1985 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 33rd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, MAY 9, 1985

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

6017 ]

CONTENTS

Oral Questions

Northeast coal. Mr. Williams –– 6017

Mr. Lea

Mr. Stupich

Manning Park sale. Mr. Mitchell –– 6018

Bank of B.C. loan policy. Mr. Macdonald –– 6018

British Columbia Transit Amendment Act, 1985 (Bill 17). Second reading

Mr. Cocke –– 6019

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 6020

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

On vote 26: minister's office –– 6020

Hon. Mr. Pelton

Mrs. Wallace

Mr. Kempf

Mr. Lea

Mr. Davis

Mr. Rose

Mr. Lockstead

Mr. Cocke

Mr. Mitchell

THURSDAY, MAY 9, 1985

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

MR. HOWARD: I'd like the House to join me in welcoming to the

precincts Mr. Tom Niemann and Mr. Rob Kyle, representing the public

affairs committee of the Association of B.C. Professional Foresters;

Prof. Reed of the faculty of forestry of the University of British

Columbia; and Mr. Gerry Burch, vice-president of timberlands and

forestry for B.C. Forest Products Ltd. They appeared at a hearing this

morning with the resources committee of the New Democratic Party to

talk about forestry and silviculture. I'd like the House to join me in

welcoming them.

I would also draw to the attention of hon. members that on their

desks they will find a notation that says: "Please plant this seedling

to demonstrate your commitment to future generations." The original

hope was that there would be a seedling on each member's desk, but the

size of the seedling didn't permit that to be acceptable to Your

Honour. So the seedlings, courtesy of the New Democratic Party, were

delivered to hon. members' offices. Here is one to display to you what

it looks like. Please, to demonstrate your commitment to future

generations, go out and plant this where it'll do some good.

MR. REID: We thank the NDP for their commitment to the future growth of the province.

I stand to ask the House to give special welcome to some very

special friends of mine that are in the House today. They are formerly

from Surrey, but they've taken up residence in Victoria: Mr. Carey Gray

and his wife.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Mr. Speaker, from Chilliwack and Mount

Cheam Christian School are some junior secondary students who are here

with their teacher, Mr. Adrian Stoutjesdyk, and I would like you to

make them welcome.

Oral Questions

NORTHEAST COAL

MR. WILLIAMS: I have a question to the Premier with respect

to northeast coal and the Quintette mine at Tumbler Ridge. Financial

journals have indicated that the cost of having the hole in the wrong

place and relocating the mine will be $300 million; the Minister of

International Trade and Investment (Hon. Mr. Phillips) indicates that

he believes the number is more like $100 million to relocate the hole.

Can the Premier give us the definitive answer on the cost of relocating

the hole?

HON. MR. BENNETT: No, Mr. Speaker. It's not a question for

the government to locate new mining sites. That's a private sector

matter for the consortium and company that is conducting mining

operations in that area.

MR. WILLIAMS: In view of the province itself investing $700

million in infrastructure and other things for the project, is this not

a direct concern of the government?

HON. MR. BENNETT: The government is collecting all of the costs in freight

and taxes, and is confident that this company — that project — will continue

to be a mining operation and therefore doesn't jeopardize the infrastructure

that is there. The trains will keep running, the ports will still load coal

and the community will grow and flourish. The mining company has a problem of

geology and they can solve it. That's why I've mentioned before in this

Legislature that it's a good place for the private sector to take the risk.

Thank goodness it wasn't the government practising socialism, putting in

mines and forest companies. They take the risk, they solve their problems, but

right now I'm assured that all the extra taxes and surcharges are being

paid, and are up to date.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the former senior provincial

geologist for British Columbia warned early, before all these funds

were expended, that the hole was going to be in the wrong place. He

says, however, that he had no clout. Can the Premier advise us what

kind of planning process was involved in this $3 billion project which

would allow the government to ignore their chief geologist?

HON. MR. BENNETT: First of all, Mr. Speaker, the government

doesn't make the final mine site and mining operation decision. That's

a decision made by the mining companies under the rules and regulations

under which they're allowed to conduct mining operations, based on

advice from many geologists, many technical experts. What you have is a

consortium of companies that are involved in international mining, and

international financiers who also had to be satisfied. Obviously, when

the Quintette company came to its conclusions on its mining program, it

was with concurrence and under all the advice that they received. As I

say, that decision is theirs, as long as they meet all the criteria of

the provincial rules and regulations and the steps they go through

under which mining is allowed.

It's easy for people to look with hindsight when a project has

problems. I'm confident they'll resolve it. I'm confident that the

mining operations will continue. I'm confident that over time

additional coal deposits that are there in the northeast will come into

production. They'll provide jobs for people. They'll provide jobs on

the railway. They'll provide jobs for the hydro and in the port,

they'll provide income, needed foreign earnings into our country, and I

have every confidence they can be resolved. The problems of the company

may have some risk and additional financial problems for their equity

shareholders, but the government in its infrastructure is not at risk.

We're continuing to be paid all of the charges and all of the

surcharges that were levied on that project.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, this is a $3 billion project. How

could we have a process of approval on the biggest undertaking in the

history of British Columbia and ignore the critical factor of our own

chief geologist? Has this incredible billion-dollar blunder been

corrected? Are geologists now part of the project approval process,

unlike in the past?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Again, so many were involved in the

planning, and the private sector in mining was dealing with matters of

geology and test holes and drilling and technical advice. I just say

that they have a problem of geology. There are two mines operating in

that area. There's no problem with the Bullmoose mine. There's a

problem at the pit, and the opportunity to move to the third stage —

which wasn't coming on until 1990 — presents itself as a way of

[ Page 6018 ]

meeting contractual tonnage. That means the company

will have to raise additional cash or find ways internally or with

their financiers to finance it.

MR. WILLIAMS: The question was: after learning this, has the

government changed its method of dealing with questions like that? Mr.

Matheson, another government geologist, said: "We were not part of the

government's project approval process." Has the government's project

approval process changed?

[2:15]

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, because the project

coordination was in the hands of the Ministry of Industry and Small

Business Development, I'll take that question as notice, to find

additional ways in which they evaluate and coordinate projects. It's a

legitimate question to ask; therefore I will undertake either to have

the minister bring back the answer or to bring it back myself.

MR. LEA: To the Premier, as a supplementary. It's my

understanding that principals from Quintette were in Victoria last week

meeting with government to discuss some of the problems they're having

with their present operation. As I understand it, they have two

choices: they can either work in the same pit, by going underground, or

move their pit to another location. In either case there are great

additional costs to the project. My understanding is that when they

came to Victoria, they came down to ask the government to help them

resolve this problem in some way. Could the Premier indicate to the

House what sort of help they asked for?

HON. MR. BENNETT: No, Mr. Speaker. I did not meet with Quintette officials last week.

MR. LEA: Did anyone else in the Premier's government that he is aware of meet with them last week?

HON. MR. BENNETT: It is highly likely that they are probably

going to be conducting a lot of meetings and talking about how to

resolve a problem that's important to the province. If you're asking

whether there is a proposal before government that is asking for

anything beyond the normal government services, there is no proposal; I

would see it if it went to committee or to cabinet. The answer is: no

such proposal has ever come before either the cabinet committee or the

cabinet.

MR. LEA: One final supplementary. If Quintette were to ask

the government to back them on a loan — in other words, a co-signing of

a loan, guaranteeing of a loan, government backing on a loan — has the

government considered whether that would be one of the options that

they would approve?

MR. SPEAKER: It's a supposition question, hon. member.

MR. LEA: If the government had considered it, that would be one of the options that they would consider.

HON. MR. BENNETT: If you're saying "had considered," your

question is in order. If you say "would consider, " your question is

out of order. If you said "had considered," the answer is no.

MR. STUPICH: The Premier tells us that he has been reassured

that the government is collecting the various royalties and taxes from

the companies involved. I've had a question on the order paper about

that for two weeks. I wonder how recently the Premier has been

reassured that the Crown is collecting everything due the Crown.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I'll tell you what I'll do. I'll make an

inquiry this afternoon, and report to you the exact date and time I get

the answer. But then, again, I hope you wouldn't want daily reports.

MANNING PARK SALE

MR. MITCHELL: A question to the Minister of Lands, Parks and

Housing. On Thursday, May 2, the minister stated that he was unable to

recall the details of a contract whereby assets of Manning Park, which

had cost the government $20 million, had been sold for $500,000 –– I

ask the minister again: has the $500,000 contract price been paid to

the government as of this date?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I expect I'll have that answer for the member fairly soon.

BANK OF B.C. LOAN POLICY

MR. MACDONALD: I've got a question for the Premier of British

Columbia about the Bank of British Columbia — which was begotten of

your father and is a major institution. I ask the Premier whether he

was consulted or informed — either one of them — about the appointment

of Edgar Kaiser as the chairman prior to that appointment.

HON. MR. BENNETT: No, I was not consulted as to having a veto

or my opinion making any difference as to who is chosen president of

the Bank of British Columbia, which is a private sector bank and not a

public institution. That just happens to be the way it is. I became

aware of the appointment of Mr. Kaiser as the president, and have been

aware of it.... He's very much in the news with the activities he

appears to be undertaking on behalf of the bank.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I take it that the Premier was informed prior to the.... I may be wrong, but I took that from your answer.

In view of the fact that Mr. Kaiser says this bank is to assist in

the recovery of businesses in western Canada, is the government making

any representations to the bank now that, having raised close to $150

million at $6 a share through public and private placements from the

residents of this province, it is advancing a line of credit — which

was to be $100 million; it has been cut back to $70 million — to a

syndicate of pirates and parasites, headed by T. Boone Pickens, to take

over Union Oil Co. of California. Has the government no interest in

that, that our savings are going to be used to support greenmailers or

takeover artists or both?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Does the member have savings in the bank? Oh, you don't have savings in the bank.

Mr. Speaker, while we're government the government of British

Columbia is never going to start interfering and telling banks in the

private sector how to operate. They operate

[ Page

6019 ]

under the federal Bank Act. They operate under the rules and regulations. In the case of....

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT: We've heard your story on banks.

Most of the leading banks have international operations in which

they operate both within the country and out, for the benefit of their

shareholders and for financial strength. I'm not going to start

commenting on the activities of every bank, nor would I use this

chamber as a means of slandering people by calling them names. I may

not approve of transactions taken in the private sector, but I'm not

going to come into this House and use this forum and its immunity to

make personal references or supply adjectives to people involved in

transactions by those sorts of terms. I don't think that's the forum. I

think the forum here in question period is for government business. But

if the government is running so well that you have no questions about

ours, I'm quite prepared to listen to your questions dealing with the

private sector, which we've been dealing with.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Might I have leave to make an introduction, Mr. Speaker?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Visiting us today from our great

neighbouring province of Alberta is Mrs. Margaret Ranson Leland, a

member of the Alberta government's cabinet secretariat. Welcome to

Victoria and to B.C.

I call adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 17,

BRITISH COLUMBIA TRANSIT

AMENDMENT ACT, 1985

(continued)

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, we would be very interested in some

answers on this entire borrowing bill that we're discussing at the

present time. I note that the minister responsible for the bill isn't

even here to close debate on second reading.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where is he?

MR. COCKE: Who knows where he is? He's probably flying off to

Tokyo to borrow some more money. But whatever he's doing, he's not here

to answer the questions that we're asking in second reading about this

bill.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

He's asking us, as legislators in this House, to provide him with a borrowing

power of an additional $600 million for ALRT in the city of Vancouver. I just

think that we're frustrated over this whole question. We're told on

one hand that it's not going to require the additional $600 million, from

the highly erudite member from North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis), that engineer

of great renown, who wrecked the fisheries in this province as one of his last

acts for the federal government, and he says that by 1990 we're going to

be laughing, we're going to have a free ride on the ALRT. Those were his

words, my colleague: "By the 1990s we're going to be laughing."

We're not laughing right now.

This is a billion and a half of borrowing that deserves at least

ministerial attention to the fact that we require some answers. I

assume, unless a number of my colleagues are going to go on with this

debate, that we're going to have to wait for those answers and, as we

usually do, Mr. Speaker, we'll get the kind of answers that are vague.

We'll go back to our constituency and we'll say to our constituents:

"Well, they asked us to give them borrowing power, but we can't quite

tell you what it's all about." All they know is that they got us into a

very, very expensive, narrow transit proposition that so far will only

serve a narrow band of people from New Westminster to Vancouver city ––

I see very little park-and-ride anywhere adjacent to that light rapid

transit, very little of it indeed. As a matter of fact, the real estate

around it is selling like hotcakes to the extent that it's so highly

valued that you can't make parking lots out of it. Mr. Speaker, I would

agree that now that we're into it to this extent, it should be extended

to Surrey and to Coquitlam. Hopefully when it is, there is going to be

some park-and-ride there.

But we would just love to have some answers. Now I recognize that

the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) doesn't have those answers.

His colleagues come to him and ask for money out of the treasury, and

they have difficulty getting it. But when they come to him and ask him

to provide a borrowing bill, then they get it. We've been watching the

borrowing bills for B.C. Hydro go through this House over the years. I

can remember that those borrowing bills were always opposed by that

good-looking member from Point Grey, the Minister of Intergovernmental

Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom).

MRS. DAILLY: Where is he?

MR. COCKE: Where is he now? He's borrowing us right into the ground, Mr. Speaker.

We have per capita debt in this province, if you include the debt of

Crown corporations, that makes the Liberal federal government which

sunk us into deficit after deficit look good. So, Mr. Speaker, we would

love some answers. We would just like to know what this extravagant

government is going to do with another $600 million of borrowing.

We also would like to know who's going to pay for it. We heard the

member for North Vancouver– Seymour (Mr. Davis) this morning — the poor

guy who didn't qualify for parliamentary secretary — say: "Well, it's

not going to cost any more than $800 million to bring it to where it is

now. And you've got $900 million of borrowing at the present time. So

what's this all about? Some answers, Mr. Speaker, is all we would like

to hear.

This extravagant.... They shovel money away from their cabinet room like it was going out of style. We would like some answers.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs says he's going to give us some answers. Be specific.

Interjection.

[ Page 6020 ]

MR. COCKE: I'm just waiting for your estimates. I've got a couple of examples for you that you should just hide your head in shame about.

Mr. Speaker, can we have a few answers to this very, very

frustrating problem that we face? We want to know why this government

is asking us for another $600 million.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I would get finished with this speech

if the member for Boundary-Similkameen, the Minister of Interwhatever —

no; Consumer and Corporate Affairs — would either take his place in the

debate or just keep shush until such time as I'm finished.

[2:30]

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that a commitment or…?

MR. COCKE: That's a commitment.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, would all members direct their comments through the Chair.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I'm surprised that the government

would reintroduce the bill this afternoon when the minister carrying it

isn't even here to answer our questions.

When he opened debate on this bill, he didn't specify where the

money was going. It's irresponsible for us to let this bill go without

hearing at least that. So, Mr. Speaker, we're going to be sitting here

with interest to find out who's going to tell us what's happening.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs to close debate.

HON. MR. GARDOM: A great deal of interesting things are

happening, Mr. Member. I do know that you will require the fullest of

details, which you shall receive from my colleague the hon. Minister of

Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) when he returns to the assembly. That being

the case, I now move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting

of the House.

Motion approved.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT

On vote 26: minister's office, $169,073.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

HON. MR. PELTON: Hon. members, it gives me a great deal of

pleasure this afternoon to be introducing the estimates of the Ministry

of Environment. I would like to preface my remarks by expressing my

appreciation to my predecessor, who, during the past two years, has

done a most commendable job in this portfolio.

When I assumed the office just two months ago, I was fully aware of the great

responsibility that goes with that particular portfolio, and I know that each

of you shares my concern for the wise management of the wealth of resources

which are the mainstay of this very unique and beautiful province. In today's

world, environmental matters have the deep interest of all British Columbians,

and managing them is a very complex and demanding task. The greatest challenge

will be to balance the preservation and conservation issues with the economic

development programs in such a fashion as to ensure the best quality of life

for all of our citizens.

All of us here in this House share a common interest, not only in

the enhancement of our vast natural resources but in making this

province the most productive and economically viable province in

Canada. I'm convinced that by working together we can accomplish that

goal. Certainly this will be my main objective as the minister

responsible for the direction of this province's environmental policy.

Our mandate deals not only with preserving a quality environment for

plants and animals, but includes the preservation of these resources

for people — today's citizens and those future generations that will

take our place. It is my intention to maintain the high standards

established by my predecessors and to encourage new initiatives in

those areas where improvements have been identified as needed.

During the past few weeks I have personally visited many of the

700-plus employees who work in the ministry in the Victoria area. From

having met these people, I can assure you that our environmental

standards are in excellent hands. The staff are professional, dedicated

and efficient, and the people of British Columbia are indeed well

served by ministry staff. It is my intention to visit other areas of

the province as well, and I am sure that I will find our regional staff

equally committed to preserving a quality environment.

As this House knows, environmental management involves a large

number of activities, many of which are interrelated. The ministry acts

in concert with other provincial and federal government agencies in

carrying out many of its tasks. Our management strategies of the future

will reflect the growing dependence of one resource upon the other, and

our decisions will image the government's intentions to protect this

inheritance of a rich and diverse natural environment in order that it

may be passed on to future generations of British Columbians.

However, environmental management must also be accommodating.

Shorter-term decisions will have to be made from time to time for the

advantage of specific economic or social policies, but the philosophy

of the ministry is that longer-term goals must guide our

decision-making process. Our activities are regularly evaluated. They

will always be subject to some change over time. However, our goals

will be selected on the basis of their environmental, economic and

social impact, and on the issues that have a high degree of public

concern. The public is becoming more knowledgeable about environmental

issues and expects an increasing input to ministry policies and

decisions. I am pleased to report to this House today that my

ministry's estimates include a number of initiatives that will reflect

maintained or improved environmental quality. These programs will

have a spinoff effect on our valuable tourist industry by maintaining

or enhancing our air and water quality.

Diking construction programs will provide job opportunities by

improving our ability to reduce the impact of environmental emergencies.

Mr. Chairman, as you will recall, the province recently entered into

a formal fisheries agreement with the federal government. This

first-ever general agreement will facilitate better-integrated resource

management of this very valuable

[ Page

6021 ]

resource. The agreement will ensure that programs achieve maximum public benefits and avoid duplication of effort.

I would like to say a few words about provincial fisheries. It is

expected that this year British Columbia's fisheries resource will have

a value in excess of $1 billion. Our freshwater fishery alone will host

over 425,000 anglers. Many will be tourists visiting the province

because of the many recreational opportunities. I am pleased to report

to this assembly that these estimates include additional funds to

increase fish production in fish hatcheries beyond current levels.

As I have already indicated, I will continue to actively cooperate

with the federal government to maintain the salmonid enhancement

program to rehabilitate the salmon and sea-running trout of British

Columbia.

Mariculture in British Columbia is in a formative stage, even though

the industry has been in existence since the 1920s. New technology and

product demand indicate substantial growth is possible over the next

few years. We will take full advantage of the current interest in

commercial fish farming. We will assess our ability to accommodate an

environmentally safe industry that will provide many additional job

opportunities. This will call for a combined effort by several

ministries. Agriculture and Food will take the lead role in making

available to the mariculture industry the assistance programs and

marketing advice it now provides to the agriculture industry; Industry

and Small Business Development will provide a range of programs for

small business; and the Environment ministry will offer technical

expertise through its fishery program and its joint programs with the

federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

During my visit to the ministry's water management department I was

impressed with the array of programs this government supports to ensure

quality water to the many users of this very abundant resource. From

the allocation of water for hydro development to maintaining water

supplies for the small farmer, from conserving water supplies in water

short areas to protecting communities from the ravages of floods, these

programs are fundamental to the social and economic well-being of the

province.

I am pleased to report that in addition to maintaining our water

management program, these estimates include an additional $4 million

that will provide employment opportunities in meeting diking needs in

many areas of the province.

In collaboration with the federal government, the ministry will

continue to establish a network of surface water quality

trend-monitoring stations throughout the province. This will ensure the

early detection of any significant trends in water quality in order to

prevent detrimental changes.

The wildlife program this year will again receive the support of

this government. The ministry will continue to assess and exercise, as

required, controls over land use and vegetation change in order to

protect wildlife habitat. This province contains the greatest diversity

of wildlife species in the western countries, and the protection and

management of wildlife will remain a high priority.

I would now like to take a moment to address the reorganization of the conservation

officers' service. In order to place greater emphasis on field operations

rather than office administration, the ministry has concentrated officers in

multi-manned offices. This has created major physical moves away from single-office

areas. Communities have severely criticized this initiative and have expressed

disappointment at the loss of their conservation officers. However, records

to date indicate that there has been a 65 percent increase in the number of

sportsmen checked. Further, I am pleased to note that the compliance rate for

hunters was 82 percent and for fishermen 94 percent. We are actively reviewing

our new conservation officer procedures, and welcome new initiatives from the

public to assist us in controlling wildlife violations,

[2:45]

Now I would like to touch just very briefly on the habitat

conservation fund. Since 1981, when the fund was started, more than

$3.8 million has been spent to finance various habitat enhancement

projects in all regions of our province. This year a further budget of

$1.8 million is to be spent on approximately 80 projects. As you may

know, this fund is financed by the fishermen and hunters of this

province, who have gladly contributed an extra $3, a surcharge, to

their licences to support the purposes of the fund. Revenue from these

surcharges in 1984-85 was about $1.4 million.

The air quality in our province is generally very good. Recently we

have found slight increases in air pollution in the lower mainland and

southern sections of Vancouver Island. The ministry staff have

identified automobile exhaust as a major contributor to air pollution

in heavily populated areas. The ministry has taken a leadership role in

identifying solutions available which will address this air pollution

problem. Federal pollution regulations on automobile exhaust emission

will help greatly in reducing this problem.

Any discussion of the environment would be incomplete without

mention of the control and management of pollutants and wastes both

under controlled situations by permit and regulation and during

emergencies. Several programs have been undertaken to reduce the

potential for environmental emergencies under the Waste Management Act.

The ministry has commenced a program requiring spill prevention

improvements and spill contingency planning from industrial operations.

The ministry maintains a 24-hour spill-reporting system and is

coordinating response planning between the various levels of government

— municipal, provincial and federal.

Our provincial emergency teams performed in an exemplary manner in

solving the disaster problems of the people in the Pemberton area

during the last major flood. I would like to emphasize that the mandate

of my ministry allows only for assistance in the form of emergency

accommodation and reimbursement for those items essential to relieve

hardship. When hazardous waste emergencies occur, we have the power to

act under the Environment Management Act. Our staff are trained to

respond promptly and effectively.

We, as well as other jurisdictions across the continent, are

wrestling with the problem of the disposal of special and hazardous

wastes. While our initial efforts have not yet led to a solution, I can

assure you that discussions continue with industry and interested

groups. A major concern is the option for recycling and the reuse of

waste available to smaller operations. To assist in seeking solutions

to this problem, we are sponsoring technology transfer seminars in

cooperation with a coalition of concerned groups, professional

associations and industry.

My ministry maintains a vigorous and closely supervised inspection

service regarding pesticides, The issuance of pesticide use permits is

very stringently controlled from the Victoria office. There is, of

course, an Environmental Appeal Board which has the task of examining

any complaints against not only pesticide applications but also

wildlife, waste and water management matters.

[ Page 6022 ]

Dealing with the lower mainland's solid waste disposal problem is an

indication of the ministry's intention to encourage the development of

waste management plan strategies for the province. These plans are

designed and are to be developed by local jurisdictions for handling

refuse, sewage and other wastes. Under this type of planning, a local

government may seek to authorize waste discharges by means of such a

plan instead of having to apply for permits. My ministry is working in

close cooperation with a number of cities and municipalities that have

made considerable progress in developing waste management plans, and I

speak of solid waste.

It is difficult, and I suppose premature, to speculate on where

future environmental problems lie. However, in air pollution we are

clearly focusing on the lower mainland and in particular addressing the

high ozone levels and acid precipitation problems. In waste management,

the disposal of the final products of society to land and water is a

continuing problem made more difficult by the introduction of complex

chemicals. In wildlife, we must very carefully review our controls and

hunting regulations to ensure a viable balance for the future. In

fisheries, we wish to increase the freshwater sport-fishing

opportunities; I made special mention of this earlier in my address. We

will also be working with our federal counterparts in bringing back the

salmon to historic levels and encouraging the development of our

mariculture potential. In water, we must protect this most valuable

resource to ensure future supplies, maintaining high quality for human

consumption, fishery and recreational needs. Above all, we must protect

the habitat to maintain a diversity of wildlife for present and future

generations.

The challenges will be many, and I look forward to overseeing the

programs and directions taken by the ministry. I'm convinced that

carefully researched and sound management practices not only will offer

an extensive support base for our province's outstanding natural

resources but will ensure their ongoing availability.

Mr. Chairman, I'd be pleased to receive questions from those members opposite, or any of my colleagues.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, certainly I commend the new

minister for making all the right sounds. He has managed to touch

briefly on all the various facets of his ministry. Having been there

only two months, I don't know whether that indicates that he has been

able to grasp the whole concept of his ministry in those two short

months, or just that he is able to read a report very well and sound

very persuasive in his manner of reading it.

I'm not going to draw the attention of the Chair to the number of

people in this Legislature, but when we are discussing an item as

important and critical as the environment, it indicates to me the need

to utilize our new rules and to delegate certain estimates to

committees, where the people who are interested in that subject can

deal with it, can call witnesses, can do a job on that particular

estimate, and even have some input which might change the figures. That

is a possibility. In this House it is not a possibility. People sit

here and read their books, and come in here because we need a certain

number of bodies; but there isn't that input and cooperative spirit

that we've been talking about in this Legislature. I think this is an

outstanding example of a time when we should be in a standing committee

rather than in Committee of the Whole.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, your comments may be sincere, but would you please address yourself to the minister's estimates?

MRS. WALLACE: That was just an opening remark, Mr. Chairman.

In the spirit of what this House is all about and the obvious accord

from both sides of the House — which are here in equal numbers,

incidentally — I think that is a pertinent remark.

Dealing with the minister's statement, I remember that when he was

first appointed to the role he made the statement: "Environment is for

everyone." I agree; environment is for everyone. But everyone is part

of the environment as well. Each one of us is part of that environment.

If we are going to have pure water, clean air, productive land — the

three basic essentials of a good environment; I think the minister

would agree with that — we as the people who are part of that

environment have to ensure that that happens. We may all agree that it

should be that way. The minister certainly touched on all those facets

in his remarks, and many other things; but unless we are prepared to

take the necessary action, to bite the bullet, it's not going to happen.

He talked about long-term goals. I couldn't agree more. But in my

recollection, everything that has happened in environment in this

province for the last ten years since I have been here has been a case

of putting out fires. It's a case of cure rather than prevention. We

really haven't made the concerted effort to take that whole global

problem.... It is a major thing. It encompasses every ministry in this

House. Every single minister who sits in the cabinet contributes in

some way to the environment. All of us who sit on the back bench and in

the opposition are part of that environment. Without that kind of

all-encompassing perspective and a commitment to reach that goal to

protect our clean water, our pure air and our productive land, that

whole environmental concern falls into ashes. I don't see that

commitment. I know that the minister is sincere, he is committed, but I

don't see that kind of overall concept from this government.

I think time is running out. I would like to quote very briefly from

a federal report that was brought in in January of this year, dealing

with fisheries and forestry:

"A lot of the effects of environmental pollution are geometric. Very

quickly you can reach a kind of a threshold where all of a sudden you

have a dangerous situation, where a very short time ago you did not. If

we could all just imagine for a minute a lily pond of such a size that

it would take 28 days to cover it with lily pads, starting out with two

lily pads, then 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, et cetera. On the 27th day you would

have half the lily pond left."

You might be in the position of having

an argument with somebody about how urgent the situation is. Someone

would be saying: "We have half the pond left; why make such a big deal

of it?" But of course, the minister is aware that the next day it's

covered.

That's my concern about environmental issues. I think we are

reaching the point of no return with some of our concerns and problems,

some of the issues. If we do not take that global overall perspective

now I think we're going to reach that point of no return, where neither

the minister nor 1, nor any of us who are deeply concerned about this,

are going to be able to recover. If we are, it's going to be extremely

costly.

When anyone says to me, Mr. Chairman, that we cannot afford to do this or that relative to the environment, I say to

[ Page

6023 ]

them we cannot afford not to. In the long haul, the economically and

ecologically based solution is the cheapest solution. It's the most

economical route to go.

On that note, I want to turn to some specifics. I'm sure the

minister is quite aware of what the first one is going to be. That poor

little minister, you know, he's up to his armpits in garbage, and he's

just about to go under for the third time. What are we doing? He said

in his speech that we were looking at water and landfill for our sewage

and our solid wastes. That's all we ever seem to think about. Sometimes

we get as far as thinking about burning it. We've even come to the

point where we're talking about putting that incinerator in Vancouver

or Burnaby, or wherever it is, alongside an industrial plant where we

can use some of the heat.

Well, maybe it's a start, but there's a long way to go, and we have

missed the boat. We should have learned from the experience in Love

Canal. We should have learned from the experiences in the disposal of

waste in the United States that there is a better way and a cheaper way

to go. The cost of cleaning up — just the economic cost, never mind the

personal cost in sickness, in lives, in suffering, as a result of

wrongful disposal of garbage and wrongful disposition of sewage — is

horrendous. In fact what we're looking at is a source of income.

[3:00]

We can talk about general garbage disposal as opposed to and

different from hazardous wastes, but the minister indicated that he has

become aware, as I have, that in our everyday garbage there is a

tremendous amount of hazardous waste. We get all panic stricken when a

truck with three transformers is leaking PCBs in Ontario. Why in the

world we're transporting PCBs from Ontario to Alberta just to store

them doesn't make any sense. There are means of destruction, but we

aren't prepared to put up the bucks.

In the long term, we may find that just in that one instance, with

those PCB spills in Ontario, we are faced with a lot higher costs over

the long term — and the minister is talking about long-term goals —

than we would be to get our own system of disposal.

[Mr. Kempf in the chair.]

Mr. Chairman. the proposed dumps relative to the greater Vancouver

area have certainly caused this minister some problems. I was

disappointed at his reaction. It seems that if you can get enough names

on a petition, you change your decision, and that's what happened in

the case of the Langley dumps. But what's he going to do, Mr. Chairman,

when the people who live in Delta can come up with three times as many

names on a petition to get out of Burns Bog? Maybe he can't get as many

names on a petition if the committee decides to put it at Pitt Meadows,

right in his own back yard. What that minister has to decide is whether

he is just going to willy-nilly try to accommodate everybody, and I

know he's a very nice man and likes to accommodate everybody. But if

he's going to do that, he's got to get tough with treasury board and

with local governments and say: "Look, we're prepared to assist you in

putting in the kind of a plant. We'll put up the upfront money to put

in the kind of operation that will enable you to reap some benefit from

this garbage, rather than to have the expense of getting rid of it."

I want to deal with some of the things that have happened in other

jurisdictions relative to garbage disposal. I am moving a little bit

into hazardous wastes, but the two go hand in hand really. You know, if

we have PCBs spilled all over the highway we get concerned. but if you

take the dry batteries, the dry cells, out of your flashlight and throw

them into the garbage, you don't think about the fact that there's

mercury in those. If you take an empty hair-spray can and put it in the

garbage, you don't think about the fact that you're putting a hazardous

waste into that garbage. If you take a paint thinner can or a cleaning

fluid container and put it in the garbage, you don't realize you're

putting hydrocarbons into your everyday garbage; but that's what you're

doing. Sure, each one is very insignificant, but are there any safe

limits? When you put a million families together, you could be getting

a tremendous amount of heavy metals, hydrocarbons and other chemicals

that are without a doubt in a hazardous class. So the two have to go

hand in hand.

What has happened is that there are areas, particularly where the

hazardous waste disposal has come to a head.... There have been

terrific pollution and health problems in the United States, where

local governments have taken over and have found that by putting in the

proper facilities to take out the heavy metals, to take out the

hazardous item, to recycle the paper.... There's one, I think it's in

New York, where they call it their fifth forest. They get hundreds of

tonnes of newsprint from their garbage, because paper makes up about 50

percent of the garbage thrown out by the average family.

Sludge. One of the biggest problems that we have is in taking sludge

out of rivers and so on. It has been utilized to make oil, to provide

energy. There are all kinds of examples of how this has been done.

Hampstead, New York, is one of the most outstanding areas, where

they're making, I think,100,000 kilowatt-hours of electricity. They can

produce from the garbage of a city of a given size enough to produce

something like 15 percent of that area's electrical requirements. Sure,

it's costly to get into, but that upfront money is important.

Your colleague the Minister of Energy (Hon. Mr. Rogers), jointly

with Victoria, did a study a few years ago on waste disposal here in

Victoria. The report that came out from the Minister of Energy was....

I can't recall all the figures. The gist of it was that in fact the

installation of that cogeneration plant.... The capital cost of that,

coupled with the cost of disposal of the garbage as it is at the

present time, or offset by that.... It could recoup its capital cost in

ten years. In ten years we could have recouped the cost of putting in

such an operation here in the Capital Regional District. What did they

decide to do? To go back for more studies, and it just died. That was

an effective way of killing it. It's never happened.

There's always an excuse: "Well, it won't work; it's too costly" —

all those kinds of things. In fact, the situation is that in other

jurisdictions it is working.

There is a wet system, so-called, and there is a dry system, which

have been reasonably perfected in Europe and in the United States —

basically in Europe. You can segregate the hazardous products. You can

take out those heavy metals. You can sell them; you can recoup a great

deal of economic return. Holland is an example where they have reduced

the net cost of their garbage disposal because of the economic return

they get from that garbage, even though it does cost them more to treat

it and to sort it, and so on. It is being done in other jurisdictions:

it's being done in Japan, China, Europe and the United States. It's

being done in Ontario, to a fair degree, and even in Nova Scotia. The

only

[ Page 6024 ]

example here is one that my colleague the member for Okanagan North

(Mr. MacWilliam) has raised on many occasions, where it's being done in

Vernon. A start has been made to utilize the sewage in that instance.

It's all part and parcel of the same thing. If we don't take that

step now, we're going to have to face up to this problem: the NIMBY

attitude, Not in My Back Yard. Why shouldn't we take that position? Why

should Langley have a dump for Vancouver's waste? Why should we put it

up in the interior somewhere, or try to put it down a tunnel on Texada

Island? It's the problem of the generator.

I think the province and that minister are responsible for ensuring

that the technologies are perused and studied — and they are there —

and adapted to our own situation here. Goodness knows we need jobs and

construction in this province. We have that great pool of skilled

labour — engineers and technicians — available. What better time than

now to start doing some of these things, to start getting those plants

built, getting the facilities in place, and start utilizing that waste

product, instead of always winding up with this problem of what are we

going to do with it. Whose backyard are we going to dump it in? It's

not fair to the people whose backyard you're dumping it in, and it's

not fair to our economy. It certainly isn't fair to the environment.

With that, perhaps the minister would like to comment.

HON. MR. PELTON: I thank the hon. member for her remarks.

She's very well versed in these matters that involve the environment.

Certainly her opening remarks.... I listened very carefully to what she

had to say. By and large there were many things she said that I would

agree wholeheartedly with.

There didn't seem to be any specific questions that were brought

forward by the hon. member, but perhaps I might be allowed to respond

in a similar vein and just talk about the various things that were

mentioned. The ongoing planning — the planning process — is in effect

within the ministry. It might not appear that way to the hon. member,

but it certainly is, particularly in the matter of water quality. We

have criteria and objectives which are being prepared which will take

us a long way into the future.

At this point in time we have six reports which have been completed

in this regard. They cover water quality criteria for what we refer to

as "particulate matter" and water quality objectives for five water

bodies, including the Pouce Coupe River, the Pine River, Charlie Lake

in the Peace River area, the Columbia and Windermere Lakes in the East

Kootenays, and four recreational lakes in the Smithers area. We have

eight other documents on water quality criteria, and 20 on water

quality objectives are currently in preparation. So I think one would

have to agree that although we haven't yet reached that point where we

have all the bases covered, we are well are on the way, particularly in

the matter of water quality.

The matter of wastes.... Perhaps I could deal with them briefly one

at a time. Sewage effluent, which has been a problem for many years and

continues to be one.... I guess it's been exacerbated because of the

trace elements and other minerals, and items difficult to dispose of by

primary, secondary and tertiary treatment that get into this effluent

and cause a great deal of problems.

The hon. member did make particular mention of Vernon. The system

which they employ up there, to my knowledge, works quite well and has

worked quite well for a long time. But there have been other factors

which have come into play that have caused them their major problem in

that area. I don't think it's the method that's being employed. For

example, one of the problems they've had with the particular method

that they use is that the land area that they had to dispose the

treated effluent onto has not been large enough to accommodate the

amount of effluent that they have to get rid of, and they find the

acquisition of larger parcels of land for the same purpose very

difficult to achieve.

Also, there have been other problems relating to this. One has been

that in years when you have particularly heavy rains, the soils can't

soak up the effluent which is sprayed on them after being treated. The

other problem they had was that the central storage area proved to be

too small as the community grew and there was more effluent.

[3:15]

There are certainly still many more different expressions from

people who have studied this particular problem. Some people, for

example, say that in an area like Victoria, where the effluent is

taken, I think, about six miles out into the ocean, the effect of the

tides.... And there's a very heavy tide that runs through this area —

something like six knots. So-called experts maintain that this provides

for satisfactory treatment, dispersal and eventual complete disposal of

the effluent itself. There are others who don't agree with that. So we

still go on hoping that someday somebody will come up with a completely

effective treatment.

There's another one that has been talked of quite recently which

involves the filtration of effluent through coal. This is something

that has been proven in a number of places. The Ministry of

Environment, along with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, is looking

to adopting this on a trial basis in some area of the province.

Also, the whole Okanagan Valley, as you will agree, hon. member, has

the same problem. It has been addressed on an individual basis by the

cities of Kelowna, Penticton and Vernon, and they are still working on

this. My ministry is trying to bring all these people together to see

if we can't resolve the problem once and for all.

In the matter of dry garbage disposal.... I don't want to get into

any acrimonious statements here, but I just would like to suggest for

the record that in the case of the Langley site, the decision that the

Langley site was not suitable was not just taken on the basis of a

petition, although I don't think the hon. member would suggest for a

moment that we didn't listen to those people who sent us to this place

to conduct their business; I'm sure she appreciates how important it is

that we do listen to the citizens of our province. But that decision

was taken for a number of reasons. The regional districts involved

didn't agree where the thing should go. The city of Langley and the

district of Langley didn't agree, and then of course there were the

problems and concerns that were expressed by our friends across the

border in the state of Washington. Also, and I think of primary

importance, the whole process that was being conducted in the lower

mainland where everyone was getting together to try to collectively

resolve the problems of the disposal of solid waste.... That committee

had progressed to the point where they have their last meeting on the

basis of consensus. It was always agreed that if they couldn't reach a

consensus, then they would just have to kind of go back to the drawing

board and see if they couldn't come up with something that was more

suitable.

[ Page 6025 ]

Although the mayor of North Vancouver and an alderman from Port

Coquitlam were very vocal about the Langley sites, they admitted quite

freely that they themselves would not want to impose a landfill on

someone who didn't want it. This has been, I suppose, for many years

and continues to be the problem of the disposal of dry garbage. It's

that everybody wants to get rid of it but no one wants to have it

dumped in their back yard. I think we can all understand that.

The GVRD is still very active in the program that they have, which,

as the hon. member mentioned, Mr. Chairman, involves the construction

of an incinerator in Burnaby. I understand that the tenders are about

to be let on that and also that there are tenders going out from the

GVRD which see emphasis being placed on recycling and that kind of

disposal means.

As the hon. member said, certainly if you recycle and take the paper

products out, you do end up with a very, very small amount of garbage

of which you can't dispose. But in the end, even when you resort to

incineration and even the highest technology today of incineration, you

still end up with a waste product. I think, if I recall correctly, you

get rid of about 75 percent and you end up with about 25 percent, and

that's what you've got to get rid of.

We're addressing that in, I think, a responsible manner. The

disposal of solid waste has always historically been the responsibility

of the individual municipalities and cities and towns, and all that our

ministry has been trying to do is act as a kind of a catalyst to bring

all these people together and see if those things which they didn't

seem to be able to resolve individually could be resolved if they were

worked out in a group. But I think this is going forward.

The matter of hazardous waste has certainly, from the events that

have happened over the past few weeks in Ontario and even the spills

we've had in our own province, brought very forcibly to our attention

the requirement for some very definitive action in this direction. I

hear what the hon. member said very well. In my personal opinion, yes,

one can't help but agree that we should have stringent laws regarding

the transportation of these hazardous wastes. And we do. Just recently

the federal government had a commission that went out and discussed

this matter, and I believe the federal government is bringing down

legislation effective July 1 which will impose even stricter

requirements on the transportation of hazardous wastes. My colleague,

the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. A. Fraser), whose

responsibility it is within our province, will be bringing a similar

document down about the same time.

But it seems to me that even if you transport hazardous wastes, like

the hon. member said, and they end up residing in a warehouse in the

province of Alberta, you haven't really got rid of the problem; you've

only kind of stuck it underneath the table for the time being, because

someday, somehow, somewhere, you're probably going to have to pick that

waste up and move it again. I think that the only real answer to this

is to develop ways and means of maybe not just disposing of the

hazardous waste but of breaking it down into less dangerous chemicals —

kind of a recycling process, or reusing things so that industry doesn't

generate as much hazardous waste. And I think the technology is almost

upon us whereby we will be able to do that — certainly in the PCBs, and

I would suggest that they're probably one of the worst ones that we

have to contend with. But there is technology now, and it's getting

better every day, which is a very high degree of heat and incineration

where the result.... I heard of one the other day where the people

involved think that they have got to the point where they can reduce

this stuff 99.9 to the 5th, which is almost completely. That holds out

a great deal of promise.

The federal minister, Mme. Blais-Grenier, became particularly

interested in this after the spill near Kenora. She has been in contact

with me and, as a matter of fact, a week ago last Wednesday we had a

very long conversation. Included in it was a conference call, and all

the environment ministers across the country, with the exception of

two, were on the line. We discussed this matter, and I am going to

Ottawa at the end of this month, when we're going to see if we can't

come up with some solution.

The most promising one, as I mentioned a moment ago, involves a very

high degree of heat and incineration. But an added advantage to that

one is that I understand it's portable. It can be put on the back of a

vehicle and moved around from place to place. If I've missed anything,

hon. member, I'm sure you will remind me.

MRS. WALLACE: Well, the minister's latter remarks, anyway,

are certainly correct, except that it's not a particularly new

technology. Of course, all technologies are perfected, but we've known

for a long time that burning PCBs at an extremely high temperature is

the way to get rid of them, and the portable thing seems to be the

solution. Yet we're not prepared to put the money up front.

You say the federal government is revising the regulations, and

certainly that's true. But I think that as a province we really should

have a rule of law governing all environmental matters. That law must

clearly define what our position is as a province, which can quite well

go beyond the requirements of the federal rules. Certainly that has

been exemplified in.... We haven't had the rule of law, but have

approved or not approved certain chemicals once they have been okayed

or not by the federal government. There are certain chemicals that are

not used in B.C. that are used in other provinces. What we need is a

rule of provincial law with teeth in it regarding these very hazardous

items.

The Langley thing. Well, first let me deal with Vernon just very

briefly. The problems that occurred at Vernon were two, both at the

feet of this government. One was the funding, which, rather than being

75 percent, was cut to 25 percent. The other was that Crown land was

not made available, and there was lots of forest land that could have

been made available, I understand. So that was the problem there. When

we have this sort of situation occurring, it doesn't help our

environmental interests very much.

On the Langley thing, I certainly don't want to see a dump in

Langley, nor do the people in Blaine or the people in Langley. Nobody

wants to see a dump in their back yard. What I'm asking the minister —

which he did not answer — is: what is he going to do in October 1986,

when they can no longer put that garbage in Burns Bog? Is he prepared to

get some upfront money to get a facility in place that can utilize that

to make energy, make oil, make paper, and recover some economic return?

Or is he going to run around looking for mines and holes in the ground?

Maybe the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr.

McClelland) can oblige him with a hole, the one that's in the wrong

place. Is that what we're going to do with this? Or are we going to get

serious about this business of garbage disposal and take an economic

approach towards it, rather than always trying to

[ Page 6026 ]

put it in somebody else's back yard and always having that cost? I didn't hear the minister answer that question.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

MR. COCKE: On a point of order, I challenge the quorum.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The quorum has been challenged.

I do believe there is a quorum present on vote 26.

HON. MR. PELTON: The question, if I heard the hon. member

correctly, is: why doesn't the government put up some more money to try

to resolve the problem of the disposition of solid wastes? I think I

mentioned before that it traditionally has not been a provincial

problem. And it involves absolutely astronomical amounts of money. Let

me give you an example. In the program that's been developed in the

lower mainland, which involves the GVRD and other municipalities in the

Fraser Valley, they're looking, over a ten-year period, to an

expenditure of something in the neighbourhood of $600 million, which is

a sizeable amount of money no matter how quickly you say it. I believe

it's a service that should be provided on a local level. The

distribution of costs, when it's done that way, is much more equitable.

[3:30]

I'm really not in a position to comment with respect to the

cost-sharing arrangements of 75 and 25. It doesn't fall within the

purview of my responsibility. It certainly has had some bearing on what

various municipalities have been able to do, not only in respect to the

disposition of sewage but in other areas as well. I would like to point

out that the Ministry of Environment has over the years been involved

in a modicum of support, I suppose you'd have to say. We have been

involved in encouraging municipalities to get into the recycling

business. We do support financially the various SPEC organizations

throughout the province. As a matter of fact, recently I believe an

award was made to the Saanich area; I think they have the second-best

household recycling system in Canada. This ministry was involved in

getting that system started. I think they also have a fairly good one

out in Esquimalt, or in the Victoria area.

I think there's really not a great deal more that I can say in

response to that question, hon. member. I think the ministry will just

have to continue.... Unless we run into some kind of a windfall and

accumulate millions of dollars, we'll just have to continue in our role

of helping the various municipalities in every possible way to resolve

their problems.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

MRS. WALLACE: The minister keeps saying it's a municipal

responsibility; that the council in the lower mainland was working and

trying to go by consensus. Well, one thing the consensus is going to

have to exclude now is Langley. The minister has gone in there flanked

by his colleague, the MLA for Langley, and has said no way in Langley,

whether or not they want to put it there. You know, he is involved, and

the question.... If it had happened that they were going to put it in

Cowichan-Malahat and I had happened to have a petition signed by a

bunch of Cowichan-Malahaters, I wonder if he'd have been as quick to

move in there and say: "Oh, no, not in Cowichan-Malahat." But he and

the member for Langley did move into Langley and said: "Oh, no, not in

Langley. None of the dumpsites in Langley."

He talks about our friends to the south. Sure, that was one site. I

agree that none of those sites was ideal. None of them was good. I just

do not agree with landfills. There are other ways. If you really

believe in long-term goals, Mr. Minister, in the long term that will be

the economic way to go. So it's $600 million, or whatever it is.

AN HON. MEMBER: Four billion, or whatever.

MRS. WALLACE: Whatever it is, if you put that money upfront now, the cost will be less than the long-term cost in dealing with this.

You did not answer the question that I asked you: what are you going

to do in October 1986 when the people of Delta say: "No more refuse in

Burns Bog?"

HON. MR. PELTON: On the last question, I don't think I have

any responsibility there. That responsibility rests with the people.

Delta is a member of the Greater Vancouver Regional District, and the

way the.... The outcome of the last meeting would see three separate

areas now. One would be the Greater Vancouver Regional District, which

would include North Vancouver, West Vancouver and the immediate lower

mainland. The other two would be on the east side of the Pitt River,

one on the north side and one on the south side. The only suggestion

that has been made — and this was made by a management committee made

up of engineers and various administrators from municipalities and

cities and towns — was that there was a requirement for a landfill in

the east area, because, hon. member, I repeat.... I know you're aware

of this, because I saw you agree with me when I mentioned it before.

Even if you have 100 percent incineration, you still have a residue

that has got to go into a landfill or something similar. So you're

never going to get away without having landfills, period, at least not

with the present technology available to us.

I think we minimize the requirement. For example, you speak about

Burns Bog. If everybody is dumping into Burns Bog, I can certainly

appreciate the way the people of Delta would feel about that; no

problem there at all. If everybody from the lower mainland was coming

in and putting their garbage in my back yard, I wouldn't like that very

much either. If the GVRD can get all of the people that are involved in

their waste disposal program that they have, the residual garbage they

have after incineration will be less than the amount that's going into

the landfill site right now from the municipality of Delta and from the

city of Vancouver.

MR. KEMPF: Just briefly this afternoon I would like to

discuss in this minister's estimates some items of concern,

particularly to the northern and north-central residents of this

province, where they relate to the fish and wildlife branch.

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF: I think we've had enough garbage. I'm just going

to give us a break from the garbage, and listen to the real people for

a change.

We're very concerned, particularly in the area that I represent,

about the catch quotas recently announced by the fish and wildlife

branch. We are concerned not only about

[ Page 6027 ]

those quotas now in effect, but in many cases the reasons for those quotas being instituted.

We have a very serious situation in regard to many of our river and

lake systems in the northern and north-central part of this province,

in that fish stocks are becoming very low. There is very good reason

for that. I think we have to act, and act swiftly, in order to curb

some of the problems that exist and cause these quotas to be put in

place. One of the very real problems is poaching, the illegal taking of

fish. I want to talk about wildlife in general, as well as fish;

however, there's a very real problem, particularly in the spring of the

year, with literally thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of

spawning rainbow trout in particular being taken by people who would

arrive at a spawning stream with a gunnysack and fill that gunnysack

with spawning trout before they left that place.

Mr. Chairman, that relates back to a problem which I've been talking

to the minister about relating to the lack of sufficient conservation

officers in the field to look after that problem. Unless we do

something about it immediately, we are going to simply deplete most of

our rivers and lakes of that most important resource. I think, Mr.

Chairman, the minister is going to have to seek the assistance of the

Attorney-General in attempting to ensure that such infractions are

properly dealt with in our courts, because it's no longer acceptable

that someone caught with a gunnysack full of spawning rainbow trout be,

after several weeks, taken into court and simply fined $25. That's not

acceptable to me; it's not acceptable to the people of this province

that live in the area where that resource exists.

We have to ensure that there are sufficient conservation officers in

the field to look after the problem as well. Certainly the conservation

officers out there now, having literally hundreds of thousands of

square miles to look after, can't possibly do their job properly. In

particular, I have a community north of which stretches clearly one

half of this province, and that community is Fort St. James. The

conservation officers that are designated to look after that very vast

wilderness in which is contained a very real resource....

MR. LOCKSTEAD: They've all been laid off there.

MR. KEMPF: No, that's not true, Mr. Member, but.... No,

that's not true, and there are 43 employees working out of the

ministry's office in Smithers in the Omineca district, and only three

of those people are conservation officers. I don't think that's good

enough.

However, I was talking about Fort St. James, and the need in that

community for at least two resident conservation officers. Right now,

Mr. Chairman, there are none. There are two conservation officers

working out of Vanderhoof, 35 miles to the south, who can't possibly

even cover the area in the vicinity of Vanderhoof itself let alone the

very vast area north of Fort St. James, 300 miles of which has access

via the Omineca mining road.

It's a very serious problem. It's a very serious problem when we

consider the kinds of catch quotas that we have to initiate because of

depleted fish stocks. It's a very real problem in relation to moose and

deer and other ungulate populations which exist in that area. It's a

very real problem when we have as many limited-entry draws for the

hunting of those species and animals that we do. We've got to address

it. I think we're taking too lightly the value of that resource to the

province of British Columbia.

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF: Precisely, Madame Member. It's a very lucrative

industry and a very important industry to many of the people that I

represent here in this chamber. We've got to adopt rational rules to

ensure that a proper program is put in place to stop the poaching and

to increase, not allow to decrease, the stocks of wildlife and game

fish that we find in the northern part of this province.

We have also got to come to grips with the coarse fish problem in

the areas that I talk about. That too is a very real problem, and

unless we as government realize that unless something is done, we won't

have in the very near future that resource that brings in those many

dollars to our coffers; we're going to be in real trouble.

[3:45]

Mr. Chairman, a couple of other points. One point I want to talk

about is the practice of issuing sustenance permits. I — through you to

the minister — would ask that the minister use all of the influence he

can, where he can, in order that we stop the issuance of sustenance

permits in the province of British Columbia. It's unnecessary and it's

very costly when you consider the value of a moose, for instance, to

this province. If you consider that value, it makes no sense at all to

issue one sustenance permit in this province, because you can go out

and buy beef from any rancher or farmer at a lesser cost. So, Mr.

Chairman, I would ask of this new minister that he seek ways and means

by which to stop that practice. It doesn't make sense, it's useless

slaughter of a very valuable resource out there, and I ask him to use

every bit of influence that he has so that we never again, in ensuing

winters, issue sustenance permits in the province of British Columbia.

One other point, and I guess in very great part this has to do with

policy that's brought down in other jurisdictions and in places other

than this. That is the netting of many of the game fish in our interior

lakes. Very recently I saw a net pulled from a river in my constituency

which had in it probably more char and rainbow trout than the fishermen

in that community of 5,000 would catch in an entire season. If we allow

that kind of practice to continue in this province, we can never hope

to sustain the fish stocks we have or even keep them from seriously

depleting. Something has got to be done, and the old story that these

fish are used for sustenance is absolute.... We talked earlier of

garbage. This is absolute garbage, Mr. Chairman, because I've also seen

with my own eyes hundreds of pounds of those fish left lying on the

shores to rot and go to waste. It's totally unnecessary, and we've got

to wake up to the fact and do something about it very quickly.

You know, the first signal of danger is the kind of catch quotas

that have been initiated in this fishing season, particularly in the

area that I serve. It's very serious when you have to bring in catch

quotas that say that a fisherman can catch only one fish a day. It's

absolutely ridiculous when 75 percent of the land mass in northern

British Columbia is covered with water. It's unacceptable, and it can't

go on. Something very drastic and something very immediate has got to

be done in regard to these problems.

HON. MR. PELTON: My hon. friend, the member for Omineca, who always expresses himself in a most forthright

[ Page 6028 ]

way, has probably presented me with more questions in a very short

period of time than I've had from the time we started this afternoon,

some time after 2 p.m.

I have discussed the matter of the catch quotas with the hon.

member, who has brought two specific problems to my attention. These

will be dealt with in the ministry as expeditiously as possible. I

guess, before we introduce the remedy, we've got to examine the

background. But let me just give you a couple of interesting details,

and I know that the member for Omineca will appreciate this, because

he's an outdoorsman and he realizes where we're coming from here.

Of course, the problem is, I guess, that we do have countless lakes

and streams in this province, but there are only so many fish there.

What we have to do to overcome the problem of having to establish fish

quotas is somehow or other get more fish into these lakes and streams.

We are doing that to the best of our financial ability, which has been

enhanced for this particular fiscal year. This year we hope to put

upwards of 10 million fish in our lakes and streams.

But I do have a couple of interesting things here, and they are

quite outstanding statistics. In 1960 we issued 175,200 fishing

licences, and the people with these licences fished for 2.5 million

days. They caught 7.6 million fish, which averaged out at three a day.

Ten years later, 299,000 people had licences. They caught 8.6 million

fish, an average of 2.3 a day, and they fished — being more people for

a longer period of time — for 3.2 million days. In 1980, which is the

last year for which I have statistics, 450,300 people got licences.

They fished for 5.2 million days and caught 8.1 million fish. This

might not be of any immediate import to some people, but I think the

important thing here is that we have done a reasonable job of

restocking, because the 450,300 people have still caught the same

amount of fish. So we have kept the lakes and streams reasonably well

stocked.

On this basis, perhaps I could just jump right over to the last item

that the hon. member made mention of, and that was netting. Certainly

that is a problem, but it relates directly, I'm sure he would agree, to

the conservation officers. The only way we're going to stop that is to

catch the people who are doing it and punish them accordingly.

In the matter of environmental Crown counsels to take care of the

legal problems involved with the environment, I would just bring to the

attention of this House, and to the particular attention of the member,

that effective the beginning of May we have had an environmental Crown

counsel, appointed by the Ministry of Attorney-General, who will be

operating out of Kamloops. I would suggest to my friend the hon. member

that we are certainly moving in the right direction on that.

Conservation officers. I certainly recognize that the shortage of conservation

officers is a real problem. On the few trips that I've made out into the

field since my appointment, it's one that I have been reminded of in a very

forceful way by every place I visited. I have tried to address the problem,

where I could within the resources that we have. I'm not saying this as

an excuse; I'm just stating this as a matter of fact: within the Ministry

of Environment we suffered the same staff reductions as other ministries; but

we made a particular point, when we undertook to reduce the FTEs to which we

were entitled, of giving special consideration to conservation officers, and

they were reduced by only 10 percent. Two years ago the conservation officer

staffing level was 121 full-time equivalents, made up of five Victoria and eight

regional administrative staff, and 108 field-operational conservation officers.

I know that the hon. member wasn't in the House during the full course of

my introductory remarks, but by amalgamating offices we have accomplished a

considerable reduction in the administrative workload. And we have actually

accomplished more in the way of picking up people who are poaching and breaking

other laws.

The House might also be interested to know that we do get criticized

from time to time that these people aren't being fully or property

utilized because they sometimes work in pairs. I'm sure that everyone

will agree that in this day and age if you respond to a report that

somebody is poaching, particularly after dark, you really wouldn't want

to send an individual out on his own; he should be accompanied by

someone. The other thing that has happened within the ministry is that

we have tried to compensate for this lack of conservation officers —

and I agree that it's a lack of conservation officers. What we have

done is try to initiate a reporting system whereby wildlife groups or

rod and gun clubs, or suchlike groups of people, report infractions to

us and we take care of them as quickly as possible.

I think I've covered most of your questions, hon. member, but if I have not, I'm sure you will remind me.

MR. KEMPF: Just a few final remarks, Mr. Chairman. On that

question of consulting with rod and gun clubs and others very

interested in our outdoors and our resource in that regard, I would

also ask the minister.... I know this happens in some areas of the

province, but it certainly isn't happening and hasn't happened in the

Omineca district: that is, you ask your resident biologist to confer

with those same people before bringing in catch limits.

[4:00]

We have daily catch limits — for fear of contradicting myself here —

which I have suggested earlier are nearing a very crucial number. We

also have regulations that were brought down recently, in particular —

and I've mentioned this to the minister — relating to the Tweedsmuir

area in my constituency. The catch limits in that particular circle of

lakes are absolutely preposterous. They're not necessary. It's an area,

for those who would know, protected by Ootsa Lake. Ootsa Lake, Tahtsa

Lake, Tetachuck Lake and Knewstubb Lake were raised when the Kitimat

project was constructed, making it a very dangerous area to get into,

so that not just any fisherman can utilize that lake system. You have

to have very large boats. You have to want to really endanger your own

life to get in and fish these areas. Other than that, they're serviced

by fishing guides who charge as much as $1,100 for a four-day trip. Now

to initiate those kinds of catch quotas in an area that isolated, that

hard to get into, is absolutely ridiculous. The reason it was done, Mr.

Chairman, was that there was no consultation between the resident

biologist in Smithers and the Tweedsmuir Park Rod and Gun Club, a very

energetic, active, large and, I might add, knowledgeable club situated

in Burns Lake, just a few short miles north of the Tweedsmuir Park. Had

that consultation gone on, I wouldn't be badgering the minister now for

an order-in-council that would change, for this summer season, the

catch limit in that lake system.

Mr. Chairman, it may sound strange to say it in this chamber; it may

sound strange to some of the lower mainland members; but unless we do

that we're going to place in real financial jeopardy a number of fish

guides this coming summer. Would you pay $1,100 for the possibility of

catching

[ Page 6029 ]

four fish? I very much doubt it, and I very much doubt that that's

going to happen. I think my argument of having placed those fish guides

in jeopardy is real. The whole question of consultation, I think, is a

good one and should be a necessity, rather than left up to some

biologists who wish to do that and some who do not.

A final comment on the poaching issue. I think we have to get much

tougher, Mr. Chairman, with our native Indians. We can no longer accept

the fact that they can go out there and do what they wish in regard to

hunting game in this province. They do it under the guise of sustenance

permits, which shouldn't be issued in the first place. I want to tell

you, they have the greatest number of people who would go out there and

break the law of any citizens in this province. I've got to say that,

because I know that firsthand. I know what's going on in my

constituency, and I see it time after time. We've all got to be

considered as Canadians under the law. For any judge in this province

to bring down a judgment on the illegal shooting of a moose, out of

season, charging that individual $25 for having done so, is absolutely

unacceptable. It happens time after time. That particular animal is

worth $1,000 to this province. I don't care who shoots it, whether it

be white or Indian, it still costs this province $1,000. It's got to be

stopped. I've seen situations with my own eyes where a sustenance

permit has been issued for one moose and half a dozen have been shot

merely because they were there. They're very vulnerable in the middle

of January in the country that I come from. It's got to be stopped. We

can no longer allow a judge to bring those kinds of judgments against a

person merely because he's a native Indian, because it's a British

Columbia resource, and it belongs to all of us, Indian and white alike.

So we have to be treated the same under the law. If we don't, we won't

have the resource in a very short time.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

HON. MR. PELTON: Mr. Chairman, just a couple of remarks. In

the matter of the Tweedsmuir Lake area, I don't doubt the facts that

the hon. member brings forward. As I said before, we are looking at

this. If there was an error made, it will be rectified.

I would just like to make one short comment about sustenance permits

and sustenance policy, because I think it's appropriate that it be made

at this time. Since 1966 the Wildlife Act and permit regulations have

stated that the director may issue permits to take wildlife outside the

regular season to residents of B.C. "in actual need for sustenance." No

mention is made of racial origin. The only qualifications are residency

and actual need; thus the matter of sustenance use of wildlife is one

of allocation, not of aboriginal rights. However, where treaties apply,

such as on portions of the Island or in northeastern British Columbia,

those treaties take precedence over the Wildlife Act.

I just felt that it was necessary. I know that that's not completely

where the hon. member was coming from, but I just felt that that

statement had to be made.

MR. LEA: I'd like to return to the topic of garbage, although

I don't take away from the importance of what the member for Omineca

was talking about. I know, also being a northern member, that 99.9

percent of what he said was absolutely accurate. I think what he did is

point out the need for some local autonomy, as opposed to a centralized

bureaucracy. It not only applies to Environment; it applies to every

ministry. As long as we try to run things from a small table in a

centralized way in this province, we're trying to deal with problems

that cannot be dealt with because of the centralized decision-making

process. It runs throughout government.

I'd like to touch on the topic of garbage, as I said. Some people

would use a much nicer term; I think they would call it solid waste.

But it's garbage we're talking about; everybody understands that. For

the minister to say that it's a municipal responsibility is ducking the

issue, because it is of such magnitude, this problem of garbage in this

province, that we have to deal with it as a province. There is no way

around it.

If we are going to leave this, as a provincial body, strictly to the

municipal governments, we are going to see happen again and again what

happened in Langley. It's called the brushfire policy: not having an

overall policy, but a brushfire effect, where something raises its head

to such magnitude that the government has to go in there and do

something. That's going to be what will go on from now on unless we as

a provincial government and a provincial body come to grips with it as

a provincial problem.

Now I know a number of us have said that you can't cure the

education system by strictly throwing money at it; you can't cure the

health problems by throwing money at them. But this is a problem that

can go a long way to being cured by throwing money at it, spent wisely.

What we have to do, I think, is first of all accept the premise that we

are dealing with a provincial problem. It doesn't matter whether it's

the lower mainland, in the riding of Mackenzie or in my riding in

Prince Rupert: we all have a garbage disposal problem in our tidings.

Either there is no authority to look after garbage, which happens in

rural areas, or there are 50 authorities to deal with garbage, which

happens in the more populated areas of the province; but no coordinated

approach by the provincial government to deal with garbage.

Let's take the lower mainland problem. You have enormous amounts of

waste that have to be disposed of, some of it containing very hazardous

ingredients. But even under incineration we've got the problem of air

pollution. So incineration, although a better answer than landfill, is

not without its problems. As the minister said — and correctly — even

after incineration you still have some waste that you must find a way

to get rid of. But I'm still not sure whether the old method of

landfill is the way to go. There are new technologies where you can

deal with it in a more sensible way. Those technologies are available,

in some cases in such simple forms as compressing it and putting tar

around it, keeping it watertight, and then going to landfill or an old

mine shaft. The technology is available, so the question comes: are we

going to pay for it? Are we going to accept the responsibility, as

citizens of this province, for dealing with the problem of garbage?

Dealing with the lower mainland, if my figures are correct — I think

some of them are — we're talking about an incineration program, as

proposed, of a capital outlay of $200 million to $250 million when we

get through, if we follow the recommendations.

HON. MR. PELTON: Double that.

[ Page 6030 ]

MR. LEA: Okay, I'll take the minister's word. We're talking

maybe $400 million, $450 million. Other jurisdictions are looking at

some pretty creative approaches to the capital needed to deal with this

problem. In Wisconsin they are issuing what they call environmental

bonds. People can take the money that they now have in savings and

invest it in environmental bonds. The central state — that is, the

state in the United States, the state of Wisconsin — is then

guaranteeing the people who purchase those bonds a guaranteed return on

their money. It's a way of raising the capital without having to go out

of the jurisdiction to borrow it. It's a way of raising the capital

without the province having to put it up, a way of using money that's

in savings and put it to work for us as British Columbians in a needed

cause.

Environmental bonds are working quite effectively in Wisconsin. One

of the other good things about raising the money in that way is that

you can stabilize the cost over a long period of time; the only

ingredient in there then that becomes flexible is the ongoing wages

needed to run the capital goods once you get them into place — your

incinerators and such. It's a creative way of looking at it, and it may

not be the way for us. Another way we could do it is to make a deal

with the federal government. If we could approach the federal

government and ask them to remove the capital gains from the earnings

from environmental bonds, it might go a long way to creating the

investment that we'd need.

What it really boils down to, Mr. Chairman, is that it is a

provincial concern. It should be a concern of this Legislature. It

should be a concern of this government. We can't just let the problem

grow, and hide behind the fact that it's the jurisdiction of the

municipal or regional district, because it just won't go away. Number

one, they're not going to come to an agreement of where we're going to

dump the garbage; number two, they don't have the wherewithal to raise

the kind of money we're talking about to deal with the problem — and

it's going to take a great deal of money.

[4:15]

After having talked about environmental bonds, somebody has to pay

the money back — the original principal — and that has to come out of

the users. We're going to have to postage-stamp the user fee for

garbage in this province, or at least in regions, if we use the bond

issue approach, so that everybody pays for the amount of garbage

disposal they have. If we do that, I think we are going a long way

toward solving the problem. There may be other ways. I think what

people are looking for is some sort of creative approach out of this

provincial government to deal with the problem of garbage. A creative

approach is not saying: "It's nothing to do with us." It is something

to do with us. It affects every citizen in this province.

Mr. Chairman, it is not just an unsightly thing we're talking about.

We're talking about health problems that could come along because of an

improper garbage disposal system. We're talking about immeasurable

damage to the environment, especially to the waterways of this

province, if we don't deal with it properly. We're talking about

immense air pollution problems unless we deal with it properly. There's

no point in telling someone that it's a municipal problem. Air goes

everywhere. Water goes everywhere. We can't isolate it as somebody's

specific problem in a specific area. It's a problem for all of us.

MRS. WALLACE: It won't stay in my back yard.

MR. LEA: That's absolutely correct. It is a universal problem

in terms of this province. It's a problem that we have to address

ourselves to. It's a problem that we're going to have to be creative

about. There is technology that will take us a long way down the road

to solve this problem. It is going to cost a great deal of money, but

we're going to have to pay it. We're going to have to find the most

economic, the most creative, the most environmental way of dealing with

the garbage problem. But we're not going to deal with it by saying it's

somebody else's problem.

We, as the provincial body, should be a resource for local areas. We

shouldn't be dictators; we should be a resource. We should recognize

that they have a very real problem that they don't have the resources

to deal with on their own. We should be going to them and saying, "How

can we help resolve this problem in a reasoned way?" as opposed to

saying: "It's your problem. It's your jurisdiction. We'll only step in

when there's a brush fire that has political overtones that may hurt

the chances of someone being elected."

That's what Langley was all about. There were 400 or 500 people out

at meetings over garbage in Langley. That's a big political meeting.

You can't get that many out for a peace march in Langley. That's a lot

of people; that's a lot of concern. There were a lot of people who

signed petitions. Local politicians are falling on the issue or gaining

office by the issue in Langley. The problem was that the Minister of

Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. McClelland) had a

political problem in his riding. And that problem was solved

politically. But you didn't deal with the problem. All you've said is

that Langley will not be the landfill. But who is going to be? Or are

we going to put a proper, creative program together and be a resource

for all the regional districts and municipalities throughout this

province?

The environmental bond issue may not be the way to go, but I'm

saying that other jurisdictions have tried it. We could look at their

experience and see whether it is indeed working for them and whether it

isn't something that we could look at, even if it meant involving the

federal government in capital gains, in an allowance.

Mr. Speaker, I am not satisfied with the answer from the minister

that it's not our problem, that it's their problem. It is our problem.

Every citizen in this province is going to be affected if we don't come

up with a reasonable, creative, economic way to deal with solid waste

in this province. We have not taken it on as a provincial jurisdiction;

we've just let it lapse. We can't do it any longer, because it's a

problem that's going to affect us as a whole — all of us — and we have

to deal with it. I realize it's not easy, but first of all we have to

come to grips with it and say: "It's our problem as citizens, and the

provincial government should be involved." I'd like to hear where the

minister feels we should be going in future with this problem.

HON. MR. PELTON: Mr. Chairman, my thanks to the hon. member

for Prince Rupert. He always — in his usual manner, in reasoned and

relatively gentle criticisms — has a suggestion to throw in as well,

which I think is a very laudable thing, and I appreciate that.

First of all, if I may take just a moment and not launch right into

the garbage business, I would point out that the Ministry of

Environment is not so centralized as one might think. As a matter of

fact, it's quite a decentralized ministry, and I think it has been for

some years, particularly in the fish

[ Page 6031 ]

and wildlife branch. As you probably know, hon. member, we have a

number of regions around the province where they enjoy a fair amount of

authority, and we'd like to keep it that way. I for one certainly don't

subscribe to centralization; I don't think it's a good way to do

business at all.

The matter of getting down to the garbage dumps, solid waste

disposal sites or whatever. Maybe I should reiterate what I was saying.

that traditionally and historically this particular problem has rested

with local jurisdictions. Maybe the time is here, or certainly rapidly

approaching, when this should change. But I do believe — and I don't

take credit for this, because it was my predecessor who got it going —

that there was a certain amount of creativity displayed by the ministry

in that for many years — and I was part and parcel of this when I was

involved in municipal politics — we were all spinning our wheels at a

great rate and getting no place, and just rationalizing to ourselves

how we could dump another year's refuse onto our garbage dump.

Whereas

at one time it was a hole in the ground, it was now becoming a

mountain. I think there was some creativity shown inasmuch as the

previous minister and senior members of the ministry did get involved

in trying to bring all of the parties together to see if they couldn't

come up with some reasonable solution.

I think that there is still a solution there, and I think that the

work that's been done up to this point in time.... I spoke to Mr. Doug

MacKay, who is the gentleman in charge of the GVRD on the non-political

side, not too many days ago. He was at that meeting where the decision

was made with regard to the Langley sites, and he didn't see it as

being too difficult a thing. He seems very positive about where he

thinks they're going to go, and thinks that they, through the program

that they have in place and maybe through some minor modification to

the program, will be able to resolve the problem.

I should mention also that the $500 million to $600 million is over

a ten-year period, and your idea about the bonds sounds like an

excellent one. I think it's probably similar to one that is being used

here that applies in agriculture, but that's one that we certainly

should look into. I should also maybe mention that with respect to the

jurisdiction of individual municipalities over garbage and the costs

involved, certainly you are absolutely right, hon. member.

When you start talking incineration and even landfills, the

difficult part for most municipalities, especially the smaller ones, is

the upfront money for the capital costs of whatever they're going to

do, and finding some way to amortize these costs over a period of time

which won't impose too big a burden on the taxpayers. That really is a

problem. It's one where the other levels of government could quite

conceivably become involved, and maybe the issuance of bonds would be

the way to go as well.

Also, you spoke of user fees. There are some places who still don't

have user fees, although I guess everybody's kind of kidding themselves

because the money is coming out of your tax dollars, which you're

either paying in residential taxes or in some other way. Although in

Maple Ridge, where I live, we pay directly to a private firm who comes

around and removes the garbage once a week, and takes it and deposits

it in the dump.

There also are some jurisdictions where the disposal site is

operated in such a way that, once they could get rid of these capital

costs that we speak about, they break even. Some of them even make a

very small amount of profit, although not a great deal. I understand

very clearly what you're saying, hon. member. We have notes of the

remarks that have been made, and we can pick up more information from

Hansard . We are not turning our back on the problem; we're not burying

our heads in the sand. We are going to continue to work with the GVRD

and with the municipalities in the Fraser Valley to assist them in

reaching a solution to the long-standing problem of the disposal of

solid waste.

MR. DAVIS: This is an interesting debate, and I think we all

appreciate the minister's willingness to answer questions and to

endeavour to develop policies as we go along. It's an area in which

slogans abound, and yet no particular solution is the whole solution. I

think one slogan, though, that should be upfront — it can't apply to

all cases, but it's important; it can deal with many cases — is that

the polluter pays. The polluter, if the polluter can be identified,

should pay for the pollution, but better still should be caused to

install whatever equipment, whatever processes, will prevent the

pollution from occurring.

If one translates this to garbage, I think that pollution in the

form of solid wastes.... I'm talking about the more conventional solid

wastes: waste paper, glass, debris from construction sites and so on.

The municipality has, in a large part, the jurisdiction. The

municipality can develop systems and has the capability through bylaws

and otherwise to organize collection, to organize transport in the

initial stages. In a municipality with a large area and some waste

land, landfills are perhaps the answer. But the collection and disposal

of garbage is really a protection of property. Municipalities in the

main have jurisdiction over property. I think that's another reason why

the municipalities should endeavour to look after their own garbage.

When the problem reaches a scale which transcends the ability of an

individual municipality to deal with it, clearly several municipalities

will want to get together. The GVRD is, in my view, the ideal vehicle

to substantially deal with the conventional garbage problem, and

hopefully deal with it within the larger territory of GVRD. It may well

be that shortly incineration will reduce the volume and reduce it

considerably. But incinerators cost money. Collectively the

municipalities should be funding incineration. If the province can

borrow money at a lesser interest rate on their behalf, I think the

province should be involved. I think the province must be involved when

it comes to advice. The province often has technical people —

biologists and otherwise — who have the capacity to advise in this

area. The federal government has a number of people who are expert in

some aspects of ecological protection. They should be included.

[4:30]

But I'm not for transferring the problem, especially the cost

problem, away off onto someone at a great distance. The hon. member for

Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) refers to tax-free bonds. Well, tax-free bonds

would be demanded immediately by every municipality in Canada. We could

end up, since we're relatively well-to-do, paying for the massive

garbage problem the city of Montreal has. Montreal has dealt with air

pollution fairly effectively, but tended to ignore its other pollution

problems. There is a bigger challenge there. I think on balance we'd be

paying for them; they wouldn't be paying for us. So I'm not for income

tax-free bonds insofar as it would tap the federal treasury. But I do

think the province could guarantee bonds for the GVRD or for some

authority

[ Page 6032 ]

which had a broad regional base in the lower mainland to help deal with the problem.

As a general principle, I think people individually and firms

locally should endeavour to look after the pollution problem. The small

local ecology is often much more vulnerable, and unless it's looked

after on-site, so to speak, it may be devastated altogether. There are

some pollutants that spread around the world, and there are some

problems that cross provincial and international boundaries, and I

think they logically should be dealt with nationally and

internationally, but I think the responsibility, certainly in the first

instance, should be local, then municipal, then provincial. If those

several levels of government or power and influence capability can't

deal with it, then involve the federal people, but not otherwise.

I think the problem, if it can be identified, and certainly garbage

can — conventional garbage — is a regional problem. It's a lower

mainland problem. The province can help in the selection of disposal

sites. As I've said, it can certainly help in financing and it can

certainly help in terms of technical advice. I understand the concern

of some of the mayors and others who've through their own

municipalities financed a comprehensive study of the problem in the

lower mainland. I can understand their frustration when they find the

province effectively vetoing certain sites which had been identified.

It's interesting, of course, that the sites were outside the boundaries

of the GVRD area, the municipalities and the GVRD having financed the

study. One site was near the international boundary, so that was

another excuse to drop it. But sites have to be found, and treatment

processes have to be adopted. It is a problem, but I would certainly

put the bulk of the costs on the shoulders of those who create the

problem in the first place.

HON. MR. PELTON: Just a very short response to the member for

North Vancouver–Seymour. The business of polluter pays: certainly that

is done in a lot of instances. As a matter of fact, I guess I might

suggest that those people who pay to have the solid waste removed from

their homes are in a sense following that process. Certainly within the

Waste Management Act of the provincial government, when it involves

toxic wastes, the polluter certainly pays in that regard. Also, we do

have some municipalities around the province that have littering

bylaws. I guess all of these things help. I certainly understand where

the member is coming from when he speaks of cooperation. I would just

mention that the Waste Management Act was amended some time ago.

Whereas it used to be that individual municipalities and towns and

villages disposed of their solid wastes through permit, now they can

get together and go a different route by putting in a waste management

plan. This is precisely what has been done and is being done through

the Greater Vancouver Regional District and the other areas in the

Fraser Valley.

MR. ROSE: I have two or three different topics, Mr. Chairman.

But before I start, I'd just like to chide the member for North

Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis), because he is advocating a policy of

polluter must pay. When he was a Minister of Environment, we brought in

the Canada Water Act. During that time when he was a minister, he was

also monitoring the effluent of all the pulp mills on the Fraser. They

were among our biggest and most prominent and favorite polluters at the

time. As a matter of fact, we could relate their activities, I think,

to some of the fall-offs of the salmon runs. They're not the only ones,

but they certainly were a major source of contamination in the Fraser.

If you can link that to a decline in salmon runs — or at least

partially responsible for it — that's where it is.

The point I would like to make is that there were massive amounts of

chemical and solid pollution coming out of those plants, all up and

down the Fraser — I think around 17 in all from Prince George down

south. I had a question on the order paper for months to get him to

give me....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I think the member would

appreciate that we're debating the Minister of Environment's estimates

here, and not the estimates of a former Minister of Environment in

another jurisdiction.

MR. ROSE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, but I had this question on

the order paper for months, and it involves the polluter-must-pay

principle. It's been alluded to not only by the member for

Vancouver-Seymour but also by the minister. So I think I have a right

to complete my statement.

I was unable to get any kind of information from a series of

questions on the order paper. The minister refused to respond. I too

believe that the polluter should pay. I know that there is a shared

jurisdiction — federally and provincially — and that was one of the

problems with the Canada Water Act. One of the problems was that the

provinces wouldn't at that time go for as stringent standards as the

feds were prepared to do. That's when environment was a popular item;

environment is no longer a popular item, unless, of course, you spill a

few PCBs on the highway. Then it reaches a certain kind of visibility,

mainly because of the scare tactics associated with it. But it's no

longer a big thing.

But nobody wants these things. "Not in my backyard" is the slogan

for garbage, isn't it? Whether you're talking about a toxic waste

dump.... We've got one in Canada. The Americans won't take any more of

ours. I know what fun the previous Minister of Environment had when he

tried to get a toxic waste dump in this province, because nobody wants

it. Nobody wants a nuclear waste dump either. So for that reason, we

put them on Indian reservations. That's where they are, mostly, in the

United States.

Acid rain gets a little bit of publicity from time to time, because

acid rain spoils the environment. It spoils the hunting and fishing for

all those people, like the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf), who are

interested in the tourist industry.

When that comes about, then it becomes a very highly visible, highly

controversial subject. But most of the time we'd just rather forget it.

Our whole history has been getting rid of it in the most immediate and

cheapest way possible, and to hide it. We've continued our pattern

there, because to do anything else is too expensive. When you talk

about solid waste disposal or recycling or incineration or whatever,

they throw up their hands and say: "Millions and millions of dollars."

Therefore we don't support it because we can't justify it to the

taxpayers. There are other higher priorities, until we get sick or

until the salmon runs completely dry up or until we cut down all the

trees or ruin them all with acid rain or have the noses of the

gargoyles rotting off. Then we're prepared, perhaps, to do something

about it. Until that time, we would like to just shove it aside. Maybe

we'd like to ship our garbage up to Texada or someplace....

MR. LOCKSTEAD: We'll get to that.

[ Page 6033 ]

MR. ROSE: I think it's only fair to the House if I gave you

some of my own views about environmental alterations in general, and

here they are. I'm reading this from a letter I wrote, so I'm indulging

in the supreme form of arrogance: I'm going to quote myself. First of

all:

"Seldom are environment-altering works constructed without

substantial environmental cost. Whether we consider sanitary landfill, dredging,

water and hydro dams, logging or stream diversions, these impose future costs

to be borne, which can offset the near-term benefits such works bestow."

That's my first principle. The second one is:

"Our society has traditionally opted for the initially most

economic — cheapest — alternative, ignoring the true cost and content to pass

these costs on to future generations."

Right? That's what we've done all along, and now we're stuck with

some very severe problems. I don't know what we're going to do about

the garbage. Shoot it at the sun, I guess.

AN HON. MEMBER: There's a spot under Tumbler Ridge that's available,

MR. ROSE: Oh, I see: the wrong hole at Tumbler Ridge; dump it in there. That's better than Texada, you think? I would agree with that.

I know the minister has a substantial problem. First of all, nobody

wants the garbage, and secondly, nobody wants to pay for it. So that's

a hydra-headed conundrum he's facing.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Coquitlam volunteered? Coquitlam has been taking

everybody's garbage for half a century. We started out there with a

sanitary landfill called Terra Nova, which was once a molehill and has

now become a mountain. That's what's happening, and we can't take it

any more. We were willing to take everybody else's.... Well, it was

then called Fraser Mills.

Okay, so that's sort of my views, and also trying to point out some

of the difficulties the minister faces. I know the minister faces

substantial political problems over this issue, but that is no

solution. He's got to be staunch, vigorous, aggressive, inventive and

fearless, and I know he is.

I want to ask a couple of things. This is a direct question. I don't

want it answered immediately, just on a series of questions you might

address. Has the ministry any policy on the filling in of wetlands

through pumping material, sand or whatever, out of the Fraser and

landing that material to provide either wharfage or land or factory

sites or whatever? What is the government's policy on that? I know he's

a new minister, and I mentioned this wetland preoccupation by me

before. Mr. Chairman, the marshlands are the cradle of marine life. You

fill in the wetlands, then you get rid of the waterfowl, you get rid of

many of the organisms that are at the lower end of the food chain, upon

which the higher forms of marine life feed, and you're destroying the

environment; you're destroying the food; you're probably destroying the

fisheries. That's why I'm concerned.

I recall vividly — this might be considered out of order, but I know

it isn't, Mr. Chairman — attending as a guest of the former minister of

fisheries and environment over there, one evening out at the.... I

forget the name of the building in which he hosted the fisheries

committee. We had a lesson in pollution. It showed what primary

treatment would do to take out the toxic wastes that affect fish, and

it showed what secondary treatment would do to remove toxicity from

sewage. There was virtually no difference. It wasn't until you got to

tertiary treatment that it amounted to anything really in terms of

protection.

But we're still using the air as a sewer, and we're still using the

water as a sewer. I would like to know the position of the ministry on

primary and tertiary sewage disposal. Did you get that one? Wetlands

and primary, secondary and tertiary sewage disposal; and what is the

Crown, his department, prepared to do about that in terms of either

regulation or assisting municipalities to develop these works, to

protect the environment?

[4:45]

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Well, yes, I know. The member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) tends sometimes to be a little....

MRS. WALLACE: Cynical,

MR. ROSE: Well, yes, I didn't want to say cynical, but if you care to say so.

The other thing I would like to ask the minister is whether, since

we both live by the Fraser, he would take some time and look at the

film by the Fraser Coalition of two or three years ago, maybe four

years ago now, on what's happening to the Fraser, because the film

stressed that the multiple use of the Fraser was severely threatened by

what's happening there.

The multiple use.... We know what it is: it's a place for logging,

fishing and recreation, but it's also a sewer. I don't know if it's

still true, but the last time I looked, New Westminster had about five

outfalls of primary sewage right in the Fraser. Now if we're interested

in a clean environment, I don't see how we can tolerate that kind of

stuff. But to correct it costs a lot of money, megabucks. So I would

like to ask him if he would look into that.

Turning to a couple of other matters, I guess the most emotional

issue to some people in the Coquitlam basin is the Coquitlam River,

It's had various forms of assault directed against it over the years. I

suppose the most massive one was the original hydro dam that was put in

there to trap water ultimately to feed the Lake Buntzen power plant.

AN HON. MEMBER: And the gravel pit.

MR. ROSE: Then the gravel pit operators on the edge of the

river. Going back to 1966, I was an alderman in Coquitlam, and we had

lots of fun with them then. We still have fun with them. It rains

sometimes, and then their settling ponds seem to become unsettled. The

fish population there has been obliterated by a combination of

less-than-adequate runoff at the right times of the year plus the solid

pollution of the sediment there that comes out.

The next assault on the Coquitlam basin has been the proposed GVWD

diversion of Ore and Hixon Creeks from their natural movement into that

river, into the dam, in effect raising the dam and providing more water

for Lake Buntzen and also, incidentally, more spillage so that the

water needs of a growing population in the lower mainland can be

satisfied.

[ Page 6034 ]

Doing that and proposing this avoids some other difficult problems,

such as the possible park on the North Shore, the Lower Seymour

regional park. Actually, there could be more water in that source

developed, but only at the expense of a park called Lower Seymour Park.

Therefore, Coquitlam is again being asked to absorb an environmentally

unsound proposition for the expense of the other members of the lower

mainland municipalities.

I draw the minister's attention to it. I don't know that he has any

direct authority, because the dam is controlled by Hydro. The dam is

not controlled by the GVWD. Several alternatives have been put forward,

and there's been a great big splashy flashy PR business justifying

these diversions, and there are a lot of people on side. But the Port

Coquitlam and District Hunting and Fishing Club is definitely opposed,

including such luminaries as Bill Otway, who was once a candidate

running against me and is well known to the member for Dewdney (Hon.

Mr. Pelton).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Two minutes, Mr. Member.

MR. ROSE: Well, perhaps I could have an intervening speaker.

Let me say, just to conclude this little part of my diatribe, that I

would like to direct the minister's attention to this matter and let

him know that along with the Port Coquitlam gun club, I don't support

the diversion of Ore and Hixon Creeks. There are other alternatives,

such as buying off B.C. Hydro's licence. They've got a massive surplus

there anyway. Lake Buntzen does not need the water, and diversions are

environmentally unpredictable and unsafe. I commend that to him, if not

for his own personal consideration then perhaps if the matter is ever

discussed in cabinet.

HON. MR. PELTON: I'll start from the back and work forward

for the hon. member. First of all, I have learned a few things in this

short period of time I've been in the ministry. One thing I am aware of

is that any kind of diversion requires the approval of our ministry.

We're aware of the one you just mentioned. It has not been approved as

yet, so that's one that we can keep....

Interjection.

HON. MR. PELTON: Well, let's drop the "as yet." It has not been approved to this point in time. No, it has not been approved.

Interjection.

HON. MR. PELTON: I know that.

MR. WILLIAMS: The Maple Ridge fish and game club feel the same way.

HON. MR. PELTON: Do they?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. All members will have their opportunity to participate in the estimates.

HON. MR. PELTON: This is turning into a long day.

Let's go back to the matter of the wetlands. The policy of the

ministry is normally that we would not support filling of wetlands. As

a matter of fact, in the fairly extensive diking system we have in the

lower mainland, if there are any requests to change any of these dikes

that are in a wetland location, they must not be changed and will not

be changed unless that change is approved by the ministry, particularly

the wildlife and fishing portions of the ministry. But then again there

are occasions, as the hon. member is aware, where we do become

involved; where areas within a flood plain are filled with sand that's

pumped out of the river. But normally this is.... Certainly it wouldn't

happen in a wetland per se area, where there are fish and wildlife

involved.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about Burns Bog?

HON. MR. PELTON: I can't really speak to that one, hon.

member. I could certainly find out for you, but they obviously have a

permit in that particular area.

MR. ROSE: I was going to thank the minister for his fair

reply, but I'm not parti