1988 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, MAY 25, 1988

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

4619 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Petroleum and Natural Gas Amendment Act, 1988 (Bill 30). Hon. Mr. Davis

Introduction and first reading –– 4619

Commercial River Rafting Safety Act (Bill 29). Hon. Mr. Strachan

Introduction and first reading –– 4619

Presenting Reports –– 4620

Oral Questions

Neighbourhood pub referendum. Mr. Sihota –– 4620

Uranium moratorium. Mr. Harcourt –– 4620

Plywood-grading agreement. Mr. Miller –– 4621

Douglas Fir committee room. Mr. R. Fraser –– 4621

Carter-Ward case. Mr. Sihota –– 4621

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Environment and Parks estimates.

(Hon. Mr. Strachan)

On vote 34: minister's office –– 4622

Ms. Smallwood

Mrs. Boone

Ms. Edwards

Mr. Stupich

Mr. Michael

Mr. Clark

Mr. Miller

Mr. Guno

Mr. Gabelmann

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. VEITCH :

Mr. Speaker, today we have a very distinguished gentleman and his wife

in the gallery, plus other distinguished people. I'm very pleased to

have the House welcome Mr. Jagdish Sharma and his wife, Mrs. Kavita

Sharma. Mr. Sharma is the consul-general of India at Vancouver and has

served his country well in British Columbia for many years. I've been

very proud to be associated with him in my capacity as Provincial

Secretary. Unfortunately, Mr. Sharma and his wife will be departing

British Columbia in June for another posting. I know this House and

this government wish him the very best and Godspeed in his future

endeavours.

As well, in the gallery we have Canon Michael

Green, who is the professor of evangelism at Regent College. Canon

Green is accompanied by Rev. Alistair Petrie of Brentwood Chapel. I

would ask the House to bid these two distinguished clerics Godspeed.

MR. HARCOURT : On behalf of the opposition, I too would like to pass

on our greetings to consul-general and Mrs. Sharma. I have enjoyed our relationship

over the last four years that he has been in British Columbia, stationed in

Vancouver. He was a great part of the activities in 1986, when our city celebrated

its centennial and, of course, Expo was here. We wish you well in your new posting.

We have enjoyed your company and your advice over the last four years.

HON. MR. SAVAGE :

It gives me great pleasure to rise in this assembly to introduce two

strong constituents in the great riding of Delta. Would this House

please recognize Mr. Henry Block and Mr. John Friesen.

HON. MR. REID :

I'd like the House to give a special welcome to four of the most

hard-working, industrious agricultural proponents of horse-racing,

interested parties from south Surrey in my constituency: Mr. Jim

Wallace, Mr. Tom Ivanore and Mr. Rick Clough. Would the House make

these gentlemen welcome.

HON. MR. DUECK : I would

also like to extend greetings to two prominent businessmen who lived in

the Fraser Valley at one time and whom I've done business with: John B.

Friesen, also a realtor from way back, and Mr. Henry Block, formerly

Block Bros. Realty. I too would like the House to please welcome them.

HON. S. HAGEN :

It's my pleasure this afternoon to make a bit of a lengthy

introduction, only because this young man has accomplished a great deal

in his first 24 years.

Rob Sorenson is a B.C. native, a graduate of the University of Victoria with

a master of science degree in computer science and a graduate of the young entrepreneurs

program. He's been active in community work all of his life. He's also

chairman of the B.C. Youth Advisory Council, chairman of the B.C. wheelchair

track association, and a member of both the provincial and the regional committees

on access to postsecondary education. He now owns a local computer consulting

company which specializes in systems design and database programming. He competes

in wheelchair track and is currently the Canadian record-holder in the 100-metre

track race; he was the 1987 best rookie of the Canadian Games for the Physically

Disabled in Brantford, Ontario, and will represent Canada at the 1988 Olympics

in Seoul, South Korea, in wheelchair track.

Would you please welcome Rob Sorenson to the House.

MR. BARNES :

I want to join with the minister in welcoming Mr. Sorenson. I'll be

meeting with him this afternoon to discuss a matter of general

importance to the public: that is, the right of the 18-year-old to vote

in the province. I'm looking forward to meeting him.

Introduction of Bills

PETROLEUM AND NATURAL

GAS AMENDMENT ACT, 1988

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

a bill intituled Petroleum and Natural Gas Amendment Act, 1988.

HON. MR. DAVIS :

The House Leader informs me that this is a message bill. It might be

paraphrased as the natural gas royalty simplification act. Rather than

continue with the complicated profit-type tax, this bill allows us to

charge a flat rate of 15 percent royalty, which is revenue-neutral. It

generates the same amount of revenue for the Crown and it does not

impact on the price of natural gas to B.C. consumers.

This

simplification is warranted for several reasons, including

recommendations made by the auditor-general that we simplify our

mineral and oil and gas tax system.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Bill

30 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of

the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

COMMERCIAL RIVER RAFTING SAFETY ACT

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

a bill intituled Commercial River Rafting Safety Act.

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now. In making

this motion, I'd like to say that we are fortunate in British Columbia

to have so many opportunities for outdoor recreation, but I'm sure hon.

members would agree that the more demanding of these can sometimes be

unforgiving of human error or ill-preparedness, and the tragic proof of

this lies in last summer's fatal river rafting accidents.

The

Commercial River Rafting Safety Act now before this House is aimed at

ensuring the greatest possible degree of safety for recreational users

of our river resources. This new act is based largely on the

recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Commercial River Rafting

established last fall in a response to the tragedies. That committee's

mandate was to find ways to ensure that commercial river rafting

operations in our waters are run competently, using properly qualified

guides and outfitters, and are prepared and

[ Page 4620 ]

equipped to provide public enjoyment, and above all, public safety.

[2:15]

The

chairman, Jim Millar, and members Jim Lavalley and Dan Culver brought

to all aspects of the committee's hearings and proceedings the highest

level of expertise and professionalism which has culminated in these

tough regulations to give a measure of the force of law in the province

of British Columbia. When this act is passed by this House, we will be

in a position to put this regulatory framework into place. I call the

question, then, on first reading.

Bill 29 introduced, read

a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Presenting Reports

MR. PELTON :

I have the honour today to present a report from the Select Standing

Committee on Standing Orders, Private Bills and Members' Services, and

I move that the report be read and received.

Motion approved.

CLERK-ASSISTANT :

"May 18, 1988. Mr. Speaker, your Select Standing Committee

on Standing Orders, Private Bills and Members' Services begs leave to report

as follows: the

preamble to Bill PR402, intituled Life Bible College Act, has

been approved as amended, and the committee recommends that the bill proceed

to second reading.

"All of which is respectfully submitted. F.C.A. Pelton,

Chairman."

MR. PELTON : By leave I move that the rules be suspended and the report adopted.

Motion approved.

Oral Questions

NEIGHBOURHOOD PUB REFERENDUM

MR. SIHOTA :

A question to the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services on the

Knight and 57th pub. There have been an increasing number of

allegations relating to misrepresentation, forgery and perhaps even

fraud. Should the investigation that the ministry is conducting this

time confirm these, will the minister hold a new vote?

HON. L. HANSON :

Certainly the investigations of those allegations is going on at the

moment, and I expect to have a report on them shortly. Future action we

might take as a result of those investigations will be revealed when

that decision is made.

MR. SIHOTA : Given the fact

that the purpose of the vote is to determine the views of the

residents, it seems to me that the government would be obliged to hold

another vote. The purpose of the vote is to determine what the

neighbours want and not so much what the friends of government want.

With respect to the investigation, I want to ask the minister this question:

can he tell the House whether his investigation, which of course deals with

ballots, will also deal with the role of Delta Media Services in conducting

the plebiscite?

HON. L. HANSON :

It's interesting to note that the member has already made a

determination of what the investigation is going to reveal. The

qualifications of the consulting firm that did the original will be

assessed when the investigation is complete.

MR. SIHOTA :

Another supplementary to the minister. Does his investigation include a

review of the relationship between Delta Media Services and the pub

applicant?

HON. L. HANSON : We require that the

consulting firm sign a statement to the effect that they have no

relationship or interest in the outcome of the opinion poll. If the

member opposite has evidence that there is a relationship other than

that, I would be pleased to investigate it if he would provide me with

that.

URANIUM MORATORIUM

MR. HARCOURT :

I have a question to the Premier about the uranium moratorium. The

Premier has publicly stated that the question of uranium mining should

be left to each B.C. community that is affected. You said that you

would like to see a vote taken in the affected areas. Mr. Premier,

votes were taken in the Boundary-Similkameen area in November, and 85

percent of the residents voted against any uranium exploration.

Will

the Premier now listen to and respect the wishes of the people of

Greenwood, Grand Forks, Rock Creek and other communities and renew the

ban on uranium exploration and mining?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

There is a process which is part of the policy with respect to uranium

mining and part of the legislative requirements. I will defer the

question to the minister responsible, the Minister of Energy, Mines and

Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Davis) to provide more detail to the

Leader of the Opposition for that purpose.

MR. HARCOURT :

I understand that process, but that's not the point. The point is: how

can the Premier reconcile the fact that his government has refused to

reinstate a uranium moratorium when the people have clearly told you

they don't want uranium exploration?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

I still think it would be of benefit to the opposition if they were

provided with some further information by the minister responsible. But

let me say again there is no uranium mining now. If there is an

application for such, there is a process available. In the meantime,

other mining activities can take place in the area. In particular, the

area referred to by the Leader of the Opposition — if he isn't already

aware — has been historically very dependent, as far as jobs and

economic development, on the mining industry. We as a government don't

want to see people denied that economic opportunity. We are equally

concerned with environmental matters, but we also are concerned about

job opportunities for the people in that particular area. If the Leader

of the Opposition wants to deny all of these people that job

opportunity, let it be on his head.

[ Page

4621 ]

MR. HARCOURT : Mr. Speaker, a supplementary. It's the people

of Boundary-Similkameen that don't want it, not me. You're denying them

democracy. Here it is, Mr. Speaker: 87 percent against uranium mining

in Midway; 80 percent in Greenwood; 78 percent in Grand Forks; 94

percent in area D; 89 percent in area E. Mr. Premier, when are you

going to respect local democracy and the wishes of the people of

Boundary-Similkameen?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : A part

of democracy is to provide people opportunity, not to deny them

opportunity through various legislative actions in government. It's not

to be suppressive, using the clout of government, as the socialists

would, to deny people opportunity. That's a part of democracy: to allow

people opportunity. And we're not faced with an application for uranium

mining. But what the Leader of the Opposition is suggesting would deny

people in Boundary-Similkameen and elsewhere in the province an

opportunity to mine for other resources, and that's sad. This is why I

think he should be given an explanation by the minister responsible of

what his suggestion would really do to the people of the area.

PLYWOOD-GRADING AGREEMENT

MR. MILLER :

A question to the Premier. The U.S. is now refusing to comply with an

agreement that the question of standards of the U.S. C-D grade of

plywood be placed before a panel of experts. Will the Premier advise

the House what position he has taken on this matter, which appears to

be a fundamental breakdown of a Canada-U.S. agreement, and eventually,

if it's ever signed, would be a fundamental breakdown of the free trade

agreement? What position has the Premier taken on this matter?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

Mr. Speaker, I think the facts as presented are not quite correct, in

that what we have in the U.S. is the position of a committee with

respect to that particular item. Their position might be that of the

NDP in, say, British Columbia, but it's still for the government to

make a decision, and they've committed themselves to the free trade

agreement as we've seen it, without amendment. Now fortunately in the

U.S. they don't have the NDP, but they still have other people in

opposition who could take a similar stance and attempt to influence the

agreement that way. That doesn't mean that the agreement will be

changed; that's simply a committee taking that position, and it doesn't

take away from the agreement.

MR. MILLER : A

supplementary on the same topic. The Premier is misinformed, and I hope

it's not by his Forests minister. The fact is that the United States is

refusing to comply with letters of agreement that state that failing to

reach agreement on the plywood standards issue by CMHC reviewing its

standards, the issue would go to a panel of experts. The United States

administration is refusing to follow that process. If you read the free

trade agreement, it's outlined in there. Perhaps what the United States

does have is people who are prepared to stand up for jobs for their

people, which is all too lacking in this administration.

A supplementary to the Premier. The direction this seems to be heading was

stated quite aptly by Mike Apsey, the former Deputy Minister of Forests in this

province: it looks like the Americans are trying to circumvent the process that

was agreed to, to arrive at some common standards which would ultimately lower

the standards of B.C. products in terms of our offshore markets. Is the Premier

aware of that in terms of this issue? And again I ask, what steps has the Premier

taken to defend the plywood industry in British Columbia?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Mr. Speaker, for more detail I'll defer to the Minister of Forests.

HON. MR. PARKER :

The matter of the plywood issue between Canada and the United States is

under review, and I'm glad it's under review. The free trade agreement

has provided us with the means to deal with these kinds of issues and

to deal with them effectively, and that's taking place. We can play

"what if" games forever, but it's not in the best interests of question

period.

MR. MILLER : Mr. Speaker, it's fine for the

member to say what's in the best interests of question period, but it's

hard to get answers out of the Premier. I have a copy of the trade

agreement. The point I've made is that the United States has not

complied with it.

My final supplementary question to the

Premier. Mr. Premier, is it all talk and no action? Look, you got

suckered on the fish-processing, on the GATT ruling. You refused to

stand up for British Columbia provincial rights. Mr. Premier, are you

going to finally stand up for provincial rights in terms of this issue

and advise the Prime Minister that it's no deal for B.C. if the United

States continues to try to circumvent the agreements that are in place,

both in the free trade agreement and in letters of agreement? Is it all

talk and no action, Mr. Premier?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

For the information of the member, the free trade agreement is not in

place yet. We are dealing federally and similarly in the U.S. with the

free trade agreement. Hopefully, for the good of the country, the

economy and jobs, it will be concluded shortly.

DOUGLAS FIR COMMITTEE ROOM

MR. R. FRASER :

To the Premier. Early in your administration a sophisticated committee

room was built adjacent to this chamber for the purpose of conducting

committees and recording proceedings — much as they are here. Can

the Premier advise us when committees such as the Committee of Supply

will be moved to the new committee room?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Negotiations are presently taking place between the two House leaders.

CARTER-WARD CASE

MR. SIHOTA :

This question is to the Minister of Finance, because he's indicated on

several occasions that everything has changed since the Carter-Ward

trial has come down. The events occurred some three years ago. I'm now

in possession of new and somewhat astonishing information. I want to

ask the minister the following question: could the minister explain why

the Carter-Ward companies are still trading on the Vancouver Stock

Exchange, with their shares being traded by the same brokers through

the same Carter-Ward accounts? Could he explain why there is still

matched trading going on on the exchange?

[ Page 4622 ]

[2:30]

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

It's enlightening to observe that the hon. member hasn't abandoned his

vendetta against the Vancouver Stock Exchange. I guess that would be

too much to expect. You would normally expect individuals who express a

serious concern about the operation of that institution to be working

hard to improve it, rather than standing in the bullrushes in the

sanctity of this House levelling broadsides for the purpose of

capturing some momentary attention across the stage of life here.

I've told the hon. member repeatedly, the fact of the matter is that

the events that surround that case occurred some time ago. We've made

many changes since. That's point one. Point two: as the hon. member is

aware, there is litigation currently underway in another province

dealing with some of the individuals connected with that unfortunate

situation. Point three: there is a public statement by the executive

director of the Vancouver Stock Exchange that the operations and

practices exemplified by the court case are presently under examination

by the VSE board of governors.

Given those facts, and given

the fact that the hon. member is supposedly a member of the legal

profession and therefore well aware of the importance of due process

being followed whenever serious allegations are made, I am continually

amazed by that same hon. member raising these issues in this forum when

he knows full well that I am totally unable to deal with any of the

specifics. It would violate the trust of the office that I'm elected to

hold. ,

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

ENVIRONMENT AND PARKS

(continued)

On vote 34: minister's office, $260,049.

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

I'll begin with a comment regarding a question I had yesterday from the

second member for Nanaimo (Mr. Lovick). It had to do with one of the Info Line statements, dealing with the Environmental Lab and the privatization of that operation. I'm quoting Hansard and the second member for Nanaimo....

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : Picky, picky, picky. I'm reading from the Blues,

and I'm quoting the second member for Nanaimo, who in fact is reading from

Info Line of May 20: "'Control and analysis of environmental data standards

will not be given to B.C. Research. This has been and will remain a ministry

responsibility."' Then he goes on to say: "Here's the operative

part: 'In fact, this function will be strengthened after privatization,

with more staff and more funds."' Then the second member for Nanaimo

says: "The question is: how?" I found that curious myself. As a matter

of fact, my response to the member was, "I didn't write that,"

because I didn't. I found it curious why that would have been contained

in the Info Line . However, the information was provided to me this morning,

and I'll explain it to you. I has to do with the interface group.

The

interface group, as the committee will recall, is six staff people and

a budget of $450,000. Prior to our notion of privatization, we had

approximately three FTEs dedicated to the interface function that the

six people are now going to be doing with, of course, less money

devoted to the salaries. Those people were handling test tubes and

doing testing as well as some of the administrative processes of

interface in the testing lab. Those six people are now dedicated. They

have a better budget, and they're doing nothing but that administrative

interface. That is how Info Line people arrived at the statement — which is correct — that the staff and salaries are increased for that function.

That answers that question. With that, I'll take my seat and let the hon. critic continue.

MS. SMALLWOOD :

For the minister's information, I'll just outline some of the business

that I'm hoping to deal with today so that he'll have an opportunity to

have his staff here. As I indicated yesterday, primarily I want to deal

with waste management issues, the special waste task force, the

ombudsman's report and the appeal board. If we get through that

material we may go on to parks, but I really don't think we'll get

through the waste management part today.

It was indicated to me that some other members want to deal with environment lab issues, so I'll turn the floor over to them.

MRS. BOONE :

It has come to my attention that there was a slight problem with some

of the testing that took place in the past. In 1987 some tests on

bacterial contamination were done by, I believe, a lab called Can Test.

Some problem developed there, and it's my understanding that the

Ministry of Environment is currently working very hard to pull most of

that data out of the computer base because of problems that they have

with the data.

[Mr. Weisgerber in the chair.]

guess the question I have is, how does the fact that there were

problems with this private contracted-out testing company, and that it

was picked up by the Ministry of Environment, relate to the

privatization of the testing labs? And where are the controls going to

be in the future, given that problems already exist? Can the minister

explain that to me?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : I thank the

member for Prince George for posing the question. We'll endeavour to

supply as much information as we can to the committee.

I think what the member has indicated, if we look at this generally at first

blush, is the need to continue the process by B.C. Research of testing and

auditing the private labs.

Obviously

this was a private lab operating under the current structure which,

according to the member, made some errors or had some difficulty in

arriving at the correct opinion. That can happen, I guess, from time to

time; but I can assure the committee that with the audit procedure in

place, we will maintain credibility with the testing industry and

maintain safety for the people of British Columbia. I'll get more

details on that specific instance in a while.

MRS. BOONE :

I was away yesterday, so I may have missed some of the debate that took

place, but from what I understand, B.C. Research is going to be doing

strictly an audit function right now. Then you mentioned these other six

[ Page

4623 ]

people who will, I understand, be auditing B.C.

Research. Is this how it works? We've got six people auditing B.C.

Research, who are auditing the private companies. Is this the way it

will work, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : The

member did miss a bit yesterday. If and when the Environment Lab is

sold, it will of course be sold to the private sector. They will do

testing for whoever wants testing done, including those people we tell

to send their samples to be tested, such as pulp mills or anybody else

that we want to have tested.

From time to time, regularly

and at random, we will have an audit done by B.C. Research on the

samples being tested by the private facility. That will normally take

the form of a sample being split — half of it going to the private

lab, half of it to B.C. Research, and then we will compare the results.

The private sector will also pay for that audit.

The six

employees I discussed earlier will be the interface employees. They

will remain employees of the Ministry of Environment, and they will

ensure that the concerns of the ministry — of our legislation —

are being carried out; in other words, that proper auditing and testing

is being done. They will be the control administrative group employed

by government to ensure that safety is in place. It's that simple. They

will be doing everything they can to ensure that the public is safe,

that testing is appropriate, and that B.C. Research is doing a good job.

MRS. BOONE :

Is this meant to be more effective, or is it meant to save money? I'm

having a little difficulty understanding how it is going to save money

when, as your Info Line

stated, you've got more people and you are paying them more, plus you

are going to have to pay your consulting people and B.C. Research.

Perhaps the minister can explain that to me. I'm not quite sure how

that works. Is the intent to save money? If so, is it going to be

saved, or is that not a primary intent of this move?

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

The intent of privatization is to put a lesser load on the B.C.

taxpayer; in other words, to save money out of the process, whatever

that might be — highways or, in this case, testing.

Secondly, the intent is to ensure the efficiency, and that's why we have put the audit and the interface groups in place — to

ensure that what the private sector is doing, they are doing to the

same standards, if not higher, than the government sector.

see two immediate benefits: efficiency and a cost saving. The cost

saving will come about when we see the bids and how much the private

sector wants to charge us for the various tests, which is probably how

they will bid. Until we open the envelopes, we don't really know.

The

third thing, though, I guess is the one that is maybe easy politically

for us to sell and maybe not too easy for your party, Madam Member,

with the greatest respect, to digest. It is this: we see that by

fostering a bigger and healthier private sector in the province of

British Columbia in all matters, they will become world leaders in what

they are doing. We expect that....

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : You'll get your turn, okay?

We expect that the.... Where was I? We've got a new yappy spaniel candidate.

expect that as and if the laboratory industry is developed and

encouraged by government business, by other government and by other

business within British Columbia, they will be able to compete better

in the world market and become a dominant industry in the province of

British Columbia, and they will have done so with some government

encouragement. I guess that's item number three of why we are getting

into privatization.

I have a long lecture on B.C. Hydro

compared to Quebec Hydro engineering-consulting, which the member for

Prince George North (Mrs. Boone) has heard, and which I won't go into,

but if one follows that example, it does make a lot of sense to

encourage the private sector to develop and it certainly does better

for that sector in your province. They become a big economic factor.

That can't be denied. It's what we are trying to encourage here.

[2:45]

MRS. BOONE : It's obvious that we do need the controls and the audit. We need the auditing factor; that's obvious to everyone.

you get your bids from your private contractors and they come in and

they are not lower than it would have been for the ministry to do their

work in-house, will this program be scrapped or will you proceed

regardless of whether the bids are higher or lower? Are you going to do

it regardless of what the bids are going to do?

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

No. and I've given that answer before. It's been the policy of the

government that unless privatization makes sense and we can justify to

the taxpayers that they've got a saving and the service is just as

efficient as it was before — if not an improvement — then

there is no sense in doing it. That's been the record of the government

to date. I have no wish to change that or to say that we are going to

privatize simply for the sake of privatization.

MRS. BOONE :

I will relate back to something I think the minister should understand,

and that's the school buses in Prince George which we used to own and

operate. We sold them off and went over to Standard Bus, and now

Standard Bus virtually has a monopoly on the buses in the Prince George

region. If Standard Bus decides that they are going to increase their

prices to us, and if they decide they are going to give their employees

increases regardless, as they did during the restraint program even

when we weren't able to give our employees increases.... The school

district had no option but to absorb those costs, because they were a

monopoly.

Do you not see that as a difficult thing that we

could get into with companies bidding low, getting the bid and then

having a monopoly on this thing and virtually being able to charge

whatever they wanted in the future because you don't have anywhere else

to go? If they do get the bid for the government contracts, it will be

a substantial bid and will obviously put them in a class above some

others that don't get those bids. Is the minister concerned about any

of these things happening?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : The

member couldn't have used a worse example. Standard Bus has always been

the bus contractor in Prince George. You've been a trustee, and I've

been a trustee. They've been a contractor since the mid-sixties, well

before I was on the board. They run the most efficient school bus

system per student mile in the province of

[ Page 4624 ]

British

Columbia, and they are a private contractor and always have been.

Thanks for the example because it's a good one, and I will use it.

MRS. BOONE :

I don't think the minister understood what my question was. I was not

questioning whether it was efficient or not. I was saying that you were

held ransom to these people because you virtually have no other choice.

There are no other choices around, as there are no other choices in

many areas where people have a monopoly. You do not have the choice as

to whether you are going to go to another contractor. There are not the

options there.

The point I was making was that if they have

a monopoly, which would probably happen in this case, that monopoly

enables people to have a stranglehold on you and to virtually demand

whatever price they want from you. Is this not a concern of yours?

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

No. Actually, most of the testing in the province always has been done

by the private sector. It's just the testing that has been done by the

Environmental Lab run by the Ministry of Environment that we'll be

concerned with, but it is not by any means the majority of testing.

There is a good private sector out there to look at and ensure that we have competition, plus the fact — and this is something that will be done by the implementation committee when we open the envelopes —

that we're going to be looking at maybe a fixed price for three or four

years, and all the guarantees to ensure that the government isn't held

up for ransom will be in place. That is something I would look at, and

I can assure you the officials in the ministry would look at it. I

can't see that being a problem.

MS. EDWARDS : I

attended a meeting this past Sunday of the Tie Lake improvement

district. You probably won't recognize that group, but you probably

will know very soon because they dispatched a letter to you yesterday

to put forward a problem that I want to ask you about now. I want to

establish just what the effects of the changes in the Environmental Lab

will be.

The Tie Lake improvement district is a group of

citizens who surround a small lake in my riding called Tie Lake. The

level of the lake is going down. This discussion and looking at the

problem has been going on for five years or more. They have made a

proposal that they pipe some water from Little Sand Creek into Tie

Lake. This is the simple background business.

They did have

a water study done by a member of the Ministry of Environment in the

waste management branch that indicated there are some major dangers in

that, and at the end of the report is the sentence: "The best way to

answer these questions is through bench-top experiments and pilot scale

studies using limnocorrals. " I don't know what bench-top studies are,

and I am sure I don't know what limnocorrals are, but I understand that

you may have access to that kind of technical language.

The point is that you have written this group. Your predecessor, the current

Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Rogers), had written and promised this group

to supply technical information and guidance in reviewing the feasibility of

the proposal to enrich calcium carbonate in the lake. You yourself repeated

that statement and said the offer still stands. At the meeting on Sunday, Mr.

Minister, the group who are still trying to figure out how they could afford

it, and various problems with absentee landlords and so on, which I don't

think is pertinent to the point.... They had been warned that there would

probably be no access this year to very much lab work, to very much technical

assistance. They asked me what I thought the provincial government could do,

and I was unable to say that I thought that there would necessarily be that.

But I suggested to them that they follow up on your offer.

What

I want to know, Mr. Minister, is this. Does this restriction, which is

very obviously that the Environmental Lab at UBC is going to be cut

down to perhaps half what it normally does...? Does that lab come into

this? I understand that's the lab where some of these studies would be

done. What happens now to these people who are at the low point of what

they expect will be a low-water cycle - out of which they will slowly

climb, because that's the way things go — and have a major problem

with the water quality in their lake? What happens to these kinds of

people when they want this kind of technical study, when the lab is

being limited in the amount of activity that can be done?

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

Generally, there's been a lot of concern about the Ferguson memo, which

stated that if the lab is sold there could be a delay in some of the

tests being performed, but that was for administrative purposes and

just to advise the regional managers and others that this might happen,

so they could be geared up to be alerted for that possible delay in

process. That's about it.

If I've made a promise and if my

colleague the current Minister of Transportation and Highways has made

a promise that we're going to assist and do the testing, then we'll do

the testing, and we'll do it whenever they want us to. You can assure

the good people of Tie Lake that whatever we promised in the past will

be delivered whenever they want it delivered. Whatever it is we've

obligated ourselves to do, we'll do, one way or the other.

can also tell you that a lot of water testing, I'm advised.... Some of

the analysis was done at the lab, but other testing was done by private

labs prior to that, so it hasn't been totally a government function.

MS. EDWARDS :

The work that was done so far was done without charge to the residents

of Tie Lake. With the changes you have outlined today, are you saying

that you will live up to your promise, and that this will be done

without charge to this improvement district?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : Yes. If it's samplings that we would be interested in, we'd pay for them.

MS. EDWARDS :

I don't think, Mr. Minister, the bench-top studies and pilot scale

studies using limnocorrals are sampling. Obviously they'll use some

samples, but it's some particularly technical testing of those samples,

I believe.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : It's difficult to

stand here without seeing the letter, without reviewing the case and

understanding what I've committed myself to. But I can assure you that

whatever I've committed myself to by way of that letter or by way of

the letter of a previous minister, we'll stay committed to that promise.

Interjection.

[ Page

4625 ]

HON. MR. STRACHAN : Well, if we said without charge, it will be without charge.

MR. STUPICH :

I have a problem in the Cedar district of my constituency. I'm not sure

just how long it goes back, but I have a letter in the beginning of

this file dated November 17, 1986, from a Mr. Steve Chan, a public

health inspector. It's a problem that the minister may recall having

heard about. Some residents living near the Venco plant that's working

with fibreglass have been agitating for quite some time to get some....

They'd like to get rid of the industry, but at the very least they'd

like to get the air pollution controlled. This particular letter refers

to the fact that they did not find fibreglass particles in this

sampling that they were doing. That was in November 1986, but obviously

it had been going on for some time prior to that.

On May

29, 1987, there was a petition, signed by about 14 of the residents

near the Venco Products plant. They referred to chemicals that mean

little to me, but might to the staff in the ministry: styrene, methyl

ethyl ketone and acetone. It refers to them as dangerous to health and

also explosive. One of the paragraphs in the petition asks the

question: "Why must we be forced to live like prisoners in our own

homes, with our doors and windows closed to protect us from hazardous

fumes and dust fall?"

I wrote to the minister on June 19,

1987, asking him for help in this case. The minister responded on

August 11, and one of his points was that equipment had been provided

to a nearby resident to sample the air. I tried to find out just who

that resident was, but I guess I didn't try hard enough. In any case, I

didn't find out. But I finally did get a sample of dust — not taken the way it should be, I suppose, for scientific investigation, but nevertheless a sample of dust —

from a vacuum bag that was turned over to the ministry in September '87

and was accepted to be analyzed at the lab. The thing that worries me

at the moment is that I see this new look to privatization of the

Environmental Lab, and if something is sent there in September 1987 and

we don't have the results in May 1988, I wonder what it's going to be

like with privatization: better or worse? I fear for it.

I've

been trying to contact an official in the minister's ministry, Dr. Rick

Wilson, and it's not his fault that I haven't been able to. I just

started panicking, knowing that we were into estimates and knowing that

this was happening, so I've been phoning him, and he's been returning

the calls, and I've been phoning him, and he has returned the calls,

and we're chasing each other back and forth. So far we just don't seem

to have been able to get together at the same time to find out what has

happened to that sample of dust — whether there is any report on

the analysis of it, or whether it has been lost in the eight months

between September '87 and May '88. I don't know.

I don't

expect the minister to have the answer today, but I thought that with

all of us working on it, maybe Dr. Wilson and somebody can get together

and find out what's happening for me.

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

A glib answer would be that maybe the member makes a good case for

privatization, but I won't say that, because that would be a reflection

on the work that the employees are doing now, and I don't think that's

appropriate.

Dr. Wilson is only about 40 feet away in my office and listening to me right

now, and I would suspect that an answer is forthcoming. I have some officials

in my office listening to the speaker phone, and they will hopefully be sending

a reply as quickly as possible.

MR. STUPICH :

I want to share the latest message that I had from Dr. Wilson. It was

that likely he would not be able to get back to me today. Now I

understand why.

[3:00]

MS. EDWARDS :

Mr. Minister, I got so excited about you saying you would do it and for

free for this group that I forgot to follow up with the question I did

want to follow up with: is this generally going to be the case that

citizen groups that generally do not particularly have a way of raising

money and so on — they can turn into a specified area or so on, that sort of thing —

are going to be charged too for this kind of environmental testing? Is

that going to be a consistent thing? To what degree will the ministry

in fact do testing for citizens of British Columbia?

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

When it comes to improvement districts and people wishing to develop

services, and where we have an interest, we generally provide what help

we can. We can't do in-depth engineering; we can do some assistance,

and from time to time I've seen it done. I've been involved, and I know

how generally responsive the officials in the field are. I think that

generally that type of assistance is available, but we're not going to

play the role of the private sector; nor can we dedicate forces to a

particular project.

In terms of water sampling — we discussed this a bit yesterday —

we know that water tests which we now charge $25 for we should be

charging about $125 for. In other words, the general taxpayer of

British Columbia is subsidizing tests that we are currently doing. Of

course, when this does go to the private sector, that subsidization

will no longer exist. People such as those you are representing will

have to pay for their own water testing.

I think that's

fair. That's probably a difference in opinion between you and me, but

our feeling is that if you want a service performed, you should pay for

it. It should not be subsidized by the treasury or the general taxpayer

of British Columbia.

MS. EDWARDS : Could I take that

one step further, Mr. Minister, and go to another example that has come

up recently. It's the Elko soap burner, where in fact the ministry did

some testing and some work and there was a hearing. In that case, there

was a citizens' group which had not organized beforehand. They

organized because they were worried about the burning of resin soap in

a teepee burner, which is something that hasn't been done anywhere

else. I don't know if that report has come out yet; I don't think so.

that case, when the residents' group is worried about the effects of

what would happen, would then the private company pay for that kind of

testing, if none of the testing is to be done and paid for by the

ministry?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : The principle is that

the companies test their own effluents and we test the receiving

environment as the Ministry of Environment. When and if the lab is

privatized, we will have a private sector lab doing that testing for

us. But the company has always had to test, under their permit, for

their own concerns, and we insist on that. They've always had to pay

for them, and nothing will change there.

[ Page 4626 ]

MS. EDWARDS :

In this case, Mr. Minister, there seemed to be a requirement that.... I

wasn't at the whole hearing, but I heard the first part of it. There

was certainly an understanding by some of the people there that there

should have been tests as to what was going on within the burner — that testing the effluent would not have done what was required —

and that was discussed to quite an extent. Let's be theoretical to this

extent. Suppose it had been agreed that that would have been a good

idea. Is that then the responsibility of the company who proposes to do

the burning or of the citizens who object?

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

If we consider that testing to be done, it'll be part of the permit.

That's the general application. In terms of the details here, I note

that Dr. Rick Wilson, who was discussed earlier, has heard an appeal.

He heard the appeal on March 25. I don't know if he reported out, but

there's not much more I can say if he hasn't reported out. I think it

would be sort of sub judice to further discuss this particular issue of

Crestbrook Forest Industries at Elko, so I want to avoid that. If he

has reported out, then I'll have that information for you.

MS. EDWARDS :

That's why I said it's really a theoretical question. My question is:

where do citizens' groups stand? I use this as an example only. There

are a number of environmental threats or perceived threats, as you

know, and citizens are more and more alarmed at the kinds of chemical

effluent and so on that they find in their immediate environment. When

a citizens' group comes together and seems to present a reasonable case

for a worry, and it is a case where the ministry is going to be issuing

the permit — in fact, perhaps the ministry has issued a permit —

will there be any consideration for the citizens' group? That's what I

want to know. Is it possible that the citizens' group itself will have

the funding of the ministry to do the testing? Or if it is not going to

be financed by the ministry, would it then be financed by the company?

What will be the procedure in situations like that?

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

On the general matter of appeals, the member knows that Dr. Rick

Wilson, who is assistant director of the waste management branch, did

hear this appeal. His opinion is immaterial to this debate, but we do

in fact have an appeal process. Other directors hear appeals. Jim

Walker, director of wildlife, hears appeals. It's common throughout

this ministry, and presumably others, that there is a voice for

citizens' groups, such as the people of Elko — and such as they applied for in this case — to be heard by an official of the ministry. Then, of course, there's a further appeal to the Environmental Appeal Board.

the question of intervener funding, no, we would not do intervener

funding. That is a policy of government, and it applies in all public

hearing cases.

In terms of paying for the testing, if we, the Ministry of Environment, feel

that testing is necessary and we require certain evidence — whether it be on

the resin soap at Crestbrook or any other material we want to find out about,

and whether it be Dr. Wilson hearing the appeal or whether it be the Environmental

Appeal Board or anyone else — we will do the testing and pay for it. If the

lab is privatized, then a private sector lab is going to do the testing. I guess

that's the only distinction. But in terms of the public process, nothing

will change. The public still has an appeal through officials, through the Environmental

Appeal Board. Where that director or appeal board feels that testing and evidence

is necessary, they will pay for the process.

MR. MICHAEL :

First of all, I would like to congratulate the minister on the progress

that's been made in the Shuswap Lake area, mainly with the broadening

and expansion of the Shuswap Lake Marine Park. I think we in the

constituency and the Shuswap Lake area in general are quite proud of

all the parks that have been established there over the years and the

tremendous number of improvements that have been made in that area over

the last few years.

We have some problems, and I know he's

well aware of the milfoil problem. I know some delegations have been

visiting him recently regarding the possible purchase of some permanent

equipment to attack the milfoil problem. I would appreciate a

follow-up, Mr. Minister, regarding the commitment that your ministry

might be able to make to the regional district in establishing an

adequate milfoil control program with the equipment th—at is necessary.

Just

as an aside, Mr. Minister, I had talked to some of your staff some time

ago about the report that I had received about a type of carp fish that

could be placed in certain bodies to cut down on the milfoil. I know

that there have been some problems with that concept on the basis that

the carp would perhaps destroy other fish in the lake and spread, but I

understand that down in California there is an experiment underway that

is reasonably successful, where they have neutered the carp before

putting them in the lake. They are really making inroads to the milfbil

problems in areas down in California. As I say, Mr. Minister, I haven't

discussed this with you personally but I've discussed it with your

staff. I'm wondering if you have any recent information on the

possibilities of embarking on some type of an experimental program such

as that.

The other thing I would like to put on the record

to the minister is my displeasure with the fee schedules that were put

in place some months ago for burners located throughout the province.

There are a number of discrepancies. I know that we've made those

concerns known to the minister. There are some ridiculous situations

where we have small- or medium-sized firms paying in the neighbourhood

of $4,000 a year for licences for emission permits, and in looking at

the amount of dollars that a small firm such as this might turn over

within a year, it perhaps could range in the neighbourhood of a half a

million dollars or so.

It's interesting in looking at this

schedule, Mr. Minister, and this is where we have to have a review of

these fees. For the same amount of money we can give a licence to a

fairly large sawmill or a pulp mill that could turn out as much as $360

million for that same $4,000 fee. I think there's got to be some review

of that

schedule of fees and some revisions.

The other

thing that we have in the constituency that's causing us a lot of

concern is the question of houseboats. We've been passing letters back

and forth now for a number of years, and the dilemma seems to be that

neither the province nor the federal government nor the regional

district appear to have clear jurisdiction over the control of

houseboats on Shuswap Lake. I'm wondering if we couldn't make an all

out effort in the coming year to determine once and for all who has

jurisdiction and control over the regulating and regulations of

houseboats on Shuswap Lake.

I'm sure that would apply to other lakes as well, but we all, in this assembly, I am sure, are aware that Sicamous is the

[ Page

4627 ]

houseboat capital of the world. I think we're

running somewhere in excess of 400 houseboats now on Shuswap Lake. It

has turned into a very big business, but a lot of people are concerned

about the need for regulations. Before we can really address the issue,

we must find out which jurisdiction has control.

With that,

Mr. Chairman, I will take my seat and hopefully of those number of

items that I've mentioned, the minister could, not necessarily right

now but sometime in the not too distant future, get back to me on the

concerns of my constituents in those areas.

[3:15]

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

I've got a series of answers here. I'll begin by providing an answer to

my good friend the first member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich). It is this.

The sample provided to the ministry was a vacuum cleaner bag and it

turned out to be filled with household dust. The Nanaimo regional

office is pursuing the problem, including microscope analysis of the

contents of the bag. Unfortunately, there's a lot of material and we

haven't resolved the matter of whether there are fiberglass fibres in

the vacuum cleaner bag, but Dr. Wilson assures me that he will phone

the member as soon as possible.

The Crestbrook appeal. The

appeal hearing in late March lasted from 9 a.m. until midnight. Because

of the length of the hearing, it has taken longer than expected to

finalize the report. It is expected to be released within the next week

or two. Dr. Wilson's a busy guy.

To my colleague from

Prince George North (Mrs. Boone), the problem with the Can Test

coliform data. The Prince George region had taken a number of

background samples from various rivers. The Environmental Lab has

contracts in place to deal with work overload situations, so those are

being looked after. In the summer of 1987, some samples were sent to

Can Test for them to analyze. The regional staff noted that the values

seemed low and asked the Environmental Lab to investigate. The problem

has not been resolved, but it could have been due to the samples

sitting in storage too long. Under a private lab, the ministry would

continue to closely monitor contracts and B.C. Research would confirm

lab capabilities. I will agree that we did have a problem there. Thank

you for bringing that to our attention. It is with information like

this in mind, when we get into the private contract and we get our

interface group going, we can maybe avoid some of these delay problems.

the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. Michael), we have discussed the

milfoil equipment and situation with your locally elected people. I had

a good meeting with them a couple of weeks ago. We have agreed that we

will wait for the summer milfoil season and the work season to proceed.

We will be back to them in August, and hopefully we'll have something

to talk about at that time.

With respect to the carp, that idea has been kicked around for a long time,

and a lot of suggestions have been made. Carp, preferably those that have been

neutered and are not capable of producing further offspring, will eat the milfoil.

Then they will die of old age or whatever and have no offspring, so the carp

will be gone. That's still viewed with some suspicion, because I'm told

by the fish people that it's difficult to effectively ensure that the carp

are totally neutralized. You could end up with a breeding pair — maybe two or

four — and a lot of problems, so they are not willing to take that risk.

However,

in terms of biological control, we are looking at the study being done

at UBC of a milfoil moth that lays its larva in the milfoil and eats

the milfoil, as a moth would eat anything else. Apparently it's a

European moth that controls the milfoil reasonably well in Europe, and

it could work here. From a biological control point of view, that

appears to be the most promising event on the market coming around, and

we think that we are going to pursue that investigation, and that's

being done at UBC. We see that as the most promising way of effecting a

solution.

In terms of the permit fees, the member makes a

good point. We have had numerous concerns about our permit fees which

were introduced last summer. I should point out for the benefit of the

committee, Mr. Chairman, that we spend about $12 million a year on

issuing and inspecting permits, and we wanted to recapture some of that

cost. By putting in the permit fees, we are now capturing about $4

million of the cost, so it still is an expense to the Crown and to the

taxpayers of British Columbia to have those permits in place and to

regularly monitor them. We thought a fee system would be appropriate,

and one which industry would have to bear to some degree. I'll

admit — and the ministry has admitted — that in fact we

weren't totally fair on all permits. The concrete industry, for

example, had a major concern, and we addressed those concerns. Other

industries were just a little out of sync, and I don't think, in all

cases, we have established a totally level playing field, in the sense

that we are charging more for some permits that are easier to inspect

or people who are polluting less or who have less reason to be

continually inspected.

We do have a few lumps in the

system, and I make no bones about that. But we are trying to address it

and massage it so that we are treating industry fairly. I have asked

the officials to, as much as they can, put in place a bonus-malus

system, whereby an industry that is a heavy polluter just because of

the nature of industry — a chrome plating plant or something like that —

or an industry that has a bad track record just because of their own

management practices would be required to pay more. There are other

industries who, by nature of what they are doing, have a tendency to

cause us less concern, or because of their track record, or because

they are good corporate citizens, they monitor themselves very well and

endeavour to ensure that their operation is as clean as possible. They

would be charged less. I don't know if we can ever totally achieve

that, but that would be my desire. It would be an appropriate way to

structure the permit fee system, where we had a bonus-malus system in

place and would be encouraging people, through a tax regime, to keep a

clean operation. That's something I have asked to be put in place. How

well it is going to work remains to be seen, but that certainly is the

way I want to have it done. I thank you for your comments.

MR. CHAIRMAN :

Perhaps I could take this opportunity to remind all members that during

committee, they should address their comments to the Chair.

MS. SMALLWOOD :

Before I ask the minister about the Special Waste Advisory Committee, I

would like to make some comments on the minister's last series of

answers. If I understood you correctly, when you were talking about the

permitting process, you were talking about looking into a sliding scale

for permits. Why would the minister not use the power that he already

has in the Waste Management Act to

[ Page 4628 ]

bond companies that are heavy polluters or companies that have a bad track record?

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

I don't quite understand what you're getting at. Just to recap briefly

what I said, I have encouraged the staff in charge of the permit

organization and regime to look at a bonus-malus system: charging

higher permit fees for those people who have to be regularly inspected,

either because of the nature of their operation or because they might

have a bad track record. Those are the people who are causing us the

expense; therefore they should be picking up the bulk of that expense.

Other industries.... They can be heavy industries, they can be pulp

mills, they can be industries that normally might cause us a lot of

concern, but if they have a good environmental track record, if we

after some time see that they really do stay within compliance at all

times, they wouldn't have to be inspected as much; therefore they

should be charged less. That would be the ideal bonus-malus system.

Whether or not we can achieve that is another question.

In terms of bonding, I don't quite know what you're getting at. You might explain it a little further.

MS. SMALLWOOD :

I think we were a little bit at cross-purposes. The comments you made

twigged my concern around the fact that the minister doesn't seem to

use the power that he has to bond industries to ensure there is money

there to clean up. I didn't understand the point you were making around

using the permits to cover the expenses that are required for

inspection. It sounds like a good idea. Maybe the minister could,

though, comment on why the ministry has not, to my knowledge, used the

power to bond to ensure that companies are held financially responsible

for any environmental contamination.

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

I don't know why one would want to bond. The plant is there. If they

spill something, I insist they clean it up. If they don't do that, then

there are measures. We will close them down. One does not need a bond

when one has, by statute authority, the right to have an operation

cease its operations. That is all the clout one would want. We do that

from time to time. Our record is good, I would say. As a matter of

fact, we laid more than 100 charges last year. We do have a strong

record of enforcement, so bonding is not really required. If someone is

outside of compliance, we insist that they clean up their act.

Bonding

is where you have someone who is going to get away from you. When

someone is being charged with a criminal offence and you want to ensure

that he's going to come back and appear in court, then you ask him to

post a bond. You don't have to worry about a factory or a plant or a

mill getting away from you. It's not going to run away; it's not on

rubber tires or anything. It can't be moved. It's going to stay within

your jurisdiction. So there's no reason to bond it. It will be there

whatever measures you have to take.

MS. SMALLWOOD : This wasn't exactly the time I wanted to pursue this,

but I think it is important, because there are instances in the province where

environmental bonding would be appropriate — for instance, in mining operations.

I can think of other heavy industrial operations where there is some sort of

bonding, whether it's bonding for reclamation or bonding for work. The Ministry

of Highways, for instance, requires bonding for construction. It's more

or less a promise held in trust that the industry will comply with the standards,

and it secures for the province the ability to deal with the problem afterwards.

There

are instances around B.C. that I can think of where taxpayers' dollars

will be used to clean up the mess after industries leave, and that is

by virtue of the fact that nothing was left in trust to deal with the

environmental problems left after the industries have moved away.

Sometimes industries pack up and move because of sad circumstances —

bankruptcies and that sort of thing. So it's a matter of the ministry

making certain that the business of the people of this province is

being dealt with, and dealt with in the long term.

What I had hoped to deal with at this point — perhaps the minister would like to take a list of things he wants to comment on, including the issue of bonding.

want to ask the minister a little bit about the Special Waste Advisory

Committee. I understand the committee is expected to report in mid May,

and because this is the only opportunity we will have in the House to

actually deal with the issue of hazardous waste in depth — other than question period, of course —

I'd like to explore some of the work the committee has done. Perhaps

the minister can provide some information for the House that will

enable us to take a look at the inevitable siting of a facility in the

province.

I'd like to know if the minister can explain to

us whether or not there has been an inventory of hazardous wastes in

the province — whether that was a task of the special waste committee or whether the ministry has undertaken that purpose —

and if he could provide information about the inventory and the amount

of waste expected to be generated in the province yearly.

[3:30]

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

With respect to bonding, I will get to that briefly. The mining example

is more appropriate, as we both recognize, than the mill or heavy

industry, which cannot move and will have an investment in place that

we can attach. The member is right about the mine. Where we have

jurisdiction to do bonding is in a recreation area, if mining were to

occur.

If it's on Crown land, any bonding process or

reclamation responsibilities would be the responsibility of the

Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. I wouldn't have the

authority for that bonding except in a recreation area. We would assess

every permit as it is made and then devise a bonding or reclamation

regime, as we saw fit. That's about all I can comment on in that area

of bonding, but it would apply in our case only to recreation areas.

With

respect to special waste, it's a very topical subject, given that, as

the member has indicated, we are getting close to making a decision on

siting. I can't resist this opportunity to compliment Dr. David Boyes,

Lael Hamilton and Mr. Jefferys on the remarkable work they have done

over the last year and a half. They have taken what was a very

difficult political and technical concern of the people of British

Columbia and worked with it with some vigour, an awful lot of energy,

great enthusiasm and genuine concern.

I guess if there is

any way I could characterize the work, the opinion and the feelings of

Dr. Boyes, it's that he does have a genuine concern with ensuring that

whatever is done in the province is done properly. As we all know, his

background and his life work in medicine has been largely cancer

research, and I don't think there is anyone who is more concerned with

the proper siting and handling of special

[ Page

4629 ]

wastes. All of us in this room and the people of British Columbia will be forever indebted for his work, I can assure you.

any event, they worked for some time. A couple of months ago they

arrived at a proponent contractor they believed could do the best job

of putting the process in place — we will get into the details of that later if you wish —

and they are now seeking a site. As you know, the people of Cache Creek

and Ashcroft have come together as a community unit and agreed in a

vote taken a couple of weeks ago that they think theirs is the

appropriate spot for this facility to be sited.

There is,

of course, every good reason for that. The drier the area, the better

it is. They certainly would like to see the economic benefit, because

this facility will employ 50 to 60 well-trained people. It's a good

payroll and is an industry that will continue forever, given that

special wastes are very much a fact of life, very much a fact of the

way we live. If you have your clothes dry-cleaned, if you take film to

be developed, if you change the oil in your car, if you really do

anything that we do in the 1980s in British Columbia, you are in one

way or another a contributor to special wastes.

It's a

problem that's not going to go away, and it's going to be reflected, if

all goes well, in a very good industry for some community in British

Columbia. It looks like — and I can't say much more at this point, because I know nothing more than I am telling you now — it could be that Cache Creek-Ashcroft area.

terms of the member's question about the inventory we have, we have

people registering their special wastes with us now. We know what Hydro

has in terms of PCBs, because they are storing them, and we know what

other large industries have. We reckon our inventory at this point is

about 70,000 tonnes, a large amount. We reckon that is what we will

generate on an annual basis — maybe a little less, but we reckon that's what it will be in B.C. That's the best answer I can give the member at this point.

have, of course, been exporting toxic wastes for some time now, with

the exception of PCBs. There is a facility in Oregon that we export to,

and they were accepting everything. Some time ago they stopped taking

PCBs, so we have to store them now. We think that about 70,000 tonnes a

year will be the treatment requirement in B.C., although it could go

up. It could go up beneficially, in that once you have a special waste

facility in a province, you begin to attract the industry that

generates special waste and just about everybody does. The high tech

industry high tech labs, microprocessors, that type of thing —

develops a little special waste. So in fact, a special waste treatment

facility is an economic generator and will attract more industry,

employment and jobs to your province.

I know I'm filibustering my own estimates. I'll sit down now and let you carry on.

MS. SMALLWOOD :

I find this whole process extraordinarily frustrating, for the minister

to give the doublespeak that he constantly does in these issues. The

minister talks about us all being generators of hazardous waste. I was

a little concerned when the special committee sent out information kits

to everyone and held public information meetings — not to hear

what the communities had to say but to provide information. The

information they provided related to household hazardous waste.

The reality of a special waste facility in this province is that it will deal

with industrial waste. It will not have the capability or the infrastructure

to go around household to household and collect hazardous waste.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : It will.

MS. SMALLWOOD :

Maybe the minister can explain to us how the facility will do that if

there is to be one facility in the province, when at the moment, the

ministry itself does not have the capability of handling never mind

industrial but household waste.

We saw a facility waste

management office in Surrey, my own constituency.... I've been down

there several times. They've got a back room that they ended up having

to close because people didn't know what to do with their own household

hazardous waste and responsibly did not want to flush it down the sink.

We've

got all this talk about household waste, and we've seen nothing in the

way of a program that will actually deal with the collection and

disposal of that hazardous waste. That is an astronomical task. I would

love to hear the minister enlighten me: how is this facility going to

deal with household waste?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : Mr.

Chairman, the member is about a year late in her concerns. The Boyes

committee has been discussing this. Municipalities have to develop a

waste management scheme; they've always had to. They do that now with

regular household garbage. They will be responsible, and I think I said

that last year when I did the amendments to the bill. They will be

responsible for maintaining.... Surrey should be able to tell you that.

Have you really talked to the people at city hall? Well, you'd better

talk to them again. They will be responsible for managing their own

toxic waste stream. You as a householder will have the responsibility

to ensure that whatever you have — your pesticides. your half-gallon of paint or whatever — you take down to an appropriate place for storage, manifestation, collection and shipment to our facility.

don't see what so miffed about. The process is in place, and

municipalities know about it. It's going to be a scheme and a regime

that works throughout the province, and everybody will be able to take

advantage of it. By the way, the most dangerous stuff in the province

is underneath your sink.

MS. SMALLWOOD : The minister

is telling us that every municipality now has an additional

responsibility to collect and store household hazardous waste and ship

it to the facility, and the facility will have the capacity then to

deal with all of these different little containers and dispose of them.

Who's going to pay for this?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : The generator of the special waste: you and I, the taxpayer, industry.

MS. SMALLWOOD :

The minister says that there are approximately 70,000 tonnes of

hazardous industrial waste in the province and that along with

household waste, it will be enough to run economically a single

facility in the province. This private company will be able to make

enough money to keep the facility going and make a decent enough profit

to make it worth their while.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : That's right. That was the mandate given to Dr. David Boyes and the committee, that it

[ Page 4630 ]

an appropriate pricing regime so people would, number one, obey the

regulations and legislation that we had put in place but wouldn't be so

expensive that they had to bootleg their stuff out of the province or

just dump it to avoid regulations and legislation. So the price has to

be reasonably low to the waste generator, yet it has to be high enough

that the company is going to be assured of making a return on their

investment. In our estimation, and that of the special waste committee

in reviewing all the proponent bids — and there were more than

just one, I can assure you.... We looked at everybody's pricing regime

and looked at what they were going to spend in terms of capital

investment to put the facility in place. They hired accounting and

consulting firms to identify the numbers and the investment return.

They arrived at the proponent and they reckoned that with that person's investment — which I think is in the tune of $20 million —

they will be able to, first of all, ensure that the industry won't be

charged that much to go to that facility and, secondly, that the

company will make an appropriate return on their investment. We're

quite convinced at this point that it's going to work well; that

industry and municipalities are going to be part of the process, and

the company is going to make a fair return on their investment.

MS. SMALLWOOD :

Could the minister explain to the House why it is that my neighbour or

the dry-cleaners down the street would go through this process and pay

the price to have their waste disposed of?

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

The dry-cleaner will have to register; that's in the legislation. You

will want to do it as good citizens. Do you take pesticides now and

pour them down the toilet? No, you don't. You look after them in a

responsible manner. And I'm sure that's what all citizens will do,

because they have the concern about their environment. If they don't,

they're breaking the law. And if that happens, it's regrettable, but I

don't know what else we can do in that case. But the generators of

special waste, such as the dry-cleaners or the service stations, will

have to register.

MS. SMALLWOOD : What is the penalty for breaking that law and who will enforce it?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : We don't know yet. Those will be in the regulations as they develop. We haven't got a regime in place yet.

MS. SMALLWOOD :

It's interesting to look at what other jurisdictions have done in this

regard. In 1986 the Ministry of Environment in Ontario announced a

household hazardous waste funding program. They provided municipalities

with up to 50 percent of the funds needed for a special waste day. What

they did was go around and collect special waste at households and deal

with them in that way. Has the ministry considered such a program? It

seems very clear to me that the reason we are now trying to tackle the

special waste problem in B.C. is that people have not been dealing with

their waste responsibly. And beyond siting a private facility for

profit, it would seem to me that this ministry has some responsibility

to put in the infrastructure necessary to make sure it works. Have you

considered such a program?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : No, I haven't. But outside of Alberta, whose

system is really not up to speed yet, we are leading the rest of Canada. It

was great for Ontario to have their special waste day, but once they got all

that stuff, they had no place to put it. So I don't know what sort of point

you're making there. We know that we'll bring in an appropriate regime

for collection. Municipalities will have to look after it, such as they do with

the rest of your garbage, which you and I and taxpayers have been paying for

ever since we've had garbage collection. It was either that or look after

it ourselves, and we agreed that it would be a municipal function. This will

be the same thing. People who are generators of hazardous wastes will have to

register. That is the law, and there will be a regime of fines put in place.

I don't think we'll have any problems there, because we can identify

what the industry is; that's simple. We know what industries are generators

of special waste and what industries are not.

may consider some special waste day where we send a truck around to all

the communities or assist municipalities in getting everything out of

the closet. That may or may not come to be. It's a good thought, but I

really hadn't though of it at this point. I would just hope that we put

the regime in place and the municipalities go about the regular

business of picking up this garbage.

[3:45]

MS. SMALLWOOD :

As I have said in previous estimates and in other discussions in the

House, one of the best ways to deal with hazardous waste is through

recycling: actually using or identifying the hazardous waste, recycling

it and sharing it with other industries. There are instances where a

certain chemical is a waste to one industry but may be useful to

another, and there are always instances of encouraging industries to

use other chemicals or other procedures rather than generating the

hazardous waste in the first place.

The minister has told

the House that this facility will be the generator not only of economic

returns to the community that the facility will be situated in.... The

minister has talked about jobs available to that community. Now he's

telling us that we can look forward to hazardous waste producers

actually locating in B.C., because if there's a facility to deal with

the hazardous waste, this is a lure to those kinds of industries to

come here. I find that just about the most incredible statement for the

Minister of Environment to make to this House and to this province.

This might be your best, quite frankly, because what you are saying is

that by putting in a hazardous waste facilit.... Rather than dealing

with the problems we have here in the province, looking at other

options, encouraging industries for other uses, we're going to use this

facility to encourage the generators of hazardous waste to come and

locate here in B.C. That, Mr. Minister, is an irresponsible statement

in this day and age. Maybe back in the 1920s, but no longer in this day

and age can we even begin to contemplate such outrageous thoughts. If

we are looking for industry and industrial development in this

province, we should be encouraging industries to be looking at the new

technologies, looking at new production methods, looking at new

options, being on the cutting edge of the new world, not of the old.

The

minister has indicated that this hazardous waste facility will generate

jobs and has indicated that Ashcroft may indeed be the community that

receives the facility. If we take a look at the example of Swan Hills,

Alberta, which the minister has compared this one to.... I understand

the

[ Page

4631 ]

engineering company that has advised Dr. Boyes is

the company that put Swan Hills in place. If we look at that facility

as an example and we look at the 50-some jobs that the facility

generates, we're looking at something like one third of the jobs being

for people from that community. The more highly technical jobs are

imported; those technicians are brought in. The people that are

unemployed in Cache Creek or in Ashcroft are not going to get those

jobs. These are fairly technical, sophisticated jobs; I would certainly

hope that they are. It is not going to be the unemployed in that

community who get them. So it's a little misleading to suggest that

it's going to provide 50 jobs for that community.

I am sure that some of my comments have inspired the minister and that he would like to enlighten me, so I'll let him do that.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

HON. MR. STRACHAN : I'm not inspired, but you do need enlightening, let me tell you. Good Lord!

you know the difference between special waste and hazardous waste?

We're not dealing with anything radioactive. Are you aware of that?

You

talk about new industry and how this will attract.... Do you have a

television set? Just nod your head. Do you have a television set?

MS. SMALLWOOD : Yes.

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

What would you think about a company that was making television sets in

British Columbia? Would that be a good thing or a bad thing?

MS. SMALLWOOD : If you'd like to make your comments, I'll answer your questions.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : Let's presume the member would like to see high technology. She asked about the new age —

we have to have that. Well, the production of microchips, the new

technology, all the things we want to see, the nice clean industries in

B.C..... They're not smokestack industries; they're not

nineteenth-century industries. We're not creating the rustbelt again.

These are state-of-the-art industries. Microchips and all this space

age stuff create special wastes to a small degree. It's in the acid

etching process of microchips and that type of thing. They create a

special waste — not a hazardous waste, but a special waste that must be treated.

The ones that we're dealing with in our legislation —

the legislation you were opposed to last year, if you will recall....

That is the industry we are going to attract, we are trying to attract;

we do it all the time. That is the industry that will locate in British

Columbia if they know they have a facility that can take that special

waste. It's in small amounts, but it has to be taken somewhere and

treated. That is why this can be an employment generator, not just in

Cache Creek but throughout British Columbia.

You are sadly

mistaken in your comparison of the contractors at Swan Hills with any

of the contractors in B.C. There's no relation. Bow Valley Resources

did the site at Swan Hills, and they have no presence in the proponent

company in British Columbia.

Thirdly, I don't see how you can make the argument that jobs at a special

waste facility will not be able to assist the people of Cache Creek. There will

be a payroll of 50 to 55 people. There is a multiplier effect, and maybe some

of the people in your caucus who understand economics can tell you about that.

That multiplier effect ensures there are more jobs in the service industries — trucking, for example. First of all, I think you're selling the people

of Cache Creek short in saying that they won't have the technical expertise

to work at this type of plant. But those who don't will find other employment.

When you inject that type of a payroll into a community, a regular 365-days-a-year

payroll, that's a remarkable economic benefit to that community. I think

a small lecture in economics from one of your caucus members will tell you what

that type of economic benefit will do. If they won't tell you, I'll

have the MLA from the area give you some advice on that.

MS. SMALLWOOD :

Let me tell you a little bit about the high tech industries. This is a

good thing for us to talk about because I've done a fair amount of work

on the high tech industries, on what happened in Silicon Valley and the

kind of chemicals they use in that industry. When you take a look at

high tech industry, you find out that the ten most corrosive, most

carcinogenic, most mutagenic chemicals in North America are used in the

microchip industry. When the minister tries to explain to me about the

kinds of chemicals used in these clean industries, I think I probably

know more about what those industries do and the impact they have had

on the environment in Silicon Valley than even he knows. When you take

a look at what those industries have done to a state, to a very

beautiful valley.... The people who plan for those industries, who

encourage those industries, didn't take into consideration what they

were dealing with. Instead, they now have to deal with the health

effect not only on the workers but on the community, with the effect on

the water table due to contamination, with the effect on local

services — the fire department has to deal with chemicals they

never even heard about before, with the kinds of fires they've had in

those industries. For the minister to suggest, on such a superficial

level, that this is going to be a great thing for this

province.... I suggest you take a look at what has gone on down in

Silicon Valley before you go about encouraging industries that are

generators of toxic waste, and looking at that as a tremendous economic

spinoff.

When you look at those industries on a global

scale, there is some significant question whether or not (1) they are

particularly viable and (2) it would be to their advantage to site en

masse in B.C. If you want to talk about those industries and sell them

as clean industries, then I think that in and of itself deserves a

decent debate.

The minister talks about this facility and

suggests that I sell the people of Cache Creek short, because the

minister suggests that perhaps they do have the technical ability to

run a facility to deal with hazardous waste. The facility that is

needed to deal with the wide range of hazardous waste for this province

has got to be a fairly sophisticated facility. If it is not, then

perhaps I should be more concerned than I already am. For that kind of

facility, two-thirds of those 50-some people have got to be brought in.

They have got to be specially trained experts in their field,

technicians, to be able to deal with and run that facility. For the

comfort and concern that the Cache Creek people already have, I would

hope that you could assure them that they will have the best

technicians, the best professionals and the best facility.

Let's talk about Cache Creek, if that is to be the site of the new facility, and let's talk about the support that you men-

[ Page 4632 ]

tioned

is coming from that community for such a facility. Both the minister

and I are well aware of the fact that the referendum held in Cache

Creek did not include some 200 natives and did not include many of the

people who are in the outskirts of town and are very concerned because

of their well water, the grazing, their livelihood. There are some very

serious concerns about whether that referendum was — and very clearly it was not —

representative of the community. From day one the development of the

special waste task force and the special waste facility in this

province has not respected the advice that your own ministry got from

dedicated, committed people from the industry, the communities and

specialized environmental groups, groups that worked for three years

and advised your ministry on the best way to proceed, to build

confidence and to share information. Your ministry totally disregarded

that and went straight ahead, and now we have a proposal in a community

with a referendum that is not representative.

What are you

interested in? Are you interested in actually siting a facility and

understanding the problem? Or are you interested in more confrontation?

If you don't respect the opinions of the people of this province, if

you don't let them become involved in that process, then they have no

option but to resist what you are trying to do to them. If they don't

have the information to make the decision on, it is irresponsible of

them to do anything less than resist.

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

That's the most bizarre speech I've ever heard in my life, Mr.

Chairman, and I'll read it to the member next year. It isn't worth

comment, except to say that I was at Cache Creek a couple of weeks ago.

There was a good turnout. Everybody was genuinely interested and, I

think, genuinely informed. I am quite sure that the community is

sincerely interested in that project. Outside of that I have nothing to

say. Bizarre.

[4:00]

MS. SMALLWOOD :

We'll bring the minister back to previous discussions on the issue of

recycling, hazardous waste and collecting. In Sweden they have had a

program in place for some time that has collected household

batteries — batteries from cameras, calculators, flashlights, that

kind of thing. What they found out initially was that the incineration

of household batteries was contributing to half of the mercury that was

poisoning the Swedish environment. So they established a national

battery collection program, and it has retrieved up to 75 percent of

all batteries sold. Has the minister considered identifying such

dangerous substances, and would he consider such a program here in B.C.?

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

Actually, the comments with respect to recycling were well taken and I

should have responded earlier. As a matter of fact, the whole pricing

regime that the special waste committee has looked at and that has been

discussed with a proponent contractor is such that we're pretty well

convinced, as we look at the operation cost of industry that does

generate special waste, that for them to send their special wastes on

to be treated is going to be just enough.... In fact, they'll have to

do it; they're not going to bootleg the stuff or try to get it out of

the way, because it will be registered anyway.

Secondly, it will encourage them to get into recycling. That was one of the

major thrusts in designing the pricing regime for selecting the proponent contractor.

So that has been taken into account. We expect that any industry operating in

British Columbia once our site, legislation and regulations are in place will

seriously consider simply from the economic point of view any and all recycling

initiatives. That's something we will consider.

respect of the battery pickup, I know that batteries are handled now

sometimes properly and sometimes not so properly. I will take the

member's comments to heart and have the ministry look at them and give

me more advice on the Swedish regime of collecting and managing waste

batteries.

MS. SMALLWOOD : I understand that the

minister has had underway for the last few months a committee dealing

specifically with hazardous hospital wastes. Can the minister provide

some information about that committee?

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

Dr. John Ward from the Ministry of Environment is doing it, along with

people from the Ministry of Health. There are a couple of initiatives

now. I think there is an American outfit taking some of the hospital

wastes and treating them in Washington, just across the border, and

that's about all I know about it at my level. You're right, the

committee has been working for some time now. The report is not

finalized but should be soon.

MS. SMALLWOOD : Let me

provide a little information for the minister. Presently, I don't

believe that there is any requirement of hospitals to deal with their

hazardous wastes. Some hospitals on the lower mainland have

incinerators and dispose of their wastes in them. The information that

I have been able to put together shows that most incinerators in

hospitals are not operating at the standards or the new technical

requirements for hazardous waste incinerators.

We have a

situation not only in B. C. but in North America of hazardous hospital

wastes being disposed of in local landfills. That creates an incredible

health risk, and while I am encouraged that the ministry has a

committee working on this very serious problem, I am a bit concerned

that the minister at this point has not provided the House with more

information. I would ask the minister when it will be reporting and

whether we can expect regulations or legislation requiring the safe

disposal of such hazardous waste.

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

I'd like to tell the House more, but there is not much more I can say

officially at this point aside from what I said earlier, that Dr. John

Ward is looking into it on behalf of the Ministry of Environment and

Parks. The partners are GVRD and the lower mainland hospitals. The

member is absolutely right: in some cases the collection and

incineration of wastes is pretty spotty, and of course with the concern

about AIDS, which is fatal, one has to worry about proper management

and disposal of hospital wastes.

I believe that UBC and — now that I think of it —

Lions Gate are using a contractor who is sending the hospital wastes to

a facility in Washington on the Canadian-Washington border where they

are autoclaved at the appropriate heat and taken care of. Those are

probably the only two hospital facilities doing that. The member is

right: we have to do something and we are doing it.

MS. SMALLWOOD :

I don't believe I heard the minister correctly. Did the minister

suggest that this is not a fatal situation? I didn't quite catch that

comment.

[ Page

4633 ]

HON. MR. STRACHAN : I was referring to some infectious wastes,

particularly materials that have been used for testing AIDS victims.

That would be fatal if you happened to come across that infectious

waste — either a broken vial or a needle or whatever. That's what I meant, yes, and it's fatal.

MR. CLARK :

I'm not particularly knowledgeable in this sector, but I was following

the discussion regarding special wastes as opposed to hazardous wastes,

and obviously following with interest Dr. Boyes's commission. I must

say it is clearly a very difficult problem to find alternative

mechanisms for recycling those kinds of waste. I have some sympathy for

the government trying to come to grips with the problem. I might

disagree on the solution, but I think it's a difficult one.

I also might say that to the extent that all industries do provide special waste, if we want to develop more industry — as I and certainly our side of the House do — it becomes a growing problem over time. Coming to grips with it is important.

You're

going to have a private sector company do it. I don't necessarily have

a problem with that either. but it seems to me that the ombudsman made

a very good point with respect to privatization and deregulation. If

you're going to have a private company do it, then there is a little

more onus on the government to regulate that private company. We see a

kind of twin track developing with the government, which concerns me:

privatization and deregulation at the same time. It's very difficult to

do that and maintain quality services and protection for the public. If

you're going to have a private company do disposal of special wastes,

then you have to have tougher monitoring and tougher regulation and

rigorous staff. It doesn't have to be a large bureaucracy, but you need

to be really on top of that. I'd like the minister to comment a little

on that.

Another concern I have is with respect to setting

up a waste disposal unit here in Ashcroft or Cache Creek. If we do that

and no other provinces are doing it, then there is a temptation, it

seems to me, to import everybody's special waste. That's a great

concern to me. I can understand the minister saying we're going to

provide the site, and maybe that's an attraction for people to locate

here. I can understand the logic there, but I'm really concerned about

trucking everybody else's special waste in from all across Canada.

I'd

like the minister to tell us there's no intention and there won't be

any importation of special wastes into that site once it's developed,

and that you have in place beefed-up monitoring and regulation

regarding policing that private sector site. The studies I've seen in

my earlier career as a planner were that one of the problems with

incinerators and so on is that they rarely, over a period of time....

Unless there's tough enforcement, incinerators rarely meet the emission

requirements, because in time they wear down or whatever. You need to

be on top of that kind of facility all the time with your independent

staff from the ministry making sure they're complying.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : The member makes a good point. I've noted your comments here, and I'll try to deal with them as best I can.

Again, recycling. As I said to the member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley (Ms.

Smallwood), I'll say to the second member for Vancouver East that we want

to price our waste disposal system so that every generator is encouraged to

recycle. I guess the most immediate automatic one would be used oil. Every service

station has used oil. They will become a generator, they will be registered

under our system and our regulations, and they'll have to shift that stuff.

Mohawk and the other people who want to get into recycling will be more than

happy to take that in their facility and treat it and take whatever out. They'll

be left with a bit of sludge to send to our facility for treatment, but they'll

also be left with the recycled oil to sell again.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : Well, the economics will have to work out, but I'm sure they will.

Someone suggested the other day — and this is not ministerial policy; it's not my policy, anyway —

that maybe the government could be the catalyst by saying that when

we're buying oil, unless there's a great price difference we'll give

preference to recycled oil. We buy a lot of oil for our vehicle fleet.

As I said, that's not my policy, but it's a regime we could put in. We

could ensure that that sort of process is in place, and we could ask

other people to do it. We could advertise. I think that as Minister of

Environment I would be more than happy to promote not specifically

Mohawk but people who are good citizens and are recycling.

We have the regulations in place; they were contained in our legislation —

which, by the way, your party voted against, but I won't hold that one

over you. We do have tough regulations in place. I can understand your

concern: we seem to be double-tracking. We're deregulating here, but

we're regulating quite heavily over here.

[4:15]

the case of special waste, yes, you bet, those are tough regulations.

I've seen the operation. I've seen how it works in Alberta. The trucks

are of one design. The drivers are trained. Talk about regulating the

trucking industry: it's very tough. You could drop one of those trucks

off the Harbour Towers and it wouldn't break. It's all battleship

construction, the trailers that they use. It's a very tight and highly

regulated industry, from registration to inventory control to

warehousing to transportation to final disposal. The regulation is

there. We will not be in the deregulation mode on that.

Imports.

It's interesting. When I went to Swan Hills, we had the good fortune to

have lunch with Premier Getty and Ken Kowalski. Ken is the Minister of

Environment for Alberta, and I had met him in another movie; we're good

friends from way back. We had a long chat about it, and, of course....

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : No. As a matter of fact, it was a parliamentary conference to Quebec. You were there.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : No. I stayed for the whole thing. It was your buddy who didn't stay.

Anyway,

Ken Kowalski was there. We had quite a long chat about that. The

subject of import had been a political issue during the Alberta

election, because at that point Swan Hills had been approved and was on

stream. Premier Getty and Kowalski said there would be no imports to

Alberta, and they promised everybody that. Naturally, I asked them a

[ Page 4634 ]

question.

I said: "Now that you've got Swan Hills in place, do you want to take

ours for a while?" And they said: "Oh, no. Wouldn't touch that with a

ten-foot pole." They've got a political problem.

I have taken the position — and this is on the recommendation of Dr. Boyes —

that perhaps in B.C..... I think this would have to go to cabinet,

because it would be a major policy issue. But I'll tell you right now

that in B.C. we should establish the policy of no net import. Here's

the wisdom: if hypothetically we located Cache Creek-Ashcroft, maybe

we'll take some southern Alberta wastes, and maybe they'll take at Swan

Hills, which is in the Peace River country, wastes from Prince George,

the Highway 16 area and our Peace area, which is the oil patch — Fort St. John, Fort Nelson — and is going to be a generator. Maybe we'll do it that way. My policy will be no net import —

and Boyes recommends it. I think I'll stick with that. I may ask

cabinet to decide on what I've just told you, because that would be

major cabinet policy. But that's the way I feel about it right now, Mr.

Member: no net import. I think the public would accept that.

MS. SMALLWOOD :

I have a couple of questions, just closing the issue of special waste.

There is a piece of legislation that I've been particularly interested

in — again, in another jurisdiction — from Sweden. It's an

environmental protection act. This piece of legislation provides that

anyone who causes a nuisance by polluting may pay compensation. It's a

victims' compensation act, dealing with victims of environmental

pollution. I wonder if the minister would consider such legislation,

given the fact that his Waste Management Act, which he has referred to

two or three times in the last hour, is, in my opinion, far too

permissive, far too lax in providing protection for communities. Mr.

Minister, if you'll remember the debate around that piece of

legislation and the issues that were brought forward at that point, I

think that even you would have to agree that there are regulations

alongside that piece of legislation that raise some rather significant

concerns to do with hazardous waste. Given the fact that you are now

dealing with and encouraging, as you've just said, the cross-boundary

transportation of hazardous waste, would you consider victims'

compensation for effects of environmental contamination?

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

That's a good question. I'd probably have to discuss that with the

Attorney-General (Hon. B.R. Smith), and find out if in fact his

victims-of-crime legislation or process would assist there. For

example, if someone did pollute, and you as a householder or whatever

were injured, could you have compensation? That's an interesting

question.

In terms of holding safe the person who has had some environmental action offend

him or damage him, that's already in place now in the Environment Management

Act. As a matter of fact, I guess the most current example is the Later Chemicals

problem at Richmond last year. As you will recall, there was an explosion and

then there was this toxic fertilizer material blown all over the area, including

Fantasy Gardens — the boss was just delighted about that one. We had the company

clean it up, or we cleaned it up and they had to pay us, or they had to pay

someone to clean it up. Under the Environment Management Act, that is done.

So the company had to bear responsibility for the clean-up cost, and the people

who had the fertilizer dumped on their operation, in fact, had it all cleaned

up, and everything was fine after that. There is a proper process in place that

if something does happen, you are looked after.

terms of financial compensation, I think that's getting into the realm

of victims of crime. It's something I might consider, but I think it

would be a question more appropriately discussed with the

Attorney-General.

MS. SMALLWOOD : I hope the minister

would encourage the Attorney-General to take a look at that, because

beyond the clean-up for.... The minister is using the example of the

Richmond incident. There were people near the area — some of our seniors —

who were affected by being exposed to the toxin and were sick. So it's

more extensive than just cleaning up after the contamination has

occurred.

Sticking with the example of that incident, the

company had been requested at that time to develop a contingency plan

and to submit it to ministry staff. Has the company done that?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : I would think they have. I can't recall if they have or not; we're checking on it.

were quite concerned, and what really bothered us mostly was that Later

Chemicals was making a fertilizer product that is not even allowed in

Canada. The feds had control over and knowledge of what they were

bringing in to make this product. It's an agricultural crop-dusting

fertilizer that we won't even allow to be used in Canada. But it's used

in the United States, and we probably eat those cucumbers when they

come back here. Nevertheless, it's a product that wasn't allowed, and

we weren't too happy about not knowing what it was that they were doing

or making. We've since put in a pretty stringent method of ensuring

that we know what is happening in our communities and of having

everybody tell us what they're doing. I'll probably have more

information coming soon as to the status of their contingency plans.

MS. SMALLWOOD :

The minister indicated that the ministry is actually gathering

information about what is going on in the province now. I imagine it

would be distressing not only to you but to everyone to find out that

the manufacturing of a banned chemical was going on in the province.

What is the process you put in place to make certain that the ministry

now knows what chemicals are on the workplace floor?

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

In the case of Later and other allied operations, it's having

Agriculture Canada tell us what's coming across the border from the

U.S. for processing in Canada. They are the regulatory body, through

Customs or whatever. We're developing that program now, where they let

us know what's happening and what's coming in. Unless they do that, we

don't really know.

MS. SMALLWOOD : Does this pertain only to agricultural products, or are you gathering information on other chemicals?

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

We try to know as much as we can about everybody's process of

operation. Most are pretty standard. Our permit system now collects all

of that, whether it is a lead-plating outfit or something that really

can be offensive or toxic to the atmosphere.

In the case of Later, it was a company bringing in certain fertilizers approved for import into Canada by Agriculture

[ Page

4635 ]

Canada. We were not informed as to what they were,

because Agriculture Canada had given them approval, and we seemed to

feel that was appropriate. Whatever they were doing was approved by the

elements were being used at the plant itself. I am advised that we now

have a tracking system where we have that specialized type of industry,

and we are informed as to what's happening there, and what is being

brought into Canada to be used, manufactured or processed at that plant.

MS. SMALLWOOD :

I want to touch on another couple of things to do with waste

management. With such a serious problem as acid mine leachate, I think

I would not be doing my job if I didn't at least ask the minister what

initiatives, beyond the project for Mount Washington, the ministry has

undertaken. Has the ministry put in place a policy with regard to the

approval process for new mine acid generating?

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

We've been working very closely, Madam Member, with the Ministry of

Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources and some other research

facilities to address this problem. It is serious; there's no question

about that. It's serious because of the geology of British Columbia. I

am advised that on this side of the mountains, because of the high

concentration of iron pyrite and other materials that can go acid on

you, we probably have the highest potential in North America for these

materials going acid. It has developed just in the last 15 to 20 years

as a problem. It wasn't considered a problem before; it certainly is

one now. So we are doing our best to identify it. The people in both

ministries — Environment and Energy — have to conclude that

we are probably becoming the North American experts on the problem. So

we are working at it and doing everything we can. You'll recall that in

terms of the Tsolum River, which was almost down to absolutely no fish

because of the acidity in the water, we've done some remarkable work. I

think there was a Treasury Board submission arid an approval of

$600,000 to begin cleaning that up. I think we have a further

commitment of another $600,000 if we have to go to another process.

So we are attempting, as much as we can financially — and also intellectually —

to deal with the problem. It's going to be the major topic now of the

mine development review process. When mine applications come to that

committee, they're going to look at the potential for the tailings

going acid, and it will be foremost in our minds, I can assure you.

It's a problem we have in British Columbia; it's one that geology has

created for us. If we're going to consider any mining activity where we

have tailings exposed to air and precipitation, we're going to have

that problem, so we'd better start dealing with it now. I can assure

you that we put our heart, our pocketbook and our best intellect in the

right place to try to deal with the problem.

MS. SMALLWOOD : I would like to put some more information to the minister

to stress not only the economic costs to the mining companies.... I guess

the example that really sticks out most in my mind is the silver mine up in

Terrace, where they're paying $1.5 million a year just to collect the acid-generating

effluent. Very clearly, I think that mine is now looking at closure, looking

at decommissioning the mine in the next few years. I'd like to know whether

the ministry has entered into negotiations, whether there is some plan for the

ongoing monitoring and collection of that effluent. and whether the mine will

be required, in its reclamation plans, to deal with the acid-generating tailings.

[4:30]

I might

remind the minister that he has yet to answer my question about the

ministry's policy and whether or not you will approve new

acid-generating mines. I understand there are approximately 20 in the

approval process — mines or exploration sites that are known to be

acid-generating, some of them known to be significantly more

acid-generating than the ones that currently exist. Is it the Ministry

of Environment's policy to continue to approve such mines coming

onsite? I would remind the minister that in places like Appalachia,

West Virginia, there are 10,000 dead streams, and they are dead because

of acid-generating mine tailings. So it's a very serious problem for

water quality in the province. It's a very serious problem for our

fisheries and the fish resources in the province.

The

minister has indicated that he is very concerned. We know that this

pilot project is on the way, but I' d like to know whether or not the

minister is going to approve more mines coming on-site.

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

Absolutely not. I said that before, Madam Member. The mine development

review process now has, as one of its major mandates, the requirement

to look at a mine proposal and investigate first and foremost what the

potential is of this mine going acid.

MS. SMALLWOOD : So if it could go acid they aren't going to approve it?

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

That's right. Unless there's some sort of totally believable

reclamation scheme that the proponent can put forward to us, saying

they're going to do one thing or the other to stop the rock.... Another

problem that we have in B.C. is that it's not just the tailings that

can go acid; the waste rock can go acid. Tailings are one thing, but

when the rock you're digging up goes acid through exposure to air and

water, then you have a greater problem.

So all plans presented to the mine development review process — of which we are a partner, as the Ministry of Environment and Parks — have to tell us clearly that there will be no acid generation, and all reclamation programs will have to be clearly identified.

MS. SMALLWOOD :

I didn't believe the minister answered the question about Equity Mines

near Smithers. Has the ministry been involved in negotiating a plan

for reclamation there?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : We've

been involved peripherally, but the negotiations for a reclamation

regime are with the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources

and Equity.

MS. SMALLWOOD : For the last year, on and

off, I have been talking to some of the community people up there, and

until six months ago, I guess, they were told that the ministry would

be up and talking to them about some plan for closure, given that the

mine at this point not only has full staff resources there but on top

of that is again spending something like $1.5 million each and every

year to deal with the problem. When the staff is no longer at the site,

the cost, I

[ Page 4636 ]

would

imagine, would go up significantly, because they would no longer be

able to deal with the problem daily. It's a very serious environmental

problem, and while the Ministry of Mines will be dealing with

reclamation plans, they will not necessarily be dealing with the

environmental impact. I would hope the ministry would have more direct

involvement with such a significant problem.

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

We are involved peripherally, as I told you. The Ministry of Energy,

Mines and Petroleum Resources is also involved at Equity. We are

putting in place a bonding requirement to ensure that we're protected

at the time of mine abandonment.

MS. SMALLWOOD : I want to touch on a couple of issues and get some response from the minister.

First,

the issue of enforcement. The information made public in the last month

to do with the enforcement of waste management permits at pulp

mills.... If the minister will recall, in the estimates last year we

went through a process of taking a look at the 1981 auditor-general's

report that looked at the ministry's permit process, and at that time

the minister assured me that everything was okay. I find it very

disconcerting that we have gone through an expensive audit, we've

looked at the permit process, minimum standards of compliance have been

set for waste management permits in the province, and now we are

finding that a large number of those permits are not being met, and not

being met in the category of toxicity, which is a very serious category.

Can

the minister tell the House what work has been done since this

information was brought to light? Is the minister satisfied that the

government has a two-tiered justice system where certain individuals or

corporations have to obey the laws minimally and others have to obey

the letter of the law? Can the minister please explain?

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

To make a general comment.... We discussed this yesterday in terms of

the pulp mills. In the last 20 or 25 years, as we've seen the large

industrial development happen in the province of British Columbia, we

have brought in more and more stringent environmental applications,

particularly in the pulp and paper industry, and particularly as we've

found out about nasty things such as BOD and dioxins. We saw and

measured their impact on the environment — air and water in

particular, and of course soil. Over the years we have brought in tough

regulations and tough procedures and strategies to ensure that we have

a good, clean environment to live in. Nothing is perfect, as the member

knows, but I would say that our regime and strategies are as good as

anybody's. The member is well aware of the strategy we have in place of

assessing the damage that a permit-holder is doing, because I gave the

member that strategy a couple of weeks ago.

In terms of the pulp mills and the recent reports, some of them of course were incorrect —

the case of Prince George. In other cases the times of being at

variance were not as significant as the story in the newspaper might

have said. However, we do recognize that in terms of compliance our

most serious issue is with toxicity. We have put some stress and

pressure on the companies and those who are violating, particularly in

the area of toxicity, and we have told them they're going to have to

clean up. They are doing that.

It is our policy that if we can see some major investment, if we can see that

companies are embarked on a reconstruction strategy or are putting in better

and different equipment in terms of getting into compliance, then we will let

them do that. The ultimate objective is to get the operation into compliance.

One could shut down the whole province right now and be totally clean tomorrow

morning, but the economic expense and loss to the province would be remarkable.

None of us could afford that.

You

look at the individual offender. You say: "We want to assess how you

can bring about a remedy. Show us your plan, show us you are about to

put a remedy in place, and do it as quickly as you can." And they are

doing that. They have been doing that for some years, the result being

that we have a far cleaner environment now than we had in the

mid-sixties when, for example, I first moved to Prince George and the

pulp mill started. Things have changed considerably for the better

since then. It's not going to happen tomorrow, but it's going to happen

as soon as it physically can that we will have industry in our province

in compliance and have a better environment to live in.

MS. SMALLWOOD :

If I should ever get a speeding ticket, with the minister's philosophy

on law enforcement I'll be sure to see him. I'm sure there are times

when people just go a little bit over the speed limit, and it's funny

that the law enforcement for speeding and, for the most part, other

laws in B.C. are followed to the letter of the law. I don't have to

remind the minister that the regulations are minimal requirements. They

are not maximum requirements; they are minimal requirements. When those

requirements are not met — in particular in the area of toxicity — they are very serious.

Again

on the issue of enforcement, I would bring the minister's attention to

another piece of legislation that the minister brought to the House

just a matter of months ago, the Mineral Tenure Act, Bill 66. At that

time we brought to your attention that this bill would be opening the

whole province up to placer mining. The question we had at that time

was whether the minister would be providing additional staff in his

estimates and additional money to be able to enforce and police the

wide-open season on our river and stream beds.

At that time

I provided information for the minister indicating that in 1986 there

were 5,000 to 6,000 placer leases. At that time, only 800 of those

leases had notices of work filed, and of that 800 only 250 were

actually inspected by the Ministry of Environment. The minister, in

cooperation with the Ministry of Mines, has now through his legislation

opened the province up — opened all spawning beds