1982 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 32nd 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 )

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 30, 1982

Morning Sitting

[ Page

8535 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Water Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 6 1). Hon. Mr. Rogers

Introduction and first reading –– 8535

Presenting Reports

Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Economic Affairs, fourth report.

Mr. Strachan –– 8535

Indian Cut-off Lands Disputes Act (Bill 58). Hon. Mr. Williams

Introduction and first reading –– 8536

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 53), Second reading.

(Hon. Mr. Williams)

Mr. Macdonald –– 8536

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Environment estimates. (Hon. Mr. Rogers)

On vote 32: minister's office (continued) –– 8536

Mr. Lea

Mr. Lorimer

Mrs. Dailly

Mr. Kempf

Mr. Lauk

Mr. Brummet

Mr. Nicolson

Mrs. Wallace

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 30, 1982

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker,

minosan konnichiwa. It's a great pleasure and an honour for me to

introduce to members of our Legislative Assembly officers of the

Japanese training ship Katori .

These officers are here together with their ship and crew, on the first

leg of a 152-day training and goodwill mission, which will touch many

Atlantic and Pacific ports both in North America and South America. I'd

like to introduce to members of the assembly Rear Admiral Tanabe,

commander of the training squadron, Captain Hairama, chief of staff,

Captain Furukawa, the commanding officer of the Katori , and Commander Kakimi, the commanding officer of the Asagumo . We say welcome, a good and a safe journey, and do come again, to our very good friends from Japan.

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Speaker, Rear Admiral Tanabe bears a very famous name in Japanese

naval history. It was an established record of a naval presence that

has been an important part of modern Japan. Great Britain played a

major role in the development and assistance with the Japanese navy,

and there are very close contacts. Those contacts were demonstrated

today, during the last week of the visit, and on behalf of the official

opposition might I say in appreciation, watakushiwa hontoni araigata

desu.

MR. HALL: As you well know, Mr. Speaker, many

of us are fortunate in having volunteers helping us in our constituency

offices. Today I'm very pleased to have a group of friends and

volunteers visiting Victoria. They are led by Joan Matheson, who

frequently helps me in my work in Surrey. I'd like the House to welcome

them.

HON. MR. HEWITT: In the gallery today is a

young gentleman who is visiting the Legislature and my office. He has

volunteered to assist my staff in the office today. He's young Kipp

Lightburn, the son of my executive assistant. I ask the House to bid

him welcome.

Introduction of Bills

WATER AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

a motion by Hon. Mr. Rogers, Bill 61, Water Amendment Act, 1982,

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.

Presenting Reports

Hon. Mr. Strachan, Chairman of the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders

and Private Bills, presented the committee's fourth report, which was read

as follows and received:

"Mr. Speaker, your Select Standing Committee on Standing

Orders and Private Bills begs leave to report as follows:

"The

preamble to Bill PR403,

intituled

An Act to Amend the Vancouver Stock Exchange Act. has been approved

and the bill ordered to be reported.

"All of which is respectfully submitted, W.B. Strachan.

Chairman, Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills."

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, by leave I move that the rules be suspended and the report be adopted.

Motion approved.

MR. SPEAKER:

Hon. members, before we call Committee of Supply, on Thursday last

several points of order were raised from each side of the House with

reference to the rules applicable to oral question period and their

enforcement by the Chair.

The hon. member for

Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) objected that some answers given were not

relevant to the question asked, and the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr.

Lockstead) objected to lengthy answers being given during the question

period to questions taken as notice. The Minister of Energy, Mines and

Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland) objected to supplementary

questions being asked with respect to a question taken as notice.

Other

points of order relating to question period have been taken from time

to time, notwithstanding that the Chair has given much guidance on

points of order which recur with some frequency.

The Journals of 1977 disclose the following comment from the Chair. which now bears repeating:

"My perusal of Hansard reports of oral question period since

its inception in this House clearly shows that very great latitude has been

taken by hon. members, both in the posing of questions and in the answers given

thereto. The tenor of the points of order taken on Thursday last, when the Chair

was asked to review oral questions, indicates to me that it is the view of many

hon. members that there has been too much latitude and liberality of

interpretation

taken with reference to both questions and answers. Accordingly, the Chair can

only respond by seeking the cooperation and adherence of hon. members to the

numerous but explicit rules relating to oral question period."

Hon.

members, upon reading those rules, will readily see that their strict

and meticulous application during oral question period would preclude

the Chair from allowing the vast majority of questions and answers

advanced in this House. Therefore, without some degree of latitude,

constant intervention by the Chair would, in the absence of greater

precision in framing questions and answers, lead to the total

impoverishment of question period. Having said that, I must add that

hon. members would be in error to ignore the rules and must not presume

to constantly test the limits of any latitude extended by the Chair. If

hon. members continue to transgress, the Chair will assist the orderly

conduct of question period by intervening as frequently as is necessary.

the points of order now specifically before me, I refer hon. members to

Sir Erskine May's sixteenth edition at page 363, relating to oral

answers and supplementary questions. I quote:

"An answer should be confined to the points contained in

the question, with such explanation only as

[ Page 8536 ]

renders the answer intelligible, though a certain latitude is

permitted to ministers of the Crown."

Further:

"Supplementary questions without debate or comment may, within due

limits, be addressed to them which are necessary for the elucidation of

the answers that they have given."

Further:

"As a proper supplementary question seeks clarification

or explanation of an answer already given, there cannot be a question supplementary

to a question taken on notice. The number of allowable supplementary questions

is not fixed by any practice. So long as questions are properly supplemental

and so long as other members are not unfairly deprived of an opportunity to

participate in the question period, the Chair need not intervene to limit the

number of supplementary questions."

Beauchesne's fifth edition states as follows:

"The

question must be brief; a

preamble need not exceed one carefully drawn

sentence. A long

preamble on a long question takes an unfair share of

time and provokes the same sort of reply. A supplementary question

should need no

preamble."

The following statement of practice appears in Hansard of March 26, 1980, at page 1694:

The practice of the House is this: it is acceptable during subsequent

question periods to answer questions taken on notice. If the question requires

a lengthy answer, it is the option of the minister to ask leave to answer the

question at a time other than question period, but this is only a courtesy and

is at the option of the minister. If the question is of such a nature that it

requires a lengthy answer, perhaps the best way is to have the answer on the

order paper itself, as though the question had been a written question.

Finally, the Chair ruled as follows on April 7, 1981:

Lengthy answers to questions previously taken on notice would

best be deferred until after question period, so as to keep intact the time

allotted. It is the opinion of the Chair, in accordance with the practice adopted

in other jurisdictions, that points of order generally should not be raised

at all during question period, but would more properly be deferred until the

question period has been completed. In view of the authority vested in the Chair

by the sessional order, it is very difficult to conceive of a valid point of

order being raised which would require any significant time to deal with unless,

of course, there were any disposition to have been improperly engaged in protracted

discussions on points of order with the Chair. It is my view that if the Chair

itself has to interrupt question period for a significant period, any time so

utilized ought to be restored, as determined by the Chair. Should any hon. member

insist upon raising a point of order during oral question period, rather than

deferring the matter without prejudice until after question period, any extension

of time ought best to be left to the discretion of the Chair with leave of the

House according to the circumstances.

hon. members have sought guidance from the Chair on the matters to

which I have referred, I urge that members govern themselves

accordingly.

Introduction of Bills

INDIAN CUT-OFF LANDS DISPUTES ACT

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

a bill intituled Indian Cutoff Land Disputes Act.

Bill

58 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: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 53, Mr. Speaker.

MR. MACDONALD:

I'm the designated speaker. We've discussed this bill in caucus, and

we've decided not to oppose it on second reading, but during the

committee stages we're going to speak in favour of the various sections

and vote against them.

Bill 53, Miscellaneous Statutes

Amendment Act, 1982, read a second time and referred to a Committee of

the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House

after today.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT

(continued)

On vote 32: minister's office, $206,012.

MR. LEA: He's not going to filibuster, is he?

HON. MR. ROGERS:

To the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea), no, I'm not. I'll try to be

brief. I'm just trying to clear up a couple of questions that were

asked yesterday by the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly).

The

three issues that you brought up that had been before ELUTC will be

coming before ELUC, I would have to guess, early next month rather than

later this month as this month has just about expired. The three major

issues that we're going to be concerned with are the Valhalla, the

Cascades, and the other one, which we've had a substantial amount of

mail about, Windy Bay. There are others as well, but those are the

three ones that have come up.

You asked about the Skagit

Valley yesterday. We still maintain that the Skagit Valley agreement of

1942 was an invalid agreement. I made the Gordon-Berry report public

recently, and their proposal was that as an alternative to flooding

High Ross, they would allow the flooding of Seven Mile into the United

States and Seattle would pay that cost. They would also allow the fifth

generator to be installed at Mica and Seattle would pay that cost in

that capacity, but not the energy. The energy would have to be repaid

within 24 hours, but the capacity from the fifth generator at Seven

Mile and the transmission lines would belong to Seattle at their cost.

What

that would do is give us substantial employment in British Columbia

with no real environmental problem. There would be a one-inch drawdown

in Kinbasket Lake during the period of time that that generator would

be operating for Seattle, and at the end of 30 years the generator

would revert to B.C. Hydro and Power Authority without charge to the

[ Page 8537 ]

taxpayers

of B.C. Based on the Gordon-Berry report this would give the people of

Seattle approximately the same amount of energy and capacity per dollar

that they would get elsewhere. Of course, the Canadian dollar has

chanced substantially since the time of that particular proposal.

Nonetheless, I think it's still a very attractive basis for settlement.

Those are essentially the two questions you put to me yesterday.

MR. LEA:

I'd like to ask the minister a couple of questions on a proposed gold

mine operation on the Queen Charlotte Islands — Cinola mines. When

we're looking at an industrial project, we always have to look at the

trade-offs between environmental standards and the good that an

industrial project will bring. The feeling that I get from the people

of the Queen Charlotte Islands in regard to this proposed gold mine is

that they would like to have more jobs produced and a better economic

taxation base for services to the islands, but they don't want to cut

off their nose to spite their face.

The Yakoun River is next

to the proposed gold mine, and people are very, very afraid that the

effluent from that gold mine will have an adverse effect on the

fish-producing capacity of that river. The Yakoun River is already a

river that is very high in mercury content. It has a higher mercury

content that is normally found in British Columbia Rivers. It's that

way because of natural consequences — the physical location of the

river.

I think the people of the Queen Charlottes are a

reasonable group of people. They want industrial development, but not

at the expense of the environment if it's too large an expense to pay.

We also have to take a look at another industry, and that's the fishing

industry. There's no point in going ahead with the mine when the

average mine in the province probably has around 15 years of life and

fishing is perpetual if the proper precautions are taken to safeguard

the fishing industry.

It seems to me that the best way to

handle the consolidated Cinola mines proposal is to have a public

inquiry under the Inquiry Act or some other piece of legislation that

would do the job that everyone desires to be done. I would assure the

people of the Queen Charlotte Islands, should this mine go ahead, that

all the safeguards have been taken to guard the environment and

therefore guard the fishing industry — the sports fishing that people

enjoy in the Yakoun River, which is one of the best steelhead runs in

the world.

Will the minister assure the House and the people

of the Queen Charlotte Islands that before approval is given to phase 2

— the application for which should be coming in this fall from the

company — a full public inquiry will take place in the province, with

hearings on the Queen Charlotte Islands? Will the minister ensure that

government — through some source of government — will supply some

funding to the local residents so they can adequately do research into

the information that comes under the phase 2 application, so that we

can be reasonably sure the government has done its job and the people

of the Queen Charlottes can feel absolutely sure that the people of the

Queen Charlottes have done their job in order to safeguard the

environment, which in the long run — and even in the short run — they

are going to have to live with?

Will there be a public

inquiry? Will hearings be carried out on the Queen Charlotte Islands?

Will there be funding from some area of the provincial government to

ensure that local residents can do adequate research to satisfy

themselves that all the safeguards will be in place if the project goes

ahead — or, on the other hand, if enough safeguards cannot be put in

place to preserve the environment, that the project will not go ahead

at all?

HON. MR. ROGERS: Just to bring you up to

date, we are expecting the stage 2 report on August 31 from the metal

mines steering committee. At that time, ELUC will have to evaluate it

and decide whether it's acceptable to proceed. It would be the decision

of the Environment and Land Use Committee of cabinet as to whether or

not a hearing would take place. My ministry has no budget amount for

funding advocacy groups in these cases, nor is there any in the

ministry of my colleague the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum

Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland), so I can't give you an answer to your

question about whether or not there would be. It may very well be that

the matter will not proceed beyond the stage 2 submission to ELUC.

MR. LEA:

I take it, then, that it's not government policy to do any funding of

environmental groups or to hold hearings, but that it may or may not be

done, according to whim or the evidence as the Environment and Land Use

Committee sees it. Is it not government policy that public hearings be

held when there is a danger to the environment? Is there no funding at

all?

HON. MR. ROGERS: There is no funding within my

ministry. Some groups are funded every year by the Ministry of

Environment for certain actions on behalf of government. But there is

no specific funding. There never has been any funding in the time I've

been the minister, and I don't believe there ever was previous to this.

Of course it's possible under the Inquiry Act; it could be a government

policy decision. But there is no necessity for a public hearing,

although one can be held.

I have been approached by a host

of people from the Queen Charlotte Islands, including the mining

company, which is very knowledgeable about the pressures on that island

and its sensitivity. If the people there want it at all, they want it on

a very low-key basis. They do not really want to chance the lifestyle

of the Queen Charlotte Islands. The company is extremely concerned

about environmental sensitivities. They're also concerned about the

socio-economic sensitivities. The people don't want a great industrial

boom there: that's not the kind of thing that suits the lifestyle of

the people of the Charlottes. That doesn't preclude us from holding an

inquiry, but I can't give you an assurance that we will hold one. There

isn't any funding in my ministry for public advocacy groups.

MR. LEA:

Would the minister agree that there should be some funding somewhere

within government so that environmental groups can actually do their

job? Is it not best for democracy that it be done? If the cabinet

committee took a look at the proposal, and in their wisdom decided that

it should go ahead because the environmental problems were minimal, but

the people of the Queen Charlotte Islanders were not satisfied in their

minds that justice was being done, then democracy would not be served.

I'd

like to have the minister's opinion about whether there shouldn't be

some funding for environmental groups, so that not only will the proper

decisions be made but they will also be seen to be made. I think that's

an important role of a

[ Page 8538 ]

democracy:

government should not be there just to make decisions, but should be

there to make decisions which are seen by a majority of the people to

be good decisions.

In terms of a public inquiry, I think it

would be a travesty if the people of the Queen Charlottes, or the

people of British Columbia, did not get one. All the ramifications are

present for this proposal to become another Amax. If we had had proper

public inquiries prior to permission being given to Amax mines, we

wouldn't have the problems we're facing today.

Public

inquiries are much needed in our society. It's a process that cannot be

ignored, because to ignore it is to deny people their democratic right.

I urge the government, regardless of how they see the phase 2

submission, to hold a public inquiry so that people will have their

say; and others, seeing this discussion take place in public with all

three groups — the mining company, the environmental groups and the

government — will be satisfied in their own minds that the project

should or should not go ahead. To do otherwise would, I think, be a

disservice not only to the people of the Queen Charlottes, but to

everyone in British Columbia. I urge the minister to hold a public

inquiry so that people can have their say, and others can see and hear

the process.

MR. LORIMER: I want to mention two

matters to the minister, the first being the situation with reference

to the processing of fish in British Columbia, and the monopoly control

being gained by Canada packers through their purchase of a number of

plants. I refer specifically to Oaklands Fisheries Ltd. in Victoria and

the plant in Prince Rupert.

Whereas Canada Packers has had a

substantial operation in British Columbia for the past great number of

years, it now has almost total jurisdiction in processing of our fish,

which in my opinion is an unhealthy situation. Plants are being closed

to be put into one or two areas, with a great loss of jobs for the

people of British Columbia. I think the minister has to look at the

whole problem of monopoly control of the fishing industry and take some

action to preserve jobs for British Columbians, ensuring that the

people of British Columbia get the benefit from the fishing on the

Pacific coast.

The second matter is one on which the

minister may say he has no jurisdiction, as it concerns the actions of

the federal government with reference to fishing treaties and

regulations on the Pacific coast. What I suggest to the minister is

that he take an active consultative role with the federal government in

order to preserve fishing areas for Canadian fishermen. At the present

time, whenever there's a meeting between Canada and United States'

negotiators, British Columbia loses more fishing rights and grounds on

the Pacific coast.

Two or three years back, the department

put out a white paper on their position regarding the AB line and the

boundaries in Juan de Fuca. I believe they took a fairly good position

on that, but we've heard nothing about it. I'm afraid it's being

completely ignored by Ottawa. It's my opinion that a much more

aggressive stance should be taken by the provincial government, through

the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) and

yourself, to make sure that the fish on the Pacific coast of British

Columbia will be fished by British Columbia fishermen.

Every

time there are negotiations between the federal government and the

United States, we lose more fish and territory. The AB line is

presently being threatened with being moved substantially south, and

the Juan de Fuca line substantially north. The question of eastern

fisheries is going before the international court at The Hague, as to

whether the boundary between Nova Scotia and Maine will be the canyon

concept or the equidistant concept. What I suggest is that the

provincial government make sure that no agreement on the Pacific area

is concluded until a decision has been made on that question before the

international court, because if there is a decision, I am convinced

that we will lose more. I would hope that the minister would take an

active and an aggressive interest in making sure that our territorial

and fishery rights are not alienated through the actions of the federal

Department of Fisheries and the international agreements that are

reached. I suggest to the minister that he has the power and should

exercise that power with the federal people regarding this whole

problem.

The other matter — which is a federal matter, of

course, but is one that I would like to the minister to take an

interest in — is the scallop fishery off the coast. It is a substantial

fishery, but is only being tapped now. However, there are more and more

boats now going into scallop fishing, and there are basically no

regulations whatever as to the process of scallop fishing. The big

danger is, of course, that the scallop industry could be destroyed

unless there are some regulations, some control and some action taken

in order to manage this resource for the benefit of our people for

years to come. It could well be fished out if more and more people

become interested in that fishery and there are no regulations and

controls to take care of that. I hope the minister will tell us that he

will in fact take an interest in those areas in which he has no direct

jurisdiction. I suggest he has a great amount of power to determine the

route taken by the federal government with reference to the Pacific

fisheries.

Also, there's been a lot of talk about the

question of clean rivers and so on in the province over the past number

of years. I would urge the minister to make sure that the environment

along the fishery routes — their spawning routes and so on — is kept

clean and prepared for the fish to spawn in. We may talk about

hatcheries and so on, but the greatest hatchery we have is the natural

hatchery of the Pacific Northwest. If we preserve that hatchery, it

will not be necessary to be concerned about dividing rivers into

private hatcheries in which the resulting fish have a detrimental

effect on the natural fish. If the minister would look at the question

of keeping our natural hatchery in a clean condition in order to look

after the reproduction of our fish, I think he would be providing the

fishing industry some benefits.

I want to hear the minister

tell us what he is doing or intends to do regarding the federal

discussions now going on with the United States regarding Pacific area

jurisdictions.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Perhaps I can

clarify.... I believe you're worried about B.C. Packers, not

Canada Packers. Canada Packers is in the red-meat business more than

they are in the fish business.

The AB line, which has been

given an extension by negotiations, was presented by Mel Smith of

Intergovernmental Relations in that paper. Last week we had a meeting

with Canada's ambassador to the United States and we discussed this

very matter. They were hoping to solve the east coast dispute first. As

you know, it was accepted by Canada, but rejected by President Reagan.

Now I'm told that the Canadian and American judges for the Hague

meetings have been picked and they're waiting for a third party to

adjudicate that. Of course, the difficulty is that what's good for the

east coast isn't good for the west coast. It's much better for us to

[ Page 8539 ]

follow

the natural canyon lines than it is to go for equidistant lines,

especially in the Juan De Fuca area. But Mel Smith's paper made very

good points for the line coming out of the AB line and then going up

the coast to the Alaska panhandle, and it was a very justifiable one

too. It would be a real success if we had it. It's not something we've

let go; it's something that we — both Intergovernmental Relations and

the people in the marine resources branch — have continually worked on.

are doing some research into scallops, oysters and mussels and getting

more information on them. In terms of fisheries research, I think our

main effort should be towards products for which there is a domestic

market rather than an export market — especially a single-country

export like Japan — because we're far too vulnerable. We can't supply

even the British Columbia demand for mussels, oysters and scallops and

we have constant demands from Alberta and the Prairies for more

product, and there just isn't enough being produced here. So our

research in our fisheries products, those off-salmon ones, should go

into things for which we have a market.

I agree with you on

the rivers. We should be expending our efforts on spawning channels

much more than we should be on hatcheries, because a hatchery gives

such a major shock to a certain species that comes into a river system.

The indigenous fish, which usually turn out to be the Chinooks and

sometimes steelheads, get clobbered pretty badly when harvest time

comes after the hatchery has been in production. Spawning channels are

very easy to maintain. It's just a question of building a bigger

nursery. One of the problems is that when the fish do come back they

are fighting for space. Nice clean shaded gravel with cool water

running over it is really productive and costs very little to run.

Also, we don't have the problems of poisoning and some of the other

vandalism that has happened in some of the hatcheries, and they're

much more inexpensive to operate.

You mentioned jobs in the

fish-processing industry. Last year there was an enormous amount of

work in British Columbia created by Alaska-caught fish being processed

here, because they didn't have the capacity to do it. On one occasion

when I was in Prince Rupert, at the end of a ten-hour shift the crew

got the word that there was another vessel coming in with Alaska fish.

So we still do tend to process a lot of American fish, because we have

greater capacity than they do — certainly in the Prince Rupert area.

There

has been a problem with industry concentration, but all of the

companies that are involved have had financial difficulties. The

cooperative situation in Prince Rupert is a labour-management problem

now as much as anything else. It's a very new plant which has received

both federal and provincial funding in its creation, and I see no

reason why they shouldn't be able to proceed.

One of the

bright spots for the groundfish industry is that the price of beef is

going up. When the price of beef goes up, people start eating fish

again, which is terrific. With the depressed prices in the agricultural

community, people have tended to shy away from it. In my house the diet

happens to be mostly fish so it doesn't make much difference, but I

can't make much of an impact on it. Those are some of the things that

we're doing. I hope that answers the questions of the member.

MRS. DAILLY:

In the interests of brevity. I just want to remind the minister that I

posed a few questions to him yesterday on the whole subject of the

banning of the leghold trap. I'll just go back over those questions

again.

Firstly, what is your timetable? I think most people

have been pleased to hear that you have stated that you will ban 98

percent of leghold traps for land animals and you have set up an

advisory committee. When are you going to bring in the regulations? You

stated it will be in 1982.

Secondly, could you explain the

rationale behind the fact that the leghold trap ban will not apply to

beaver, muskrat, mink or otter — the animals trapped in water. We know

that a great percentage of animals trapped in B.C. are the beaver and

the muskrat, and there is a considerable number, as I'm sure the

minister knows. Also, the ban does not include land animals such as the

fox and the wolf. I wonder if you could tell us why it will not apply

to these animals. I don't think there's any question that they suffer

extreme cruelty, whether under water or not.

My third

question has to do with the wolf. I know that the member for Omineca

(Mr. Kempf) has a huge file there, and he may be planning to again

expose the House to the gruesome pictures of what the wolves do to the

cattle. Putting aside the gruesome pictures that that member feels are

necessary to bring forward to make his point — and he has a right to do

it — I would like to ask the minister if he can really tell us what

statistical and factual background has gone into the decision by his

ministry to poison wolves to the extent that they are being poisoned.

In spite of the fact that the member for Omineca feels very strongly

about it, as well as many other people.... As a city girl, I can

only go by what I read and hear. I am not exposed to it as that member

is, but I hear that other people who live in rural areas of this

country take the opposite viewpoint. They say it is not true that the

wolf is the predator that some people consider it to be. I'd like the

minister to clear up some of this and give us the background for your

ministry making this decision on the wholesale poisoning of wolves. It

would indeed be a tragedy if it has just been based on the concern of a

few people and not on fact. I would like an explanation for that

particularly.

I want to commend the minister again for

listening to the many concerned people of B.C. who have expressed such

great concern over the cruelty of the leg-hold trap. I must say that I

hope he will give consideration to my questions at this time.

HON. MR. ROGERS: The regulations are out, so that's one thing.

What

we have done in trapping is that the federal and provincial governments

got together and spent a great deal of money, time and effort trying to

define a humane way of trapping through the federal-provincial humane

trapping committee. They determined that trapping a beaver, muskrat or

otter with a leg-hold trap in a drowning set is humane. So it depends

on the set that you use the trap on. I'm a little more experienced than

I was last year, after having spent three days on a trapline in the

middle of winter.

MR. LAUK: Where was that?

HON. MR. ROGERS:

It was near 70 Mile House. We got one otter and one beaver. I have a

friend who is a test pilot for deHavilland. so I sent him a nice

photograph of the otter and the beaver. He appreciated the humour. I

personally went out with some trappers and we set traps for wolverine

and beaver

[ Page 8540 ]

— we got an otter in that trap — and we got a beaver in the otter trap. We took some squirrels and one marten.

AN HON. MEMBER: , Did you have a licence?

HON. MR. ROGERS: Oh, yes.

the evening, for entertainment, I was subjected to actually having to

learn how to skin and dress the animals out. I have a considerably

better knowledge of this than the city boy I am. If you'd like to do

it, I can tell you that the president of the B.C. Trappers Association

would be absolutely delighted to take you out and show you what

actually happens on the trapline. In fact, in your case perhaps it

would be better if his wife took you. She's probably a better trapper

than he is. She does a better skinning job. You could see it from a

woman's perspective, because there are a lot of women who successfully

trap in the province.

The federal-provincial humane trapping

regulations came out and said that where it's possible to replace the

foot-hold trap with a Conibear trap or some other type of killing trap,

it should be done. There are certain species for which we have not yet

developed a trap. They include the wolf, the coyote, the fox and the

lynx. Those make up less than 4 percent of all the species taken in the

province. That's where we get the statistic that 96 percent of the

animals that are killed are killed in humane sets. If they use the

foot-hold trap in a drowning set, of course it's different.

addition to that, we have funding in this year's budget specifically

earmarked on a five-year program to assist trappers in replacing their

old traps, because many of these people don't have a very high income.

We have a committee set up, with a member from the United Native

Nations, the Society for the Prevention to Cruelty to Animals, the

Trappers Association and my fur specialist from the ministry. They met

and have developed a formula for surrendering traps and replacement of

traps so we can get the more humane traps into the hands of the

trappers, especially those who have difficulty affording them. At the

same time we are working on trying to find a trap to catch these four

species, with which we still have difficulty, in a more humane way. I

can't go out to the trapping industry, which is about 6,000 people —

about 50 percent of whom are native people — and say: "I'm going to put

you out of business because we don't accept it." We can't do that. They

still have to survive. We have strict regulations.

When I

came back from one of the days I spent out there I spent a day in a fur

depot, seeing what the furs look like when they're brought in. That's a

real problem we have in the industry. When some of these animals are

taken they are not properly handled, so a skin that may have been worth

$200 when it was trapped, had it been properly handled, would only go

for $40 or $50. To that extent, we run our own trapper education

program, which is now, I understand, on Dr. McGeer's Knowledge Network.

In fact, it's a very successful program. It's taught at the college in

Fort St. John and Prince George and is very popularly received. It's

very important that if this resource is to be harvested and it's a

multimillion dollar resource for the province we should get the maximum

value out of that resource. So we not only want to train the trappers

in the humane use of trapping, but in getting the very best value for

their pelts. Of course, the pelts vary with the fashion industry. This

year it's all the long-hair furs which are the ones that are valuable,

and the market just isn't there for the short-hair furs. So we want the

trappers to be much more aware of the humane side of it and all so of

the other side.

Of course, when they took me trapping, as

you might well imagine, the minister probably had the most

sophisticated tour that could possibly have been arranged. Nonetheless,

we went out and set them and caught the animals and took them, and I'm

very impressed with what they're doing.

MR. SKELLY: Expensive wine on the trap-line.

HON. MR. ROGERS:

Well, I won't tell you what kind of wine we had on the trapline,

because it's not that kind of operation, but if you'd like to go, I can

make the arrangements and they'd love to have you. I hope that answers

some of your questions about trapping.

MRS. DAILLY: The wolf! The wolf!

HON. MR. ROGERS: You wanted to ask a question about the wolf?

MRS. DAILLY: Yes, just one quick answer. I want to know why.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Because there is no other way to catch that animal. There just isn't another acceptable way of humanely trapping that animal.

Interjection.

HON. MR. ROGERS:

Oh, you want to know why we poison the wolves. We only poison wolves

currently where they interfere with livestock operations. We don't

poison wolves in any other way, as a wildlife management method,

although we're under considerable pressure to do that from outdoor

recreation groups, from hunting and fishing clubs, from the wildlife

federation and from others, if you want to talk about it, where the

wolf populations have expanded so much that they're starting to affect

the ungulate populations.

At this point I have to lean on

the biologists in the ministry to give me some expert information, but

at the present time we use four grams of monosodium fluoracetate for

the entire province for the entire year. That's a very small amount,

it's very selective, and we only use it where we've had attacks on

domestic cattle.

Interjection.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Oh, you should talk!

And the baits have to be checked every 72 hours.

HON. MR. GARDOM:

It's a typical Friday, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I would ask leave of

the Committee, on behalf of me and my colleague from Kamloops (Mr.

Richmond), to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM:

Mr. Chairman, it's a great pleasure to introduce to members of the

assembly members of the Norwegian Parliament's Committee on Consumer

and Administrative Affairs. They're touring Canada and the United

States. They are Miss Loewig, the chairperson; Ms. Martinsen; Mr. Odd

With; Mr. Gulbrandsen; the consul, Mr.

[ Page 8541 ]

Ronneng;

and the vice-consul, Mr. Antonsen. I would ask all members to bid a

special welcome to them. It's good to see you in British Columbia.

MR. RICHMOND:

Mr. Chairman, it was indeed a pleasure for me last night to spend a

delightful evening with four members of the Norwegian Parliament and to

show them some of the sights of the fair city of Victoria and the

surrounding area. I would like to introduce Beute Bakke, Brita Borge,

Tore Liltved and Halvor Stenstadvold, and I would ask the House to

please make them welcome.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, I

wasn’t going to get up this morning and repeat what I've said in this

House many times in regard to the predator problem, but the member for

Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) made a very good point, and I would just

like to elaborate a bit on that.

MR. NICOLSON: On a

point of order, Mr. Chairman, when the hon. member for Omineca rose to

his feet, I think almost everybody on that side of the House left.

Could you count and see if there is a quorum, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point of order is: is there a quorum? Yes, there is. Please proceed.

MR. KEMPF:

I can't help it if they're sick and tired of hearing from me in regard

to a proper predator program in this province; they're going to be a

whole lot sicker until they bring one in.

Mr. Chairman, what

I wanted to say.... And I agree with the member for Burnaby North.

She makes a good point for a very real necessity in this province for a

program of 1080 poisoning of wolves, because it's a known fact — and

you don't have to take my word for it, you can ask those who are very

expert in that field — that that is the most painless and most humane

way of controlling the wolf predation problem in this province.

Mr.

Chairman, I too welcome our friends from the Norwegian Parliament. You

know, I've said it in this House before: we don't have to reinvent the

wheel in regard to wolf predation and the predator problem that we're

experiencing in the province of British Columbia. We only need to

travel — in fact, not even travel — to those countries, and just ask

these people what they do in their countries to control wolf predation.

The Norwegians have a very good program, as do the Swedish people. They

don't allow the wolves to run rampant over their countries and

eliminate the ungulate herds. They get into the corrals and pastures of

our cattlemen.

The member for Burnaby North asked me about

the pictures. I have it here in living colour, and I'm only too happy

to show this House these pictures once more. I know you're not supposed

to show pictures, Mr. Chairman, but they show in living colour what's

happening there in regard to the wolf problem in this province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you please put them down. No exhibits. please,

MR. KEMPF: The member for Burnaby North makes a very good point.

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF: I agree with that — the only thing that bothers me is that some of the pictures are red.

The

member for Burnaby North is right and we very badly need a predator

control program in this province that is humane and painless. I want to

say to the House today: don't take my word for it; ask those who know.

The poison 1080 is the most painless way, the most humane way to

institute a predator control program in British Columbia. In the hands

of those who are knowledgeable regarding that poison, it's the best

possible way to control the wolf problem that we are presently

experiencing and it's of no danger to other species. It's a canine

poison. It kills them very quickly and very painlessly. It's the only

program that we should be considering bringing in, and we should be

doing that immediately — through you, Mr. Chairman, to the member for

Burnaby North, who doesn't know about these things and admits it. I

think we should be listening to those who do, and there are many of

those in this province, including people like Jim Hatter and Cyril

Shelford, who know perfectly well that a proper predator control

program in this province is a 1080 poisoning program. We should bring

it in immediately.

In regard to the problem with the leghold

trap, I just want to comment briefly on that this morning, because I

think all hon. members of this House know exactly what my position is

in regard to abolishing the leghold trap. That is that we can't, Mr.

Member for Vancouver Centre, abolish the leghold trap until we have an

alternative. I think this government is doing a lot of things in that

regard, but we don't have an alternative to the use of the leghold trap

in several instances.

[Mr. Richmond in the chair.]

The minister mentioned 6,000

trappers. Yes, we have 6,000 people who earn their living by trapping

in the province of British Columbia, and I think we've got to give a

whole lot of consideration to those people before we adhere to those

people from the urban areas of this province who only like to make

great headlines. I saw that publication you're just putting away, and

I'd like you to show it to the House, because I'm not ashamed that I

have taken that position.

That gives me a very good

opportunity. The people who printed that piece of paper over there took

a very small part of a letter that I wrote to a concerned person about

the use of leghold traps in this province. They made a big thing. They,

were very selective in what they took from my letter. In order to set

the record straight, I'd like to read into the record of this House the

entire letter that I wrote to that individual, so that there's no doubt

in anyone's mind as to exactly how it is I feel about the leghold trap

situation in this province. I quote from a letter that I wrote to a Mr.

Paul Seddon of Hammond Bay Road, Nanaimo, B.C. on March 5 of this year:

"I'm in receipt of your letter of February 9, 1982,

with several signatures, for which I thank you. As an MLA who represents a constituency

in which many individuals have made and continue to make their livelihood from

trapping, I totally disagree with you."

Mr.

Chairman. It's just about time, I think, that some politicians in this

chamber disagreed with people out there, because I think those things

should also be said in this chamber. You can't just agree with people

all of the time for fear that you might not get their vote at the polls

next time around. I continue to quote from a letter that I wrote on

March 5 :

[ Page 8542 ]

"Firstly, let me say that as far as I'm concerned there is no humane way

of killing anything, whether it be animal or human being, and I would

suggest that your ultimate goal is to ban all trapping, period!

"Well,

trapping and the use of the leghold trap has gone on for hundreds of

years on this continent, and in fact was one of the industries which

helped to build the Canada which you and I enjoy today. During this

time, and as today, those who know trapping, which I'm sure you do not,

have used the tools at their disposal as humanely as could be expected.

Your story of 'intense torture, death by thirst, hunger, slow freezing,

gangrene, and asphyxiation,' is merely designed to reach those in the

public who do not know any better.

"Certainly

I would like to see an alternative to the leghold trap, and everything

possible is being done by government to have someone come forward with

such an alternative.

"I would suggest that

should you, and people like you, who claim to be so terribly concerned,

put your money and energy in the same direction, instead of playing

petty political games with the subject, an alternative would be found

more quickly.

"In

summary I wish to say that I

support my trappers. They too carry on an industry which, like all

others, we cannot afford to lose in this province. In fact, I would

like to see British Columbia paying more attention to wildlife

management in order that industries such as trapping would prosper.

"As

for the voters at the polls in the next election, you forget one thing:

trappers are also citizens. They also vote, as do many other British

Columbians who rely on the trapping industry and that which it lends to

the economy of the many small northern communities.

"So let's not play politics. Let's wake up to reality and say it the way it is."

Mr.

Chairman, I believe that. I support the trapping industry in this

province. I too abhor the use of the leghold trap, but until such time

as a viable alternative is found I will support the use of the leghold

trap. I think that makes my position on this subject very clear.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, I want to speak on B.C. Place, for which this minister has responsibilities.

Before

I do I want to comment on the hon. member for Omineca's suggestion that

if more of the members of this chamber learned to disagree with the

people out there.... I think that if we could follow the

member for Omineca's example we could learn how to do that. He's

probably the most disagreeable member of the committee, Mr. Chairman.

If I could have the minister's attention for a minute, I want to talk

about some cost figures. When the B.C. Place site was acquired by the

government, Mr. Chairman, I had a conversation with the Premier, who

informed me that this was a tremendous opportunity for the city of

Vancouver; that this great site on False Creek accumulated by the

province would give an opportunity to develop a jewel — a star

development — that would be a classic example to other cities around

the world. The Premier informed me at that time, after the very first

announcements about the acquisition of the site, that this design and

development would be with a great deal of sensitivity to the

communities that would be affected and would be with the full

cooperation of the city of Vancouver; that they would seek every

opportunity to plan jointly and progress with the city of Vancouver in

the development of this site.

Mr. Chairman, I have not

spoken often on this project, which is in my constituency, but I regret

to have to report to the members of this committee that that has not

taken place. The attempts at cooperation between the city and B.C.

Place officials have seen what I would call very serious philosophical

roadblocks, the major one being that B.C. Place officials constantly

use as their touchstone in this plan that the development must have an

economic return. In that economic analysis, they argue that such a

valuable piece of land must be developed in keeping with its value.

They say we have land in the middle of the city that is extremely

valuable. The worth placed upon it by the marketplace is quite high;

accordingly, they argue that the plan for its development should

include massive construction of commercial space and, in many ways,

high density-housing.

In addition, B.C. Place officials take

the narrow view that they are like a private corporation and must

maximize their profit, and they are willing to do a number of things

that I find repugnant to achieve that goal. You cannot maximize your

profit unless you ignore the legitimate goals and ideals of the

communities that will be affected, and unless you ignore the foisting

of costs onto the city taxpayer without reasonable contribution.

Therefore B.C. Place officials are on a collision course with the

non-partisan legitimate goals and aspirations of the communities that

will be affected by the project, and this in addition to the cost to

Vancouver taxpayers. I've asked for and received reports from city

officials, including the city engineer, the city manager's office, city

planning and city social planning, to give, at least at this stage, an

estimate of the tax burden that would be placed upon the citizens of

the city of Vancouver. Perhaps the most startling report comes from the

city engineer. It's only fair to mention that some of the projects he

has reported were, in terms of city expenditure, on the books before

B.C. Place, but it should be pointed out that they were long-term

goals. That would certainly include the Cambie Street bridge.

But

long-term means long-term, and the B.C. Place concept has accelerated

the decision-making process within the city with respect to doing

something about the Cambie Street bridge. That's fine in ordinary

times, when it's a good thing that provincial government projects,

through its Crown corporation, accelerate the city's decision-making

with respect to such needed redevelopments. But these are not ordinary

times. These are times when health-care costs are being cut back; when

this recession, which is euphemistically called a financial correction

in the economic system, is taking its heaviest toll; when people are

unemployed; when city taxes are already too high and this minister's

own government has decided to limit municipal budgets to increases of a

maximum of 12 percent. Yet B.C. place is going its merry way, not

pulling back its proposals, and laying upon the city the spectre of a

burden of costs that the city taxpayer cannot possibly meet in these

times and in the foreseeable future — I mean three to four years.

I'm

told that full replacement of the Cambie Street bridge would cost in

excess of $60 million. If we opt for only the north end replacement, it

will be about $20 million. The sewer system will cost at least $15

million; the water system, $1.5 million; streets, $6 million. B.C.

Place and the province will be paying about half of the bridge cost,

all of the road costs, I'm told, and a significant part of the sewer

and water

[ Page 8543 ]

costs,

as per the cost-sharing agreements that will soon be reported to

council. What must be asked is this: can those costs be realistically

met by the city taxpayer? I reckon they cannot. I say that B.C. Place

is on a collision course, this government is on a collision course,

with the city of Vancouver taxpayer. They cannot be asked to meet those

costs at this time. You're going to have to rethink the proposal for

B.C. Place in relation to the city costs.

Other expenditures

I would argue are indirectly related to B.C. Place would be the Bute

tunnel at a minimum cost of $10 million, Malkin connector at $5 million

to $10 million — I know these are cursory, but we're talking about ball

park figures — Great Northern cut at another $10 million or $15

million, Kingsway connector at $3 million and the Cambie Street

widening at perhaps another $2 million. These facilities may not be

built for some time, but they are indirectly related and will be

accelerated by B.C. Place. Staff costs to the city of Vancouver have

also been provided to me by the city engineer, and they are quite high

as well, ranging into several millions of dollars.

My point is simply this: the cost impact alone.... B.C. Place officials

have placed most of their attention to this in terms of a cooperative effort,

but they haven't succeeded in rationalizing and making a reasonable timetable

in terms of these costs for the city of Vancouver. At a time when the government

is limiting municipal budgets, B.C. Place is going to put a strain on the city

of Vancouver's municipal budget. It's quite unfair. It's placing

the city in a vice and in the middle. On the one hand, there's a demand

for restraint in time of recession; on the other hand, there's this cost push

for the city taxpayer. It's reaching a critical stage — what you might

call a critical path. I think that something has to be done to cool things off.

Perhaps

the most regrettable part of my report is the mindlessness of the

planning by B.C. Place officials. Their proposals for massive amounts

of commercial space are totally unrealistic. I'm quite surprised that

as businessmen they argue that for the return on the investment, the

revenues produced make it economic. After all, they say, the land

values are high there and we should maximize our profit by high

development of this site. The same argument can be made for Stanley

Park. If you're going to ignore values, esthetics and legitimate goals

of the community, you can make an argument for Stanley Park. Why don't

we strip Stanley Park, log it, put up parking lots, shopping centres,

malls, highrises and so on? After all, it's the most valuable land.

It's even more valuable than the B.C. Place site.

We who

represent the public do not embrace the goal of maximization of profit.

We embrace the legitimate goals of the communities that are being

affected. I say that an injection of community responsibility into B.C.

Place planning is required now. They've got to lower their estimates

for commercial space, because even on a business basis, the projections

during this recession, which is going to last for some period of time,

are that the demands on commercial space downtown are going to lessen

considerably. I'm reliably informed that construction of commercial

space in the downtown core is continuing quite rapidly. There will be a

peaking amount of commercial space available. It will drive down

prices. To overdevelop B.C. Place is a bad business decision when other

more important goals should be met.

I'm surprised that some

civic officials who represent a minority.... One of them who has

now entered the mayoralty race doesn't even want a school on the B.C.

Place site. He

wants to create some massive executive city

on the B.C. Place site. which was rejected long ago by the vast

majority of citizens in the lower mainland. The GVRD is made up of a

group of politicians who represent a cross-section of the people of the

lower mainland, Their livable region plan is inconsistent with the

proposal of an executive city. Economics now dictate against the

development of a central core policy of an executive city. It should be

for families. Housing, not only in a token way as B.C. Place officials

are proposing, but family and social housing developments, should be

involved, with parks, playgrounds and schools, that will make it truly,

in the centre of one of the greatest cities of the world, a jewel — a

project that will, indeed, attract the attention of the world. The B.C.

Place officials are very limited in their imagination and have no

pulse-taking with the people and their values. There is a major

collision course there. Already we've seen the profiteers moving in and

around the borders of the B.C. Place site. They have accumulated

property and are ripping down old hotels and established places of

residence to make the large profits that the B.C. Place project

promises to them.

This government, unfortunately, is playing

into the hands of the profiteers on almost every occasion. It is

regrettable, indeed. Even B.C. Hydro, a Crown corporation, is acquiring

property near the area for their own commercial space needs. A Crown

corporation is a direct competitor with B.C. Place. Other private

companies — I think there's one called Stadium Enterprises — have

acquired some downtown east side hotels. What have they decided to

refurbish? Not the rooms for the residents there, but the bars.

They're trying to refurbish the bars around the stadium so that the

patrons at the stadium can have access to these bars. That is not

consistent with the majority goal and value of our community in the

city of Vancouver. The minister knows full well that drinking at sports

events — or before or after sports events — encourages impaired

driving. A lot of these patrons come from the lower mainland suburbs

and other districts. I know the city has a responsibility to police

these things as well as possible, but it's the idea of profiteering and

the effect on the communities that bothers me.

My last point

is that there has not been a significant social impact study on the

community surrounding B.C. Place. We do not know what it's going to

cost us socially in disrupting these very stable and historic

communities. I'm not satisfied that B.C. Place officials are taking the

social impact needs of those communities seriously. I think that they

are businessmen, and businessmen of a narrow view. It is therefore

incumbent upon the government. through this minister, to bring

community goals and standards to that board and, if necessary, impose

those community standards upon the board in its planning and

cooperation with the city of Vancouver.

The government has a

tremendous opportunity here to make this concept work we'll. It can

only do it with a little bit of patience and a great deal of

cooperation. It cannot do it by espousing blindly a private capitalist

view of the project, and that is to maximize profit.

three points, then, are:

(1) B.C. Place has not considered the

immediate costs — or even the short and intermediate long-term costs —

on the city of the project, including the stadium and the other

proposals; (2) the plan itself, on the site, does not reflect the

legitimate goals of the community;

(3) B.C. Place and the government

have not, in good faith, done adequate impact studies on the

communities in the

[ Page 8544 ]

surrounding

area. On those three points, Mr. Chairman, I say again that the B.C.

Place project is heading on a collision course not only with the city

officials and elected representatives of council but with all of the

citizens of the city of Vancouver. It's time now for this minister and

this government to step back a bit and reflect clearly on what now has

to be done to solve those problems.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I ask leave of the committee to interrupt these proceedings to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

We have in our galleries today four young sea scouts from West

Vancouver: Patrick Chilvers, Steven Chase, Chris Welsh and Michael

Shebilyov. They have sailed from the mainland, taking three days, to

visit us in Victoria. They are accompanied by their leader, Jonathan

Chilvers, and I ask the committee to welcome them.

HON. MR. ROGERS: I'd like to respond to some of the questions from the member for Vancouver Centre.

B.C.

Place is a 20-year project, at the very least. We are endeavouring to

take a long-term look at how the west end of the city, that downtown

peninsula, should develop. I don't honestly believe that you seriously

think DERA, the community that is affected — that very narrow group of

people who have attended almost every public meeting — truly represents

all of the surrounding neighbourhoods. We've had more than 250 public

meetings all over the west end, and in other areas as well, to discuss

a draft plan. This isn't written in stone; it says right on it that

it's a draft plan, just a suggestion. A host of the suggestions in that

plan have already been rejected. Some were rejected by the city, some

by the people; some were rejected as being just plain bad ideas. After

a host of meetings, we felt it was necessary to explain to the public,

and to others who wanted to know, the kinds of concepts we're trying to

carry out. Because of the present economic situation, it may very well

be that the whole thing will be put on hold. However, I ask you this

one question: isn't it better now than it was before? Should it have

been left forever as a CPR railway yard? I don't think so. Efforts by

the CPR and others to change it were not successful.

We at

B.C. Place would like to have social housing. We'd like to have twice

the percentage that exists in the city at the present time. We think

that's an acceptable goal, and it is twice the city's standard across

the board. We think 15 percent of it should be social housing —

subsidized housing, assisted housing — and 75 percent should be aimed

at the moderate-income family; only 10 percent should be luxury. That's

what we have said all along, but it has been somewhat distorted. The

only profiteers I know of who are building adjacent to B.C. Place are

actually occupying a parking lot that was there. I think the hotel they

envision is a big advantage.

You asked about the cost to

city taxpayers. There's no doubt about it: any event that takes place

in the city, from the PNE parade to B.C. Place, costs city taxpayers

money, but there are also substantial benefits to the city. I think the

costs and the benefits balance each other out; I really do. It's very

early to give a definitive answer as to what the costs will be and what

the benefits will be. It may very well be that the Connaught Bridge

won't be rebuilt. It may very well be that we are premature on the

Connaught Bridge; that it's merely a negotiating point with the city. I

think the city engineer would tell you that his long-term plan to

assist traffic right through your riding is to have the Connaught

Bridge realigned to connect the two streets, and to go from four lanes

to six. Technically, the bridge can last for another 20 or 30 years at

the rate it's going; I think it will be falling into dust at that

point. At the present time that's all we are doing there.

British

Columbia Place was given a mandate by the government to develop that

project in such a way that the taxpayers of British Columbia would get

a return on their investment. That's really our only objective.

want to talk about the people we've had consulting here. This plan

wasn't developed by the B.C. Place people. We brought architects from

San Francisco, New York, Washington and London, and we also invited the

city people. About five months ago we had a conference and said: okay,

let's ask people from totally different disciplines but with

architectural planning backgrounds to come in. I sat in on some of

those meetings, and they were really invigorating. These people tore

the plan apart and built it up; they said where it was wrong and where

it was right and what the proposal should be. Ironically, in other

jurisdictions they're saying: "You don't have enough office component.

If you want to build housing, you've got to build offices with it." In

fact, if you propose to build a housing project in San Francisco at the

present time, they insist that you include a component of office space.

You

refer to the mindless management of B.C. Place, just cranking out this

great project. I could give you a list of names of the people. People

like Arthur Erickson have looked at our project and they don't think we

have high enough density; they don't think the plan is imaginative

enough. But it's a discussion paper.

Quite frankly, the

provincial government could roll over the city; but that is not our

intention, and has never been our intention. There have been all sorts

of meetings. Of course, it does get political at times. The city of

Vancouver is actually steaming along pretty nicely now. The only thing

they've got to get excited about or to fight over seems to be B.C.

Place. Our plan does call for schools, despite what the various

candidates have said.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you going to vote for him?

HON. MR. ROGERS:

The mayor of Vancouver and I have known each other since 1975; I

defeated him when he wanted my seat in this place. He and I will have a

long talk about it in Montreal, and I guess I'll make up my mind

whether I will or whether I won't.

The question of

commercial space: we're talking about a 20-year development, not about

a giant development happening instantly. We have that site adjacent to

the stadium and it will be serviced by the ALRT. It should be properly

developed with a sufficient density to be able to justify those

amenities. If you go with density, then your cost per square foot comes

down. It's the same thing in housing and in other issues. We think we

are going to be of tremendous positive benefit to the city.

Interjection.

HON. MR. ROGERS:

I know Bruce Eriksen won't like it. In fact, the other night when you

and I were upstairs in a meeting in the Hotel Vancouver, I left the

meeting to go

[ Page 8545 ]

downstairs

to make a phone call. Bruce Eriksen was holding court in the bar

downstairs, and had his entire crowd upstairs. They're so on tune that

he doesn't even have to be up there to orchestrate any more.

But

you know and I know that those aren't the only people affected; there

is a whole host of other people representing that community and the

other communities around it. There is no question that we will have an

effect. There will be some negative factors and there will be some

positive factors. If you look at the way the thing has been run so far,

with the professionalism that's been in place.... If we can't come

to an agreement with the city of Vancouver on a development, then we

can set a pattern over the next 20 years for the development. We've got

to fold in Expo and then get the benefit that comes out of Expo instead

of letting those buildings just lie idle afterwards.

extend this invitation to you. You haven't been to see the people of

B.C. Place and heard their side of the story. Have you actually been

down to see them? I don't think you have, but maybe you have.

Interjection.

HON. MR. ROGERS:

Yes, you have met with them, but come and see our side of the coin. If

you just take it all from the city side.... In some cases, you

know, the city is looking at this as the golden goose and if they can

just squeeze enough eggs out of it, they're going to get a whole host

of things for nothing. Well, you can only get the goose so often and

then the goose doesn't lay eggs any more. It may very well be that

that's the proper thing to do with it.

I want to say a few

things about the project, and pay a real tribute to the construction of

that stadium. People have come here from other countries very quietly —

no diplomatic stuff; just a little phone call — and asked to show

somebody through. We have now given 25 VIP tours and about 40,000

regular tours through the building. If they want to come and see how

it's done.... It's a tribute to the construction workers, the

engineers and the suppliers that it has gone without a hitch. There

isn't anyone anywhere who has done one before. I'm just going to take

credit on behalf of all the people who work in the organization,

because it's been terrific as far as the stadium is concerned. The Vancouver Province shows the latest picture.

I want to read just one little paragraph of a letter I have from Alan Emmott, and it says:

"Nearly all of British Columbia Place concept is in keeping

with the board's regional planning policies. In particular we support increased

housing within the city, public open space, enhancement of waterfront area for

the public use and added cultural, entertainment and recreational facilities.

In this regard British Columbia Place offers an almost unprecedented opportunity

to make a very significant contribution to the enhancement of Vancouver's

liveability."

Though it doesn't quite fit with their regional plan....

Interjection.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Alan Emmott.

MR. LAUK: Yes, I know. Read the rest of the letter.

HON. MR. ROGERS:

Oh, yes. It doesn't totally agree, but they don't totally disagree with

it either. So I think we're on the right track. As you know, the plan

we published is a discussion document. We have had comments

provincewide, and we have had some out-of-province discussion. It will

be very radically changed before we go ahead with it. But I still think

that we're on the right formula in terms of social housing — housing

for working Canadians. I think we should be looking at the greatest

majority, or people who under normal circumstances would be working.

Things are probably a little different now, but over the next 20 years

this project is going to be something that....

I know

that the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) has been down

to sneak a look at the stadium. He keeps telling me that he's not sure

he wants to vote against it because he kind of likes it and he thinks

the people like it too.

MR. LAUK: I just have a brief

comment. The second member for Vancouver Centre also reported to me

quietly that the south end was sinking into the sand and that it's 50

feet too short for football. But we won't spread those rumours around.

Mr.

Chairman, I don't want to leave the impression with the committee that

I'm speaking only on behalf of the downtown eastside residents. Briefs

presented at all of the 250 meetings, or most of them, were presented

by a number of interested community groups that are going to be

affected. In addition to the Downtown Eastside Residents Association

there is Chinatown, the CBA and other groups that have made

representations, Mount Pleasant, Strathcona, Yaletown, the core of the

city itself and, indeed, the West End. And I've heard from all of these

folks and a lot of them have the view that I have expressed here this

morning.

MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, it's unfortunate

that sometimes we can't keep the debate to particular topics, but I

guess the minister's area is fairly broad and I would like to take it

back to wildlife and some areas in that realm of his jurisdiction

under his ministry.

I'd just like to suggest that one of

the things that bother the people who live and work in the rural and

remote areas of British Columbia is the decision-making that's made for

them by others, and for what reason? For instance, I feel there's far

too much generalizing done. Any group can take one wildlife instance

and use that to develop a particular cause and then exert pressure;

that pressure comes from numbers in a group, from the noisiness of the

group, and often with a minimum amount of knowledge.

certainly commend the minister for going out and looking at some of

these situations, as he mentioned on the trapline, and studying them

himself. I think if we had more people from the heavily populated

southwest corner of the province, if we had more people actually learn

what they are talking about, it would be a considerable help. I'm not

maligning those people for the views that they hold. I think they have

adopted those views because of certain groups who have selectively

picked certain information, and then made an emotional issue of it.

Let's

face it, a lot of the information passed around this province is

through the major media — with headquarters in Vancouver. and those

reporters like to sell stories, their bosses like to sell papers, and

so you have these emotional issues spread around among those people and

throughout the

[ Page 8546 ]

rest

of the province. Then we have television. For most of British Columbia

it comes from the headquarters in Vancouver. For some of us it comes

from Alberta, because we can't get the B.C. network. However, that's

another story.

We have a great deal of decision-making in

this province influenced by people who take on causes because, to a

large extent, they are misinformed, so they legitimately believe in

their cause. The press take the easy way; they do not bother to go out

on a trapline and talk to a trapper; they do not go out in the bush and

talk to a real hunter or someone who lives out in that bush full-time.

They take the story that's fed to them, and they influence people

perhaps far more than they realize. In turn, those people influence

decisions such as leghold-trap decisions and predator-control

decisions and so on.

I know the member for Omineca (Mr.

Kempf) is laughed at and ridiculed because he becomes so incensed about

the wolf-control program. It's easy to become incensed when you live in

an area where you know people who function among wildlife, use it as a

resource, make their living from it, and know what is really happening.

They know that their own beef herds are being severely damaged and that

wildlife, in some cases, is being destroyed because of a predator

problem. They cannot deal with that predator problem because the power

of decision-making comes from people who do not know what is really

going on.

In the North Peace region many times our people

are just so incensed because they feel they are in an unfair

competition against so-called experts. Some of our people live and work

at something all year, and then there is a pressure developed by other

people. Some people form a cause in the lower mainland. It's easy

enough to get people to join a cause — Greenpeace, ban the dams, etc.

Because people who live in frustration in some of the heavily

populated.... Here's this compressed situation and for a fee of $1,

$2 or $5 they too can become giant-slayers; they can attack big

corporations and they can attack governments. It's easy enough to get a

cause and get people to support it. We find that some of these groups

then hire professional PR people to promote their cause and they hire

professional lawyers, and the money goes to them. I'll give you a

couple of examples.

On the Alaska pipeline hearing, the

federal government gave $350,000 to the natives to push their cause —

their concerns about the pipeline. When the hearings were over, the

experts who came in to study and the lawyers who said, "We can

represent your case much better," picked up the $350,000. The natives

got none of it. And there you have a great cause that was being

promoted. I think the biggest cause was their pocketbooks.

can tell you that in the Site C dam situation there is not one local

lawyer from the Peace River representing the antidam groups. They're

being paid by the hour — outside people who come in and say: "Look, we

can present your case much better." You have these ridiculous

situations going on, and it's no wonder that the people who live there

get upset.

If I could make one point on the leghold trapping

promotion, they've very successfully used one picture on TV. It creates

a horror picture of a squirrel hanging in a leghold trap with the leg

skinned. It's a very effective device. What makes the real trappers so

mad is that the skinned part of the leg is above the jaws of the trap.

There is no way that that squirrel could skin the leg and have the

skinned part above the jaws of the trap. That picture goes into

schools and on television and it makes the case for the cruelty of

leghold trapping. At least these people might have the sense, but then,

who checks? It's a very effective picture. The skinned part shows

better if it's above the jaws of the trap. I can give you other

examples where that is the type of thing that makes the decisions about

whether leghold trapping should be done. So we have people who say

that's cruel and the leghold trap should be banned.

I would

like to conclude very briefly on the leghold trap issue, that for some

reason people seem to feel that trappers want animals to struggle and

die slowly. Any trapper worth his salt wants that animal killed as

quickly as possible, because he wants the best fur. Any animal that

struggles in the trap for any length of time will ruin its fur. So why

not talk to the trappers? A lot of that is going on, and I'm pleased

that the minister is talking to the trappers, but for too long we've

had a study necessary. That study is commissioned to the scientists,

who study the situation, and the last people they ask about what

happens are the people who make their living at it and who know about

it. For some reason or other, people who are knowledgeable seem to have

a vested interest, according to them, and so their information isn't

that important.

For instance, one of the things that we need

for proper management control is a good inventory of game animals and

wolves. There are a lot of people who function out there, whose count

is not taken or accepted, and so we have to go to great expense to do

our own count. It is expensive to do that type of inventory from

helicopters and airplanes and from various studies. I'm not saying that

anybody's — say a guide outfitter's — word should be taken immediately,

but I think that a much better system could be worked out to get the

people who are there anyway to provide much more of the information.

I'd

like to deal a little bit with the wolves. It has been said that we

have a difficult time getting an inventory of wolves. I notice one

article in the paper where a Greenpeace group went into the bush to

count wolves. The member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) smiles. The wolves are

far smarter in the bush than any of us.

To go out in the

bush.... I've hunted for at least 16 years in various parts of the

Peace River country. I have seen a lot of wolf trails and I have seen

numerous wolf kills, but I've seen very few wolves. They have learned

to avoid man. You can cover as much territory as you like — when you're

flying in the wintertime is when you really see them — but just

wandering through the bush, or sitting there at a campfire to count

wolves, you will see very few, so we won't get an accurate count. The

people in the business do see what is happening, and they can

interpolate as well.

For instance, when we talk about game

management, we're really talking about a matter of choices. To people

who live in the populated areas, the wolf — that darling, furry little

thing — is just as important as an elk, moose, deer or caribou. So it

may be true.... None of us who are in favour of predator control

would ever like to see the wolf eradicated. We're talking about

control. The member for Omineca has shown some pictures to try to make

some believers and to get people to realize that the wolf is not that

benevolent animal that weeds out the sick and the diseased. There are

estimates that a wolf will eat one wild game animal per week. You don't

need very many wolves to realize what will happen. There are many

people who probably don't realize that the propagation of herds — if we

decide that we will have elk herds.... I know the next argument

that generally comes is that the only reason we want elk herds is for

those mean and miserable hunters to shoot and kill them

[ Page 8547 ]

cruelly.

A lot of this discussion, of course, will go on over steak dinners.

Have any of those people been in a slaughterhouse and watched the

beef being slaughtered? Have any of them seen any of those situations?

While you're eating a steak dinner it's easy not to say it's cruel to

kill elk or moose. I don't believe in waste, but I think game can

provide an industry, it can provide a sport, a recreational function,

and it can provide food, which it does for many people.

Let

me tell you how the wolves affect the wildlife herds. Wolves need to

eat. They are ferocious, ruthless killers, and they do not in fact eat

all they kill. If anyone has any familiarity with dogs on a sheep

ranch, they will know that they do not just kill one sheep and start

eating it: they will keep killing. They get incensed and they will

kill whatever they can, and eating is not necessary. It is known that

wolves very seldom come back to eat cold meat. If you want to talk

about cruelty, about poisoning a wolf — which is quick — let's talk

about the cruelty of wolves. They prefer calves and the females because

they don't get near as much fight from them. The propagation depends on

the young coming up and the breeding going on, and the females bear

calves. So you need them to keep the herd going. If you eliminate the

young and the females in an ungulate herd, the herd soon goes out of

existence. There's plenty of evidence of that, but it's very difficult

for anyone to sit in the bush and watch the wolves kill.

There

are people who say that the natural cycle works. Certainly the natural

cycle works, but let's just visualize how it works. When wolves move

into an area they start killing the young, and then the females — they

take their easiest targets. Yes, I suppose they eat the diseased, the

sick and the crippled; but as soon as those run out, they're after the

others. Because they have all this game, wolves breed at an

astounding rate — the wolf herd builds up and they need more food. It

doesn't take long before they actually wipe out that ungulate herd.

Interjection.

MR. BRUMMET:

Nuts we're at the bottom of the cycle! Those wolves travel miles and go

over into the next territory, where they follow the ungulates. Of

course, when they eventually run out of wildlife.... They generally

avoid man, but they will move in and start killing the cattle. They

move into the next area. When they've cleaned that out, they move into

the next area. In the first area that they've left the natural cycle

starts up, so some elk or caribou might wander into that area. How long

does it take for them to breed to a viable herd again? As soon as they

do, of course, the wolves have made the cycle and they come back. The

wolves have very few, if any, natural enemies out in the bush. If we

decide that the natural cycles should work, then I think we should stop

spending any money on game enhancement and management programs. Let the

wolves manage it. They do a fantastic job.

I happen to

believe that wolves have, other than fur, very little use. We generally

get down to a matter of choices. If we choose to have our elk, moose

and caribou for food, recreation and viewing, then we have to have

predator control. I'm not suggesting that we should, willy-nilly, go

all over the province and poison all the wolves. I'm suggesting that

that is one way you can get to the wolves. Ask any trapper how easy it

is to catch a wolf. It takes a little skill to set a trap that a wolf

won't smell out or spot. Wolves are notorious for avoiding traps. That

wilderness is their territory. They own it by comparison with man.

We're amateurs in the bush by comparison with them. They will destroy

the useful animals in the wilderness — and "useful" is, again, a

relative term. The only time a wolf starts starving off is after he has

wiped out everything else. If that is what we want — natural cycles —

then by all means let’s not waste money on enhancement programs.

happen to believe that the enhancement programs are working. For

instance, up the Tuchodi River, north of Fort Nelson, there have been

some burns.... There has been a considerable amount of work done on

an elk-enhancement program. Elk were starting to build up. Those elk

could be transferred over to the Kechika and other regions as well. In

their words, one could use those local herds to propagate a lot of the

country and propagate the elk species. What they're finding now is that

all of a sudden, despite the enhancement program and what they've seen,

the elk herd is not growing any longer. Why? They're spotting more

wolves in the area. We're spending thousands of dollars on elk

enhancement — and not just taxpayers money, a lot of the users....

The fish and wildlife branch and many of those people are spending a

lot of money on game enhancement programs that are working and are very

effective. All of a sudden the elk herds are no longer growing.

Interjection.

MR. BRUMMET: Yes, that means that there are fewer elk for hunters to take. But the hunters make pretty good use of it.

Let

me give you one example. There are many people in he area who can tell

you, through objective counts and subjective judgments, that there used

to be at least 350 sheep on the upper Kechika. I was there by boat last

summer to look at the area. I didn't take a sheep licence; I just went

for a holiday. We had glasses and watched some sheep and goats.

Apparently there used to be at least 350 sheep in this one area.

They're now down to 50. Very few have actually been taken by hunters.

But the wolves have moved in. On one winter expedition by members of

the fish and wildlife branch they went out by helicopter....

Interjection.

MR. BRUMMET:

Yes, I appreciate that this is not a problem to the people on the

Island and the city-dwellers. So you'd like me to stop; you'd like to

have that one version.

MR. KEMPF: Pay no attention to them.

MR. BRUMMET: I don't intend to. I think it has to be said on some occasions. I would like to get this one example across.

a game count they came across three dead sheep and a wolf trail. The

helicopter continued and found another two sheep dead immediately over

on the other side of the hill. They were dead and left there, and the

wolf track went on. They followed the wolf track over the next ridge

and found another four sheep killed and left. They went over another

hill and found a pack of wolves that had surrounded another 17 sheep.

If that helicopter hadn't scared them away, probably those other 17

sheep would have died. A herd of about 26 sheep would have been wiped

out in that one killing foray by a bunch of wolves, but that's not

important to the city dweller.

[ Page 8548 ]

Let

me tell you something else that wolves do which people don't

appreciate. Even when they don't kill, they can kill sheep through

starvation. Sheep have to come down off the rocky crags to feed,

particularly in the winter when it's cold, and that's when the wolves

move in. They prevent those sheep from coming down and eating. They

harass them keeping them up on the crags, starving, or force them to

come down and be killed. It also affects the breeding season, it

affects the young. So you have this destruction among cariboo herds,

among sheep herds and so on. The wolves are cruel and ferocious killers.

There's

only so much we can do, but I think we can do a lot to keep it under

control. I'm going to conclude by saying that enhancement and wildlife

management programs must include predator control. And it must not be a

blanket control system across the province. It must be specific, using

the knowledge of the ministry's people and the people for that

particular region. I think we can deal with it effectively without

eliminating wolves. I think we can do good management programs if we

don't try to have blanket regulations, although I know that a certain

amount of it has been done.

I think we can do a lot more

towards cooperative effort on inventory. The guides and outfitters have

a vested interest in keeping as much game in the country as possible,

and they have a legitimate interest, as do the rest of us. Perhaps the

minister might consider this one suggestion for predator control, maybe

to turn the lemon into lemonade.

The guides and outfitters

have a vested interest. They have lodges, centres of operations, out in

the wilderness, and many of them have airplanes which they can equip

with floats, wheels or skis. The best and perhaps most effective time

to control those wolves, or to get at them, might be in the wintertime,

when the rest of the season is closed. Prolong the hunting season for

the guide and outfitters. Perhaps they could ski-equip their planes and

take in hunting parties. There must be many people who would pay for

the privilege of taking home a wolf pelt, or to mount a wolf that they

shot themselves. I think there is a possible business there.

Interjection.

MR. BRUMMET: You wouldn't eat the meat, no.

I'm

not suggesting that they start shooting out of those planes; I'm

suggesting that they be allowed to spot and land in the proximity of

the wolves, and to take in hunting parties. I think that would do a

great deal to help these people with the problem that is affecting the

rest of their business.

I know it's difficult for the

minister to comment. I don't think I need to convince the minister to

any great extent about some of the real problems, because he's making a

point of finding out. But he's also influenced by a lot of city

dwellers who, through misinformation, can exert pressures against wolf

poisoning, against wolf predator control, against a variety of things —

on a lot of either poor information or misinformation. I wish some of

those people would try to find out both sides. I wish some of the

reporters in the media would try to find out what's really going on,

instead of taking the easy route.

MR. NICOLSON: The

minister's certainly been given a great deal to think about by the

previous speakers, so I'm going to give him a chance to think about it.

MRS. WALLACE:

I have several unrelated items and I will try to run through them as

quickly as possible. Perhaps if the minister takes notes we won't need

to stop after each item to deal with it.

The first question

deals with his responsibility as chairman of ELUC. I asked him in

another form in this chamber not too long ago whether or not

transcripts of ELUC hearings relative to ALR land are usually kept. He

used the term "usually." I would like him to tell me whether or not

transcripts were made relative to the Delta hearings — or what is

commonly known as Spetifore lands — the Gloucester hearings, the Wenger

property in the Columbia River area, the Moffat property at Prince

George, and also the Blaeberry property near Golden. If in fact there

were transcripts made of those various hearings, are they available?

Can I contact the minister and ask him for a copy of any specific

transcript of those hearings?

I'm sure the minister hopes I will never mention again — I

know a lot of my colleagues would join him — an item that I've raised

so many times in this Legislature: the Cowichan estuary. They may have

hoped it was a dead issue. I think maybe the estuary is getting close

to dead, Mr. Chairman, but the issue is far from dead. As recently as

this February, there was quite an

article in our local paper quoting

some of the people who have been involved in the Cowichan Estuary

Protection Society. At that time they said: "The estuary is not any

safer for fish and wildlife a year and a half after the long awaited

task force report. Nothing has changed, in spite of $250,000 the

provincial government has spent on the estuary, and nothing is likely

to change until the government begins to enforce what regulations are

in place already."

The minister received a letter prior to

that public statement, so I assume that they did not get an answer. I

received a copy of this letter, dated December 2, which pointed out the

inconsistencies in update number one on the task force report; in fact,

in one part of the report, on page 3, the mill site there was

dedicating a piece of land, and on page 4 of the appendix there is a

recommendation that dryland log storage be put in there. To the best of

my knowledge, there has been no response to that. I talked with your

representative up there who, I think, is perhaps trying to do a job.

We're just not getting government support to ensure that even the

minimal kinds of recommendations that came down in that report are

upheld. The rules and regulations are not being enforced. It's the same

old story. In spite of the task force report, we're still right where

we were years and years ago.

In that connection, I had a

complaint from some representatives of the local government who were

involved in a massive appeal case as a result of zoning. It cost them

$15,000. They then had to review the evidence and put up another

$5,000. They feel that they're being forced to use regional zoning to

carry out a provincial responsibility. Foreshore management is really a

provincial responsibility, yet they're being forced to use local zoning

for that purpose at a pretty terrific cost to local government.

Speaking

of cost, just in going through my Environment files — I know there are

a lot more — I came across two documents. One is "Protecting a

Resource: the Fraser River," a very glossy, high-class, picturesque

kind of document, and the other is "Ministry of Environment." It is a

glamorous kind of thing.

Interjection.

[ Page 8549 ]

MRS. WALLACE: That's the B.C. Spirit; I guess that's it.

think that's a fantastic cost. Is it any wonder that we're concerned

about the cost of advertising in that ministry, when we see a 90

percent increase in their advertising this time around, on top of all

this kind of stuff? I just have those two examples. I was a bit

disgusted, in a time of restraint, to come onto those two — I know

there are many more — and then to look at the figures in his budget and

see the increases in advertising costs that he's asking for this year.

want to deal with another subject briefly: acid rain. When we're

talking about something like acid rain, this is the kind of document

that the ministry puts out. It's a little four page, newsprint kind of

document, as compared to these others. It's interesting to note what

the minister says. There's no date on this, but it was obviously

sometime since mid 1981 that it was published. It mentions that they

have been doing some monitoring on acid rain: "Three of the coastal

monitoring stations — Vancouver, Port Hardy and Terrace — have

consistently registered above-average acidity levels." I'm just quoting

bits from this. "In early '81, B.C. and Manitoba joined with two other

provinces and the federal government to create a senior technical

committee which is coordinating acid-rain studies in the four western

provinces. That was March of '81. I'm wondering whether the minister

has any report back from that committee.

It goes on to say

that British Columbia has initiated computer-programming, which will be

used to summarize.... "All this new information on acid rain will

be incorporated into British Columbia's environmental planning program,

so we will be able to detect and prevent acid-rain problems before they

develop." What sort of information has been coming back, and has it

been incorporated as this thing says?

It's interesting to

note, and I agree completely with what this says, that "unless

something is done to reduce the increasing emissions of sulphur and

nitrous oxides into the atmosphere, other regions, including the west,

will eventually feel the bite of acid rain." It goes on to say that

technologies do exist and pollution controls can be placed on

smokestacks and cars, and coal can be washed, but the price tag for all

of these measures is considerable. In the current economic climate,

with increasing energy costs and belt-tightening budgets, both industry

and government are cautious when it comes to spending money. Then the

punch line is — and this is from the minister's pamphlet: "However,

experience elsewhere has shown that the cost of not taking action will

ultimately be far greater than the cost of installing adequate emission

control."

I'd just like assurance in this Legislature that

the minister still stands behind the statements made in this particular

document. Unfortunately, it doesn't have a date on it, but I'm sure the

minister will be aware of the document I'm talking about.

While

I'm talking about acid rain, I think there is another thing that we

have to look at. We may really be into some problems, with the downturn

in the forest industry, in the use of pentachlorophenol. Certainly the

IWA and the PPWC, both unions involved in using this, have mounted a

pretty big campaign expressing their concerns. I've had a lot of

concern expressed to me about the alleged burning of those dioxins in

the Alberni installation of MacMillan Bloedel. I'm particularly

concerned in my own area because the Western Forest Products dip-tank

at Honeymoon Bay is still there. It's my understanding that the

substance is now being transported to B.C. Forest Products at Youbou,

and I'm wondering what kind of safety precautions are being used in the

loading and hauling of this material. Also, what's going to happen when

they get down to the bottom of the tank and all the sludge? Are you

monitoring it, Mr. Minister? Is there anybody keeping an eye on what's

happening? There are a lot of rumours around that that may just wind up

in a lake that's used for drinking water, and I would urge the minister

to keep a very close watch on that particular thing.

The

last subject I want to talk to the minister about is the chemical

spraying that's proposed on Vancouver Island. I have been writing the

minister asking him to put a stay on both the CPR and the B.C. Hydro

permits. All I seem to get back are letters from his secretary. They

are very nice letters, but they give no assurance. This has been going

on now ever since the permits were advertised, and I still have no

assurance from the minister.

Interestingly enough, I'm told

by some of the people on the Lake Cowichan council that they have a

letter from the minister saying that he has put a stay on the CPR

spraying. It would seem that if he can find time to write to

them....

He's shaking his head. Well, this is their

understanding. I don't know how they got this. Maybe it wasn't in a

letter, but their understanding is that the minister has involved

himself in putting a stay on that spraying. I'm told that as far as

B.C. Hydro is concerned, the pesticides appeal board has in fact got

down on bended knee and pleaded with Hydro, and they have graciously

agreed not to spray until such time as the hearings are completed.

Every

year we have this same thing, Mr. Minister, and every year there's more

and more evidence that we don't know what these chemicals are or how

they react. I came on some very interesting information recently in the

federal government report of the special committee which recommended

very strongly that there be alternative types of controls. That federal

committee report went into this at some length, and in conjunction with

that.... I'm sure the minister has read the report of the Canada

Environmental Council under the leadership of Dr. Ross Hall, professor

of biochemistry at McMaster University. It's come down squarely on the

side of integrated pest management. I would certainly refer the

minister to that report, and I would point out that there has been some

very interesting information coming out very recently. I have an

article here by Douglas Foster and Mark Dowie, published in the United

States in a magazine called Mother Jones . They've done a lot of research on this, and I have some selected quotes: "What we found is

that much of the research and regulation effort aimed at ensuring us a

safer world is either fraudulent or useless."

I'm sure the

minister is aware that we do base our decisions as to the use of

certain chemicals on recommendations made by the United States. I won't

go into the IBT lab fiasco — the minister is well aware of that — but

this

article goes on and on with those kinds of approaches and details

in great length. Certainly I'd be happy to send the minister a copy of

that if he's interested in it. My point is, Mr. Chairman, that the

minister really needs to involve himself in assuring that we have more

knowledge about these chemicals before he allows the spraying to go

ahead. There is just too much uncertainty and too much new evidence

turning up year after year that points to the hazards involved in using

these chemicals. Certainly in a time of low employment opportunities it

seems to me a good time to make a start about using some

[ Page 8550 ]

manual

labour to get rid of some of these growths that are unwanted. We've

just come to spray them with chemicals as a matter of course. I think

we have to take a second look, Mr. Chairman, and I would urge the

minister to be a ringleader in that particular item.

HON. MR. ROGERS:

Mr. Chairman, if I could just talk about chemicals and agricultural

spraying for a minute as I go through my notes backwards, I have not

issued a stay for the CPR on Vancouver Island or the E&N Railroad.

There may be something else from somebody else in the ministry, but

certainly not from me. I want to tell you that I'm getting pressured by

a number of people to say that everybody who uses pesticides in the

province should have to go to the same hearing, and I wonder what your

position would be if the farmers also have to submit to the Pesticide

Control Appeal Board. The Pesticide Control Appeal Board was actually

done away with last year, but it's the Environmental Management Board

which hears both of them. I realize that's just a mistake, but we have

a double standard. If it's in the forest and if it's on the railroads

and on the Hydro rights-of-way, we submit the whole thing to an appeal,

and yet if it's on agricultural land or in private use.... The

biggest misuse happens with the private user, the agriculturalist. In

fact, the cost of the pesticides or the herbicides they're using are so

prohibitive that they're not going to waste any. But there are people,

like my dear mother, who think that if one ounce per gallon is good,

two ounces will kill them twice as dead, and this is not very good. We

work in the regulations end. There are groups that would like to see it

go both ways, so agriculturalists have to submit themselves to the same

things as Hydro and the railways.

There is a joint report

coming out on PCPs between the unions, the Ministry of Environment, the

federal Department of the Environment, and the companies. With the

passing of the Waste Management Act we can now handle those sludges

which before we couldn't designate. As soon as the act is proclaimed

and we have our regulations in place, then those sludges will be

special wastes and will have to have special treatment, which is

something we haven't had before. So the problem that you've mentioned

would, I hope, disappear.

Acid rain. That publication you

referred to was released at the joint meeting of the western Canada

Ministers of Environment in Saskatoon — I believe it was in February.

You mentioned those two brochures. We put out information bulletins and

they are undated because we hope they will be of timeless value for at

least several years. Those documents we put out are done by our own

staff people, who are pretty proud of the work they've done. We get an

enormous call for them from schools throughout the province, as a guide

to the ministry. They're a very small part of our advertising budget.

Our major costs are in putting out papers for air data, for inland

fisheries, for fishing regulations, for shellfish regulations, the snow

survey and Queen's Printer for mapping.

I appreciate there

will probably be a reduction in one of my votes, but I can tell you

about the big cost of advertising and the big cost of travel. One is

regulations and the other is travel for conservation officers' service,

which the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) has been onto me

about for years. They got a very substantial increase in their budget

this year for travel, and I am sure it will be one of the things he'll

want to roll back.

Interjection.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Yes, we certainly did give them more work to do.

The

Cowichan estuary report. I wonder sometimes why Doman gave that land,

because they gave it out of the goodness of their heart and they've had

nothing but grief for having donated it. I think Ken Lambertsen is

doing a good job. They have negotiated some land transactions; they're

also negotiating deep-water storage. If he's able to negotiate an

alternative deep-water storage site, that in itself is a major solution

to the problem. Of course, the ombudsman is also involved in this one.

It gets complicated.

On the subject of appeals to the

agricultural land reserve, there are two methods of appeal; one is an

individual method and the other is a method by regional district. Where

a regional district is involved, no record is kept, but where there is

an individual involved, there is a record. I've gone through these; I

didn't sit on the Moffat one; I understand it was an individual one.

The Blaeberry one was a regional district appeal. I think the

Gloucester one was a regional district appeal; I can't remember. I

could tell you, but that's approximately the breakdown of them.

MR. WALLACE: Are they available?

HON. MR. ROGERS: No, they're not available. They are considered records of the committee and are not released, but we do keep that transcript.

MRS. WALLACE:

Relative to spraying on agricultural land, the minister has made a

point and I do have a concern about that. I have raised many times in

this House the need for further research and development so we don't

leave the farmers out on a limb, if and when the time comes that there

is a need to do away with some of those chemicals used in agriculture.

I just wanted to clarify my position on that.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker 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 12:35 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1982,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada