1976 Legislative Session: ist Session, 3ist 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 19, 1976

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

1855 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral questions

BCR-Alaska railroad connection. Mr. Lauk — 1855

Student summer employment. Mr. Wallace — 1856

Administering secrecy oath to David Brown. Mr. King — 1857

Energy commission report on petroleum industry. Mr. D'Arcy —

B.C. Ferries layoffs. Mr. Wallace — 1858

Preservation of Emily Carr house. Hon. Mrs. McCarthy answers — 1858

Appointment of John Arnett. Hon. Mrs. McCarthy answers— 1859

Administering of oath to David Brown. Hon. Mrs. McCarthy answers —

Committee of Supply: Department of Environment estimates.

On vote 48. Hon. Mr. Nielsen — 1885

Mr. Gibson — 1859 On vote 52.

Mr. Wallace — 1859 Mr. Wallace — 1886

Hon. Mr. Nielsen — 1862 Hon. Mr. Nielsen — 1886

Mr. Skelly — 1862 Mr. Macdonald — 1886

Mr. Mussallem — 1864 Mr. Gibson — 1886

Hon. Mr. Nielsen — 1865 Hon. Mr. Nielsen — 1886

Mr. Skelly — 1866 On vote 53.

Ms. Sanford — 1866 Ms. Sanford — 1886

Hon. Mr. Nielsen 1867 Hon. Mr. Nielsen 1887

Mr. Lloyd — 1867 On vote 54.

Mr. Stupich — 1869 Mr. Wallace — 1887

Hon. Mr. Nielsen — 1870 Hon. Mr. Nielsen — 1887

Mr. Stupich — 1871 Mr. Nicolson — 1887

Mr. Strongman — 1872 Hon. Mr. Nielsen — 1887

Hon. Mr. Nielsen — 1872 Mr. Gibson — 1888

Mr. Skelly — 1873 Hon. Mr. Nielsen — 1888

Hon. Mr. Nielsen — 1874 On vote 5 6.

Mr. Barber — 1875 Mrs. Dailly — 1888

Hon. Mr. Nielsen — 1877 Hon. Mr. Nielsen — 1888

Mr. Wallace — 1877 On vote 57.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen — 1878 Mr. Gibson — 1888

Mrs. Wallace — 1879 Hon. Mr. Nielsen — 1888

Hon. Mr. Nielsen — 1879 Mr. Wallace — 1889

Mr. King — 1880 Hon. Mr. Nielsen — 1889

Hon. Mr. Nielsen — 1881 On vote 59.

Mr. King — 1883 Mr. D'Arcy — 1889

Mr. D'Arcy — 1883 Hon. Mr. Nielsen — 1889

Mr. Lockstead — 1884 Mr. Gibson — 1889

Hon. Mr. Nielsen — 1885 Hon. Mr. Nielsen — 1890

Mr. D'Arcy — 1885 On vote 60.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen — 1885 Mr. Nicolson — 1890

On vote 50. Hon. Mr. Nielsen — 1890

Ms. Sanford — 1885 Mr. Gibson — 1890

WEDNESDAY, MAY 19, 1976

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, I

would be very pleased if all members of the House would join with me in

welcoming two members of my family in the gallery. I very seldom have

an opportunity to introduce members of my family. I am very happy that

my mother, Mrs. Winterbottom, and my aunt, Mrs. Ward, are both in the

gallery today.

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer Services): Mr. Speaker,

in the gallery today from the great city of Kamloops visiting the

precincts are Mayor Al Thompson, Alderman Bregoliss, Alderman Chapman,

the administrator, Mr. McMunn, and the city engineer, Mr. Nyberg. I

would ask the House to welcome them.

MR. SPEAKER: I believe the hon. minister has another introduction.

HON. MR. MAIR: Yes, I have. This afternoon at just after 2

o'clock the House will be visited by 24 grade 7 students from Allan

Matthews Elementary School in the city of Kamloops, accompanied by

their teacher, Mr. Art Roode. I would ask the House to make them

welcome also.

MR. F.A. CALDER (Atlin): Mr. Speaker, in the member's gallery

centre aisle this afternoon are Mr. Tokuji Hosono, who is a journalist

interpreter. Mr. Hosono is here on the invitation of the external

affairs branch and is on tour of Canada and the far north. He is also

here to cover Habitat. I would ask the members to join me in welcoming

the two visitors.

MR. C.M. SHELFORD (Skeena): Mr. Speaker, I would like the

members to welcome Fred Stewart, chairman of the board of Skeenaview

Lodge up at Terrace, and Bill Harvey, administrator.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, there is a

group of students from Kitsilano Senior Secondary School in the gallery

with their teacher, Mr. Ippen. I would like the House to join me in

bidding them welcome.

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): Mr. Speaker, later this afternoon there will

be a group of students from Seaview Junior Secondary School at Port Alice visiting

in the gallery accompanied by their teachers, Dianne Kellas and Ray Hornby.

I would ask the House to make them welcome now.

HON. J. DAVIS (Minister of Transport and Communications): Mr.

Speaker, in response to the oral question asked by the member for North

Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) on May 11 relating to the proposed

Pacific Western Airlines headquarters move to Calgary, I herewith table

the province's reply filed before the May 3 deadline.

Oral questions.

BCR-ALASKA RAILROAD CONNECTION

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Center): Mr. Speaker, a question to

the hon. Premier. Under the NDP administration, discussions were begun

with the Yukon and Alaska governments with regard to the possibility of

connecting the Alaska railroad with the British Columbia Railway. Have

the Premier or any of his ministers or staff discussed this matter with

the Alaska government? If so, has any progress in pursuing the

discussions started last year been made?

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, all projects that

were initiated by governments prior to this government have been and

are under review, and those projects which were not taken seriously

have not been continued.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, there were communications received

from the Governor of Alaska and the Commissioner of the Yukon to the

previous administration. These were for preliminary discussions only.

Is the Premier suggesting that his government will not take either of

these two gentlemen seriously?

HON. MR. BENNETT: As you know, I've already met with the

Governor of Alaska, and a proposed meeting is being discussed with

officials in the Yukon, which will take place in the very near future.

MR. LAUK: Would the Premier indicate whether or not he's

taking seriously a proposal for the connection of the Alaska Railway

with the BCR?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, all proposals have been taken

seriously by this government. Any proposals that are not available to

us...we would be pleased if such files as are not here are returned to

the House.

MR. LAUK: I can indicate to the Premier that the two

documents in question are in his files; perhaps he could get his

chauffeur to find them for him.

[ Page 1856 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. That is not a question.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member did not ask a question, Hon. Premier. It was not a question, Hon. Premier.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I just wanted to tell him that there were no files when I moved in.

HOSPITALS STRIKE

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): I have a question

for the Minister of Labour. I'd ask the minister if he plans any

statement or announcement today with respect to the hospital strike.

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): I can't say that I

plan any announcement today. But as soon as I hear from the

representatives of the unions and the employers with regard to the

proposals that were discussed with them yesterday, I'll be happy to

advise the House of the position taken by the parties with respect to

those proposals. If those proposals are rejected I will also advise the

House.

MR. GIBSON: On a supplementary to that, Mr. Speaker, in view

of the uncertainty of the situation, I gather that the minister said to

a member of the press yesterday that he wished the Speaker could have

found it possible to allow the debate that was requested. If the

proposals he has most recently made do not work out when he advises the

House, would he encourage his colleagues to give unanimous leave for

such a debate at that time?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. That's a hypothetical question, Hon. Member, at this particular time, as you well know.

STUDENT SUMMER EMPLOYMENT

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask

the Provincial Secretary a question with regard to the government's

student employment programme and the minister's telegram of May 6 to

the B.C. Government Employees Union agreeing to pay union rates of pay

for summer relief employment. Could I ask the minister: out of the

4,600 jobs which were expected to be available, is this number still

accurate, and if so, how many have been employed as of the present date?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, in response to the hon.

member, first I would say that I don't have the figure — in answer to

his second question. In answer to the first question, I would think

that 4,600 would be unrealistic. I would suggest to you that I cannot

answer that, but I will get the answers for you when the information is

available.

MR. WALLACE: Supplemental. The 4,600 figure being the figure

which was quoted by the Minister of Labour in a press release...and I'm

not arguing that it may not be proven attainable; I agree with the

minister on her point. But regardless of the specific figure, there

obviously is a serious unemployment problem among students this summer,

and since the government is the largest single employer in the

province, has the minister made any recommendations to the cabinet to

consider at this late date expansion of the programme which was

originally introduced?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, I would just draw to the attention

of the hon. member for Oak Bay that it's irregular to inquire whether

statements made in the newspaper are accurate, true or correct. To base

a question on that premise is not in keeping with the House. However,

part of your question was in order.

MR. WALLACE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I'm not

quoting from any newspaper at all. I'm quoting from a press release of

the Minister of Labour.

MR. SPEAKER: You referred to a press release.

Interjections.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, since taking on the

responsibility of government, this government has been very, very

concerned about the problem of student employment.

That concern is still within the cabinet and is being studied every

single day. As far as we are able to do within the moneys that we have

available, we are attempting to put as many students to work as

possible and every day that is being addressed by members of our

cabinet.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, if I might ask a further

supplementary in view of the Minister's answer: is she then telling the

House that while the matter is under review, a decision has been made

that there shall be no further funding provided and that only jobs will

be provided within the original financial decisions made by the

government?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, we have not as yet been able

to find the pot of gold that the opposition members seem to think is

around to put more funds into every worthwhile programme. That

[ Page 1857 ]

is the amount of money we have to work with and we are putting as many students to work as possible with those funds.

MR. WALLACE: Another supplementary, Mr. Speaker. With the

greatest of respect, the member didn't answer my question. We all know

there is no pot of gold, but I am asking a simple question. A certain

amount of money was put into the budget by the government; I'm simply

asking: if, in the light of the serious problem, is not the famous

second look being taken to consider whether it might be reasonable to

put more money into the fund, or into the funding, so that in fact we

can reduce the number of students who are seeking employment?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, the hon. member has just repeated a question which he just addressed to the hon. Provincial Secretary.

MR. WALLACE: Which she didn't answer.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member may not like the answer he

received, or disagree with the answer he received; nevertheless, the

hon. minister answered the question.

ADMINISTERING SECRECY

OATH TO DAVID BROWN

MR. W.S. KING (Leader of the Opposition): A question again to

the Provincial Secretary: on April 12, 13 and 14, and again on May 6, I

asked questions relating to the appointment of one Dave Brown and why

he had not taken the public service oaths. By order-in-council 1465,

his appointment has now been extended another 30 days.

On April 14, the minister took as notice two questions: which

minister is responsible for ensuring the oaths are administered in

compliance with the law, and on what grounds has Dave Brown been

exempted from this law?

On May 6, the minister said she would get these answers. That was 12

days ago. I wonder if the Provincial Secretary is prepared to give the

answers now, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: To the Leader of the Opposition: yes, I

do have the answer to the question. First of all, your question was:

which minister is responsible for ensuring that public service oaths

are taken? Provision for oaths for public service employees is

contained in the Public Service Act. The Provincial Secretary was

charged with the administration of the Public Service Act by

order-in-council 4333, approved and ordered December 20, 1975.

MR. LAUK: You just discovered that?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: No, but I don't keep the dates and the

numbers of the orders-in-council catalogued in my head, and I don't

think any members on that side of the House did it either when they

served as government.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Hon. Provincial Secretary has the floor on a reply to a question.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: The hon. Leader of the Opposition did ask

in reference to Mr. David Brown. I would like to inform the Leader of

the Opposition that Mr. David Brown has taken the oath.

MR. KING: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the

Provincial Secretary would then explain to the House why Dave Brown was

involved in compiling and preparing the budget of British Columbia

before he had been sworn and taken the oath which is required by law.

It's true by the Premier's own admission, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I never said that Mr. David Brown had

anything to do with the compilation of the budget. I ask the Leader of

the Opposition to withdraw.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, that matter was canvassed and it was certainly stated by the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) that Mr....

Interjection.

MR. KING: Just a moment. The Minister of Finance specifically

stated that Dave Brown assisted in compiling the budget. The Premier

defended that in previous debates in this House, and certainly never

denied it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. It's not a matter of getting into

a debate on the budget, which we debated very thoroughly at a number of

previous sittings of the Legislature.

AN HON. MEMBER: Cover-up!

MR. KING: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I would like to

know from the Provincial Secretary on what date Dave Brown was finally

sworn in. And a further question: was there any specific reason for

keeping the fact that Mr. Brown was a party to the budget without

taking the oath a matter of secrecy?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The first part of your question may be in order, asking for the date

[ Page 1858 ]

that the person named was sworn in.

HON. MR. BENNETT: It's absolutely shocking. You should be ashamed of yourself!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

HON. MR. BENNETT: That's a withdrawal already.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I will have to get the date that the....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Through you, Mr. Speaker, to the members

opposite, if I were to be expected to keep every single date and every

number of every order-in-council in my head in order to answer detailed

questions, I really think that I would be a computer. I think that

there isn't anybody on that side of the House who was ever able to give

that. I'm just now going to say that I will take it as notice and give

you the answer. The answer, as you well know, is available from the

Clerk's office to the Leader of the Opposition; he can have it if he is

that concerned.

MR. KING: On a final supplementary, Mr. Speaker, I would ask

the Provincial Secretary's cooperation and good grace in not requiring

the opposition to wait another month for that simple answer.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. That is not a question.

ENERGY COMMISSION REPORT

ON PETROLEUM INDUSTRY

MR. C. D'ARCY (Rossland-Trail): My question is directed to the Minister of Transport and Communications.

As the government is well aware, there are a number of problems in

the petroleum retailing industry in British Columbia. I gather that

because of this, some time ago the government asked the B.C. Energy

Commission for a report on certain anomalies and other things in that

industry, one of them being, for instance, that in my riding the same

company will be retailing gasoline at differences of 20 cents a gallon

in towns just 15 miles apart.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would you please state your question?

MR. D'ARCY: I'm asking if the Energy Commission has reported

to the government and to the minister. If they have, when will that

information and those findings and recommendations be made available to

this House?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, the report in question has been

prepared and submitted to the government. It's now at the printers and

will be released next week.

B.C. FERRIES LAYOFFS

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the Minister of

Transport and Communications a question with specific regard to

employees in the ferry system, previously occupied in the dining rooms,

who will be losing their jobs and who have more than two years of

service with the ferry system. Can the minister tell the House how many

have been re-employed elsewhere and if each of these employees involved

is accepting a job at a lesser rate of pay?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, I can't answer the details of

that question. I do understand, however, that no one with more than two

years of service is being laid off. Every effort is being made to

re-employ those who will be displaced from the dining room service

after June 1, and also the usual increased summer demand resulting from

all vessels being in operation will, to some extent, alleviate the

pressure on employees to leave the service.

PRESERVATION OF

EMILY CARR HOUSE

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I would ask leave to answer questions that were given to me in the oral question period yesterday.

Leave granted.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: The second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) posed a question in two parts.

The first was whether I was able to confirm a report that the Emily

Carr art centre is to be evicted from the Emily Carr house located at

207 Government Street. The answer to that question, through you, Mr.

Speaker, to the member, is that there is no eviction notice given to

the Emily Carr art centre that now occupies the building. There has

been no decision reached on that art centre.

The second part of that question had reference to a report that the

government intends to remove the murals that were painted on the roof

of the Emily Carr studio and the House of All Sorts. I want to share

with the House the information that on November 22, 1973, this roof and

the paintings

[ Page 1859 ]

thereon were declared an historic site under the

archaeological and historic sites legislation. It is impossible to

destroy, deface, move or alter that area, and under this ministry it

will certainly not be defaced or destroyed. It will be safe for all

time under that Act.

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): Will it be moved?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: No. We have absolutely no plans in that regard.

APPOINTMENT OF JOHN ARNETT

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I also could

take just a few seconds of the time of the House to reply to yet

another question so as not to take it up in question period another day.

The hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) asked about

order-in-council 1175, 1976. His question was: has anyone been

appointed to the position of programme manager 2 under that

order-in-council? The answer to that is, yes. John Arnett was appointed

press secretary to the executive council and the classification of

programme manager 2 at the monthly rate of $2405.

ADMINISTRATION OF OATH

TO DAVID BROWN

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Finally I would like to answer a question

that was given to me a few minutes ago. The information comes, Mr.

Speaker, from the Clerk's office and was readily available to the

Leader of the Opposition (Mr. King) within this same few minutes. To

satisfy his question, the oath of office was administered to Mr. David

Brown on May 6, 1976.

Presenting reports.

Hon. Mr. Gardom presents the report of the Law Reform Commission on extra-judicial use of sworn statements.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT

(continued)

On vote 48: minister's office, $114,053 — continued.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Chairman, I

just have one short question of the minister which I hope he will

answer in an equally brief way — because that will be good news if he

can.

Hon. members of this House have, for many years, expressed concern about the

fate of the Skagit Valley, starting, I think, with my predecessor in North

Vancouver-Capilano, Mr. Brousson. This fight has gone on in this House. It's

gone on as well in the federal House when the hon. Minister of Transport and

Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis) was there. He was involved in this fight and

concerned with it, and I believe he wants to save the Skagit Valley and make

sure that there's no flooding.

There are discussions, we understand, planned between the Government

of the Province of the British Columbia and Seattle City Light. We know

from reports that British Columbia Hydro has been involved. I

appreciate that there is a very complex situation going on here. But

all I want from the minister is not a description of any of the

negotiating technicalities that he doesn't feel he can reveal, but a

simple undertaking to this House that is is his policy, as Minister of

Environment, in this very important piece of the environment, that

under no circumstances will he allow the Skagit Valley to be flooded.

HON. J.A. NIELSEN (Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, I

would like very much to be able to say that under no circumstances will

the Skagit Valley be flooded. As you know, the jurisdictions extend

beyond that of the province of British Columbia. Certainly to the point

where British Columbia has control over this I would suggest, yes,

every effort will be made to prevent the flooding of the Skagit Valley.

Just by way of background information, there are active discussions

underway with representatives from Washington state and the city of

Seattle and Seattle City Light. We have representatives of various

government departments, along with people in B.C. Hydro, who have been

conducting some technical discussions.

You mentioned Mr. Brousson, a former member of the House. Mr.

Brousson is also working with us in a very limited capacity, but in a

volunteer capacity. Mr. Brousson has acted as a liaison person between

ourselves and such people as the Ross committee and some of the lawyers

who have been very active on the Skagit Valley and the appeals

associated with it.

Every effort is being made on behalf of the government to prevent

the flooding of the Skagit, and we are working toward that end. We

certainly expect to have considerable discussion regarding the Skagit

in a very short time when members of the Governor of Washington's staff

are due to be in Victoria.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Chairman, last night I just started asking the minister about the

[ Page 1860 ]

Revelstoke Dam, and interestingly enough I notice

in the newspaper today that the report of the study has been released.

Now I say, Mr. Chairman, that is is very interesting that while this

House is in session so often studies of great importance are released

to the press and there is great difficulty for members of the

opposition to obtain a copy of these studies. I realize that some of

them are substantial volumes and may be difficult to provide in large

number initially, but I really do question the fair play in the

situation. We're supposed to be debating the minister's estimates and a

report of this significance is released yesterday to the press, and as

late as this afternoon I'm having great difficulty in coming anywhere

close to getting a copy of that report.

I just think that that's another insult, or maybe an oversight. I

withdraw the word "insult." I think it is an oversight. Ministers and

departments, particularly during the session of the Legislature, might

try and give the opposition members at least the same access to

important reports as is given to the members of the media.

In this regard there is a tremendously contentious issue of the

environmental impact of the proposed Revelstoke Dam, and this is

not.... I've no wish to have a very protracted debate on all the

aspects of it, but there are some very important general principles

involved, and it seems to me.... As an onlooker not privy to much of

the internal discussion, I get the impression that there is a very

serious lack of co-ordination between the Department of Environment and

other departments of government, particularly B.C. Hydro.

Now this may be either inaccurate media reporting or partial

reporting, but one often gets the idea that B.C. Hydro makes its

decisions — and in this case it looks very obvious, very obvious

indeed, that regardless of the hearings and data and opinions that are

expressed about the environment.... I would certainly, cautious as I am

with my personal finances, willingly bet any member of the Legislature

right now, 10 bucks....

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: That's part of the 10 per cent that I lost in my income since I came in here.

But the Revelstoke Dam will be built. The reason I feel so sure that

the Revelstoke Dam will be built is that we have this kind of statement

from Hydro at this stage in the game that, on an economical basis, the

Revelstoke Dam is the cheapest way to meet the increased power that

will be required in the early 1980s. The statement by Hydro — or at

least the press release from Hydro.... I'm sorry that Mr. Speaker's out

of the House because apparently press releases are just the same as

reports in the press, according to the rules of the House, and I am

sure that ministers will be very disturbed to hear that

interpretation

which I was given in question period.

But at any rate, although Hydro said in a press release that the

statement of policy is intended to be a basis for continuing discussion

between Hydro and other individuals concerned "about possible impacts

from the development, " it seems to me that the economic and financial

factors outlined in the latest statement by Hydro clearly show that

Hydro has decided that that is the next development that has to go

ahead. It says as much in some of the remarks that were issued.

For example, Mr. Chairman, I am quoting from the Vancouver Province

of today: "Hydro says that additional power will be needed in 1981, but

the Revelstoke project is scheduled to come into operation in

September, 1982, the earliest possible date if permits are granted and

construction is stated in 1977." We're halfway through 1976, and Hydro

is saying that construction will have to start in 1977 — on a $1

billion project, with all the kind of structural and environmental and

social and just about every other kind of ramification that one can

imagine.

I wonder if the minister could give us some inside information as to

how involved his department has been with Hydro since he took office,

for the simple reason that if the construction of a dam of this project

is to begin within a year from now and we're still carrying out

preliminary studies, it's very obvious that Hydro at least has decided

that, indeed, the dam will be built. The people of British Columbia are

going to witness the most blatant form of window-dressing in the next

several months with public hearings that really will change nothing.

Now when the first publicity on this dam was announced on or around

March 17, there were statements made by people with environmental

concerns. Mr. Jim Walker, co-ordinator of the habitat protection

service of the fish and wildlife branch, was of the opinion that Hydro

was indeed rushing the project. He said that Hydro appears to be acting

in good faith but concluded that it could only be a token gesture. The

reason it could only be a token gesture was that tenders were to be

called in December of this year — we're already into May — and that

construction would begin in 1977. Again, I won't take a lot of time of

the House, but various other persons with environmental concerns

expressed the same point of view. As I say, I'm not in a position to go

into some of the specifics of the report that was released yesterday,

because I can't get my hands on it. There are no reports available — no

copies of the report available for the MLAs. If I may, Mr. Chairman,

use press reporters'

interpretations of the report that they were

given, I think....

AN HON. MEMBER: That's fair, Scotty.

[ Page 1861 ]

MR. WALLACE: Oh, I'm just trying to be precise and fair. With my deep consideration for the staff in Hansard , I'm trying to make it very plain from which I quote. I'm quoting from today's Province .

AN HON. MEMBER: Just give us the reference.

MR. WALLACE: But in relation to the point that I'm trying,

despite interruptions.... I'm trying to find out to what degree the new

Minister of Environment and the new Department of Environment were

consulted at the earliest possible moment after assuming office

regarding the plans for the Revelstoke Dam. Or has the minister, as a

kind of a fellowship almost, just been told by his cabinet colleagues

after the event, or past the point at which substantial decisions can

be reversed?

There is this very substantial difference of opinion between Hydro

and the B.C. Energy Commission as to the rate at which demand for

electricity will increase in the next few years. B.C. Hydro has

forecast, and again I'm quoting from the newspaper's

interpretation of

the report of Wednesday, May 19:

"B.C. Hydro has a forecast of 9.2 per cent annually

for the next 11 years,

whereas the B.C. Energy Commission, in a study

last year, predicted a 7 per cent growth rate, and later on the

provincial Department of Economic Development reviewed these forecasts

and concluded that the growth rate would be 7 per cent."

The minister, presumably, was the Minister of Economic Development,

but it states here, and I wish to be complete and fair: "The government

department subsequently qualified its findings by saying that some

additional allowance might be required to reflect the uncertainty in

the forecasts."

While on the surface the difference between 7 per cent and 9.2 per

cent may not seem very much when we're dealing with kilowatts of energy

and millions and billions of dollars and the time factor, it's quite

obvious that if the lower growth rate is accurate, then the necessity

of having the Revelstoke Dam functioning by 1982 could be delayed

further down the road. When we're dealing with a combination of

enormous amounts of capital, much or all of which presumably will be

borrowed at substantial interest rates....

AN HON. MEMBER: All of it.

MR. WALLACE: "All of it, " the minister states. I appreciate

your comment, Mr. Minister. I need all the help I can get over here

because I have, as you know, no other members in the party; so if you'd

like to help me get through these comments, I'm most appreciative.

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): You're better than all the rest, Scotty.

MR. WALLACE: Really, there's getting to be a bit too much

levity here, because this is really a serious issue and public reaction

is asking whether the Department of Environment is just some kind of

figurehead department that kind of gets dragged along by the heels

after the other departments make their decisions. With these sums of

money and such a massive project and some uncertainty about electricity

requirements, I think it's fair to ask exactly what role the minister

and his department are playing in this one particular project which is

of such a massive dimension. The comptroller of water rights, I believe

Mr. DeBeck, has said that he'll be holding hearings and that anyone who

is concerned will have an input.

I just have to keep coming back to the fact that if tenders are to

be called this year there must have been a great deal of planning

already gone into reaching this point of almost getting to the point of

calling for tenders. If construction is to begin next year, people

would have to be very gullible and naive to assume that with all this

preliminary work and expense and planning, anybody protesting at a

hearing in Revelstoke will ever change anything. If that's the case, I

think it seriously puts in question the credibility of this

minister's department. The only saving grace might be the fact this his

department was already created after the basic decisions had been made.

Even if that is the case, as far as the minister is concerned, it

certainly doesn't do this government any credit to try and fool the

public that it is seeking input and that it is interested in listening

to environmental concerns when, in point of fact, the basic decision

has already been made that the dam will be built and it will start in

Perhaps the minister would care to answer that one and we can go on

to one or two other points. I'm also very interested if the minister

can tell us what discussions, if any, have taken place with

neighbouring governments, particularly the United States, as to the

sale of water. We all spend a great deal of time talking about copper

and coal, and rightly so since they're very important resources from

which we hope to derive revenue.

What about the very basic matter of water itself? From my reading

I'm told that one-third of Canada's water run-off is in British

Columbia. Someone recalled for me the other day the fact that the very

eminent British Columbian, Dr. Gordon Shrum, said that if we sold water

to the Americans at 7 cents a ton, we would get $70,000 for every man,

woman and child in Canada every year. There has not been much recent

discussion about the whole question of water and the fact that in the

United States scientists and ecologists are expressing some real

concern that

[ Page 1862 ]

there will be inadequate supplies of water in some very highly populated areas of the United States.

I wonder if the minister, or any of his department, or any member of

the cabinet, has had any discussions or has been approached or

requested to have discussions with the United States in regard to the

possible sale of water by British Columbia.

The minister wasn't in the House at the time, some years ago, but I

certainly know that the former Social Credit Premier was most aware of

the immense value of that basic commodity, and it was certainly never

the policy of the former Social Credit government to consider the sale

of water south of the border.

There have been all kinds of recent studies, even by the CIA,

talking about climatic changes and the minimal diminution by 1 per cent

of the surface temperature of the earth, causing droughts and famine

and widespread disasters. And for as much trouble as the CIA has been

in recent years, I think this happens to be one of the studies that

makes a great deal more sense, or at least justifying the study makes

some sense.

I wonder if, when we're talking about damming of rivers and the best

possible use of water, the minister could also give us some information

as to whether the sale of water has ever been discussed.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, I'm most pleased to answer the member for Oak Bay's question.

Regarding the proposed dam at Revelstoke, the Department of

Environment has been active with Hydro through the Environment and Land

Use Committee secretariat, basically through the secretariat. They have

worked in conjunction with Hydro; they advised Hydro as to the types of

studies which were necessary, and they set guidelines for the studies.

The report you referred to was released by B.C. Hydro yesterday,

rather than the Department of Environment. I understand we received our

copy yesterday, as well as the press — so we're not too far ahead of

the press relative to that. We received it yesterday.

The public meeting is to be held June 21 at Revelstoke, under the

authority of the comptroller of water rights, under the Water Act. In

addition, he will be assisted at the hearings by a staff member from

the secretariat who will be preparing a separate report to the

Environment and Land Use Committee on the matter, particularly those

relating to a socio-economic nature which are not covered by the Water

Act.

The persons who will be present and who wish to offer their opinions

will not be restricted by the Water Act, as perhaps the comptroller may

find necessary, and the member from the Environment and Land Use

Committee will act as an assistant, if you like, although it would not

be assistance from a legal point of view, but he certainly will have a

lot to do in that.

In addition to this, and it's not necessarily tied in precisely with

the question, we have hired an internationally recognized civil

engineer, Mr. Wendell Johnson, who is the former chief of civil works,

United States Corps of Engineers. He was retained to advise the

comptroller of water rights on technical matters relating to the safety

of the construction of any proposed dam, particularly in the Downey

slide area. And we have made particularly good use of the Environment

and Land Use Committee people in co-ordinating some of these studies

with Hydro. But we have not reached any agreements with Hydro, nor have

we had any discussions with Hydro specifically on this Revelstoke

project in advance of their report or in advance of the hearings.

The sale-of-water question: we have not been approached since coming

to office by any American representatives for the sale of water. I

understand that over the past couple of years some approaches were made

from various people in the United States. They had asked for studies to

be prepared about possible reservoirs in Canada, and this was rejected

by the government of the province — the concept was rejected. There was

a suggestion that it should go to the IJC for possible study, and that

concept was rejected as well. One reason the concept was rejected...the

idea of building massive dams for the storage of water was rejected out

of hand, and the Department of Environment has not been approached by

anyone about the sale of water, at least since we have come into office.

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): Mr. Chairman, last night the

minister suggested that the question of Sturgeon Bank and the pollution

of the lower Fraser area was a major topic of discussion between

himself and the hon. Romeo LeBlanc, who visited Victoria last week, and

that he was planning to meet with the property owners adjacent to

Sturgeon Banks in the Fraser delta area.

One minister also indicated that the federal government is

interested in sharing acquisition costs of important land adjacent to

the Fraser estuary, although no commitment has been forthcoming yet

from the federal government. Though there is a precedent for

federal-provincial sharing of land acquisition costs to protect

migrating salmon in the Adams River area where the federal and

provincial government shared costs of adjacent land on the Adams River.

The minister also suggested at the close of his remarks that he

intended to give the federal government some time to reflect and

advise, and if they don't participate in land acquisition costs then he

very well may have to proceed on his own. But I'd

[ Page 1863 ]

like to know, Mr. Chairman, just what plans the minister has in that

area. Does he plan to impose an immediate moratorium on development in

the Fraser estuary until the federal and provincial governments have

had a chance to develop a plan of action to restore the water quality

of the lower Fraser and to improve the viability of the estuary?

The minister does have the power to impose a moratorium on

development in that area under, I believe,

section 6 of the Environment

and Land Use Act. Because of the incalculable value of the region, he

should have no hesitation whatsoever in imposing a moratorium on that

area regardless of the short-term delays that may be experienced in the

industrial, transport and residential projects that have been proposed

for the delta. After all, that estuary is one of the most important in

the world in terms of the life it creates and sustains. I would like to

quote some comments from the final report of the airport planning

commission for Vancouver International Airport on the value of the

Fraser River estuary. This is on page 46 of that report:

"The Fraser River estuary and delta represent an area

unique not only to British Columbia but also to Canada. The land is

rich and extremely valuable for agriculture. In terms of the factors

affecting present-day food supply and demand, it may, indeed, be almost

priceless. The saltmarsh and intertidal zone are important for feeding

and rearing areas for juvenile salmon, herring and other commercially

and recreationally valuable important fishes.

"Some idea of the inherent value of the estuary may be

gathered from the fact that the annual adult salmon resource of the

Fraser River is estimated to average about 10 million fish. Of this

total, about 2.5 million spawners produce an annual commercial catch of

about seven million fish, an annual sport catch of about 120,000,

Indian food fishery of 170,000. The commercial catch is valued at $73

million, with a net value to the province of $37 million, 1973 prices.

In addition, the Fraser River salmon have a total annual recreational

value of about $200 million to this province. and the potential for the

Fraser River resource has been estimated to be about 24.5 million fish.

"'The saltmarsh and intertidal zones of the estuary and

delta also provide habitat highly utilized by waterfowl, shorebirds and

mammals for feeding, rearing and resting, et cetera. The area supports

the largest concentration of wintering waterfowl and shorebirds in

Canada and as well, a number of migratory birds moving between Asia,

North America and South America. The wildlife of the area represents a

significant recreational and educational resource of a steadily

increasing value."

And that was from the final report of the airport planning committee on Vancouver International Airport.

I know that the minister himself has lived for some time in the

area. He's spent most of his life living in the Fraser delta, in the

Richmond area, and so have four generations of the Skelly family. That

area is extremely important to the minister, I know, and my family. The

report says it's a priceless area and an area that we can't afford for

much longer to leave to communities, to industry and to government...to

destroy that area of the province by cutting down the area of the

estuary, by poisoning it with toxic chemicals, biological contaminants

and other things. I'd like to just quote some statements from the press

recently, especially statements deriving from the Westwater lectures

that concern the impact of development in this area of the Fraser

valley — one from The Vancouver Sun of February 25, 1976, by a

geologist writing in a federal government publication Geos , where he

says: "The flows of the Fraser River have been so tampered with by

humans that damage to the Fraser delta is probably irreversible."

Another — again tests by the Westwater institute at UBC — this from the Victoria Times dated January 31, 1976:

"Areas of the Fraser River are unfit for drinking, swimming,

even boating or irrigation, because of high bacterial levels. Findings of a

three-year study show concentrations of trace metals are approaching the threshold

of harm for aquatic organisms in the Fraser River."

And again quoting the same article:

"The water at Hope is marginally drinkable, but by the

time that the river reaches Mission it's even unfit for swimming. At

the Pattullo Bridge in New Westminster the bacteria count had risen so

the water was not safe for any use whatsoever. Improvements further

downstream were sufficient so Annacis Island and Garry Point are listed

as marginally acceptable for non-contact recreation and irrigation, but

the counts shot up again below the Queensborough Bridge to the no-use

level."

That's the situation with regard to the pollution of the lower Fraser valley.

And the Pollution Control Board, which comes under the jurisdiction

of this minister's department, is the subject of special concern by the

Westwater institute and is singled out for blame by the Westwater

institute for the present condition of the Fraser River — and, again,

I'm quoting now from the Urban Reader magazine, which is published, I

believe, in Vancouver.

"The provincial government's pollution control branch is subject to some of the

[ Page 1864 ]

severest criticism."

Again, this is from the Westwater institute.

"Critics of the agency claim that the pollution

control branch takes an engineering rather than a biological point of

view when reviewing applications for effluent emission permits. This

means, the critics argue, that the agent is merely concentrated with

how much the river can dilute. If the quantity of pollutant, after an

initial zone of dilution, is below the prescribed level for acute

toxicity, the branch will issue a permit without taking into

consideration the importance of the food chain's ability to

reconcentrate those previously diluted toxic substances."

So the pollution control branch seems to be singled out especially

for blame for the poisoning and the amount of toxic chemicals and

biological contaminants in the lower Fraser River and the estuary area.

My question to the minister, in view of the irreplaceable value of the

lower Fraser and its estuary, and in view of the immediate danger to

the estuary from industrial, residential and transport developments,

is: will the minister take an initiative to protect this area from

destruction by adopting the principal recommendations of the ecological

subcommittee of the Vancouver International Airport Planning Committee?

That recommendation is this, and again this is on page 5 of the

ecological subcommittee's report:

"Effective immediately, construction of all major

developments such as those presently proposed for situation on, or use

of, the Fraser estuary or delta should be deferred for a period to be

defined. Specifically included should be the expansion of Vancouver

International Airport as presently proposed.

"Furthermore, during this moratorium and before any

further major development is permitted to take place, a comprehensive

policy should be prepared for both the management and the protection of

the Fraser River estuary and delta as an ecological unit."

Does the minister intend, in view of the irreplaceable value of this

estuary and the lower Fraser River, to take immediate steps to impose a

moratorium on all development in that area until a comprehensive policy

has been established?

MR. G. MUSSALLEM (Dewdney): Mr. Chairman, with all this talk

about trouble that the Fraser River is facing, I'm sure the Fraser

takes very little attention to it and rolls merrily along.

This is a great river. It is considered to be one of the cleanest

rivers in the North American continent or Europe as of this day. All

this information from obscure reports bothers me a great deal, because

this is a great heritage of British Columbia. It is one of the finest

of the great rivers of the world, and one of the cleanest as well.

It's polluted to some extent, yes, but not by industry and not

always by man — sometimes by nature. But the river and its great

ecosystem takes care of all these problems without blinking and, as I

say, rolls merrily along.

I'd like to quote to the hon. member the statements by Dr. Fox of Westwater fame, when he says:

"The lower Fraser River indicates the estuary is

relatively unpolluted, says Dr. Irvine Fox of Westwater Research Centre

in the University of British Columbia. Fox said it shouldn't be assumed

that industry is the major polluter. In fact, homes and agriculture are

materials which can have pretty serious effects when they get into the

water system."

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Read that again!

MR. MUSSALLEM: Shall I read it again? I think once is enough.

Mainly what is said is that we should use these things in context

and in judgment. The river is but one thing. We talk about industry,

but do we realize that the greatest polluters are just the individuals?

If we could put a clothespin on our nose and stay right here and never

move again and stop breathing, pollution would come to an end, I think,

but nature would still pollute. It's part of the system of life.

Let's not get so excited and so vibrant just when someone says we're

polluting. We refer to people as polluters — we are all polluters — but

I think our system in British Columbia, our Pollution Control Board,

started by this government in 1956 and continued on through various

Acts, is the strongest of any state or any province in Canada.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Which other ones did you look at?

MR. MUSSALLEM: At several. For example, an inventor in

British Columbia developed a system of purifying sewage by a certain

type of coal — I'm not sure exactly about this, but you've all heard

about it. Now that system is not acceptable to our Pollution Control

Board, but it is acceptable to the pollution control board in

Washington and is being used there with our coal.

I think we should use it here because it could serve a great purpose

to homes and to condominiums, for sewage purposes, which could be

developed for the use of our people. I think the Pollution Control

Board should take notice of this. I think they should make it possible

for people to use a system that we invented here in British Columbia. I

think it is utterly

[ Page 1865 ]

disgraceful that we will not consider it. I think that the Pollution

Control Board's too tough. I think they ought to be loosened up a

little bit in this respect.

Our hon. friend from Alberni (Mr. Skelly) talks about the Fraser

River salmon. Does he know that the Fraser River salmon was at the

lowest ebb in 1931, and is at its highest productivity at the present

time? How do you reconcile this with pollution? The fishing's getting

better. The structure of the river is getting better. Let us use some

judgment. Let us not always be yelling pollution unless we know what

we're talking about. Listen to Dr. Fox, read the right story and

understand. I have many times....

You hear these stories of pollution. I'll get back to my town, some

school children will come to me and say: "Mr. Mussallem, we're told

that the Fraser River smells and is filthy and polluted." Well, I take

them down to the river. I take a glass of water out of the river. I sit

it on the fender of the car on the wharf. Now look at the water and let

that sit for 10 minutes. Let the solids settle.

Interjection.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Now you see they.... My friends.... Mr.

Chairman, can you see the twisted, convoluted attitude of some people?

They can't get their thinking above their waist, but I tell you I can.

The solids are the silt that comes down the river. Silt — you

understand what that means? S-i-l-t. It comes down the river from the

gravel bars up above Prince George on the way down and that's what it

is. Let that settle and I'd drink the water anytime, and I don't know

what we're talking about. The river is reasonably clean, as clean as it

ever will be, because nature pollutes, not only man and the fishing is

good. It never was better.

You talk about the estuaries. There is pollution in some areas.

We've heard of some areas not fit to go swimming. Sure, I agree with

that. Around New Westminster, I'm sure you wouldn't want to swim in

that water with the sewage outfall there, but the river looks after all

this. I only say that I do not encourage pollution, but I say you must

use judgment, plain common judgment, in these matters. It is very

important to understand that we are all polluters, but we're not going

hog-wild. We're being sensible and this government's always been

sensible in this regard.

Please, gentlemen and ladies, consider and be sensible when you make

these statements because it upsets people who do not know. When you

read things, do not read them out of context. Listen to people like Dr.

Fox. Listen to people who understand. The Fraser River's a great river.

It's a clean river. It's a beautiful river and we should be proud of it

and not knock it. I think it's a great mistake.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: My very knowledgeable friend from upriver,

thank you very much. Dr. Fox has been mentioned and Westwater, UBC. I

suppose when you read a report of any kind, you can take out of the

report what you want to put in a report. Quoting from the report, he

said: "Generally speaking, the Fraser is in remarkably good shape

considering the insults man has given it over the years." Certainly man

is the culprit in this.

The Annacis Island treatment plant comes under considerable comment

from many, many people. In 1971, the Pollution Control Board issued

the Greater Vancouver Regional District a permit to discharge primary

treatment effluent into the Fraser, and, after a public protest, the

cabinet ordered this permit to be upgraded to meet secondary treatment

standards. The Greater Vancouver Regional District appealed this order

on the grounds that the Fraser could take care of it, could assimilate

primary treatment sewage without any deterioration of the water quality.

The Environment and Land Use Committee secretariat has convened a

group of experts from the federal, the provincial and regional levels

of government and the University of B.C. The major pollution problem

appears to be the release of toxic materials, and that task group is

presently examining several alternatives for controlling the discharge

of such materials, the controls at the source, the treatment and

dispersal outside the Fraser estuary. We expect to receive a report

from them within a couple of months.

The member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) mentioned comments made last

night regarding a meeting. I said that I was meeting soon with the

major landowner. In this case it's the Grauers, the major landowner in

the Sturgeon Bank area. That meeting is to be held on the 29th. I can't

predict what the outcome will be. We spoke with the hon. Minister of

Fisheries, Romeo LeBlanc, in Victoria as I mentioned. As I said

yesterday, we did spend a considerable amount of time discussing

Sturgeon Bank particularly. I had previously discussed the wisdom of

acquiring Sturgeon Bank with the Minister of Environment federally,

Jean Marchand, when I accompanied Mr. Marchand to Kelowna one evening.

Mr. Marchand at that time exhibited some interest in Sturgeon Bank. We

have since communicated with him, advising him that we feel it is a top

priority item and we'd like to get some cooperation.

The Adams River was one example we cited. The Adams River is being

protected now. The federal government is sharing on, I believe, a 50-50

cost-sharing programme. We have suggested, perhaps somewhat boldly, to

the federal government that Sturgeon Bank serves the country as well as

the province and that we would be interested in perhaps an 80-20 per

cent split if they would agree to that, but that hasn't been welcomed

with the excitement

[ Page 1866 ]

we had anticipated. But we do expect to hear from them soon.

We have approached them directly, and the Hon. Mr. LeBlanc said that

they certainly would offer it some consideration. In discussions with

the minister we discussed the salmon-enhancement programme, and I

suggested that while it may be very, very wise to spend public funds to

improve the salmon resource by way of creating various artificial

hatcheries and spawning grounds or whatever, we can't overlook that

which is provided us by nature, particularly such areas as Sturgeon

Bank. As I said, if we failed to get any positive response from the

federal government relative to sharing in the cost of acquiring the

property, certainly it will be incumbent upon the province to attempt

to take the necessary action alone.

The desecration of the Sturgeon Bank area is not at this time

occurring. There was an agreement — I suppose a gentlemen's agreement

of some kind — between some of the landowners and the provincial

government previously that no further filling would take place. I must

say that some of the landowners are becoming a little bit impatient.

They would like some very definite action and they would like to have

their problems, as they see them, solved. I hope that the meeting on

May 29 will be at least a step in that direction.

A possible moratorium on all major development is not contemplated

at this time. I appreciate it's been recommended by several groups, but

we would certainly oppose major developments if, in their impact

studies, it appeared that indeed they would contribute to the

deterioration of the estuary. We believe that we would have a fairly

strong voice in that area, and we could let our position be known. We

do have statutory powers, of course, under various Acts which could

make it either very difficult for some people to develop areas, or

impossible for them to develop areas. Of course, we must hesitate in

using statutory powers improperly or indiscriminately.

The Fraser, of course, is a vital artery in the province of British

Columbia. The salmon harvest, along with the other services the Fraser

provides.... I would think that any government in the province of

British Columbia, if it were at any time able to really clean up the

Fraser — even more so than it is in its present condition — clean it up

the way many people would want, would have indeed accomplished a very,

very large contribution to the betterment of the province of British

Columbia.

I agree with the member for Port Alberni (Mr. Skelly). His points,

I believe, are quite well made, and I think the information he has

presented is generally agreed on by many people who have studied it. We

have looked at this. The secretariat people have studies underway

relative to the Fraser in different specific areas. The Fraser River

estuary is very much on the minds of the Department of the Environment.

A presentation was made today on the Fraser by SPEC, which I had the

opportunity to attend. We had a brief discussion on that and some

information was presented.

Certainly the Fraser River estuary is very definitely a priority consideration of the Department of Environment.

MR. SKELLY: I hope that the Minister of Environment doesn't

take the advice of the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem). It seems

that he has been drinking too much water out of the Mission River

system which is, according to the colleagues of Dr. Fox, undrinkable at

that point.

HON. E.M. WOLFE (Minister of Finance): He looks pretty healthy.

MR. SKELLY: He looks pretty healthy, but his statements don't sound that healthy.

I think that the Fraser River is an area of grave concern, and

authorities other than Dr. Fox, and authorities I think that Dr. Fox

concurs with, have said that there are severe problems in particular

areas of the Fraser River. I think that the member for Dewdney took

some of my statements out of context. There are areas of the Fraser

that are able to clean themselves. There are other areas that are

severely contaminated and immediate action is needed, particularly in

those areas. I'm not saying that industry is the main polluter; I named

three polluters: residential developments — in other words, people —

industry, and government. In fact, the British Columbia government and

the federal government could be considered some of the main polluters

in that area.

I think it's important, and I'm pleased to hear that the Minister of

Environment is considering the lower Fraser and its estuary as an item

of major importance for his department. I would like him to consider

the idea of a comprehensive moratorium on that area, and a

comprehensive policy for the development of the lower Fraser River and

the Fraser estuary as a single ecological unit.

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of

points that I would like to raise with respect to my own constituency,

and one relates to Port Alice. The minister is probably aware that a

model has now been built of the community, and studies are being done

with respect to simulating weather conditions and how they would affect

the mountainside behind the community of Port Alice.

I understand also, Mr. Minister, that the council of the community

of Port Alice will be meeting this Friday with the people who have

built the study and

[ Page 1867 ]

the models, and have done the work on the model itself. Presumably

the council at that time will be informed as to what sort of actions

should be taken in order to alleviate any further slides, or the

possibility of further slides in that community.

I would just like to have the assurance from the minister at this

time, Mr. Chairman, if the report indicates it is urgent that work be

undertaken immediately so as to avoid future slides in that community,

that work will be started this summer and this fall.

I would like to congratulate the people who have built the model

itself. I think they have done this in very short order and apparently

have been able to conduct all the necessary tests in short order as

well. But what I am looking for now on behalf of the residents of Port

Alice is some commitment from the government and from the minister that

if it proves out that there is urgency with respect to possible future

weather conditions there and the possibility of future slides, work

will start immediately upon completion of the study that is now being

carried out.

The second point I would like to raise relates to the situation at

Alert Bay. Last year when the slides were happening at Port Alice,

Alert Bay was also affected. As I pointed out at another point in the

House, the same publicity was not given to the situation at Alert Bay

at that time — all of it went to other areas in the province that were

afflicted. But Alert Bay has a problem as well. They have been

appealing time and time again to the Minister of Municipal Affairs as

well as your department for assistance in making necessary ditch

changes and alleviating the problems there.

The problem is that at Alert Bay they have no money. The Minister of

Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Curtis) could tell you that when one mill

raises less than $900, a council is not able to undertake massive works

which would involve preventing further slides in that community. I know

that there is great concern on council that unless some work is done,

another slide could possibly happen there. During the last slide there

were two or three houses that were literally removed from their

moorings. I think you recognize, Mr. Minister, that there could be

danger to life and limb there.

They have no way of funding the necessary work that has to be done.

I know that your deputy minister is aware of the problems that exist

there and is also aware that funding for his department is really very

limited to undertake problems of that nature. I know that Alert Bay is

not the only place, but it seems to me that in a community like Alert

Bay where they just virtually have no access to funds through their

council...they can't do away with other projects — $900 a mill is what

they raised there. It seems to me that some method has to be found to

give them some assistance so they can start on a project there as well.

I would appreciate the minister's comments.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I thank the member for bringing Alert Bay

to our attention once again. I am assured by representatives in my

department that, indeed, they are aware of the situation. I can advise

you that we will give it further consideration because of your comments

today, and find out where it sits on the list of priorities of similar

problems.

The model is complete and operating, as was indicated on the Port

Alice situation. Once the report is released and the alternatives are

presented as to what should happen at Port Alice, obviously we will

have to make a decision as to what

part in solving this problem the

department may play. The problems of many communities situated in

perilous circumstances, with slides threatening and the tremendous

strength and power of slides diversionary tactics may be practical

under some circumstances — diversion channels or whatever they may

prepare. I think it might be a bit premature to suggest what we may do

without receiving that report, but I certainly will advise the member

as to what the decision is of the report and what the decision of the

department may be.

I hope, at least, that many of the communities have received

reasonably quick response from the department when it comes to such

problems, because we do recognize that while bureaucracy does drag on,

in such instances we are dealing with people who are suffering to some

extent — not necessarily personal, physical suffering, but certainly

suffering in a social sense where their home has been either damaged or

destroyed and they have been displaced and they are caused considerable

social suffering. So we try to operate relatively quickly in that

manner, and we will continue to do so.

I can't really offer the member a definitive answer on what will

happen at Port Alice. I look forward to seeing that report, as do the

technical people in the department. Relative to Alert Bay, I will

certainly see that Alert Bay is given a bit more preferential

investigation, at least at this time, into what their problem may be.

If you wish, I'll see that you are made aware of the thoughts of the

department relative to Alert Bay.

MS. SANFORD: Will the report be made public?

MR. H.J. LLOYD (Fort George): Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to

add to what the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) said about the

Fraser River. I think it's very important to remember that the salmon

fishing is increasing, if anything. This is in spite of a great number

of industrial developments that have taken place on the Fraser River.

I'm sure that all

[ Page 1868 ]

members on this side of the House share the concern of any group

that's concerned with the preservation of the delta, or the downstream

end of the Fraser, but I think at the same time it's about time we had

a moratorium on moratoriums. It seemed to be a favourite stunt of the

last government to keep putting it back in for another study.

As the member for Dewdney has indicated, the Fraser isn't in all

that bad a condition. Actually it's survived rather well. We've got

three pulp mills in our riding alone, at Prince George, and it doesn't

seem to have slowed the salmon down in any respect — they're still

coming by in increasing numbers every year.

One of the other points that the member for Dewdney made in one of

his earlier speeches...he mentioned a time-bomb, the time-bomb that the

lower mainland is sitting on. That very delta that all the groups are

so concerned about preserving could be washed right out to sea — it's

just a matter of time.

There's been some talk of B.C. Hydro moving on the damming of the

McGregor watershed to provide more downstream water for the Peace dam,

but also to provide a level of flood control for the lower mainland —

and it's something that's overdue. We've had some pretty major floods

on the Fraser in past years. I can recall the flood of 1948 — it

practically washed the lower mainland away. But that's only an

indication of what could come. It's only a matter of time. We're just

sitting waiting, waiting, waiting. It could even be this year — we've

got one of the biggest snow packs we've ever had in the interior,

particularly on the Nechako watershed. They've been letting as much

water as possible out of the dam, yet Vanderhoof has practically been

under water; Prince George has already reached the flood stage. And

this is some three weeks to a month early, and we haven't even hit the

run-off of the snow pack on the bigger hills.

So I think when any of those pressure groups, or anybody concerned

with moratoriums...they'd better just take into account that Mother

Nature doesn't wait for moratoriums. I think it's about time we got

some proper flood control instigated. Certainly the McGregor is one of

the ones we can look at. I think maybe the Clearwater may have to be

dammed as well. Some of the members of the Greenpeace group protested

quite violently in Prince George when it was suggested that the

McGregor might go ahead. I wonder if any of these protest groups look

at the alternates.

Shortly after the election, a group of people from B.C. Wildlife

were quite concerned about the Hat Creek coal. "For heaven's sake,

whatever happens, don't let them develop that Hat Creek coal. It's

going to damage the environment." There's a great deal of concern on

nuclear power generation — the dangers of it. Certainly it's becoming

quite popular back east, and I think at some certain date when it's

proven itself, it's something we'll have to look at. But in the

meantime you just can't say: "Let's put a moratorium on this; let's put

a moratorium on that." We have to move along. Life moves along. I think

it's about time they had a real good look at the alternates. It's quite

easy to say: "Let's wait. Let's put a moratorium on it." But it's a lot

more realistic to develop a proper programme and move ahead on it.

One of the other things, Mr. Chairman, I would like to say is on

some of the remarks that started off' the discussion on vote 48. The

member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) was quite concerned that there

hadn't been a new department created. He couldn't see why these

different branches were in the one department. I think that's a very

logical creation, the way it's been set up at the present time: the

Department of Lands, the water resources, pollution control, planning

and development, the Environment and Land Use Committee secretariat,

waste management, and the Land Commission, all under the Department of

Environment.

They said they didn't see too much difference from the last

government's setup. I can see quite a bit of difference. One thing I

would expect to get this year...we should be able to get some decisions

— not moratoriums or handing it from one department to another. We

should be able to get some decisions.

Last year I came down with a group from the Fraser-Fort George

regional district. We were trying to get a Department of Highways

subdivision freeze lifted. We had a very productive meeting — if that's

possible — with most of the departments, the ministers concerned,

except for the Lands department. Most of them concurred with the

suggested subdivision regulation that the Fraser-Fort George were

proposing, until we got to the Minister of Lands (Mr. R.A. Williams) .

He said: "That's just fine. Whatever you decide with those fellows,

that's just fine, but count the Lands department out — we make our own

qualifications. We'll move ahead on our own." So I'm saying that in the

last government there was only one real minister. I think there's going

to be quite a bit of difference in this new government, and I've been

very pleased to attend at a meeting between the various ministers

concerned — Highways, Municipal Affairs, Housing and Environment — when

we considered the same land freeze.

In the spirit of cooperation that came out of that meeting it was

turned back to the department heads to bring some suggestions up. I

feel sure that all the members of the Fraser-Fort George district will

be a lot happier now that they are going to be able to get some

decisions. It won't be handed around to one superminister to decide

what role the government is going to play. It will be co-ordinated, and

I think

[ Page 1869 ]

that's very important.

MR. SKELLY: How do you feel about the Moran dam, Howard?

MR. LLOYD: We had the same thing thing on a very small

development in the Bear Lake community. We've had two sawmills placed

in the area since this townsite was established. They've been waiting

for the last three years to get a small agreement between the

Department of Highways and the Department of Lands.

The member for Skeena (Mr. Shelford) spoke of his qualifications. I

wonder where he was when they were waiting for a decision between the

Department of Highways and the Department of Lands. That thing has been

stalled for three years. With two small meetings there and the

blessings of the ministers concerned, we got that development back on

the road again. I want to thank the ministers who are involved on it. I

think that's the way the departments should work there. Cut out this

bureaucracy and red tape.

MR. D.D. STUPICH (Nanaimo): Mr. Chairman, just a few comments

about several items that really could be dealt in the vote separately

but really have to be considered together.

I just can't help but comment very briefly on something the previous

member had to say, and that is the importance of making decisions. I

agree it is important to make decisions, but I think in dealing with

the environment it's important that the decisions be the right

decisions. While it may be tough sometimes to live with a situation

where decisions seem to be delayed for too long, we are dealing with

the environment. I think it is important that we do take time and make

a decision that we are going to live with, because we are going to have

to live with it for quite some time once the decision's been made. I

can appreciate the concern and I've had the same concern expressed to

me many times.

On the matter of the relationship among the Environment and Land Use

Committee, the Land Commission and the secretariat, my particular

concern, Mr. Chairman, is for preservation of agricultural land. That

could be dealt with under the Land Commission, but the procedure under

the previous administration — to the best of my knowledge it is still

the same one — is that appeals to cabinet with respect to changes in

the Agricultural Land Reserve are dealt with by the ELUC, a committee

of cabinet, which in turn relies on information from the secretariat.

I wonder whether that same sort of review is given to appeals that

come before cabinet, whether or not the Environment and Land Use

Committee first look at them and make some kind of a recommendation to

cabinet and cabinet then deals with the recommendation of the cabinet

committee, and whether or not the Environment and Land Use Committee

itself actually refers these appeals to the secretariat for advice

before presuming to make a recommendation to cabinet. I would hope that

that same procedure is still being followed.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to congratulate the minister on something

that he hasn't done up to this point, and that is that he has not

changed the members of the Land Commission. I would hope that that is

not something he just hasn't got around to doing. I hope it will be his

policy to keep the Land Commission as it is. The original members of

the Land Commission are still serving in that capacity, with the one

exception that the original chairman did resign his position and the

person who was manager, Gary Runka, was then appointed chairman.

I think the acceptability of the Land Commission in the eyes of the

public generally is largely due to the individuals who were picked and

who were named to that commission. I think they've done a tremendous

job of explaining something to the people of British Columbia —

something that was not understood when it was first attempted.

Certainly if I were to look at the membership of the Environment and

Land Use Committee I might have some real concern about the future of

the commission and the future of agricultural land itself. I note that

among the members of the Environment and Land Use Committee are four

ministers — the Hon. Hugh Curtis, the Hon. Don Phillips, the Hon. A.

Fraser and the Hon. R. McClelland — all of whom took part at great

length in a debate the purpose of which was to kill the Land Commission

bill when it was before this House.

As a matter of fact, one of those members, the Hon. Don Phillips, in

second reading spoke for 34 hours in opposition to this bill. I think

that was a measure to some extent of the concern that the whole

community felt about the way in which agricultural land was being

preserved. There was real concern about what was being done and how it

was being accomplished.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I can't quite hear the remarks of

the hon. member for Hawaii, and I'm not sure what he's adding to this

debate right now.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please do not be distracted.

MR. STUPICH: I'll try not to be distracted and you try to keep him just a little bit quieter.

But there was this concern, Mr. Chairman, and I accepted that. As

I'm saying, I think it was the type of people who served on the Land

Commission from the beginning who won the acceptability for this

[ Page 1870 ]

whole procedure by their actions as members of that Land Commission

— won it to the extent, Mr. Chairman, that even as recently as about

one and a half years ago the present Premier of the province was

campaigning around the province in anticipation of an election and

saying that one of his actions as Premier of the province would be to

get rid of the Land Commission and to get rid of the Land Commission

Act.

Later on, as his campaign progressed, and as he realized that it

wasn't being opposed to the extent that he originally felt it was being

opposed, he backed off from that position, until finally by the time

the Social Credit Party got around to printing their election

programme, their position with respect to the Land Commission had

changed dramatically.

The first point with respect to the Land Commission in their

election leaflet was to make the Land Commission workable and

responsive; secondly, to prohibit the non-agricultural use of farmland

but make the B.C. Land Commission responsible to the recommendations of

elected regional boards — certainly a tremendous change in their

position in a relatively short period.

Mr. Chairman, there had been a number of appeals put before the Land

Commission, and in each case that I'm thinking of the people making the

appeal are going to the next step, and that is appealing to cabinet.

There was an appeal in the Richmond area that was turned down by the

Land Commission and that is now before the cabinet. There was an appeal

in the area represented by the hon. member for Chilliwack (Mr.

Schroeder) that was recommended against, or turned down, by the Land

Commission and has gone to cabinet. There were others — one in the

Sooke area, for example, again where the Land Commission recommended

against it.

I think, Mr. Chairman, this shows that the minister has not in any

way tried to interfere with the work of the Land Commission. Not only

has he not changed the personnel of the commission, but there seems to

be plenty of evidence that he is allowing the Land Commission to arrive

at its own decisions. As I complimented him for not having changed the

personnel of the Land Commission, I want to compliment him for the way

in which he has allowed the Land Commission to operate in the way in

which it was originally intended to operate, in the way that it did

operate under the previous administration.

I would like to have some assurance from him that he perhaps has

some personal awareness of the need to preserve agricultural land in

this province, where we have so little of it.

Just this morning I read in the paper where a member of the staff in

the Department of Agriculture is warning farmers of the need to produce

more food, that the population of British Columbia is going to expand.

B.C. farmers will have to produce 50 per cent more food within 10 years

if they are to meet population and income increases, the B.C.

Federation of Agriculture was told today by Mr. Maurie King, Associate

Deputy Minister of Agriculture.

Of course, Mr. Chairman, to do that we are going to need

agricultural land. We have precious little of it. I've said in this

House previously that agricultural land, second only to the kind of

land that they have in Holland, is the sort of land that we have in the

Lower Fraser Valley, including the Chilliwack area. It is important,

Mr. Chairman, to preserve this.

To summarize what I said earlier, then: I'm wondering whether the

procedure is still the same, whether when appeals come to cabinet it is

the policy of the Minister of Environment to refer these first to the

Environment and Land Use Committee for recommendation, whether the

secretariat is involved before they will go to cabinet, whether he....

I'd like to have something from him as to his personal attitudes

towards the preservation of agricultural land in the province of

British Columbia.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I'm not absolutely clear, Mr. Chairman,

what the procedure may have been in the previous government, but to the

best of my understanding there has been no change in procedure. In the

appeals we've had before us relative to the secretariat, they haven't

really made that many recommendations, but they have handled it.

They've processed it and researched it and brought information to us.

Similarly with the Land Commission itself — they very often make a

recommendation rather than a decision in the proper use of that, and

their recommendations, of course, are considered. The information they

supply us.... I would say there have been no alterations in the make-up

of the Land Commission, but I would say that no commissioners should

consider their appointment to be permanent — not lifetime tenure.

They're not schoolteachers. They are people who are engaged in other

activities of society.

Interjection.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Well, depending on your

interpretation of the phrase "not permanent."

Interjection.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Well, perhaps if you were standing you

might be in proper order to ask such a question. I'll give you the

opportunity in a moment. I'm missing most of what you're saying.

Interjection.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Deliberately. I'll give you

[ Page 1871 ]

an opportunity to ask a question....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I'd like to commend, at this time, the work

of Garry Runka. He's been most cooperative and I think has worked very,

very hard on behalf of the department and on behalf of the Land

Commission. I think he deserves that plug.

The procedure has not changed, as we said. There are certain aspects

of the Land Commission procedures, including some of the appeal

procedures, which I believe require review. I think there is some red

tape that may be cut, and I have been in communication with people who

are working with the Land Commission. They've made some recommendations

to me as well to try and speed up some procedures and to make appeal

procedures a bit more easy for some of the appellants of the day so

they are not necessarily totally frustrated by the bureaucratic system.

Agricultural land, of course, is vital. The concern, I believe, is shared by the majority of people within the province.

With reference to the ministers — Curtis, Phillips, Fraser,

McClelland — I might say they have been invaluable in the committee and

have offered excellent comments and recommendations when it comes to

the appeals which have been before us, as have the other members of the

committee. It's a vitally important committee, as has been pointed out

by members on the other side of the House, the Environment and Land Use

Committee. The decisions which are asked of the committee are not easy

decisions, and I may say that the decisions which are made are not made

on the spur of the moment. Very often, unfortunately, this adds to the

frustration of those persons who want the decision, but very often

decisions are out of necessity put over to a later date because further

studies are wished to be made and understood.

The Land Commission has presented us with a tremendous number of

appeals in the past few months. Some of the appeals had been around for

a long time. It does take time, I appreciate, to get all the

information together and then go through the procedures of

municipalities or regional districts. Sometimes the persons who own the

properties are not able to be contacted immediately and it takes a long

time. Certainly we are criticized for not coming up with the decisions

immediately. Very often it is procedural problems that we have really

no control over. We're not going to interfere with the Land

Commission's procedures. I don't really believe the Land Commission,

under the chairmanship of Mr. Runka, deliberately make it difficult for

anyone who wishes to appeal.

The Act itself is understandably confusing to a lay person because

it is a complicated document; in fact, it is confusing to professionals

as well. Some lawyers I have had offer me advice on the Land

Commission, some within the civil service, have admitted that in their

professional opinion it is a bit of a dog's breakfast in some aspects.

They have made some suggestions, too, to streamline it to try and come

up with a better understanding.

I think perhaps a lot of the problems which have been faced by the

committee regarding the Land Commission and the Land Commission Act

stem from the fact that very often the persons who are appealing, or

making an appeal application, don't fully understand the Act and are

going about it the wrong way. This adds to further complications as

well. Add to that the reluctance of some regional districts and some

municipalities in cooperating with persons who are appealing for

exemption from the Land Commission; this adds further to the problem.

We have communicated with some municipalities and some regional

districts. We have asked them if they would please take a greater

interest in such applications so that our decisions, when made, would

be made with better information provided us. I don't know why some of

the regional districts or municipalities are reluctant to cooperate.

Perhaps they lack staff, perhaps they lack expertise — I am not quite

sure. We have certainly advised them that we would very much appreciate

more cooperation so the appeals need not be held up needlessly, and

also that the decision made by more appropriate to the facts on hand.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, just briefly, again the member is

following, I believe, the words of the member for Fort George (Mr.

Lloyd) in saying that some of the appeals have been held up for quite

some time. I know some of the appeals are held up for quite some time.

I know some of the appeals are held up and take a long time to be dealt

with, but I would just like to say once again that I think the

important thing, Mr. Chairman, is not that they be dealt with quickly

but that they be dealt with properly. If, for example, we are looking

at an application from Chilliwack to take 1,000 acres out of the Land

Commission reserve, well, it may be that that decision will be made

positively. I certainly hope not in that particular instance, but I

think the important thing in that particular case and in any case,

large or small, in the province of British Columbia, is that we make a

decision that we are prepared to live with for all time rather than a

decision that is made in a hurry. I just can't emphasize that enough. I

think the Land Commission and the Environment and Land Use Committee

would be far more subject to criticism if they made wrong decisions.

I am not surprised, Mr. Chairman, that the legislation is hard to understand, that lawyers find it

[ Page 1872 ]

difficult to read, because, after all, it was drafted by lawyers

and, of course, it is their job to confuse other lawyers. If we had had

somebody else draft it, then it wouldn't be quite so difficult.

I am a little concerned about what the....

AN HON. MEMBER: He's attacking the Clerk. (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. STUPICH: There was another lawyer involved in that. The

lawyer who was the original chairman of the Land Commission had some

hand in drafting it as well. In any case....

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: Yes. Mr. Chairman, I'm a little concerned about

what the minister said — that none of the members of the Land

Commission should consider themselves permanent appointees. Of course,

none of us can consider ourselves permanent in any sense at all, but it

makes me wonder why he thought it necessary to say that at this point

in time — whether he considers any changes.

There was one person added to the Land Commission when we...that is,

when we had to find a replacement. We did add another member. We went

about it by consulting the existing members of the Land Commission to

see how they felt about a list of possible appointees. The point I want

to make, Mr. Chairman, is that we really did our best to make sure that

in naming the members of the Land Commission we would find people who

would be acceptable to the general community.

We wanted the Land Commission to work; we wanted it to be accepted.

We wanted it to make decisions, but we wanted it to make right

decisions and decisions that people would understand. Perhaps if I look

at all the other commissions that the government of that day appointed,

I think the most acceptable one in the eyes of the community was the

Land Commission.

[Mr. Macdonald in the chair.]

While members may be changed, and there may be good reason for

changing some of them — I am not suggesting they should all be there

permanently or anything like that — I just want the minister, if he is

considering making changes, to be very careful about making these

changes, to be looking at the kind of work that the commission is

doing, and to consult with the members of the Land Commission before

changes are made, in the hope that this commission will continue to do

the kind of work that it is doing on behalf of the province of British

Columbia.

MR. W.G. STRONGMAN (Vancouver South): Mr. Chairman, I would

like to speak very briefly, through you to the hon. minister, with

regard to a very mundane, boring topic but one that should be raised in

the House and one that I have spoken with him about briefly an a number

of times. That is the growing problem of disposing of industrial waste

in the lower mainland of British Columbia.

Before going into that particular point, though, I would like to

preface my remarks today by referring to my speech in reply to the

Speech from the Throne, just after this House opened, in which I

outlined at some length my concern on the fact that the economy of this

province is basically resource-oriented in all of its aspects in that

we have been almost totally unable to attract a solid base of secondary

industry.

It seems to me that if B.C. is to continue to mature and to grow, we

are going to have to have secondary industry in the lower mainland of

British Columbia and in other areas. It's becoming increasingly more

difficult, especially in the lower mainland, to get rid of industrial

waste, not only in solid form but in liquid form. I would ask the

minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, to consider the funding or the

construction by the government of an industrial liquid waste disposal

plant. I feel that it is absolutely necessary. It's becoming very, very

difficult for people in converting industries, chemical industries and

food-processing industries to get rid of waste that's 99 per cent

water, non-toxic and yet still requires some treatment before it can be

put into regular disposal areas.

I believe there are processes available — I think the minister is

aware of them — that are economically feasible. I would urge that he

consider this programme as a priority item if we are going to attract

secondary industry into this area, and I think that we all realize the

need for such a move.

Mr. Chairman, I will end my remarks by asking the minister if he has

any future plans in this regard, and if so, would he be willing to

share his opinion and his ideas with the House today? Thank you.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: To the member for Vancouver South:

certainly I concur that the need for such a waste treatment plant is

uppermost and certainly should be regarded as a priority. We have been

approached by several persons who believe they have the technical

knowledge and available equipment to develop such a project. They all

seem to have the same problem. Their problem is money — at least that's

what they tell us. They have a problem gathering the money. I

understand the economics of the situation are a little bit difficult.

There is an inability on the part of those persons putting together

such a project to find out which comes first. They say they can attract

customers to purchase some of the

[ Page 1873 ]

recycled contaminants, and they can do very well financially in that

way. But they can't make any agreement until they have the plant, and

they can't get the plant until they get the money for it.

I've discussed this project with the Minister of Economic

Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips). I intend to bring it to his attention

once again. As I said, we've received at least two, I believe,

approaches from separate companies that would like to get going on

this, but they seem to be constantly in trouble with the money end.

One company asked us if we would, through the Department of

Environment, fund at least a percentage of such a project. We felt that

if the Department of Environment were involved in the funding, we might

be in a bit of a problem in that we would have to issue control permits

for the plant, the treatment. It might be better if the Department of

Economic Development were the vehicle through which some of the funding

became available.

The Fraser River, which we discussed before, certainly suffers in

large degree by contaminants which are placed in that water in various

ways, contaminants which do not break up in the water and continue to

cause considerable damage, contaminants which would and could be

treated through such a plant and perhaps recycled in some way and used

again.

I appreciate that a large number of industries, those which are

involved with a great deal of solvents and such, have a major problem

in trying to dispose of that. They have used landfills for disposal of

some of these liquid wastes, and now we are seeing the leaching process

taking place and we're seeing other problems being developed because of

this disposal in that manner in years gone by. Certainly I would concur

with the member for Vancouver South (Mr. Strongman) that all that can

be done should be done to see that we do establish such a plant to

process these waters. Not only would it be attractive from an

environmental point of view, but it probably would attract industry and

give us a shot in the arm of the economy.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to congratulate you on

your elevation to that office. Although you came in second in election

to Speaker, I'm pleased to see you are now chairman of this committee.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There's no voting on the sub-deputy in committee.

MR. SKELLY: But in view of the statements of the member for

Fort George (Mr. Lloyd) and the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem), I'm

particularly concerned, Mr. Chairman, about the role that the Minister

of Environment is going to play as environmental advocate in this

government, and particularly concerned about his role as devil's

advocate to protect the air, the land, the water, the wildlife of this

province from contamination by those departments and those people who

would wish to minimize their economic impact by being allowed to

pollute the air, land and waters of this province. I'm particularly

concerned about that in view of the statements by the member for Fort

George and the member for Dewdney that the Fraser River is in pretty

good shape, which it isn't. It's in pretty bad shape right now.

In fact, some of the problems associated with the river, as I

pointed out from experts from Westwater institute, are approaching the

point where they're irreversible.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: Well, I think you should probably listen to it again. It's interesting.

There's an

article in the metropolitan newspapers about the Lower

Mainland Regional Health Unit where the chief health office for that

board of health issued instructions to people in the Lower Fraser area

not to put sand or materials dredged from the Fraser River on their

gardens or in their children's sandboxes because that material was

hazardous to their health. That came from the health officers of the

Lower Mainland Regional Health Unit. If the Fraser River's in good

shape, what's the reason for an instruction like that from one of the

directors of a health unit in the lower mainland?

Also another thing that concerns me is that the Minister of

Environment said that he would deal with developments on the estuary as

they were presented to him rather than going the moratorium route.

Rather than doing a detailed, comprehensive study of the estuary in the

Lower Fraser as an ecological unit, he would deal with developments as

they arose. It's this type of piecing-off of the environment,

piecing-off of the estuary, that has created the problems that we're

facing today. Each time a development arises it's considered strictly

on the isolated merits of its case, and each time more and more of the

estuary is removed, and, as a result, something like 70 per cent of the

productive value of the Fraser estuary has been removed at the present

time.

Sometimes people from the galleries who are sitting watching the

proceedings here, sitting on the edge of their seats watching the

proceedings, suggest that we ask questions to the minister. This one is

directed, through the Chairman, of course, to the Minister of

Environment. It's a member of his own constituency, somebody who has

come down and watched the proceedings. They've asked me to ask the

member if he allows his own children to swim in

[ Page 1874 ]

the Fraser, which runs by close to his home. Perhaps the minister would answer that question when he rises again.

I have only one further question to ask on this vote, Mr. Chairman,

and it concerns the development of coal fields in the northeast sector

of the province. Also it relates to the indecent haste of the

government to proceed with the development, with those coal mining

developments. And I can understand their indecent haste in view of the

fact that those developments are close to the home riding of the

Minister of Economic Development.

The fact is that many environmentalists are concerned about the fact

that an impossible timetable has been imposed on the government

agencies responsible for protection of the environment and responsible

for the production of the environmental impact studies related to the

coal developments in the northwest sector.

In fact, I understand that a deadline has been imposed upon those

agencies of November 1, that they must come up with their environmental

impact statements for the northeast coal sector, and, as far as I know,

for the southwest sector as well. That deadline is much too close to

assess the impact of the mining developments on animals overwintering

in the area, to assess the impact on the environment through the winter

months. There are climatological problems that are associated with

mining. Also, it's far too soon to assess the total environmental

impact, what's going to happen not simply on the mine site, not simply

where the coal is dug out of the ground, but the fact that the coal

that's mined in the northeast sector is transported over the provincial

railway systems.

What's going to happen if you require double-tracking? What's going

to happen where you require offloading for export or end use within the

province? What's going to happen to environmental impacts in those

areas? Are they going to have time to fully consider those before the

November 1 deadline for environmental impact studies? In fact, it

appears that the Minister of Economic Development — who is, according

to the newspapers, the power behind the throne in this province — has

forced the environmental protection agencies to do little more than

what's called an eco-autopsy on mining in the northeast sector.

I'm asking the minister responsible for protection of the

environment in this province, in his role as devil's advocate for the

air, the land, the water, the living things in British Columbia: has a

deadline been imposed on environmental impact studies for coal

development in the northeast sector or in the Kootenays, and if so,

what is the deadline? Will the minister insist that adequate time be

given for a full and detailed study on the effect on the environment of

this province of those coal developments, even if it means delaying for

a few short months the bringing onstream of those coal developments?

Will the minister insist that adequate environmental studies be done?

Will the minister tell me if, in fact, the November 1 deadline — or a

deadline — has been placed on environmental impact studies for those

coal mining projects?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The member for Alberni, the deadline issue:

the people who are engaged in the environmental studies are working

toward a time goal, if you like. We have hired a great number of people

in recent days by way of contracts — specific biologists, agrologists

and other persons involved in different aspects — and they are working

over a period of time which they and members of the secretariat

determined would be a reasonable period of time for their specific

study. Some of them are employed for periods of six or seven months,

others for shorter periods of time relative to their own particular

study, whether it's water, animal life, vegetation, or whatever their

specific specialty is.

The November 1 deadline? I would not suggest there has been a

November 1 deadline in those hard terms. They are working toward a time

frame of some kind.

AN HON. MEMBER: Before the winter?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I would have to go over the contracts and

see when some of them expire. Certainly there were studies to be

undertaken relative to winter conditions, along with most other

seasons, and winter will occur in that area very quickly. I reject the

suggestion that any unnecessary haste is occurring because of the

proximity of the Minister of Economic Development's (Hon. Mr.

Phillips') home riding. However, that's a matter of opinion. We have

had a tremendous number of persons, as I mentioned, hired in recent

weeks and months to work through the secretariat for the northeast coal

development. That will be quite a compilation of reports once it's in.

Would I let my kids swim in the Fraser River? I've been in the

Fraser River many times. It may have had some harm; I don't know. I

wouldn't recommend that anyone swim in that area. One of our members

here did and he lost most of his hair, I understand, swimming in the

Fraser.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): You got it all greasy.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Well, I guess it's the oil slicks that are in the river.

I wouldn't recommend it for anyone — not around the Richmond area, anyway. Of course, very often you can't get to the water.

I hope I answered those questions.

[ Page 1875 ]

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): I rise to speak in the environment

estimates and wish to do so, well aware that the former second member

for Victoria set a fine example to this whole House regarding concern

over environmental issues. David Anderson was a first-rate and

first-class spokesman on those issues, and as his successor in the

second seat in Victoria I hope very much to be able to follow, to some

small extent, the model that he set.

The coalition government has given us, Mr. Chairman, a Department of

Environment with old functions and a new name. Many people in this

province are concerned about the competence of the Minister of

Environment, whose background is that of a radio hotliner. This is not

ordinarily the background or profession that one would expect to see

such a sensitive position fall to. My own background is in community

organizing and community development, working for 10 years in Victoria,

and the success of that is evident by my presence here.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We're on vote 48.

MR. BARBER: One of the very real tests of competence is that

of leadership in a number of areas of sensitivity and some concern. I

wish to put briefly, Mr. Chairman, to the Minister of Environment three

questions. I wish to put to him three concerns about policy. I want to

find out to what extent he's willing to exercise leadership and to what

extent he's willing to exercise his influence as a member of cabinet,

in determining the course of his coalition government in dealing with

the problems of the environment as expressed in the work of the

agencies of his own government. I want to find out what kind of

leadership he is willing, himself, to undertake and what kinds of

programmes he's willing to persuade others to undertake. One of the

tests of competence is leadership. Those are the tests that we will be

applying to this minister.

The first part of your policy that I wish to inquire about is

whether or not the Minister of Environment is concerned about providing

alternatives to the private automobile. In the great cities of the

western world the private automobile downtown is doomed. It has no

future — none at all. I want to know whether or not the Minister of

Environment is willing to exercise leadership in his coalition

government to persuade other responsible ministers to provide

alternatives to the use of the private automobile. I wish to suggest

again today — as I have done on previous occasions — one of them.

In every civilized nation in Europe, and increasingly in civilized

provinces and states in North America, the private automobile downtown

is being replaced by a system of recreational and commuter bicycle

paths — recreational and commuter bikeways.

I would like to ask the Minister of Environment whether or not he

has a policy and whether or not he supports alternatives to the private

automobile in the great cities...

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Yes.

MR. BARBER: ...and whether or not, as a member of his cabinet,

he is willing to attempt to persuade both the Minister of Highways

(Hon. Mr. Fraser) and the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr.

Curtis) on their parts, in their jurisdictions, to commit that

government to the expenditures of money for the construction of

recreational and commuter bicycle paths throughout British Columbia, as

an alternative to the increasingly destructive use of the private

automobile. Will he say yes to that also?

[Mr. Schroeder in the chair.]

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: You have something else in mind. One of the

things that many nations have in mind, having discovered that the

bicycle is cheap, healthy, safe and efficient, is that that is a very

worthwhile investment. I very much hope that the Minister of

Environment, acting as a leader on environmental issues, will take the

time and the trouble to find out that that is the case, and having

taken the time and the trouble will make the case to his own colleagues.

Secondly, I wish to ask the Minister of Environment whether or not

he's willing to take any leadership or exercise any initiative at all

in the organized and systematic development of recycling facilities

throughout British Columbia.

You may recall, Mr. Chairman, that it took us three weeks to get a

commitment of money to the Greater Victoria Recycling Depot. After

three weeks the minister agreed to come up with $10,000 for it. I

congratulated him for it then; I congratulate him again now. What I

want to make sure is that his initiative, or our pleasure, is not

restricted just to one recycling depot in Victoria that happened to

make a good case. I want to find out from the minister whether or not

he is willing to exercise the same leadership throughout British

Columbia and whether or not in particular he is willing to exercise

that leadership regarding the waste products of the parliamentary

precincts themselves.

The Minister of Environment has a moral as well as a political

responsibility to raise these questions. He has a moral responsibility

to lead the people into an understanding and to a concern about

recycling of waste materials in all of British Columbia. The government

itself has a moral responsibility to provide an example, and that's

where the minister

[ Page 1876 ]

comes in. I want to find out from him what kind of example he's

willing to provide. I want to know what kind of commitments he's

willing to make, and I want him to know that if he provides neither

example nor commitments he will not have been doing the job that the

Minister of Environment is supposed to be doing. There is a question of

leadership at stake. It is one of the tests of competence. We want to

know what his policy is and what his position will be, and we are

looking for results.

For two years running a private member in this Legislature attempted

to persuade this Legislature, as I hope personally — and I hope others

will join me — to persuade the Legislature to consider the

establishment of a recycling corporation. This corporation would, under

the aegis of the government, provide some of that leadership, provide

some of those funds and set some of that example. I want to know from

the Minister of Environment whether or not he's aware of the proposals

for a recycling corporation and whether or not he's willing to

undertake, as a leader in concern for environmental issues, any action

on that proposal.

My third concern, and this is the final one that I wish to present

today, Mr. Chairman, regards municipal waste composting. The member for

Vancouver South (Mr. Rogers) made a very important suggestion on

industrial waste disposal and recycling. Mine concerns municipal waste.

I want to know whether or not the Minister of Environment is willing to

go to the members of Treasury Board and to the Minister of Municipal

Affairs (Hon. Mr. Curtis) and make a case and argument and win his case

and argument.

An investment in the future is found every time we spend a nickel on

recycling. This is a planet with limited and finite resources, and

everyone knows it. This is a planet with limited and finite resources

which is requiring us day by day to use more and more often those few

resources left to us.

There is successful precedent for municipal waste composting in some

20 nations in the world, Mr. Chairman. In Kuwait, France, Spain, the

United Kingdom, Holland, Israel, India, the United States, the Soviet

Union, Rhodesia, Czechoslovakia, West Germany, Uruguay, South Africa,

Japan, Greece, Norway, Puerto Rico, Thailand and Iran they are already

investing in the future. They are already using municipal wastes. They

are already using again what we were given once.

Those 20 nations have set an example. Those 20 nations have set a

precedent. I want to know, Mr. Chairman, from the Minister of

Environment whether or not he's willing to learn from that example and

act on that precedent.

In Victoria, the riding I represent, we pump into the sea some 20

million gallons of raw sewage every day. We throw it away. Those

nutrients can be used and used again. They can be used to replenish the

soils of the Saanich Peninsula. They can be sold to the farmers to add

to the humus that creates the food with which we feed ourselves.

In Europe that sewage is used and re-used. In Europe it is composted

with organic waste from household garbage. In Europe it is sold at a

profit. In Europe that profit is used to pay for the capitalization and

the operating costs of these plants.

There is successful precedent, Mr. Chairman. I want to tell you

about three of these precedents. In Wanlip, Leicestershire, in the

United Kingdom, in a population of 280,000, in 1973 and 1974 the sale

of compost and salvage material brought in £13,500, and in the next

year £20,000. That municipal composting plant turned a profit, Mr.

Chairman. Surely this is of some appeal to a private-enterprise

government. It turned a profit and it turned those nutrients back into

the soil. In Victoria we pump it into the sea — 20 million gallons a

day.

In Worthing borough in the United Kingdom in a population of 90,000

the annual income from their sale of compost and salvage material

amounted to £80,000. In Dumfries County Council, with a population of

28,000 two plants managed to turn a profit of £4,000. If the moral

arguments don't have any weight, Mr. Chairman, if the ethical concerns

about the future of the planet have no gravity with this coalition

government, surely money does. They turn a profit. They make money on

compost and sewage. They use the results to replenish the soil itself.

They use the money to pay for the capital and the operating costs.

There is successful precedent, Mr. Chairman, in 20 nations in the

world. In Canada so far there is nothing. Zero. We have zero results.

I want to ask the Minister of Environment whether or not he's

willing to look at the record, to examine the facts. To send a team to

those nations in Europe that have at present successfully underway

composting plants that work and that turn a profit. Is the minister

willing to even inquire? Is he willing to commission a study? Is he

willing to look at the records and the documents? Is he willing to tell

this House that he is prepared to invest in the future?

It is a waste, a scandalous waste that 20 million gallons a day of

raw sewage go into this water. We could use it again and again. We

could use it again; we could use it and make a profit. Again, surely

that must appeal, if nothing else does, to the minds of the coalition

government.

Let me conclude, Mr. Chairman, by making my point. We need three

policy statements from the Minister of the Environment: we need to know

whether or not he is willing to exercise leadership in providing

alternatives to the private automobile; whether or not he is willing to

exercise leadership in providing recycling programmes through British

[ Page 1877 ]

Columbia; and finally, whether or not he is willing to provide

leadership to allow municipalities throughout the province to use again

and again, as creative and civilized nations are doing now throughout

the world, the waste products which so easily we give away at the

moment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Yes, yes and yes, and with some

consideration to the bicycles. Some of the rapid transit schemes are

excellent, I think, as well, and could supply an answer to the problems.

There are two reports available on municipal waste treatment. I

don't know whether you have them; if you haven't, I'd be glad to send

them to you, specifically on municipal waste treatment.

I agree with some of your comments when you stayed on the aspect of

environment. Your facetious remarks about coalitions and such, I think,

perhaps took away slightly — but yes, yes and yes, generally.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, we've talked a great deal about

the crucial importance of oil in our society. Yesterday the Premier

talked of the meeting he had with other American governors. The most

crucial aspects of making oil and its products available is the

conflict between the economic need for the oil and the important goal

of making sure that we don't get the oil at any cost, and that we don't

ruin the environment in the process.

I notice that the Premier and some of his ministers are in caucus

right now, but I'm glad that the Minister of Environment is listening,

because I would like to just quickly ask a specific question regarding

discussions that have taken place on the proposal by Trans Mountain

Pipe Line to develop a superport at Prince Rupert and to develop a

pipeline between Prince Rupert and Edmonton.

From the reports that are available, such a proposal has the support

of Andrew Thompson, the chairman of the B.C. Energy Commission. The

reports from Trans Mountain Pipe Line, particularly from the president,

Mr. Hall, have said that an expanded pipeline could reduce the tanker

traffic for Alaskan crude oil down the B.C. coast by 50 per cent.

Now I'd be very interested to know, first of all, from the minister

if that's an accurate outline of the facts and figures by the president

of Trans Mountain Pipe Line. The second question I would like to ask

is.... The president himself has said that the only obstacle...in fact

his exact words, as quoted on April 7 this year are: "The only

obstacles are environmental, said Trans Mountain Pipe Line president

Mr. Hall." In other words, he's put together, I understand, a group of

companies which are prepared to embark upon the construction of a

pipeline. The money can be put up and the technology is available; the

statement he has made is that the only obstacle is environmental.

If providing such a pipeline will reduce the tanker traffic with

Alaskan crude down our shores by 50 per cent, it would seem to me

that's a tremendously exciting possibility...since we've all talked

many times in the House. The present second member for Victoria (Mr.

Barber) has quite rightly reminded the House of the efforts of David

Anderson in trying to bring to public attention the real dangers of

large oil spills once these tankers come down the coast.

I wonder if the minister has given it any thought, since one of the

fears expressed in the Prince Rupert area is, of course, that there are

narrow waterways in the Prince Rupert area and Dickson Entrance.

Environmentalists, or those who want to protect the environment, have

said that tanker traffic, even in and around Prince Rupert, would be a

danger to fish and to the water itself, which they are not prepared to

accept.

But I wonder if the minister has given any consideration to a review

of standards for Canadian inland waters so perhaps the conflict that I

mentioned a moment ago could be resolved and we could indeed use Prince

Rupert and a new pipeline to Edmonton as a means of reducing tanker

traffic by 50 per cent and, at the same time, implementing these