1981 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 32nd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, JUNE 8, 1981

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

6033 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Alleged cutback in homemaker service. Mr. Cocke –– 6033

Mr. Leggatt

Mr. Nicolson

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

On vote 76: minister's office –– 6035

Mr. Skelly

Mr. Gabelmann

Mr. Kempf

Mr. Passarell

Mr. Nicolson

Mr. Barber

Mr. Levi

Tabling Documents

Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources annual report, 1979.

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 6057

B.C. Hydro annual report, 1980-81.

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 6057

MONDAY, JUNE 8, 1981

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. KING: In the gallery today visiting the Legislature

are Mr. and Mrs. Melvin Koski, formerly of Revelstoke, and Mr. and Mrs.

Ed Warwick. They are from the fair city of Coquitlam. I ask the House

to extend a warm welcome to them.

MR. HALL: In the

members' gallery this afternoon we have visiting us Mrs. Carol

Langford, who was nominated a week ago to be a candidate for the New

Democratic Party in the Surrey provincial riding in the next general

election, whenever that election takes place. I'd like the House to

welcome her.

Oral Questions

ALLEGED CUTBACK IN HOMEMAKER SERVICE

MR. COCKE:

I'd like to direct a question to the Minister of Health. In view of the

fact that a survey conducted in February of this year by the B.C.

Health Association — incidentally, those results were confirmed by a

survey that we did — revealed that there were 1,616 long-term-care

patients occupying acute-care beds, which the minister described as a

"jam-up".... Assistant Deputy Minister Jack Bainbridge has now

confirmed that in-home care has been slashed by 35 percent. Can the

minister advise the House why he is exercising this foolish cutback in

this vital area of health care when there are almost no hospital beds

to accommodate long-term-care patients?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, the question contains considerable argument, but the minister may wish to answer,

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

Mr. Speaker, the member for New Westminster has the advantage of having

information that is not generally available, in that when speaking with

Mr. Bainbridge this morning I did not hear him say that the homemaker

service — if that's what the member for New Westminster is referring to

— is being slashed by any percent. From a budget point of view, the

homemaker service is being increased by 44 percent this year.

Mr.

Speaker, if the member for New Westminster is referring to a program

that is not generally known as the homemaker service, then perhaps

we're speaking about two difference things, but if the member is

referring to the

article which appeared in the Province this morning

and which quoted Mr. Bainbridge, then I believe it's the homemaker

service. The budgetary estimate for that service is increasing from

approximately $38 million last year to about $52 million this year.

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Speaker, the minister should advise the people who are running the

program; the cutbacks are across the province. As a matter of fact, the

member for Peace River....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. We must have a question.

MR. COCKE:

I have a

preamble first, and that is in answer to the minister's

balderdash.... Anyway, could the minister advise what appeal a

long-term-care patient has when denied necessary long-term care?

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

Mr. Speaker, there is a procedure whereby a person who believes he

requires this service can make application to the person responsible in

the region. If such a client feels that his service should be expanded,

or if he's been advised that that service is being terminated, then

there is nothing to prevent that person from contacting the

administrator who is responsible for the program. Failing that, if he

receives absolutely no satisfaction, there is certainly nothing

improper in that individual citizen's asking his MLA to try to assist.

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Speaker, that minister should also look at other members of his

staff. Isabel Kelly, when asked, was reported as saying that wages were

the cause of the cutbacks.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask

another question, however. I understand that there was a meeting this

morning between the long-term care office and the homemakers from

greater Vancouver to discuss a 30 percent cutback. Given the fact that

there were 111 long-term-care patients in acute-care beds in St.

Paul's, 196 in VGH, 80 in Burnaby General, 50 to 60 in Lions Gate, 30

in the Shaughnessy Hospital, and 40 long-term-care patients in the

Royal Columbian, can the minister tell the House how he can possibly

justify any cutback in services which are designed to keep patients in

their own homes? And don't say there isn't a cutback, because there is.

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

Well, Mr. Speaker, the member for New Westminster may believe that a

person who is receiving homemaker service would otherwise be in an

acute-care hospital. That is not always the case; in fact, it is

infrequently the case. Many of the people who are receiving these

services require a degree of care or attention, and it varies. As many

different procedures may be followed as there are clients, of whom

there are in excess of 21,000. If the 21,000 people receiving homemaker

service would otherwise require acute-care beds, then we would be faced

with a very grave crisis in the province of British Columbia. The two

are not directly related, although there are some citizens who would

otherwise require additional and more intensive care.

It is

difficult to relate to the suggestion of the member for New Westminster

that there is a cutback across the board when the budget increase is

approximately 44 percent. I don't know whether the member was speaking

with Mrs. Kelly; I don't know where he gets his quotes from.

The

entire program of maintaining citizens' requirements varies from the

homemaker program to acute care and intensive care. There's a direct

relationship on varying levels, but one does not necessarily replace

the other. The homemaker service has increased significantly over the

past years. At the beginning of 1978 there were 3,569 people receiving

the service. Currently there are approximately 22,000.

Mrs.

Kelly was referred to, and a large portion of the increase in costs is

related to the wages of people who work in that area. The average cost

per hour paid by the provincial

[ Page 6034 ]

government

to agencies who employ homemakers is approximately $10 an hour. The

amount paid to the people who are working varies between $5 and $7.50

per hour. The range of rates paid to the agencies would be in the

neighbourhood of $7.75 to $11.50 an hour, depending on their personal

circumstances and whether driving or other services must be provided.

In individual situations, as is necessary, each of the clients is

subject to reassessment at all times. It is the assessor's

responsibility to determine what level of service each client requires.

It's an impossible situation to try to evaluate 21,000 people on a

regular basis: monthly, weekly or so on. An effort is made to reassess

the needs. In some instances the hours provided for a client will be

reduced and in others they will be increased.

MR. COCKE:

I gather the minister has changed the original policy, because

homemakers were touted, to begin with, to keep people out of

facilities. Since we have been informed that each of the districts has

received letters informing the homemakers to cut back service, has the

minister decided to tell the people at the local level that the letter

is to be ignored?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I presume the member will table that letter.

MR. LEGGATT:

My question is on the same general subject. I'd like to be a little bit

more specific with the minister. He's indicated that there's a budget

increase. He's estimating something like 44 percent. I wonder if the

minister could advise why the Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows agency has

issued a list of prohibited activities to their workers. Those

prohibited activities are as follows: no transportation; cut-back food

preparation, emotional support, home repair and vacuuming. Vacuuming

seems to be too much for this service.

Has the minister

taken any steps with that particular organization to reinstate the

programs that they have specifically cut back in response to what the

minister tells us is a budget increase?

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

The needs of the individual client are investigated by people within

the Ministry of Health. The purpose of the program is to assist people

who might otherwise not be able to maintain themselves at home.

Frequently it is to assist the spouses of people who cannot maintain

themselves at home. The primary purpose of the program is to assist

people with respect to their health. It's not a nursing program; it's a

homemaker program. Frequently it involves light house duties to assist

single individuals who may have a problem in maintaining their homes.

Frequently it is to assist spouses by providing them with an

opportunity of getting away from the home for a matter of a few hours

maybe once a week, or the better portion of a day.

The

duties vary. We have had reports that the duties include such things as

car washing, which we don't consider to be appropriate. There have been

other situations reported to us where the dealers include cutting the

grass, which we feel is not as appropriate as it should be. The member

mentioned vacuuming. I'm not sure to what extent vacuuming is required.

I'm sure that each of the clients of that agency does not require

someone to do their vacuuming for them. It's certainly not the intent.

One

of the problems is determining what precisely the client requires. Some

of the clients simply require someone to visit them on a regular basis

because they're suffering from loneliness as well as some other

problems associated with their health. It's impossible to set a program

which would be appropriate for every one of those 22,000 individual

people. The homemaker agencies attempt to provide the service which has

been identified as being required by the assessor. I don't know what

Maple Ridge intended to provide to their clients. I presume they

provide what might be required by each individual client. They may cut

back on their program in order to maintain their budget. They may cut

back by way of hours or number of clients. They're expected to maintain

themselves within that budget.

I hope the members across

this House realize that through taxpayers' dollars, the Ministry of

Health is providing a level of service to more than 21,000 people which

otherwise they simply would not have, for various reasons. It's an

excellent service. It's providing for the needs of a large number of

people. It is not perfect, nor would it ever be expected to be perfect.

It's costly and extensive, and it's working, despite some of the minor

complaints we're hearing.

MR. NICOLSON: I guess I

have what the minister would consider a minor complaint from the Ferne

and District Homemakers Service, which has had to cut the number of

hours of service by 22 percent in the last two months. Budget

restraints have resulted in a further 20 percent cut in the hours of

service ordered by the long-term-care office. In view of the largess of

the minister's estimates, has the minister reconsidered the level of

funding which is offered to the Fernie and District Homemakers Service?

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

Mr. Speaker, I obviously don't have the list of what might be offered

to that particular society, but each of these societies, agencies or

whatever has the opportunity of reviewing its budget with the

coordinator or administrator in the area. Within the Ministry of Health

we find that despite approximately a 44 percent increase in the

funding, we still cannot provide all that is expected and demanded of

the program. Our assessors in the field are attempting to determine

where this money would be best spent. It's not an easy job. It's a

difficult one, in that you are dealing with people who are in various

levels of need. We expect the agencies who employ the homemakers to

provide the services, to be cooperating with our coordinators and

administrators to see that the best possible level of service is

maintained.

I would suggest a 44 percent increase is not a

minor matter. We're speaking in excess of $50 million a year for this

specific program. It is growing, perhaps faster than was originally

envisaged. We're attempting to keep pace with it, but we do anticipate

individual situations where the clients feel that they are not

receiving the service they either expect or demand.

HON. MR. SMITH: May I have leave to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. SMITH:

Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today is a constituent of mine, Mr.

Michael La Brooy, and his mother from England, Mrs. Christine De Saram.

Mrs. De Saram's

[ Page

6035 ]

father was a former Attorney-General and later a chief justice of Ceylon. I would ask the House to make them both welcome.

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Speaker, the minister wished me to table a document. I am tabling a

letter from Isabel Kelly to an administrator in the north, indicating

that the entire increase in the budget is going to be consumed in

increases in salaries.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT

(continued)

On vote 76: minister's office, $218,076.

MR. SKELLY:

I have just one question to begin with. There's a bit of confusion in

the Okanagan basin today about the continuation of the 2, 4-D program

in Okanagan lakes. I gather the minister is aware that I was going to

ask the question, because he's received a number of telegrams, letters

and phone calls himself.

Apparently the minister stated on a

television show on the weekend that if there was not unanimous

agreement among the local governments in the Okanagan Valley with

respect to the remaining 2, 4-D permits, the permits would be off.

Originally the ministry set a deadline of May 31 for that unanimous

agreement. I would like to know if the minister would now confirm that

the 2, 4-D permits for Wood Lake and Kalamalka Lake have been suspended

or withdrawn.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Maybe I could clarify

what I said for the member. I haven't been in my office this morning so

I don't know how many phone calls or telegrams I've received. On the

assumption that you've received copies of all of them, perhaps you

could fill me in later on what my morning's correspondence is.

We're

only talking about the program involving our attempt at eradication of

the weed. In jurisdictions where there are a multitude of regional

districts involved — for example, part of the Kalamalka Lake is in the

Central Okanagan Regional District and part of the lake is in the North

Okanagan Regional District — we were not prepared to apply for or use

2, 4-D or, in fact, the whole package, where the regional district or

local municipal council is opposed to it.

In a situation in

Vernon, you now have the North Okanagan Regional District, the city of

Vernon and the Okanagan Basin Water Board in favour, but the Central

Okanagan Regional District is opposed. That doesn't stop the city of

Vernon or the North Okanagan Regional District from applying. But the

ministry is not prepared to make application unless there is unanimity

among the locally elected bodies.

MR. SKELLY: The

minister will then confirm that the permits for Wood Lake and Kalamalka

Lake are still in effect, and that the 2, 4-D programs for those lakes

will go ahead, regardless of the opposition of at least the Central

Okanagan Regional District.

HON. MR. ROGERS: That's incorrect. They're in a state of suspension

now. Unless the Central Okanagan Regional District wants to have this program

in their jurisdiction, it won't be done in their jurisdiction.

MR. SKELLY:

When Mr. Buchanan originally advised the local governments by letter —

I believe sometime around May 1 — he said that if unanimous agreement

was not received by May 31, then the permits would be cancelled. May 31

has now passed and unanimous agreement has not been achieved among the

local governments in the area. Will the minister confirm that those

permits will now be cancelled?

HON. MR. ROGERS:

They're in a state of suspension right now. They're not being used. I

won't confirm or deny whether or not they're cancelled. That's just the

word I choose to use on it. The program is inactive. It will not

proceed until such time as there's unanimity among the people involved.

MR. SKELLY:

Apparently the ministry has also tied the diver-dredge program to the

use of 2, 4-D in Kalamalka Lake and Wood Lake. Is the ministry not

prepared to proceed with the diver-dredge program, which I understand

doesn't require pesticide permits, and if not, why not?

HON. MR. ROGERS:

The answer is no, we're not prepared to. It's a total package. It's an

all-or-nothing thing. There's substantial risk involved for these

divers. The program is virtually futile without the follow-up of using

AquaKleen, and we're not prepared to continue on that basis.

MR. SKELLY:

For how long, then, will the permits remain suspended — until such time

as the Central Okanagan Regional District has been persuaded by the

ministry to go along with the 2, 4-D program? Or are we to believe that

the programs will not continue in 1981?

HON. MR. ROGERS:

They may or may not. I would think they might be persuaded by their own

constituents. They're not to be persuaded one way or the other by the

ministry. The facts have been stated, so they know what the facts are.

It's as simple as that.

MR. SKELLY: The facts are from the point of view of the ministry, Mr. Chairman.

debate on Thursday and Friday the minister talked about the appeal

procedures under the Pesticide Control Act, and he mentioned that the

question of natural justice in those appeal procedures had been

examined and upheld by the court. Is there a report on that court

decision that the minister could table with this House?

understanding was that subsequent to the pesticide control appeal held

in the Okanagan Valley in 1978, the opponents of the permits sought to

have the permits overturned because the Pesticide Control Appeal Board

displayed bias, and they obtained a temporary injunction from the

courts in the area. They only had half a day to prepare the case and to

examine something like 50 hours of tapes of the Pesticide Control

Appeal Board proceedings. They were given access not to transcripts but

to the verbatim tapes of the appeal. Only on the question of bias of

that particular hearing was the injunction thrown out. The minister

really has no right to claim that the procedures of the Pesticide

Control Appeal Board have not been challenged based on natural

[ Page 6036 ]

justice, but only on the bias of the appeal board at that particular hearing.

wonder if the minister has any records of court cases which have upheld

the procedures of the Pesticide Control Appeal Board. I would

appreciate it if he would table those in the House, because we haven't

been able to locate them. As far as we're concerned, in the statements

issued to appellants in this most recent Okanagan lakes program the

board has biased itself in favour of the federal government

registration agencies and the proponents of the pesticide program. I'd

appreciate it very much if the minister would table any records or

reports he's received on this case which uphold the procedures of the

Pesticide Control Appeal Board. Do you have those reports?

HON. MR. ROGERS:

It's a little awkward to answer this particular question, because when

I discussed that on Friday I was speaking on a global basis, not on

this particular case. Any of the decisions made by the appeal board can

be tested in the courts. I hope I didn't mislead the member on Friday

by implying that it was to do with Eurasian milfoil and the 2, 4-D case

in the Okanagan Valley. Decisions of the Pesticide Control Appeal Board

have been appealed in the courts, and I'm sure if we want to we can

find an example. Of course any of the decisions they make now are still

open to appeal.

MR. SKELLY: That is quite different from what the minister said on Thursday and Friday.

questioning on Thursday and Friday we also talked about alternatives to

Eurasian milfoil harvesting. One of the suggestions dealt with by the

minister and by me was the availability of the white Amur grass carp.

Apparently there's a hybrid variety that's been developed in Arkansas

that doesn't reproduce in lakes in northern climates; for example,

Okanagan Lake and other areas. While it is true that at the present

time these are restricted from importation into Canada, according to

people we've contacted in the United States it's not true that 42 of

the United States have banned the importation of these hybrid grass

carp specifically. Apparently nine states have recommended in favour of

using the carp, six have no regulations one way or the other, about ten

are definitely opposed and the rest fall somewhere between those

positions. The operator of one carp farm says that even Ronald Reagan

has the grass carp on his farm in the state of California, even though

the state has legislated against it down there.

Regarding

the use of Aqua-Kleen chemical, it's my understanding that Aqua-Kleen

was not registered in Canada prior to the interest expressed in the

chemical by the government of the province of British Columbia. As a

result of the interest of this government, the chemical was brought

into Canada, registered in Canada and even registered for use against

the label restrictions on the chemical. I'm asking the minister to take

another look at this hybrid white Amur grass carp, which apparently

does not reproduce in lakes in this northern climate and which could be

of some value in eradicating the Eurasian water milfoil. I suppose

there are some small lakes in the province of B.C. or in the Okanagan

Valley where enclosed tests could be done and controls could be

established. I'm wondering if the minister is willing to give that

consideration, given the fact that the information he had previously

about the white Amur grass carp hybrid may or may not be true.

HON. MR. ROGERS:

The statement I made — perhaps you saw the television program about the

42 states — had to do with the importation of Chinese water carp. I'm

not aware of any restriction on the hybrid. I don't believe I made that

statement. If someone assumes that I did, I stand corrected. I'm not

aware of any at all. Yes, I've asked my staff to look at it, because I

think it's something we'd like to put in a test situation and try out.

Aqua-Kleen, I'm going to have to find out where and when, to go back

into the history of that. I don't have it at the top of my head, but

I'll find out for you.

MR. GABELMANN: I appreciate

the Chair's recognition of me rather than the member for Omineca (Mr.

Kempf). I'll explain very briefly to the member for Omineca. I'm just

out of bed for an hour or so because I need to make some comments

during these estimates. I should very briefly explain to the committee

that I had an ear operation late last week. The effects of ear

operations leave one a little seasick. I still have an equilibrium

problem and a hearing problem at the moment. For that reason I intend

to be very brief this afternoon, because I do want to go back and go to

bed.

Interjections.

MR. GABELMANN: One of

the handicaps — or should I say disabilities — I have at the moment is

that until this clears up, I'm almost totally deaf as well, so I

couldn't hear the comments of the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams).

I'm not sure that's necessarily a disability. If I suddenly have to

head for the railing, it's because of a feeling of nausea.

This

afternoon I want to very quickly make a couple of comments. The

minister knows that the environment in general is an issue that north

Islanders treat with some concern. I think the latest edition that I

have of the Campbell River Upper Islander

is an example of the way in which people on northern Vancouver Island

see environmental issues. There are five stories on the page. Three of

the stories, including the top three stories, are concerned with the

environment: Buttle Lake, Kingfisher Park and wolf poisoning. The other

two stories are on housing. I think that represents fairly the concerns

that the people have in that constituency. The other paper in my

riding, the North Island Gazette ,

has Port Alice and its air pollution problems as its major story this

last week. That's fairly typical in my riding. So the minister can

probably see why I was determined to make it in here today to make some

comments.

One of the concerns that I have about the way in

which the Ministry of Environment operates is that it doesn't see

itself in the role that I think it could see itself. It sees itself as

a permit-issuing ministry. It could in fact be a wealth-creating

ministry in this province should it decide to focus its approach on the

question in a different way, and in a way that I would urge. We have

the potential to produce a great deal of food in this province in our

coastal waters. In many ways it probably should be our major

agricultural effort in this province: the production of food through

not only fishery but the shellfish industry and related industries

along the coast. We don't seem to have the kind of effort, energy and

promotion of that approach to the coastal environment that I think is

properly a responsibility of the provincial Minister of Environment. We

do have some feeble efforts at the federal level with their salmonid

enhancement programs and their involvement of the community in those

programs. We even

[ Page 6037 ]

have the Vancouver Sun

now involved in a kind of promotion program involving the public. But

we don't have anywhere near the kind of involvement of the provincial

ministry that I believe should be occurring. We could be producing an

immense amount of food protein on this coast. I think we have a

responsibility in the world to do that. That requires two things from

the ministry. One, it requires an activist approach towards developing,

encouraging and promoting that food fishery. Two, it requires some

efforts to make sure that the environment which would sustain that food

protein is protected in a way that allows it sustenance.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

This

year we have the curious situation in and around Desolation Sound,

including Cortes, Redonda and all of the islands in and around that

area, of there being a ban on shellfish harvesting during the whole

summer period — longer than the summer; it must be about a six-month

period — primarily as a result of the pollution caused in those waters

by pleasure craft. It strikes me as being a terribly perverse way of

approaching those kinds of environmental problems that we close down

the shellfish harvesting in that area rather than closing down the use

of sewer systems on these pleasure craft that dump their raw sewage

right into the water. We really must very quickly put an end to that

kind of pollution of valuable waters, not only from an esthetic and

environmental point of view but also from a sheer dollars-and-cents

point of view of trying to encourage the kind of industry that could

occur in these waters.

I'll leave the whole question of

promotion of an industry at that. Perhaps in subsequent estimates in

future sessions we'll have an opportunity to develop that further.

want to speak very briefly about Quinsam, coal. The question has been

canvassed thoroughly. I understand that it was canvassed last week by

the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) as well as the

minister. I just want to reiterate what I've said on other occasions:

there is no way that there will ever be an open-pit mine in Campbell

River. I've tried to say that to Weldwood and to Weldwood-Luscar.

Luscar, to their credit — maybe to their sense of smart economics —

have pulled out of that proposal. All of us need to say very clearly to

that company: you've spent $5 million or so now; don't spend any more

money, because that project is absolutely not going to be allowed to

proceed. There is no way that we can consider open-pit coal-mining,

particularly mining a coal as rich in sulphur as that particular mine

has. We've just go to say no to them.

I appreciate that the

minister might want to rely on the coal guidelines, which are not even

precise technical requirements, but rather just — as they're called —

guidelines, and want to allow them to attempt to prove that they can do

it. There isn't anyone in Campbell River who believes they can do it. I

don't believe there is anybody in this House who thinks they can do it.

Why doesn't the minister just say to them that the odds of them ever

getting that permit are so slim that they should give up now and allow

the community to get on to some other efforts and put its energy into

so many other areas that would be more productive than continuing to

fight that very absurd proposal by Weldwood of Canada?

On Buttle Lake, the major story in the last issue of the Campbell River paper

was the Buttle Lake story and the fact that the federal minister, Rom&o

LeBlanc, wants to stop the dumping of tailings into that lake. I appreciate

that the ministry has asked the company to provide alternative suggestions as

to how they can resolve that tailings problem. I think the time has come to

put some deadlines on their activity and to tell them basically and frankly

that beyond a certain date — a reasonable date, but not too far in the future

— there will be no water-dumping of those tailings.

another part of my constituency. Rupert Inlet, we have evidence that

water-dumping of mine tailings is just not the way to go. The Waldichuk

report, while it reaches a number of differing conclusions, indicates

that some very serious damage is happening in Rupert Inlet in Quatsino

Sound as a result of the dumping of Utah Mine tailings into Quatsino

Sound. That's very evident. Even 10 and 12 miles down the inlet you can

see evidence on the shore of what the tailings are doing. The level of

heavy-metal poisoning in those waters now appears to be quite alarming.

would urge that the minister tell all of these concerns the two in my

riding in particular and others besides Amax that may occur as time

goes on — that we want to find other ways of disposing of these

tailings and not disposing them into water, whether it's salt water or

fresh. I just want to say that while the pressure isn't on to the same

extent up at Port Hardy at Utah Mines as it is in Campbell River, one

day people up there are going to wake up to the fact that they have a

serious problem on their hands too.

I guess estuaries are a

major concern in any coastal riding. I appreciate that much of the

decision-making about estuaries ends up in Lands, Parks and Housing,

but I just want to say that it is so much an integral part of the food

fishery on this coast that the ministry is going to have to take much

tougher and stricter measures and implement tougher guidelines about

the use of estuaries than now exist. I appreciate that we're beginning

to reclaim some of them — we're beginning to reclaim the Campbell River

estuary — but at the same time we're beginning to lose parts of others,

like the Salmon River where Mac-Blo intends to alienate part of the

estuary.

While I'm on the subject of estuaries, the

decision, I hope, will soon be made between Environment and Lands,

Parks and Housing about the Robson Bight.... Okay. I appreciate the

minister is nodding his head and probably will comment on that

afterwards. I just want to say that while part of the decision-making

is also in Lands, Parks and Housing.... I may touch on that; it's

difficult to avoid that in the discussion of Robson Bight.

There

have been proposals not only for an ecological reserve at Robson Bight

— and therefore the prevention of a log dump, a bundling and sorting

area there — but for a provincial class A park on the lower reaches of

the Tsitika River. I should tell the House, Mr. Chairman, that I'm not

absolutely persuaded that that's a good thing. I suspect that what we

might have in that area, If we do create a park there, is a different

kind of destruction of the whales in Robson Bight. I'm concerned — and

I hope the minister can make some comments about the problem we're

going to face this summer with the number of people going in in

pleasure boats, just to have a look at Robson Bight. The publicity that

that area has gained will probably do as much damage to the whales as

some other activities might have done. For that reason I look with some

concern upon the proposal that the area be developed into a park,

because should that happen, it would only encourage a greater number of

people in the area. We perhaps need to leave the area to the whales and

lead people to some other areas. So I would suspect that the best

[ Page 6038 ]

answer

is that there be an ecological reserve along the foreshore extending

out into the salt water, back far enough inland to protect the buffer

of trees, and that no logging occur on the river itself that would

affect or change the quality of the river and the estuary and the

saltwater area, but that no further development of any kind — whether

it's industrial or park — be allowed to proceed.

If I was

feeling up to it, Mr. Chairman, I would talk for some time about ELUC

and what I see as a very bad decision of the government to phase out

the support staff of the committee. I'm not going to take much time on

it, but a very classic example of why we need ELUC exists in my

constituency. It relates to the Tahsish-Kwois river system and the

integrated resource study that is now going on in that area concerning

future use of that particular watershed. Unfortunately the committee

that is studying it, while it's a public committee, is sponsored by the

Forest Service. We find in these situations that rather than having a

combined group sponsoring a study of a resource area like this, one of

the component groups — one of the possible users — ends up organizing

and sponsoring the study. With all the good intention on the part of

that ministry, that leads naturally to a public view on the part of

many people that the study's conclusions themselves will be biased

because one discipline is involved in the decision-making. I think it

would be just as absurd to have the fish and wildlife branch head up

the study of the Tahsish-Kwois as it would be to have forestry. It

doesn't make sense at all to me; it should be a multidisciplinary group

under the auspices of ELUC, and its staff support should come from ELUC

itself. At this point I won't say more about that particular issue,

because there is a publicly based group, including forest companies,

the public and what not, involved in looking at how to develop the

Tahsis-Kwois. I put myself on record before, and I will again, that in

this particular case I think the wildlife, recreational and natural

values exceed the forestry values in the lower reaches of that river

system. I trust that the committee will come up with those conclusions,

and having got those conclusions, the government will then take the

required action to ensure that that particular watershed, at least in

its lower reaches, is protected from clear-cut logging.

The

only other thing I'll talk about is the

section of the ministry that is

responsible for river maintenance. We had some very disastrous floods,

particularly on December 26 last year, six months ago. In particular,

one classic example was where ten or twenty times the number of dollars

were spent after the fact than would have been if it had been prevented

before the fact. I don't have my estimates book in front of me, but I

think the figure for river maintenance is about $400,000, or some minor

number of dollars that can't even begin to deal with the kinds of

river-channel maintenance required. In this fiscal year we should be

spending I literally several millions of dollars on river maintenance,

not only to prevent property damage but, more importantly, to prevent

damage to salmon spawning-grounds. This past winter we have wiped out

millions of dollars worth of commercial salmon, in many cases as the

result of an inadequate maintenance program for these rivers.

The

clearest example that I'm aware of is the Oyster River, which is the

boundary between the ridings of Comox and North Island, where the

entire spawn for this year was probably wiped out as a result of the

flood. If a minimal amount of money had been spent to scour the channel

in one particular spot, we could have prevented all that flooding; we

could have prevented the major dollar loss to the province and to the

federal government — it's a 50-50 thing, if I remember correctly. With

some maintenance money ahead of time we could have prevented it. I fail

to understand why the minister has been unable to persuade his

colleagues, particularly on Treasury Board, that dollars spent ahead of

time on river maintenance are dollars well worth spending. I'll leave

it at that, Mr. Chairman. I would welcome the minister's reply.

HON. MR. ROGERS:

First of all, I think I know what you are going through personally and

physically. I'll try to be brief, so you can get out of here. I went

through something similar myself.

Last week we talked

briefly about aquaculture on the coast and what our mariculture

potential is. What probably gives us the most potential are oysters,

scallops and other shellfish that we can grow here. We have excellent

natural oyster seed-raising areas in Pendrell Sound and Homftay

Channel. We have taken over from the federal government the monitoring

for the spatfall prediction in that particular area.

The

oyster industry has tended to attract some people who think it's an

easy way to make a living. It's a good living, but it's a very hard

living. Consequently we have had a lot of people start and fail, which

is unfortunate. We in the ministry wanted to be able to give some

assistance to new people starting out so that they would have an idea

of how much labour and capital and how long a lease they need to tie up

in order to get a return on their efforts. It has to be an individual

enterprise or a small collective operation. Looking after oysters

requires an enormous amount of work. The seed only falls in areas with

relatively high water temperature and relatively low salinity. That's

why it only occurs in these two natural areas. It's easy enough for us

to do. If we take in the cultch, we can transport it from there to just

about anywhere on the lower coast and bring it out.

I should

point out that the shellfish ban that took place last year was more the

result of red tide than pollution. I guess that's a point you may wish

to debate with me or others. Pleasure-craft pollution is a thing that

the Americans have tried to come to grips with. In the United States

they now have a law saying you have to have a marine pump-out toilet on

boats in inland waters. There are two pump-out stations in all of

Washington state right now — one in Seattle and one in Friday Harbor. I

wouldn't know how many hundreds of thousands of boats there are that

don't.... But two stations couldn't handle them. So the rule is being

unenforced north of the Astoria lightship, which is really ridiculous;

but that's the status right now.

Clearly, it is one of the

things which has to come; holding tanks should become a must for

pleasure craft. Montague Harbour in the lower Gulf Islands is not fit

for swimming in the summertime, not because of what nature put in

there, but because of the number of people who, on any given evening,

discharge not only human effluent overboard but also the grease from

the cooking and everything else. It all floats to the surface,

especially in confined waterways. Prideaux Haven in Desolation Sound is

a good example of an area where there is so little flushing action in

the water that it becomes permanently contaminated. Tenedos Bay is the

same way. Von Donop Inlet on Cortes Island has very little flushing

action. And there are many others — Squirrel Cove, again on Cortes

Island. We see this up and down the coast in these concentrated areas.

[ Page 6039 ]

Last

year I took the opportunity to send out a booklet, printed by the

ministry, to the commodores of all the yacht clubs and boating clubs we

could find listed in the province. It pointed out what can be done

environmentally and some things which can be done in terms of limits on

oysters and shellfish. Most people don't even know there is a limit. I

won't say it fell on deaf ears, because they all received the copy very

nicely. The next time I was out on my boat I noticed someone with a

bucketful of clams and a sackful of oysters. The postings don't seem to

matter. People pay attention when somebody dies from eating

contaminated shellfish, but they don't seem to pay attention to the

regulations. The suggestion you made last year about producing a proper

sign for oyster leases — I believe it was you who made it — has

resulted in us producing pretty good quality signs which don't fade.

They are distributed to the oyster lessors. As you know, we're building

an oyster demonstration farm, and one of the things we want to do

within the ministry is raise some seed ourselves and start stocking

some of the public beaches which are currently understocked.

Quinsam

coal and the guidelines system. You know, having the right to say no

also implies that you have the ability to say yes. I would have no

difficulty saying to somebody: "No, that's not acceptable." But on the

other hand, if somebody came to me with a project and I said, "Yeah,

that's okay," then I'd be open to all sorts of criticism for not having

put them through the test. Sometimes in the corporate world there is

not an awful lot of common sense. There's an awful lot of business

sense and looking down the financial sheet, the balance sheet, and all

the rest of it. There's not much sensitivity, but you can't engender

that in people. Some corporations have it, and others don't.

I'm

sure you might be the first to get up and say: "How dare you, as the

minister, stand up and give your blanket approval of this project just

because you happen to like it." You may applaud me giving a rejection;

but I think, if you follow my argument, you see that if I gave approval

to a project which subsequently turned out to be of horrendous

environmental emphasis, although it hadn't looked that way at first

glance — yet the minister would already have said yes.... You know what

that would be worth: borrowing money on, doing contracts for, and all

the rest. I don't want to put myself or whoever succeeds me in this

portfolio in that position, and I don't think you would want to either.

I know what happens. People go a little further down the line than we

would like them to go, and maybe talking to someone like a Dutch uncle

would save him problems. That's a discretionary thing that they have to

figure out, and it's part of the business world.

Buttle

Lake. Well, my conversations with Dr. Furnival continue, and I have now

gone through the entire thing from the very first instances to the

hearings held by the board in the early 1970s. I'm trying to bring

myself up to date on it. However, the alternative suggestions are in

right now. They know they have to get out of the lake. They also think

they have a system for recycling most of the water that they are going

to use on an internal basis. I'm not sure I can put a timeframe on it

yet, because I don't know about ordering equipment and the rest of it.

But it's not behind the covers by any means. It's something they know

they have to proceed with. I've also advised them that I would be very

disappointed if there was any further capital expenditure on their

particular operation, without having it specifically geared to cleaning

up this problem. They have proven up new ore and we have insisted that

they go through the metal mines guidelines steering committee as would

a new mine. The people of Campbell River had faith with us on Quinsam

coal, and I think if we go through this system Buttle Lake mine

shouldn't have to shut down at all. I think what should happen is that

they should just have to spend the money required to make sure they

minimize this particular runoff. There's still going to be a problem in

that watershed with the natural mineralization that occurs in the rock

in that area and the runoff, but I'm sure that once we remove the

effluent from the lake, most of that will be solved.

Getting

on to estuaries for a minute, I would hope the Robson Bight report

comes down reasonably soon. It's virtually ready to go now. I think all

members of the House, and especially you, will be more than pleased

with it. I think if I leave it at that you can read between the lines.

I share your concern about going into a park. When you talk to people

who are in the park maintenance business they tell you some pretty

terrible stories about what people are like in parks. People tend to

abuse parks, so I think we're probably going to have to have some kind

of reserve on it — an ecological reserve with restricted areas that you

can boat in, or what have you. I'm not sure just how we want to do it.

can go through the Environment and Land Use Committee secretariat

argument. I'm sure we will on others. For a large number of reasons I

happen to think the talents of the people there are better served where

they are now. Whatever particular ministry happens to chair a

particular committee it still has to go through the Environment and

Land Use Committee technical committee before it goes to ELUC, and the

course that the secretarial services are now provided with by

Intergovernmental, which is only incidental.

River

maintenance. You weren't here last week. I had been directed by

cabinet, and subsequently directed the ministry to prepare an analysis

of what we're going to have to spend province-wide so that we stop this

hit-and-miss business on river maintenance. Part of the problem — and

it's a legitimate problem — is that the federal Fisheries and Oceans

are pretty restrictive about when they allow you to go in the river. It

may seem like the local contractors aren't too busy at the time and we

can get the trucks and the riprap, but federal fisheries say: "No, this

isn't the time to go." I certainly support taking their opinion or

value judgment. They control that kind of thing. In a lot of cases

we're playing with nature, and nature has a way of coming back all over

us. The funding on riverbank protection in areas other than the Fraser

River is 100 percent provincial. It's only the compensation for flood

damage victims under the federal-provincial flood-sharing arrangement

which kicks in after a certain amount. I think it's $1 per person, per

population. So it's entirely provincial.

I couldn't agree

with you more that a dollar spent in advance will sometimes save you

$10 afterwards, and you can probably point that finger at every place

in the province that was subjected to flooding last winter. But you

can't tell me where it's going to happen next winter; otherwise I'd

know exactly where to spend my budget. You can make predictions, but

that's the difficulty we have. What I would like to say is, if we do

get the program in place, and my colleague the Minister of Consumer and

Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hyndman) gets the real-estate boards to

start advising people when they purchase houses that they're in a

floodplain zone so that people become more aware of that, then we can

look to some improvements in the kind of problems we're going to have

every time we have a particular

[ Page 6040 ]

flood.

I know it's the first week in June, but I'm not too sure we're not

going to have one right now, based on the weather I've seen today.

I think that answers your questions.

MR. KEMPF:

Since we're having such very quiet debate this afternoon, it's even

difficult to get up and voice my concerns, but for several days,

particularly at the end of last week, I've listened to the debate,

particularly of the members opposite....

MR. NICOLSON: When are you going to call the Crown corporations committee?

MR. KEMPF: We'll get around to that, Mr. Member. They've all awakened anyway, Mr. Chairman, and that's a step in the right direction.

The

members opposite would have this province and the members of this

chamber believe that they're the only ones in British Columbia who are

concerned about the environment. In listening to them you would think

that those great socialist defenders of the poor and underprivileged

over on that side of the floor had the edge on environmental concerns

in this province. That is not so. The truth of the matter is that it is

definitely.not so. There are many of us on this side of the floor who

are much mote cognizant of the need for a carefully managed and

well-protected environment in this province. There are many more, in

fact, than the majority of the NDP ranks opposite.

I know

it's a great political and emotional issue. It's an issue that they

would like to use. The socialists opposite would use anything for their

very narrow political purpose. That purpose is to regain power at any

cost. I for one have the greatest respect for our environment. The

member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) grunts. As an ardent

fisherman, and one who loves and has spent many hundreds of hours in

the outdoors of this province, I have a real concern for doing things

in a manner which will ensure retention of a clean and healthy

environment in British Columbia.

That is not to say that I'm

anti-development and that we should stop everything and ignore the need

for development, as the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) — he's not in

the chamber now — would suggest, to have a clean environment. In order

for a clean environment to be enjoyed, we must have people. In order to

have people, we must have jobs. In order to have jobs, we must have

development; yes — orderly, careful development, but, nevertheless,

development; development which will not ruin that which is our greatest

heritage in British Columbia, our environment. Notice, hon. members

opposite — there aren't many there right at the moment — that I said

"our." I mean "our" environment. I don't think one self-interest group,

whoever they might be, should have it over any other when it comes to

that environment. It's very important to all of us.

If we

have situations where in the past mistakes have been made and the

environment damaged, let us, by all means, find ways in which to

rectify that. I agree with those that have said that those who pollute

or damage our environment must pay for restoration. But we cannot move

too quickly and without thought. There must be cooperation to doubly

ensure that we achieve both a clean environment and a province in which

we have jobs for our people. That is our philosophy. In the search for

that kind of a partnership in this province I believe we on this side

of the floor have the edge on the socialists opposite.

The

area which I would like to primarily discuss in this minister's

estimates is the area dealing with the fish and wildlife branch, which

is under his administration. It's an area which I believe is of great

concern to a great number of British Columbians who hunt, trap and

fish, and also to a very important group: those who not only make their

own living but also add significantly to that of others — the

guide-outfitters of British Columbia. I think there are members

opposite who would agree with me that there has been, and still is, a

movement in this province by certain groups and individuals —

academics, specialists, biologists and others — to eventually ban all

hunting in British Columbia. It was started some years ago by

attempting to stop trapping and guide-outfitting, using a number of

excuses including the attempted banning of the leg-hold trap. The

argument was backed up in many cases by phony game counts showing that

certain species were on the decline because of hunting pressures. To

strengthen their argument against guide-outfitting, they used these

declining figures — phony figures, in many cases — to point out that

the game that was left should be retained solely for the use of British

Columbians.

The underlying goal — and make no mistake about

it was and still is to eventually ban all hunting and in time all

fishing as well in this province. It is up to this government or any

government to see that that never comes about in the province of

British Columbia. In fact it is the responsibility of government to see

to it that these industries and these great sports are enhanced. We

must protect and even nurture hunting, fishing and trapping and, most

importantly, bring about an atmosphere in which a flourishing

guide-outfitting industry can exist in the province. As a province we

must begin practising, not just preaching, proper wildlife management —

something which in my estimation has not been done for quite some time

in the province of British Columbia. We in this chamber and in

government must ensure that this minister be provided with a sufficient

budget with which to accomplish proper wildlife management.

heard someone say in debate last week that this minister was a junior

minister. Yes, he is, in terms of the amount of dollars allowed him for

the practice of wildlife management. Often we can't see the forest for

the trees, and we tend to overlook what certain lesser industries

actually return or mean to the province of British Columbia. We have

got to reassess this in terms of what proper wildlife management would

return to our province. I repeat, we do not practise wildlife

management in this province. It is not just my feeling alone, Mr.

Chairman, that we merely give it lip service. Through no fault of this

minister it's been forgotten. It really has slowly gone downhill over

the years through a succession of administrations and ministers. We

need not embark on something new in finding the means and the ways in

which to properly manage our wildlife. We need only learn from the

mistakes and the successes of others. Look to other countries such as

Sweden, for instance, where they seriously practise (1) multiple use,

(2) predator control and (3) proper wildlife management. What has been

the result? They have an overabundance of game in Sweden. Proper

wildlife management is an absolute necessity in this province. There is

a serious concern by many that it is not being practised.

read with much interest the White Paper now in circulation on the

proposed new Wildlife Act. It leaves a lot to be desired. One, I feel

very strongly that the new act must include a clause which indicates

very clearly that the minister responsible for that act must — I

emphasize must — manage

[ Page 6041 ]

all

wildlife in this Province, including the predators. Two, the onus — and

this must be etched in stone as well — must be on the minister to

provide for a viable trapping and guiding industry in this province.

MR. NICOLSON:

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, are we not in Committee of Supply,

and is discussion of legislation or the need for legislation in order?

MR. CHAIRMAN:

The point is well taken. The Committee of Supply does not allow for

discussion of the necessity for legislation. If all members of the

committee could be reminded that our business in committee is to

discuss the administrative aspects of the minister whose votes are

before us, then the committee will be well served.

MR. KEMPF:

Mr. Chairman, I'm just voicing my own views on what might be necessary

in a new Wildlife Act in this province. I continue. In a new Wildlife

Act there must be a clause....

MR. NICOLSON: If it's

the Chair's ruling that we may open up the new Wildlife Act White

Paper, I'm sure that members on this side of the House will welcome

such a ruling from the Chair. Is that the intention?

MR. CHAIRMAN:

That ruling was not made. I'll remind the member for Omineca that Sir

Erskine May does quite explicitly state that the necessity for

legislation cannot be discussed in Committee of Supply and that in

Committee of Supply we discuss the administrative actions of the

minister whose vote is before us. I'm sure the hon. member can relate

his remarks to the administrative action of the minister and not

discuss the necessity for future legislation.

MR. KEMPF:

Mr. Chairman, I still repeat that there must be policy in regard to

wildlife management and the fish and wildlife branch of the Ministry of

Environment of this province that will prohibit the kind of harassment

that has taken place in Spatsizi for two seasons now. Whether or not

you want to enshrine that in legislation and whether or not it's

policy, there must be that kind of policy or legislation in this

province. The kind of harassment of legally licensed users that took

place in the Spatsizi in the last two years is a disgrace. I believe,

quite seriously, that it must become a very serious offence in this

province and in fact it must be stopped.

There must be

policy in this province which makes the hunting and fishing of

harvestable surpluses a right of the individual. Yes, Mr. Chairman,

there can be surpluses. We don't see them today, but there can be —

with proper wildlife management in this province. I believe that

whether it be through policy, legislation or whatever you wish, there

must be a situation where the minister is given the responsibility. The

onus must be placed on the minister for the administration of proper

wildlife management in British Columbia. This cannot happen and it will

not happen if, in the final document, unlike the White Paper, the word

"director" is replaced by the word "minister," in that way clearly

placing the full responsibility on the minister for all aspects of good

wildlife management in the province of British Columbia. I think the

member opposite will agree with me there, and he won't harass me any

longer.

I want to talk specifically about predator control

for a few moments. I would say at the outset that the time is long past

when we in this province can continue to bury our heads in the sand

believing that our very serious predator problem will go away or that

it is not real or not true. It is true. It is real. It will not go away

until such time as there is no game left in this province — that time

is not far off unless positive action is taken by this province; I just

got a memo the other day which talked of Limited entry hunting; we

already see that happening — or until such time as the farmers and

ranchers are to be compensated for feeding all of the wolves of this

province with number one grade A beef, or until we as politicians have

guts enough to do what has to be done. Here once again we pay

lip-service. We play our little political games hoping to appease those

who in this case have been so narrow-minded as to read only the fiction

that Farley Mowat writes on the subject and fail to accept the truth.

MR. SKELLY: What has to be done?

MR. KEMPF:

I'll tell you what has to be done, We don't listen to those who know

and have seen and experienced the real problem for themselves. We

ignore those real experts — the people who have been out in the field

and know exactly what the problem is — and appease those who know

nothing about the subject. We play our little games at the taxpayers'

expense: for instance, attempting to control the predator problem by

helicopter, a practice that anyone who has ever actually seen the

habits of a wolf will tell you is absolute nonsense; hunting wolves by

helicopter at a cost to the taxpayer of about $10,000 a wolf. It's

absolute nonsense. Lip-service is all we're giving the problem.

play our little political games. Recently a wolf control study was done

in my area. It was not necessary in the first place, because we already

know what the problem is and how to rectify it. Besides the cost of the

study we have the cost of the loss of stock to the ranchers. Here is a

headline from the Lakes District News

dated May 6, 1981: "Wolf Study Eats Up $75,000 in Cattle Losses."

That's absolute madness. And the Hatler report that followed that

study....

Mr. Chairman, I'd like at this time to read into

the record — and I'll table a copy for all members, because I think all

members should have one — a letter written by someone who knows more

about the predator problem in the province of British Columbia than

anyone else in this province, and certainly more than every one of us

in this chamber put together: Mr. Cyril Shelford. As you know, Mr.

Chairman, he was a member of this Legislature for 25 years. He's

talking about the Hatler report on predator control, and I quote:

read with interest the recent report on livestock predation and

predator control effectiveness by Dave Hatler. Even though it will be

criticized by many, including myself, for what it doesn't deal with —

no recommendations on how to deal with the problem or be much help in

the formation of government policy — it does help in many ways in

gathering information. At least a few things came out loud and clear,

even though not likely intended by Hader, who for years has made it

clear he is against any control,

"The first

and most important point of all is the clear picture that at Woodmere,

with control, there were only normal range losses, and in the Topley no

control area the losses were fairly heavy the first year and very heavy

the second. This year could be far worse with an expanding, trained

cattle-killing pack

[ Page 6042 ]

which will spread out over a very wide area into no-loss areas. In my opinion

the cattlemen will have a clear case for compensation against the government."

Mr.

Chairman, I could read into the record the whole of this letter, but

I'll table it in order that every member have a copy; in fact, I'll

make copies for any member who would like one. It goes on and on to

tell of the fallacy of that kind of study and of this kind of report,

because we already know what the problem is and what to do about it.

in government can no longer afford to sit on the fence and listen to

the bleeding hearts. That luxury is no longer available to us if we

wish to have any wildlife in the province of British Columbia — besides

wolves. We have a real problem on our hands. I realize that the

emphasis on that problem is not sufficient, because that problem exists

in the northern two-thirds of this province. I don't know if the people

of this province, particularly the people of the urban areas in the

lower mainland, are aware that one full-grown wolf will eat — yes, kill

and eat — one full-grown moose a month. That's 12 moose a year, and in

many cases there are wolf-packs numbering 20 and 25 roaming the area

that I represent. Mr. Chairman, that's possibly 300 moose per wolf pack

per year; and again, yes, they kill and eat them. It's not just the

sick and elderly, as Farely Mowat would have it, because it's quite

clear that there wouldn't be enough of them to go around. No, it's the

young and particularly the newborn that these wolves go after.

Mr.

Chairman, we in government must accept the responsibility for that real

problem. Forget the bleeding hearts and the do-gooders; forget the

politically-oriented groups who don't know what they're talking about.

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF:

The members opposite laugh. Well, Mr. Chairman, I would ask that they

go up into my area and talk to the ranchers, the hunters and the

guide-outfitters and find out the real problem, and then come back down

here and laugh in this chamber. It's a real problem, and one which it's

quite apparent they don't understand either. Most of the people who

don't understand or don't wish to understand this problem are living in

the urban areas — Vancouver and Victoria. They wouldn't know a wolf if

it came out from under the doorstep and bit them in the leg when they

got home tonight. They wouldn't know what they're talking about, and

they're the ones that are perpetuating this very real problem to the

ranchers, hunters and trappers of this province. Maybe there should be

a few wolves under the steps of the people living on the lower

mainland. Maybe then they would understand what kind of a problem we

have in the north, and maybe they'd even support having something done

about it. Right now they don't seem to give a damn about the people in

the north and their problems.

I know my time is just about up. I'm not finished, but I'll let some intervening business happen and finish later.

MR. PASSARELL:

There are a number of issues I'd like to discuss with the minister. At

the outset I'd say I'm very pleased with the positive suggestion he

made earlier about Robson Bight. A number of people will be pleased to

see that recommendation when it's finally completed and tabled in the

House.

The first issue I'd like to discuss with the Minister

of Environment is the fish and wildlife staff. As the minister is

aware, all too often one individual covers too large an area. A case in

point is up in my constitutuency, where excellent work is being done by

the fish and wildlife officer in Cassiar in the vast area he has to

cover south down past Spatsizi Park, north along the Yukon border

and'east and west. It would certainly be for the benefit of the hunters

and people concerned with keeping a good profile on our fish and

wildlife area if we could get an additional officer into the Cassiar

area to help Mr. Pearson cover the large area he's presently faced with.

Secondly,

on the wolf poisoning program, in many ways I support what the member

for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) was saying. I think it's time that people in

this province who live in metropolitan areas come face to face with the

issue we face in the north when it comes to wolf poisoning programs.

Two questions: Does the minister believe that the program itself has

been successful? Secondly, can the minister state if there's going to

be more funding into the area of the wolf poisoning program?

I'd

like to talk about the environmental issue concerning the Stikine and

Iskut. The minister is quite aware of the situation B.C. Hydro is

planning in that particular valley. On Friday access was denied to

build a road into it, particularly on the issue of opening up to

hunters an area with one of the last wild herds of mountain goats in

the province. Presently the guide-outfitters in that area have a very

successful business operation. One of the concerns is that once you put

a road into this particular part of the country it opens it up to any

individual who wants to go in and hunt this last wild herd of mountain

goats in the province.

Another concern I would certainly

hope the minister would look at is the Washington Treaty of 1871, in

which a number of issues were brought out concerning the protection of

the Stikine. I would certainly hope the minister takes a very active

role in any future planning on the Stikine, using this particular

treaty as a guideline to protect that area. It's a very important

international treaty, and I would hope the minister can exert all his

power to protect the Stikine environment from development by B.C. Hydro.

The third issue I would like to discuss is Placer Develop ment and the ongoing

issue of uranium. It appears right now that Placer's plans to develop the

moly mine in the community of Atlin have been put on the back-burner for the

time being. If and when it proceeds the minister has to face the situation of

having over 500 pounds of uranium a day with drawn from this moly operation

in Atlin and stored in tailing ponds. Before there's any type of permission

for Placer Development to start operation, there should be some type of strong

legislative policy by the Ministry of Environment concerning the protection

of wildlife and the environment from 500 pounds of uranium a day stored in plastic-lined

tailing ponds. I would certainly hope the minister would take a very active

role in the Placer Development situation in Atlin. One suggestion is that my

private member's bill deals with this issue to a certain extent. We certainly

hope that the government could look into the matter of somehow protecting the

environment from 500 pounds of uranium from the proposed molybdenum mine in

Atlin.

The

fourth issue I'd like to discuss is the trapping regulations. As a

suggestion to the minister, I would certainly hope that he could look

into the policy that was developed by Alberta concerning trappers. In

the province of Alberta right now they have a law which states that

when oil or mining

[ Page 6043 ]

companies

come into the area and affect a trapping area by putting in a road to

an oil rig or a new mine bed, trappers in that area are reimbursed

through some type of funding policy. Presently there is no type of

policy of this nature in British Columbia. There is a policy of B.C.

Hydro's concerning when they build a dam. They give reimbursement to

trappers. I certainly hope that the minister, under his own guidance,

could develop a similar policy to what Alberta has, concerning the

protection of trapping rights.

I don't want to get too

familiar, but once again I would have to agree with the member for

Omineca (Mr. Kempf) concerning the protection of trappers. It's a very

important issue in the north and across this province. Twice now I've

stated something positive about the member for Omineca, but I do have

to agree with him. He's making sense when it comes to statements about

trapping. This isn't a honeymoon aspect. He is saying something that I

think most northern residents feel. On this issue, it looks like we're

both on the same side of the fence.

The fifth issue I'd like

to discuss with the minister is: does he have any policy or regulations

under his ministry to took into the foam aspect of home insulation?

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL:

None whatsoever. Okay. It was just something that was brought to my

attention by a constituent who stated that there might be something in

the Environment estimates about the problem of foam in home insulation.

The

next issue I'd like to discuss is an issue that I know the minister has

had strong feelings about and has been caught in a jam: Amax. The

minister has come into the issue once. The initial permits were granted

back in 1979. Nevertheless, he's still responsible for what's happening

up in Alice Arm today. We hear a lot of conflicting reports concerning

Amax. We know for a fact that they've been in operation for a little

over a month and already they've had three major incidents — two spills

and then the plume. The supposedly sand-like material was supposed to

sink to the bottom, but it's been displayed that it doesn't do this.

think we have a history to look back on. One of the major issues we

should look at when looking back into history is Anyox, which I think

the minister is familiar with. That's an operation that was in the

vicinity of Amax and Alice Arm. It went out of operation in the 1930s.

From that operation, before environmental laws were brought down and

there was some type of protection for the environment, 35 years later

in the particular stream that goes by Anyox the cyanide concentrate is

so high that there are no fish in that river. That river flows down

into the chuck that's in the vicinity of the Alice Arm–Kitsault

operation.

There's another example that should be brought

forward before we allow companies like Amax to proceed in dumping 100

million tonnes of toxic waste into the ocean. That is the operation

which we've seen on this island, with Island Copper, and their problems

with the environment, and Buttle Lake, where we've allowed companies to

proceed in dumping their waste materials into fresh water or, as Amax

is doing, into the ocean. I guess the issue comes down to jobs, which

are very important. But in the case of Kitsault, there is an

opportunity to keep those jobs and even increase jobs at Alice Arm by

disposing on land. If the minister was able to order to Amax cease

dumping 12,000 tonnes a day into Alice Arm and tell them that they have

to use that pipe and put it into land disposal at Clary Lake, there

would be many more jobs associated with the new development of bringing

those mine wastes out of the ocean, stopping the present exhaust pipe

from dumping, and putting disposals on land.

As this issue

has come more into the light for the public we've seen some of the

policy statements of B.C. Moly before they went out of operation in

1972 stating how they could go about an operation in that particular

area, disposing on land. Mr. Steve Hilbert, an engineer who was

associated with B.C. Moly, has developed plans for disposal on land. We

could see that pipe turned around and brought out of the ocean to the

land without affecting the environment as that mine is now.

We've

also seen the number of groups across this province and country who are

opposing Amax. They're not against the jobs associated with the mine;

they're against the dumping of 100 million tonnes of toxic waste into

the ocean. I noticed a new organization this week, the British Columbia

Teachers Federation, asking for public inquiries associated with Amax.

One

of the ironic issues about Amax is that when the federal fisheries

ministry asked them to close down after the plume had been sighted off

the exhaust pipe, Amax came back and said that they lost over $2

million by being closed down. Mr. Lenton stated that figure. Take

previous statements of $320,000 a day when they had two spills and Amax

was closed down. Taking the two spills when the pipe backed up and the

week it was closed down, in one month Amax lost close to $4 million, if

you take their word. Wouldn't it be better, Mr. Minister, to take that

$4 million and put it into land disposal of tailings?

would certainly hope that the minister would take a more active role in

the entire issue of Amax, since it is a travesty. The term "cultural

genocide" has been used for what Amax is doing to the Nishga people.

There has been a scientific review panel which has been boycotted by

over 40 organizations. There is a need for the minister to take a very

active, statesmanlike role in this. He should use the power that he has

to set up a public inquiry in this province on Amax. If Amax has lost

$4 million, as they say, by being closed down for a week, and the

engineering reports show they could dispose on land.... Amax officials

say that they can't dispose on land because of earthquakes. That's kind

of a funny argument to use because if you look at the geological

formation of this province, we all live in an earthquake zone. Almost

every mine that disposes on land, no matter if it's Cassiar Asbestos,

Keno Hill or whatever, could be told not to dispose on land.

would certainly hope that the minister could take a strong

statesmanlike position on this. Use your authority. I think that what

is happening with Amax is against the beliefs that you uphold for the

environment. I know from our previous discussions that you're a

sportsman at heart. I don't think any sportsman would want to see 100

million tonnes of toxic waste dumped into the ocean. I would certainly

hope that the minister could take an extremely strong position. It's

not being offered by the federal government. Mr. Romeo LeBlanc has

shown a very poor attitude in dealing with Amax. Here is an opportunity

for you, Mr. Minister, to stand up and start something to protect the

Nishga people from what Amax has proposed to do.

I've asked

a number of questions. I would certainly hope that the minister could

give some positive responses to the numerous issues that I raised. I

wait for his reply.

[ Page 6044 ]

HON. MR. ROGERS: May I defer to my colleague the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith), who has some introductions?

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, may I have leave to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. SMITH:

This afternoon I have the honour to introduce my colleague and friend

the Hon. James Horsman, who is Minister of Advanced Education and

Manpower for the province of Alberta. He is also a UBC graduate. He is

here today for the meeting of manpower ministers. I would ask the

committee to make him welcome.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The minister yields to the member for Omineca.

MR. NICOLSON:

On a point of order, it is customary for the House to recognize people

serially. The member for Omineca just ran a full 30 minutes prior to

the last speaker. I've been in this House all afternoon, and inasmuch

as there might be some alternating between sides, I find it....

MR. CHAIRMAN: What's the point of order, hon. member?

MR. NICOLSON:

The point of order is that people first on their feet are recognized,

and that the Chair should not be watching one side of the House. That

member has spoken for 30 minutes this afternoon.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please, hon. member. As the member is aware, the Chair

traditionally has alternated one side to the other. The member for

Atlin (Mr. Passarell) having just spoken, the Chair recognizes the

member for Omineca at this time and will recognize the other side at

that time. The Chair, I might add, does not watch one side of the House

more than the other, and I think the member will reflect that that's a

very unfair statement to make.

MR. KEMPF: Mr.

Chairman, as I was saying previously, we in the rural areas of this

province have a very real problem in the predation of not only domestic

stock but also game animals. That problem really places in jeopardy

three industries in this province: the raising of cattle, the

guide-outfitting industry, and the trapping industry. As well, it

places in grave jeopardy the future of a sport which I believe many

people of this province enjoy: the sport of hunting. As I was saying,

we as government must act on behalf of the citizens who have the

problem. Not only that, we must ensure the continuance of the balance

of all of our wildlife species, and not just the wolf. We must have a

logical predator control program in the province of British Columbia.

I think maybe even the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) will agree

with me, even though he thinks I shouldn't have had my turn. He'll agree

with me on that point and many others that I have stood up on this afternoon.

We must have a proper predator control program in the province, and we must

begin to practise proper wildlife management. We must recognize that in order

for that to take place we in this Legislature must give full support to what

is right, and give encouragement to the minister. Above all, the wherewithal

in the form of a realistic budget is needed in order to do the job properly.

We have to pay more attention to a resource which is very important to a great

number of British Columbians.

Before

taking my place, there is just one other thing which I would like to

impress upon the minister. I agree fully with the member for Atlin when

he says additional conservation officers must be appointed in all areas

of this province, especially in the vast north-central part of British

Columbia. I cite particularly the huge area to the north, northeast and

northwest of Fort St. James in my constituency. This area must have

more coverage, and it has been suggested on several previous occasions

that there must be two resident conservation officers stationed at Fort

St. James in order to properly cover that area. I don't mean

paper-shufflers; I mean people appointed and given the wherewithal to

go into the field where the problem actually exists. In suggesting

additional conservation officer positions, I'm not suggesting a larger

bureaucracy — God knows that's large enough already. I'm suggesting

less office staff and more field staff with the wherewithal to do their

jobs properly. It can be done, and as far as I'm concerned it must be

done.

HON. MR. ROGERS: I'm going to try and touch on

two items in particular sequence. When we talk about hunting, which the

member for Omineca talked about for a while, I think it's important to

stress that within our game management program we do try to err on the

side of conservatism. In fact, I think we almost always do. We're often

told by the recreational hunter in this province that there's more to

harvest out there than we allow them to take. I think if we're going to

make an error, we'd better make the error on the side of the animals.

have a slight conflict between the guide-outfitters — the person who

takes the visiting foreign hunter or even a British Columbia hunter who

is after a trophy animal, and the indigenous hunter who's after

something to put in his or her freezer.... In most cases somebody who

has come here from Europe, the United States or from the Orient wants

one of our more exotic species. By law they are required to go through

a guide-outfitter anyway. They aren't really interested in getting a

moose or a deer. The local hunter is really much more interested in

that. The conflict comes when we open up new areas that were previously

inaccessible to the average recreational hunter and now become

accessible either due to road construction or some other type of

development. It often means that the guide-outfitters have the local

people challenging them for some of their territory. The problem that

this brings up is where you draw the limit when you have a limited

number of animals that you're going to take. Yes, the guide-outfitter

gets an awful lot of money back towards the province by the fees they

charge, the services they use and the licences they pay, but the

taxpayers of the province also pay the bills for the Ministry of

Environment — especially for the fish and wildlife branch. We have to

consider the taxpayers. The citizens who live in this province also

have a right to that wildlife.

I guess the first priority

has to go to the wildlife. We have to ensure that our management

controls are sufficient to ensure that the species are available. Then

we have to go to a limited-entry system. We do it by a lottery draw.

There is conflict both ways. Some people think the guide-outfitters get

too many animals, and the guide-outfitters think the sportsmen get too

many animals. I constantly deal between

[ Page 6045 ]

Bob

Henderson, who is the head of the guide and outfitters association, and

the people from the British Columbia Wildlife Federation and others. I

suppose it's a bit like labour negotiations as we work in between the

two.

I thought I'd comment on your points about Sweden, Mr.

Member, because you're right — Sweden has a real abundance of moose and

other ungulates, but they have only nine or ten wolves left in the

whole country. It wasn't always that way. They just went out on a

massive scale to eradicate the species as a predator. I assume that my

mandate as the minister is to look after all the species, not just the

ones that we find attractive, and to look after that in balance. I

would not feel I'm doing my job properly if we identified one

particular species for annihilation just because they happen to compete

with man for the species that we happen to shoot. Our policy since I've

become the minister — which is a change from my predecessor — is that

where wolves are bothering cattle, we will assist in whatever way

possible in trying to eradicate the problem wolves, provided the

rancher or the farmer in question is using good husbandry practices. I

think wolves in the wild have a right to survive as much as any other

species, but where they do interface with cattle the problems become

catastrophic. Rather than have the rancher take the matter into his own

hands, we endeavour to do that for him. This past winter we weren't as

successful as we might have been because we had such a very low

snowpack. We said that when we applied for the use of Compound 1080,

first you had to exhaust every other alternative method before you went

to 1080. Now that we have used 1080 this winter without too much

difficulty — in fact we've had some good success with it — there are

people who think we shouldn't use it at all and there are people who

think we should use much more of it. I must report to you that we used

four grams in British Columbia in this last year and New Zealand used

4.5 tonnes last year. They spread it out of the back of an aircraft

with an agricultural spreading device; we use it in extremely confined

ways. They don't seem to think it's a problem, I talked to their

director and he said: "Well, we may kill a few dicky-birds, but we've

got to get to the opossums." I hope that we don't get to that kind of

wildlife management in this province.

Predator control

remains a problem. I remain convinced we've got to do something about

it — and we are doing something about it — but I'm not prepared to go

after one particular species like the wolf or the coyote or anything

else just because it happens to be on an upswing in the graph. Where

man has interfered, man had better interfere again. But if man is

interfering because we prefer the ungulates, I have a hard time going

along with that. It is a change, though, because there wasn't a program

when I was the minister, and there is more money for it this year than

there was last year.

I believe the member for Atlin (Mr.

Passarell) in his question to me about Fish and Wildlife staff was

referring to conservation officers. Yes, we would like to have more

conservation officers, but during this last year we've got them an

increased travel budget. We've now trained three-quarters of them

through the Justice Institute, which has made their job a lot easier.

They're a lot clearer now as to what their role is and how to proceed

through a lot of the paper work that they have to do in order to do

their job properly. In the main they do an excellent job as our

representatives in the field. I don't think there is a jurisdiction in

the province where we wouldn't want to have some more conservation

officers, especially as their role increases and they become involved

with the whole ministry and not just with Fish and Wildlife.

Admittedly, their first call — especially during the hunting season —

is to do with Fish and Wildlife. In your particular constituency of

Atlin, a lot of their dealings are with trappers and others. So we

could use some more; there i's no question about that.

our submissions that we make every year, we tack on a few extra

conservation officers we'd like to have. I think there are several

areas of the province where our people cover very substantial areas.

They have a rather lonely existence, because all their instructions

come by memo or letter, and occasionally they get drawn into the

regional district. They tend to represent the ministry, and try to pass

on all our philosophies and policies at their level. I've endeavoured

to get around to see a few of them; I suppose I've been to 20 different

conservation officer's establishments, and as time permits I drop in

and have a chat with them. Most of them, as a matter of fact, have a

really enjoyable life, do an excellent job and have excellent rapport

in the local community not only with the other law-enforcement agencies

but with the rest of the community.

On this Stikine-Iskut

situation, that's certainly not the last herd — if you think it is the

last herd of goats — but that's not really the question you asked.

Rather, what do we do when roads are put into areas to make them

accessible? Well, as in the case of northeast coal, when the roads are

put in, we just put a blanket closure on the area, put in no-hunting

camps and go that whole route. If we don't, we just annihilate the

particular species that we put on there. It doesn't mean to say that we

can't have the kind of control through the guide-outfitters that we've

had in the past; they've tended to run these areas themselves anyway.

They do controlled burnings and others.

On Placer's

particular concern which you mentioned, the ministry's concern will go

through the metal-mines guidelines steering committee in terms of what

their tailings disposal situation is and how they're able to handle it.

We would see that as being an Energy, Mines problem, as well as ours,

and our regulations might be such that they really hinder the operation

or restrict them in some way, but we wouldn't see ourselves as the lead

agency there.

Home insulation. I'd like to talk to you about

that. It's not under my.... Coincidentally, on Friday of last week my

critic, the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) said: "You keep saying that

it's not your responsibility but somebody else's." I'm reminded, my son

this weekend gave me a postcard of a historic castle in England, and

who do you think looks after the castles in England? The Ministry of

Environment. Well, thank God.... The jurisdiction does change

everywhere. I was going to send that to you, but I just thought I'd

mention it here.

MR. SKELLY: Send me a postcard.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Well, I'd love to, as soon as we Ret out of here.

Amax.

You say I have a strong feeling on it. I don't have a strong feeling on

it either way: I'm not pro or anti this operation. I think the company

has done everything that we as a provincial government have asked them

to do. I think if there is anybody who has to question their position,

it's the federal government. having passed a special order-in-council

which changed their regulations. Our regulations haven't been changed

or compromised in any way despite what people have reported. Admittedly

the permit is issued by the

[ Page 6046 ]

provincial

government, but it's a one-window approach, as you're well aware, and

that one-window approach reflects all of our things.

It's

worth pointing out that when B.C. Moly was operating in the past it was

the waste management branch of the provincial government that went in

and said: "Gentlemen, that's not good enough. You can't discharge into

Lime Creek." I think people tend to forget that it was the Ministry of

Environment that shut down the original mine years ago for discharging

their tailings into the creek. Now the prices of metal do not make it

worthwhile to continue operating.

The alternate land

disposal system that has been looked at has been looked at and rejected

by the ministry for the very reason that if you go to a tailings

pond.... I know the earthquake argument is probably the weakest of all

the arguments, but if you go into a tailings area where you know the

rainfall is very substantial, that gives you the same runoff problems

with the intertidal zone as you had previously — not in this controlled

way, but when B.C. Moly operated it. As you know, the federal

government is monitoring this thing, and Dr. McInerney's technical

committee is reviewing it right now. Fisheries and Oceans has a ship on

station, I think. Perhaps they're having some second thoughts on it.

The thing is being extremely closely monitored.

I can't

fault the company on their startup mechanical problems. They did have

some problems, but any major project like that does have mechanical

problems. They have a permit, a valid permit issued by us. It reflects

both those concerns, and if they cannot remain within the restrictions

of that permit then we have to change the permit. But you have to give

them the opportunity to operate for a limited period of time to see if

they can meet those requirements. As the member for North Island (Mr.

Gabelmann) said: "Wouldn't it be nice just to say no to people?" That

also implies the ability to say yes to people. I don't think you'd want

me to do that without being able to prove it one way or the other.

I think that concludes my remarks.

MR. NICOLSON:

I was wondering what would be the best tactic in terms of proceeding

here — whether to go through a litany of things which I hope to

accomplish or to get straight to the most life and death matter, which

is the transportation of dangerous chemicals.

Last year we

had a derailment — not in Mississauga, but right in Harrop, British

Columbia, not too far east of Nelson, on what, I guess, used to be part

of the Kettle Valley line and is now really a branch line. At midday,

on January 22, 1981, a freight train was partially derailed. I think

about 25 cars left the track. Fortunately most of them were ore cars.

In that train were fuel cars, which I guess were carrying gasoline,

because we carry gasoline in and it was inbound. There were empty

sulphur dioxide cars, and there might well have been, but were not on

that particular train, full chlorine cars.

What I would

suggest to the minister, because we have a pulpmill at Castlegar, is

that we bring chlorine tankers into the area because we produce sulphur

dioxide at Trail. We take cars out of the area. For some reason or

other there was a derailment on a piece of track that had recently had

new ties put on it — I know that from firsthand knowledge. I brought

the matter to the minister's attention. I wrote him a fairly long

letter and also wrote to Mr. Hubbard, head of the environmental safety

programs branch, and I got some response and answers.

There

are two things I would like to bring out about this. Interestingly

enough, when there was a little bit of publicity it was then brought to

my attention that in February 1979 there had also been a car spill

where a loaded sulphur dioxide tanker at Trail had been let go on the

Tadanac spur. This is a spur that slopes so that you can take cars down

it by gravity and apply the brakes. There was no brakeman. This thing

went down the spur, hit the end, went over and the trucks came off the

tanker. This was in February of 1979. To the best of my knowledge,

that's never been reported. After this incident — which I reported to

the minister — I was given two colour slides of it. Recently, I had

these colour slides made into black-and-white negatives and had, of

course, a couple of different blowups made of them. I intended to bring

them down from Nelson this past weekend. I did not get to Nelson, so I

was not able to do that. What it brings out to me is real concern,

because we've had not one but two derailments, one of which did see a

tank-car go off the rails. In the other we were fortunate in that the

cars that derailed were the ore-cars, and everything was cleaned up

quite well.

In his response Mr. Hubbard says: "The records

that we do have show that the recent Harrop derailment is the only one

since 1976 along the Nelson-Castlegar-Trail and Creston sections of the

CPR line." This indicates that the CPR, in my opinion, conspired to

cover up that derailment at Tadanac. It's my understanding that they

had to send to Vancouver in order to get special pipe fittings to

transport the contents of that tanker to another car that was on the

tracks. There was a three-day delay. This was close to a school. There

was no notification of the public at large. There were no emergency

programs put into effect. As a result of this incident, I have also

reviewed the provincial emergency program.

I have also, of

course, looked at the chain of information, which is that, as the

minister knows, when notified of this type of thing the reporting

procedures are that CPR and CNR report train derailments to the

Transport Canada national emergency centre in Ottawa. As the minister

knows, in the derailment at Harrop there was some breakdown in

communications and our provincial emergency people in Nelson didn't

hear about it for about four hours, or something like that. The

minister was not happy with that and I wasn't happy. It appears that we

have a chain-link of communication. If one link in that chain breaks

down, we don't have the communication. I realize that with electronic

communication you can phone Ottawa as quickly as you can phone Nelson,

Victoria or anywhere else. But it would appear that procedures of that

nature are not adequate. They don't allow for a breakdown. When CNR or

CPR report to the Transport Canada emergency centre in Ottawa, the

centre relays the information to Environment Canada in Vancouver, who

inform the provincial emergency program and waste management branch in

your ministry. They would then inform the local people in the affected

area.

I took pictures of this derailment. The thing that is

of most concern to me is that this led to the uncovering of an incident

which has never been reported. I suppose that in some respects it never

happened, because there's no official record of it. It's something

that's only in the memory of a few people who work for the railroad and

maybe one or two employees at Cominco, because it's way out on a siding

that's away from the plant — and of one ex-railroad employee who was so

concerned about it that he took these photographs. I wish they'd been

in black and white. It was in February on a very dull day and they're

not great. By looking at the transparen-

[ Page 6047 ]

cies,

you can see that there was a bill of lading for sulphur dioxide on them

— those emergency stickers that they put on. In the black-and-white

photographs the sticker on the end is pretty indistinguishable; but, of

course, you can see the tanker spilled over.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

What

we have is.... It's a cliché — the accident waiting to happen. In our

area, where we manufacture chemicals and ship them under pressure in a

Liquid form and import chemicals for use at the pulpmill, I am most

concerned that, to date, I have not seen a cause put forward for this

accident. It was apparently on good track; however, it's track with a

60-year-old alignment, which has not been changed. With long

unit-trains being carried — which are just like elastic bands, with

sudden little accelerations here and there — you can lift a car right

up off a track. When we have this, I hope that neither the minister nor

I will be in a position to say that we did not move heaven and earth to

bring Ottawa into a more responsible position in terms of the potential

for a great disaster. We've had close calls in Canada that got great

national attention, but we have come very close to disaster right here

in British Columbia in the Kootenays on two different occasions. It was

indeed fortunate that the 25 cars that left the track in that

derailment were just the ore cars; the damage was just something

unbelievable. I would hope that the minister would keep this as an

active file. I know that quite often there is a desire to respond and

get things off your desk, but this thing is not a finished issue. I

hope we can finish it before it becomes a tragedy, because it will

happen.

The frequency of this type of accident, the

carelessness of the CPR, and the exasperation the CPR foreman showed in

Nelson in this particular incident were just shocking and alarming.

They show that people are more concerned with the CYA attitude towards

things than they are with the lives and safety of thousands of people.

would like to ask the minister if he does not feel that we should

perhaps order on our own initiative some kind of an inquiry into

incidents such as this and bring about a public awareness. Perhaps that

would force the federal authorities to respond and would also put our

provincial emergency program.... Frankly, I don't think the provincial

emergency program can really cope with such a disaster. If chlorine

spills and starts flowing down the valley — and it just flows close to

the ground — I'm sure there would be very little we can do to prevent

some disaster. It will only be a matter of trying to minimize the

fatalities and injuries that could be occurring. Every second will be

very important in doing that, Having read the provincial emergency

program guidelines for dealing with chemical spills, gas spills and

that sort of thing, I have no confidence that we are in a position

where we can even make a halfway decent effort on it.

I'd

also like to say that I welcome the news of the improvements made at

Redfish Creek. The minister announced in his opening remarks the other

day that a program was being set up for dealing with floodplains and

protecting private property, as expensive as he realizes that will be.

I think that things have gone too far in terms of talking about

people's responsibility. It's almost as though people get rather

brutalized in a system.... I will deliberately sort of misuse a word,

but people sometimes look at what goes on in prisons and they look at

prison guards and realize that they become inured to a type of system.

I suppose, to some extent, public servants become kind of inured or

almost callous in terms of having any sort of empathy towards people

who live in a floodplain. Their attitude is: "Well, they moved there

and built there. What did they expect?"

Actually, there are

a lot of things that could be done and used to be done to mitigate some

of the problems. We'll never eliminate all problems of Mother Nature,

but I am encouraged that the ministry is going to take a more positive

attitude toward doing this rather than saying: "Well, it's their own

fault and there's nothing that can be done about it." Regardless of

finding fault, it's a tremendous problem for many people, and there are

things that can be done in a goodly number of areas.

One of

the things which should not be done is to use the inland fisheries

people as whipping-boys in this. I've heard them blamed for stopping

any sort of constructive work in many, many instances — spawning beds

or something. They say: "Well, it's the fisheries people." You go to

the fisheries people and find out they never did object; they realized

there was a problem and they're not the ones holding it up. Sometimes

Highways or people in water management will tend to use that to focus

blame on fisheries people. In other cases, of course, these are very

important habitats that have to be protected. It makes for a much more

complicated problem. I would hope that we can see some start this year.

know that in the Salmo area there is a study which was supposed to be

released. Now I understand it is to be released on June 21. People are

very anxiously awaiting that. Other studies have been done before on

that particular river. I look at a barn that is going to fall into the

Goat River unless some kind of authority comes down for somebody to put

some riprap, on the side of a bank of a river which was artificially

diverted by the government many years ago. There are road rights-of-way

and people are paying taxes on what is now a river. Even this morning I

had a new problem brought to my attention on the Lardeau River with

which I had never before been familiar. So this is a tremendous problem

in my riding. I might as well mention the Slocan River while I'm at it.

These are four in one riding alone, not to mention some of the many

creeks and things that could also be done there.

I know that

this will be very welcome news for members throughout the province. I

would urge the minister to fight very hard and to say that it will be a

very positive program, very positively received. I would warn the

minister, however, not to go out under political pressure during a

flood period and put in a little bit of work that is going to get

washed away and just add to the load-bed of the stream. Do these things

beforehand, at low water. Let's have something on stream for next

spring at low water. Let's get something done. Wherever we go, let's do

a good, complete job, and not see something that's only half done to

buy a bit of time and take a little bit of political heat off. Let's do

a good job where we're ready to do a good job, and not see the good

work washed away — as we I ve seen with many of the emergency funds.

I've seen that in my riding in my predecessor's time and during my

time. I hope not to see it any more.

There is something else

I'd like to comment on. I received a copy of a letter from Mr. Chilco

Choate. I've met Chilco before. He writes concerning the Gang Ranch.

It's not the overgrazing issue, which I guess is more or less a dead

issue. The grazing permits have gone. He writes in favour of the

elk-restocking program. I would like to say that there is evidence that

elk existed in many areas in the province where they did not exist

before. It was probably because of an

[ Page 6048 ]

overpopulation of predators at some time that the elk were cut right back almost to extinction in certain areas.

father-in-law, Frank Golata, pioneered in the Peace River country. He

was there in 1912. When he arrived in that area there were no moose in

the Peace River country. He became a guide and outfitter years later,

after trapping for several years. He guided out of the Buckinghorse;

he'd go in to the headwaters of the Prophet and Muskwa. He roamed that

country from one end to the other on horseback. He guided before the

building of the Alaska Highway, and he worked on the Alaska Highway. He

told me that when he first came to the Peace River country there were

no moose. Now we know that the Peace River country is full of moose.

There were also elk in the area. He found evidence of them. Indeed, we

had a set of elk antlers which were taken out of the Peace River

country — just old, dropped antlers. The elk have lived in many areas.

when Chilco says that elk have existed in that area and that there is

evidence of it — I think that people in the conservation branch will

say that — then it is natural to reintroduce elk into that area. The

Gang Ranch has played games. The games that have been lost are over,

under past ownership and present ownership. But they have their

buffalo, which they've released onto Crown range, and they say that

somebody let them out. What they seem to be trying to do is to

establish a wild buffalo herd up there. They also have elk. I think

what they would like to do is bring in their elk herd and say that all

the elk in the area are Gang Ranch elk or something. They want to get

into a type of game management which I don't think any of the members

in this House who are concerned with hunting would support.

believe that hunting in this country should be kept as natural as

possible. I would urge that the minister get on with the elk transplant

program, because I think it would be very well received by the majority

of people in this province. It's in the best interests of the people of

British Columbia. A few private interests cannot be allowed to try to

change our whole philosophy of game management into probably a European

style of game management where you go out to a farm and shoot an animal

that's been tagged for harvesting. There's a challenge to that too, but

it certainly is foreign to our experience in British Columbia.

The

other item that I'd like to bring up is the business of watershed

management. You've had a great deal of correspondence concerning the

Creston watershed. There were several issues there. One of them is the

concern about logging taking place in the Creston watershed. I think

that while we have a great shortage of timber, one has to look at the

values in that and look at a way — if it is going to be harvested — of

doing it which is going to engender the confidence of the people to be

affected. We happen to have a brewery in Creston which requires good

clean potable water. It is one of the reasons why that brewery is

located there. We have a very important agricultural area, particularly

in irrigated orchards. We also have a capability of doubling alfalfa

production in the Lister and Canyon area. Right now we don't even have

enough water for domestic use in those areas. Applications are being

turned down all the time. At this time there is a willingness for the

city, which draws its water from the area.... Of course Canyon and

Lister have their own little watersheds right now, but everyone is

looking to the Goat River as being the only possible area for expansion

of watershed.

We look at the alienation of a piece of Crown

land in that Goat River area to an individual. It's just a few acres,

but as a symbol it was a shock to people. We also look at the desire of

Crestbrook to harvest timber in that area. I would say that right now

the attitude of the city and the city council and certainly of the

brewery and of every segment of the establishment — except the sawmill,

I suppose — would be against logging, period.

I would say

that if there is any hope for harvesting of that timber and adding it

in a meaningful way to the annual allowable cut, you are going to have

to look at a way of really involving the people. There is what used to

be the old Creston PSYU advisory committee. It's been operating since

about 1977. You're going to have to go even beyond that type of

approach. I think you're going to have to involve an amalgamated

water-users' group, which has been formed and is willing to do some

consolidation, I believe. You're going to have to involve them in an

appropriate way, but most comparable to the way the Greater Vancouver

Water District is involved in harvesting timber. I think the only way

that they will be able to trust what is going on in that watershed

would be for them to be involved themselves and maybe even sharing in

that resource — some of the stumpages or some of the royalties. I think

it would have to be a fairly expensive and sensitive type of logging. I

think that if the ministry, in conjunction with the Ministry of

Forests, were to look at this water resource for its importance and

really assess its dollar value in terms of all that agricultural use

presently taking place and the potential agricultural use, which could

increase the production of some of the finest alfalfa-producing lands

in this province, and look at it in conjunction with the brewery and

its continued viability.... We have a duty to look at this in a very

serious, novel and challenging way. I would urge the minister to give

that some consideration.

I must once again ask the minister

if he does not feel it proper that we really address ourselves to the

dangerous chemicals issue.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Dangerous

chemicals. I guess it's the human-error factor. We've tried to get the

system lined up so that everybody gets notified on a chain basis. Of

course, any link in that chain breaks it down. When we have the system

set up as we do now with the railways, where they have to notify Ottawa

and Ottawa notifies our system, it should happen as quickly as

possible. We do get human errors. We don't want to have our coordinator

tied up with getting half a dozen phone calls from half a dozen

different agencies, all telling him that the same problem is happening.

I'll be interested to find out more about that particular tankcar that

you mentioned. I'm sure you'll make copies of that photograph available

to me. People often wait until afterwards to do a quiet assessment of

just what is going through their community. They don't want it going

through their community, but the very existence of their community

often depends on chemicals.

If I could just talk about the

provincial emergency program for a minute, one of the areas where we

have additional staff for this year is the provincial emergency

program. There will be 12 new people, one in each of the areas that we

have set out. Their expertise comes in coordinating relief efforts.

When a problem gets really major, they're good key-resource people.

They just don't have a sort of standing army ready to go if the

emergency gets very big. When the Governor of Washington state was up

here, one of the things he compli-

[ Page 6049 ]

mented

the Premier and me on was the people we had from PEP who went down and

assisted with Mount St. Helens. Our staff were all set up and were very

helpful in that particular instance, mainly from the point of view of

knowing what resources to call upon. They're limited as well. They know

that. For the great majority of the province, the people of PEP do an

excellent job, not only in training, but in having a good inventory of

what's available locally. They know who to phone — who you can trust to

get the job done and who only has to be called once. They brief people

on how to handle toxic wastes, evacuations and the rest of those things.

The

quarrel we have with elk restocking has nothing to do with the Gang

Ranch. As a matter of fact, with the fun I've had at the Gang Ranch, I

thought I would restock the elk in spite of the Gang Ranch and not

because of the Gang Ranch. The only question we have with game

transplants is that we don't wish to introduce species of animals into

an area where they're not indigenous. There are so many examples around

the world where well-meaning people have thought that a starling,

rabbit, deer or whatever would just be nice in that particular area,

only to find out what happens later. Australia is probably the best

example, although New Zealand has its share of well-meant things. There

are no indigenous mammals in New Zealand. In fact, the government

doesn't even get to decide what species are introduced into New

Zealand. That's done by the acclimatization society, which selects

animals from around the world and introduces them. Consequently, they

have to go out and try to find ways of eliminating them. This has

presented some terrible problems. The only things that are indigenous

there are a few birds. The rest of it has all been brought in by

well-meaning people. We just want to make sure that we're not going to

duplicate that kind of problem. I'm not against the reintroduction of

species, or the transplanting of species, provided they were once

indigenous to that area. It's not the pressure of the Gang Ranch that

is stopping us from doing that.

We're certainly aware of the

Goat River. We have an ongoing study at the present time. We're looking

at ARDSA funding for this particular project. We do have guidelines for

management, where we have community watersheds involved with

conflicting uses. This goes right back to my statements of some days

ago. In any kind of stream, I think the very first alienation has to be

on the basis that we put aside for the fish the minimum flow they

require. Then we go up from there. I expect that there will be further

questions on that — maybe not; maybe we'll have solved the Goat River

thing by next year.

I talked about Redfish Creek earlier. I

think we should be able to make an announcement soon" it's only a

question of completing the paperwork.

MR. KEMPF: I'd

like to comment just very briefly on the responses given by the

minister to my earlier questions and suggestions. In regard to the

guide-outfitter versus the resident hunter, I'd just like to say to the

minister that there is no need for that kind of conflict if the game

animals exist in sufficient numbers. You only have that kind of

conflict when there's a shortage. I say again that there is no need for

that kind of shortage. Sufficient numbers can be achieved through

proper and good wildlife management.

In regard to predator

control, certainly we don't need to eradicate the wolf, as has been

done in Sweden. They only have a half a dozen wolves, and they know

where they are. They patrol their boundaries to make sure that no more

sneak into the country. Through predator control, they have great

numbers of all kinds of ungulates. But I'm saying that we don't have to

do that; we don't have to go to those lengths in the province of

British Columbia. We had a proper balance back in the days when we had

a logical predator control program — a logical 1080 program in this

province. At that time we controlled our wolf population and we had a

yearly increase in the number of ungulate herds. It's quite clear that

it can be done. You don't have to eradicate the wolf. I'm not talking

about eradication; I'm talking only of control. Of course, that can

only be done through good wildlife management and a proper predator

control program. Yes, you have to use 1080. But I say again that 1080

is perfectly safe in the hands of those who know how to us it.

Today

we have 1080 and other poisons in the hands of people who don't know

how to use it, because we don't have a program. I don't blame those

people. I don't wish to tell the House that I believe in the breaking

of the law, but they've had to take the law into their own hands; if

they had not, they'd be out of business now. There wouldn't be any game

animals in certain areas of this province had it not been for people

taking the law into their own hands. They do this only because we as a

province have not again embarked upon a proper supervised predator

control program, putting 1080 in the hands of those who know how to use

it safely and who will not kill other animals in attempting to control

predators. That's all I'm asking. Again I want to make that very clear

on the record of this House.

MR. BARBER: I'd like to

change the course of this debate. I'd like to open what will no doubt

not be the last in an order of almost historical debate, in the way

this Legislature does its business, particularly in regard to the

conduct of one agent of this Legislature. For the first time in this

committee I'd like to deal with the report of the ombudsman.

the Chairman knows, ordinarily we in this Legislature have no means of

doing anything other than tabling an ombudsman's report. In other

jurisdictions they have other methods. We in the official opposition

have had some difficulty deciding how to deal with the issue of The

Barrier slide area, for which this minister is responsible, or with the

implications of what it means to government policy when for the first

time in British Columbia history an ombudsman finds it necessary to

present a report to the Legislature and then wait and wait and wait

more for a reply from the Legislature to which he addressed it.

There

is no standing committee of this Legislature to deal with the

ombudsman's report. There is in Alberta, Ontario and the United

Kingdom. There is not in British Columbia. We have no committee of this

House that deals with reports to the assembly presented by an ombudsman

who is sufficiently concerned with th