with the local people, and let's get on with

the job. Let's start creating destination areas. Let's start developing

it. About multiple use, I agree with you. But that's not been the

practice of this government. They have gone into areas and they've just

wiped them clean — clear-cut logging; get in there and get out. You

look at the northern islands on the Queen Charlottes. That's the

example that the public see. They don't read all the reports. That's

why they want input. But all they can go on is the example that this

government has allowed to take place, when they have not taken into

account local considerations and have not planned for multiple use.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Mr. Chairman, I have a

number of issues that

I'd like to deal with, and I guess the best way is to deal with them

seriatim; in addition to that, we'll do them one at a time!

While we were on the topic of the Wilderness Advisory

Committee, I

have a particular question as it relates to tourism and the function of

that committee. As the minister well knows, I've often spoken about the

fact that tourism is now poised to become the second major industry in

British Columbia, with revenues exceeding $2 billion annually and

employing thousands of people. As a job-creation source for the future,

it's probably one of the most fertile fields that we can look at in

terms of employment generation. Of course, tourism relies extremely

heavily on the environmental assets of this province; on identifying

and developing those appropriate travel generators, as they call them

in the jargon of the industry, which will attract tourists to British

Columbia, and entice them to stay and come again.

I think the issue of south Moresby is a particular case in

point.

This wilderness area is an ecologically unique area, due to the fact

that it was probably one of the only areas in British Columbia that

escaped the glaciation period of the last ice age over 10,000 years

ago. It has unique environmental characteristics, flora and fauna that

you cannot find in other places. This particular area has been

identified by environmental groups as being of significant value. I

think the United Nations has even wanted to classify it as a world

heritage site, environmentally. Here we have a unique resource, a

resource that has immense potential as a tourist travel generator, a

resource that, once we go in and take out that first-stand timber, once

we go in and destroy the environmental beauty of that area, may produce

revenue out of short-term logging, but we will have lost the true value

of the area.

What I was really concerned about when the Wilderness Advisory

Committee was struck, outside of the fact that it was given, I feel, a

deadline for its mandate, which was far too short; very difficult to

get provincial-wide consensus to draft a

summary report and make

recommendations within that time-frame.... But above and beyond that, I

was most concerned that there was no representation from the Ministry

of Tourism or the tourism industry as part of that advisory committee.

I can't for the life of me understand why the minister would strike a

committee and leave off such a valuable component, because tourism and

environmental preservation walk hand in hand in the future of this

province. I'd like the minister to address that question as to why

there was no representation on that committee from either the Ministry

of Tourism or — at least that's my understanding — the tourism industry

as a whole. I think you would have obtained some very valuable input if

that industry had been given a voice on that committee.

HON. MR. PELTON: First of all, let's deal

with the Ministry

of Tourism. I realize that the report doesn't get into the tourism

discussion at all — the "Wilderness Mosaic." That's a good question

about why someone from the Tourism ministry is not involved in the

committees that deal with this. I should tell you that ELUC, which is

where the report is dealt with and where the discussions take place....

Whenever anything that affects tourism is being discussed at the

technical level of the committee, I understand that the ministry is

provided with a copy of the agenda items and invited to attend.

Yes, there probably would have been great merit in having

someone

from the tourism industry on the advisory committee. As the member says

— and I couldn't agree more — there are certainly very strong links

between the tourist industry and preservation of wilderness, setting up

of corridors, etc. They go hand in hand. Unfortunately, like so many

things that happen in life, the committee was struck, did its job and

has submitted their report. We can't go back in time and change that,

as I know the member will appreciate. He makes a very good point, and

I'm prepared to accept that point in the same way that I know it was

given — as a good, solid suggestion. I listened very carefully to what

the member has said in that regard.

I might just mention Moresby for a moment or two. There again,

feel the same as the member does, and as many others do about south

Moresby. Although I might from time to time be accused of doing or not

doing many things, I think I have been consistent in what I've said

about south Moresby. The recommendation in the report is, I think, a

pretty good one. The member mentioned that the United Nations has

suggested that it become a kind of international park. The United

Nations placed that status on Anthony Island, which is right down at

the southern tip of south Moresby, where we find the old Haida village

and all the totem poles. Certainly there has been interest expressed

from many quarters, the United Nations included, in what happens to

south Moresby. I imagine that will continue until we reach the point

where we're able to make some definitive decision as to what's going to

happen in that area.

As the member probably knows from having read the report, the

committee's recommendation does not see any logging on the south

Moresby, except continuation of some logging on Lyell Island, if my

memory serves me correctly. I think Louise Island was probably

mentioned as well. I'm most anxious that we get on with the south

Moresby thing. It has been studied and studied and studied, and a

report of the last committee that studied it, before the wilderness

committee, came out with four recommendations for different ways that

it might be dealt with. As I said before, unfortunately there was never

a consensus reached on any one of those four that might be adopted. But

it looks to me as if we are getting a little closer to resolving this

problem, and I would hope that it is resolved in relatively short order.

MR. MacWILLIAM: I appreciate his comments,

but I would like

to point out to the minister that, even though the report has been

submitted and recommendations made, there is very little hope, I think,

of resolving this whole issue until

[ Page 8075 ]

the issue of the native land claims is

settled. In

that respect, I

think that the government simply has to recognize that negotiations are

in order on that. That is another issue entirely, but it is an issue

that is obviously clouding the future of south Moresby. The government

has to recognize that it has to sit down and negotiate this whole

issue, as has been requested by the federal government.

Above and beyond south Moresby there are other issues, such as

the

Stikine and the Stein. These too are environmental heritages that have

been identified. I guess the only thing left at this point is an appeal

from the heart, if you like, to the minister to put more teeth into his

representations in cabinet, to try, on behalf of all British

Columbians, to ensure that these prime resources, these natural

heritages that we have throughout the province, are not compromised in

the interest of short-term profit or gain. If he can make his voice a

little stronger on the issue of the value of these resources in terms

of the tourism industry.... I was most disappointed that the Minister

of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Richmond) seemed to be so strangely silent

regarding south Moresby and regarding the lack of any representation on

the advisory committee. What's done is done. The minister admits now

that perhaps there was an oversight in not having members from the

tourism industry there. However, I just appeal to him and say that

their interests are at heart.

If he would care to read a report given by the Tourism

Industry

Association of B.C., which unfortunately I have no copy of at this

point, they go over these resource areas, such as the Stikine, the

Stein and particularly south Moresby. They make a very good case that

it is an absolute necessity that we preserve these areas, not just for

the environmental aspect but for the economic aspect also, and the

cultural and the historic aspects. I cannot emphasize that point

strongly enough, and I hope that the minister will continue, in his

representation of the Ministry of Environment, to press this issue.

On to another issue. The minister and I were speaking

yesterday

about the waste management plant in the north Okanagan for the city of

Vernon. As the minister knows, in a November 1984 report on waste water

management, stage two, for the city of Vernon that has been submitted

to the ministry, there were a number of recommendations made. I think

there were 12 recommendations, with a 13th one added on later.

[11:45]

The recommendations present different options for waste

disposal; I

guess we should clarify that. Some of them are good recommendations;

some of them are not so good. Most options seem to involve the

construction of an advanced waste water treatment plant along with a

deep water outfall into the north arm of Okanagan Lake. Some of the

options involve land disposal through spray irrigation, through rapid

infiltration. The options were all costed out, and apparently a

decision has been made.

I'd like to ask the minister if he can advise us as to which

option

the ministry has, in consultation with the city, decided to pursue. I

would also like to ask him when the initial work will be done in the

development of this waste management plan.

HON. MR. PELTON: Well, as the member knows,

the waste

management plan for the city of Vernon has been approved by the

Ministry of Environment. I, like the member, don't have any particular

information before me, but I do know from having discussed it, if I

remember correctly, that it's a combination of the options that were

put forward in the plan that has been accepted and will be.... We're in

the process of implementing the plan, as far as I know.

There was some question from some people that lived in

Okanagan

Landing — OK Landing, is it? — with respect to irrigation, but in that

regard I think the eventual decision was that the irrigation practices

are safe. I think you would agree with that, hon. member. They've

certainly been widely used in that area for a long time and been very

successful, other than the fact that there has not appeared to be

adequate land to be able to do it on a 100 percent basis. But other

than that, I think we will have further meetings with the Okanagan

Landing people to ensure that their fears and concerns are completely

allayed, if we possibly can.

I should also say that I think the city of Vernon was one of

the

first from the basin that submitted a waste management plan. There was

a lot of effort and time put in by the mayor of the city, his council

and the engineering staff of the city of Vernon to put the plan

together. It's a very good one, and we've endorsed it. As I say, I

don't know the precise details, but the approval of this plan sees a

combination of the various recommendations that were put forward.

MR. MacWILLIAM: I would agree with the

minister that.... It's

my understanding that one of the options, which is a combination of

land disposal and advanced waste water treatment with a deep-water

outfall, seems to be the one that has been chosen.

However, it's my understanding, according to some of the

information

available in this report, that the advanced waste water treatment plant

to be developed at the Marshall property, if it is developed when it

is, according to one of the plans, initiated to go in, in 1992.... The

approximate cost for the plant alone is $45,852,000. That's, I guess,

in 1992 dollars. I guess my concern is that that's only a part of the

cost. There is quite a significant list here in terms of the ancillary

equipment and technology that is required.

It's my understanding that the recently announced funding for

the

Okanagan zone, which has been declared an environmentally sensitive

zone, is.... I believe $26 million has been set aside for that. I would

ask the minister how they can justify the cost of a $46 million plant

when the funding for the entire Okanagan region is only $26 million.

The funding doesn't seem to add up in terms of what the needs are and

what has been made available.

HON. MR. PELTON: Here again I don't have

all the facts and

figures in front of me, but it seems to me, if my memory serves me

correctly, that we are only into the first phase of the whole plan.

It's for three years, and the $26.3 or $26.5 million is to be expended

over the three-year period. I would imagine that we would proceed from

there.

The House resumed; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to

sit

again.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:51 a.m.

[ Return to Legislative

Assembly Home

Page ]

Copyright

© 1986,2001, 2011: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada