1975 Legislative Session: 5th Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 11, 1975

Morning Sitting

[ Page

3345 ]

CONTENTS

Department of Lands, Forests and Water Resources estimates

On vote 152.

Mr.

Wallace — 3345

On vote 153

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3345

On vote 154

Mr. Fraser — 3348

On vote 155

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3349

On vote 158

Mr. Lewis — 3350

On vote 161

Mr. Fraser — 3352

On vote 162

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3352

On vote 163

Mr. Richter — 3352

On vote 164

Mr. Wallace — 3353

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 11, 1975

The House met at 10 a.m.

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, with a

great deal of pleasure I introduce to the House the visiting

delegation from the Yukon Council. The Legislators who are

seated on the floor, behind me, Mr. Speaker, are Mr. Alfred

Berger, Mr. Stu McCall, Mr. Willard Phelps, who is the Deputy

Speaker, and Mrs. Florence Whyard from the Yukon Council, and

opposite to me on the other side of the House are Mr. Dan Lang,

Mr. Ken McKinnon and Mrs. Linda Adams, the Clerk of the Yukon

Council.

I hope the Members will greet the visitors and we will have

a fruitful and happy time together. We will be seeing you on a

number of occasions during the next two days and you will be

looking at our work, I am sure, with a great deal of interest

this morning, if we all turn up.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Speaker, on

behalf of her Majesty's Loyal Opposition I would also like to

welcome those visitors from the Yukon, and being from that

great Mile 0 city on the Alaska Highway I would like to add a

special word of welcome because I feel tied to these people,

being from that northern part of the province.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, we also would

like to welcome the visitors from the Yukon. They just about

outnumber us. We've heard about British Columbia taking over

the Yukon but it appears they're taking over British Columbia.

We welcome them here and hope they enjoy their stay.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, the whole

Conservative caucus welcomes our friends from the Yukon.

(Laughter.)

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): Mr. Speaker, I too would

like to add my welcome to our Members from the Yukon and remind

the Members of this House that at 11 a.m. the Members are

invited to the Ned DeBeck lounge to meet our guests from the

Yukon for coffee.

MR. SPEAKER: Leaving, I hope, some in the House.

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Liden in the

Chair.

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF

LANDS, FORESTS AND WATER RESOURCES

(continued)

On vote 152: Water Resources Service, general administration, $204,594.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I'd like your guidance on the

proper vote. I wish to raise the whole question of the

confused jurisdiction over management of oil spills off our

shore and the change of jurisdiction when the oil hits the

waterfront. There are one or two other votes, I notice, dealing

with pollution, and there may be a more appropriate vote, but I

would appreciate your guidance. Vote 164 is pollution control.

I don't know whether you prefer that we discuss it under 164 or

under the general administration of our water resources.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps you should ask the Minister if he'd

rather comment under the specific vote or under 152.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources):

Well, Mr. Chairman, there is the operation of the pollution control branch under

this specific vote and I think that would be more appropriate. There's a shared

jurisdiction with the emergency programmes staff of the Provincial Secretary.

Vote 152 approved.

On vote 153: Water Resources Service, water rights branch,

$1,959,818.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, under this vote I'd like

some explanation from the Minister about the Chemainus dam. We

had a decision to build the Chemainus dam which overrode the

decision of the water rights branch from the control of water

rights. The decision was made by a cabinet committee, including

members of the cabinet who had no knowledge — or at least no

specific responsibility — for the area of water rights or

pollution control. The dam in question would have affected

fisheries, and particularly provincial fisheries, mainly trout

and steelhead. It was a decision which was inexplicable at the

time, but equally unexplained has been the reversal of the

decision following the outcry that took place.

There's no doubt that the reversal of the decision was

correct. There's no doubt that the Minister is dead right in

rapping the knuckles of his cabinet colleagues, or punching

them on the nose, or whatever he did for their iniquitous

decision earlier which overrode the water rights branch, but

this whole history of this affair is just too serious to pass

without question.

There are a number of questions. Why was the control of

water rights decision overturned? Why was it ignored? Was this

a deliberate attempt to get this decision to a cabinet

committee just as soon as

[ Page 3346 ]

possible because the cabinet committee had given some

indication, or a cabinet member had given some indication, that

there would be a favourable decision in favour of the dam if it

did hit the cabinet committee? Was the reversal which was based

upon — I read the press release, and it said it was based upon

inadequate information. Was that known to the cabinet members

on that committee when they made their decision to proceed?

It looks to me like we had a situation where there was some

inside knowledge that there was a favouring of this dam at the

cabinet level. It went up to the cabinet just as fast as it

could, ignoring the civil service experts down below. When it

got to cabinet, the decision was made.

Let's face it, Mr. Minister, there was refusal after refusal

after refusal to reopen that, as your correspondence shows.

Later on, just before this session began, the reversal decision

took place. Again, there was no adequate explanation of what

had changed the cabinet's mind. It looked as if all along they

knew it was a rotten decision but they were making it,

deliberately ignoring the decisions of the public servants.

They went ahead and reversed it once they realized that the

pressure of public opinion was against them and once they

realized that there was enough technical information in the

hands of groups such as the Amalgamated Conservation Society

and others who were at that stage launching a campaign to have

the decision reversed.

The interesting thing in terms of decision-making in the

government is how that committee ever got set up in cabinet,

composed of cabinet Ministers who really had no special

knowledge of the problem. Secondly, how did the reversal take

place? Were there extra studies done or was it just this

Minister, who we know is somewhat more powerful than some of

his cabinet colleagues, saying: "To Hell with it! It's not

worth it. There is too much trouble involved. There is going to

be a hassle. It's a wrong decision anyway. Let's ignore the

rest of that little cabinet committee who were clearly acting

irresponsibly and foolishly, and let's get this decision

reversed back to what the comptroller for water rights

suggested in the first instance"?

The whole procedure is very curious. In fact, the whole

procedure stinks. I wonder if the Minister would get up and

indicate the steps in this decision-making which ultimately led

to the reversal of the cabinet committee's decision and, of

course, the reinstatement of the comptroller of water rights'

views. I just don't understand how it took place. It appears

that that cabinet committee was not looking at the facts. It

appears, from the final decision of the Minister later on, that

he knew they were not looking at the facts, the information and

the technical studies. I would like to know how on earth this

decision was ever made.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: The Hon. Member has covered some of the

ground — or water. The normal course of appeal on most of these

matters in terms of appeal to a cabinet committee is, it seems

to me, reasonably conceived in the sense that cabinet members

who have not been directly involved in the question consider

the matter. That explains why neither myself nor the Minister

of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Radford) was on the

appeal committee; we are involved in the initial processes.

Nevertheless, the matter was considered not only by myself

but rather the whole Environmental and Land Use Committee of

cabinet. It was simply a matter of reconsideration by the

nine-member committee. It was as a result of that

reconsideration that the decision was made. It was the result

of additional information and technical advice that caused the

reconsideration. As a result of that, we are proceeding with

pretty detailed technical studies, because there was a

consensus that information was lacking, particularly with

respect to groundwater resources in that general area. We are

currently undertaking groundwater studies to see if there can

be domestic supply from groundwater without having to use the

Chemainus system. It seemed to us that additional hearings on

the question wouldn't be too productive unless the technical

work was done. The consensus of the nine-member cabinet

committee that reconsidered the whole matter was that the

technical work should be done and then we should hold

additional hearings and make a final decision.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The Minister has still not indicated why

the four-man cabinet subcommittee went ahead without the proper

technical advice and information that the Minister talked

about. That's what they did. That's what he's admitted they

did.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I don't report to the four cabinet

Ministers. You're asking the wrong Minister.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Minister, you can't question four

members of a committee under their votes. We have to question

you under your vote, which is the vote that deals with the

whole Chemainus dam and other water rights problems.

The Minister states that the nine-man Environmental and Land

Use Committee looked at it. Why on earth were they not looking

at it previously? Why did it come up so much later only as a

result of public pressure? Why was this four-men-and-woman

committee set up before that time to make decisions which were

stated to be irreversible and final. Why were those decisions

made?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Will you guess a second look?

[ Page 3347 ]

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The Minister says for a second look. What

type of system do you have for having a proper first look?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Flexible.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Most of your decisions are made by such

committees and not all decisions go on to the second look. If

the second look is the thing that counts, can't we wipe out one

step in the procedure and go directly to where it counts?

There have been some very curious statements made. I'd like

to know what connections there might have been between the

developers of that subdivision who wanted that water, and what

contact they had had with cabinet Members prior to the decision

of that cabinet subcommittee.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Oh, come on.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: But I would like to know. There really is

no explanation whatsoever for that cabinet subcommittee

decision on the basis of technical studies. The controller of

water rates went against it. Later on, the Environmental and

Land Use Committee went against it on the basis of technical

advice. But in that interim period the cabinet committee went

the other way, and they must have done it on the basis of some

information, and the only information that hasn't been raised

is the information that might have been given by the developers

of that subdivision.

I would like to know what contact there might have been, and

what the Minister knows about the contact there was, or might

have been, between the developers of that subdivision and

members of the cabinet.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: This strikes me as absolute nonsense. It

certainly is outside of the departmental jurisdiction, Mr.

Chairman. The determination of the members of the initial

appeal committee was made by the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr.

Hall). There would have been absolutely no knowledge by the

other parties in terms of that decision-making process. To

suggest this is just utter nonsense.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: It may be utter nonsense to the Minister,

but the fact is that there is no explanation given for that

cabinet subcommittee flying in the face of technical studies.

There has got to be some reason for them making that decision,

and this is the Minister responsible for decisions in that

area.

Now I commend him for overruling, via the Environment and Land Use Committee,

the decision of that cabinet subcommittee, but we have a very serious problem

in trying to understand the decision-making of the cabinet level. It appears

there was good technical information below, at the civil service level, when

the controller of water rights made his decision. It appears there was good

technical information at the Environmental and Land Use Committee level, but

apparently somewhere in between, other factors decided the cabinet subcommittee

to reverse the original decision.

I just find the Minister's explanation quite unsatisfactory.

It's all very well for him to shrug and say it is the

responsibility of other Ministers, but ultimately the whole

question of the Chemainus Dam and water rights is his

responsibility. He is obviously the only one we can question in

terms of what's happened in the last year in the water rights

area. Now we've had this cabinet subcommittee and there has

been no explanation given for their decision.

I was at a Fish and Game meeting in Nanaimo last spring, a

little over a year ago, when the Minister of Recreation and

Conservation (Hon. Mr. Radford) simply didn't know about the

problem until he was informed of it there by Members of the

B.C. Wildlife Federation. When you have Ministers who are meant

to be responsible for the fish and game aspect not knowing, we

assume that it must be under your department, Mr. Minister. It

was, because it was the decision of the controller of water

rights. Then, of course, we had the fun and games with that

cabinet committee. Apparently something along the way persuaded

them to change their minds, and there has been no information

given as to on what basis they made that decision.

I just ask the Minister once again: how is it that the

cabinet subcommittee simply didn't have the information, which

this Minister had later, which the Environmental and Land Use

Committee had later, which the controller of water rights had

earlier, but in that period, apparently, some other factors

took over?

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Mr. Chairman,

I've been listening to this discussion, and as a member of that committee I

would like the Hon. Member to understand that when a cabinet committee is appointed

to deal with a certain subject that has been appealed to the cabinet, they have

got to deal with the evidence that is presented to them.

There was no subdivision appeal made for the water rights.

On behalf of the whole area the appeal was made that they

needed more water because they were going to be cut off before

very long by the industry that was supplying them with a

percentage of their water at that time.

We were not given any direct evidence that there was any

alternate as far as a really sure water supply. The submission

made by the people who were

[ Page 3348 ]

interested in wildlife was not a good submission, and when

we weighed the whole issue, we judged in favour of the

community — that they had to have water eventually and that it

was the only definite place to receive that water.

Maybe the evidence given by the water rights branch or by

the wildlife branch was not done as well as they should have

done it. Even after the changes were made and a second look was

taken, in the end the decision of the cabinet may be the one

that will be the final decision yet. Nobody knows at this point

because they are making an investigation.

But I was on that committee, and there was no thought of

anything except to judge the case on the evidence that was

presented. And the evidence presented was definitely in favour

of building the Chemainus Dam and supplying the people with

water.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, that type of explanation

goes a long way to make estimates run through the House more

quickly. But he has raised one other point — that he does not

feel that the Environmental and Land Use Committee is a final

one.

I'd just like to know from the Minister of Lands, Forests

and Water Resources at this time what the status is of that

Chemainus Dam. Is it simply in limbo until some other studies

come forward? So, in other words, it's still.... He shakes his

head affirmatively.

The question, then, is still very much up in the air; there

may well yet be a dam built on the Chemainus River. I ask him

that question.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: That's the position of the community.

The District of North Cowichan has endorsed that idea and

that's why the appeal committee made the decision they did.

They've carried out their technical studies and invested a fair

amount in that proposition. In turn, we're investing a fair

amount in technical studies in terms of determining whether the

alternatives — that is, groundwater supply — are feasible. We

won't get the results of the groundwater studies until

mid-fall.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, can I ask the Minister then whether

these groundwater studies he talks, about will be made

available? We have many, many studies done by government

committees. The Surrey refinery is an example where the reports

and studies are not being made available to people who are

interested. I would ask him whether or not these studies will

be made available within, say, a week or two or, three from

about the time they are received by him. There's no reason to

conceal them. There's no reason....

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: It should be abundantly clear, Mr.

Chairman, that that in fact will be the case.

The intention is to have a hearing process. The date will be

made available. I indicated earlier that we did not think the

hearing process would be productive unless there was new

information, new research, new data. So, yes, the answer is

yes.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Good.

Vote 153 approved.

On vote 154: Water Resources Service: assistance to

improvement districts, $25,000.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Just a short question, Mr.

Chairman. Assistance to improvement districts, $25,000: do you

advise the improvement districts that this is available? How do

you dish it out?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Well, as the amount indicates, it's a

modest amount and if there is a sort of an interim problem it

would be used — or, say, preliminary engineering that might be

charged back into the capital programme once they

proceeded.

MR. FRASER: Thank you. In other words, for preliminary

engineering or something that's going to a capital project: you

say that this is where they might get financial assistance.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Yes, it's essentially a loan basis with

a slight risk involved.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): It would be

appropriate at this point, I think, Mr. Chairman, to seek the

Minister's response to the need, recognition of the need

firstly, for significantly increased assistance to improvement

districts. I certainly have heard from a number of them who are

very concerned about both the short- and long-term problems

that they face in expansion of their systems, or upgrading of

existing systems. The Minister has already indicated that this

is a modest amount, and certainly one would have to agree. But

we've done a great deal with respect to sewerage facilities of

one kind or another. And we've spoken about this in other

estimates and under the legislation itself.

But I wonder if the Minister could ten the committee if he, first, recognizes

that what I've said is essentially correct and that — I'm not certain of the

exact number — well over 100 individual improvement districts, I believe, are

still existing and operating in British Columbia. Hopefully, government at some

early date will recognize the problems they face not only in upgrading the existing

systems but expanding to meet the increased demand.

[ Page

3349 ]

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Well, there's always concern about these

matters, Mr. Chairman. We have various incentives with respect

to other status situations under the Department of Municipal

Affairs. I have some sympathy for what the Member is

saying.

MR. FRASER: Just on the present and future status of

improvement districts, what is the government policy on

improvement districts? Is it to encourage further improvement

districts, or to discourage them and put them under the

regional districts — that is, specified function? I'd just like

to hear the Minister say what the present and future policy is.

I've heard that the government is discouraging new improvement

districts and suggesting they get things in the rural areas

under specified areas of the regional districts. Just what do

you intend to do?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: That's really a matter for the

Department of Municipal Affairs, Mr. Chairman. The legislation

has gone through. It's very clear in terms of what the aid

programmes are meant to serve. I think the regional districts

have a clear role and the legislation is also clear in terms of

providing opportunities for special areas within the

regions.

That's really a matter for the Department of Municipal

Affairs, in terms of their basic work and settlement policy.

I'm not free to comment.

MR. FRASER: Thank you, Mr. Minister. In effect what you are

saying is you want the improvement districts to phase out and

go on to regional districts in specified areas.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I've no opinion on the matter myself,

Mr. Chairman.

Vote 154 approved.

On vote 155: Water Resources Service; Canadian Council of

Resource Ministers, $40,000.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I'm surprised, Mr. Chairman, that this

vote has gone down very substantially, not only by the result

of inflation, but the fact that it's dropped from almost

$53,000 down to $40,000.

Now it's clear that there is provincial jurisdiction over resources. At the

same time it's clear that there have been many federal-provincial battles on

resource issues — no need to go into that. It would appear, as a consequence,

that there's a tremendous need for co-ordination between the various provinces

in their approach to the federal government on resource issues. I don't really

understand why we are weakening the council of Resource Ministers which could

provide co-ordination and provide some sort of assistance in between federal-provincial

conferences, when at the same time we know full well there is encroaching jurisdiction

from the federal government.

It appears that at this time it would be appropriate to

strengthen rather than to weaken the co-ordinating body which

exists for the resource Ministers and for the provinces in

right of their resources.

I wonder whether the Minister could indicate why we're

cutting back so substantially on our contribution.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, that's the decision of the

council itself, in terms of working out the budget. So all of

the provinces in concert with the federal government came to

that conclusion.

The senior staff member left the service of the Canadian

Council of Resource and Environment Ministers in the last year

so there hasn't been somebody of that salary level, I don't

believe, replaced. That would explain part of it.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: It's Mr. Delatt, I guess — the man who

left?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Yes.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Could I ask whether the Minister and his

colleagues are making efforts to replace Mr. Delatt, who

appeared to me to be a very competent man, with someone of

equal stature because surely the idea of a co-ordinating body

for the provincial governments and the provincial resource

Ministers is worthwhile. Surely, under the present

circumstances there would be opportunities for such a body to

co-ordinate approaches, circulate information between the

governments and make sure that there was some sort of common

policy.

Federal-provincial conferences are well and good, but

looking at them as an outsider and observer — an observer in

the room, or an observer on television — you are struck by the

lack of co-ordination between the provincial viewpoints. It

would seem to me that if we are genuinely concerned about

protecting our provincial jurisdiction in this area, the

resource Ministers council could be most helpful.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: There's no question, Mr. Chairman, about

the strength of the provinces in terms of managing their own

resources. Land and water are clearly provincial jurisdictions...

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Even Indian ones.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: ...in this country. Still, if you

applied the $40,000 across the country, in terms of the

provinces, it's still a significant budget for the group as a

whole, and the co-ordinating is taking place.

[ Page 3350 ]

Shortly there's a meeting in Edmonton of resource and

environment Ministers, at which time I think the final pieces

will be hammered out in terms of an environmental accord across

Canada. British Columbia is far in advance of most of the

provinces in terms of standards, in terms of environmental

controls. So there is a cooperation going on. The evidence is

beginning to come out of that cooperation, and whether you

have to add to some kind of federalist bureaucracy to achieve

that, is a moot point. It's my own view that you don't.

MR. WALLACE: I'd just like to ask the Minister briefly what

success he feels the Canadian Council of Resource Ministers has

in presenting a harmonious and united front to the federal

government in some of the areas, such as the area that I would

like to ask him about under pollution control.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I think there's been a fair amount of

agreement in terms of this environmental accord across Canada,

and that's from the have-not provinces of the Maritimes to

central Canada to British Columbia.

We think we're ahead of most in the country in terms of

environmental controls. We're pleased that the rest of the

country is moving in a sort of common direction.

It's certainly a useful area in terms of exchanging ideas,

but the real legislative powers and authorities under the

constitution reside with the provinces. As the result, I think

British Columbia has something to show the rest of the country

already in terms of the approach of the Minister of Agriculture

(Hon. Mr. Stupich), the Land Commission and agricultural land

preservation. I think through this council we have something to

show the rest of the country in terms of land-use management.

Because we have more common public land than any of the other

provinces, I think we are going to be able to show the rest of

the country how we can co-ordinate the use of the public lands

on a scale like we have in British Columbia. So it's a useful

instrument to exchange ideas. But at the moment I think it is a

case of British Columbia showing many of the other provinces

what, in fact, can be achieved in this field.

Vote 155 approved.

Vote 156: Water Resources Service; inspector of dikes,

$70,057 — approved.

Vote 157: Water Resources Service; water investigations

branch, $2,226,889 — approved.

On vote 15 8: Water Resources Service; investigations,

hydraulic surveys and projects, $2,033,000.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): Mr. Chairman, I would like to say

a few words under vote 158. I have some concerns about

riverbank erosion and the problems that we encounter in rural

ridings throughout the interior.

Often there are several acres of land lost each spring on

some parcels of property — sometimes it is very good farmland.

It seems that we haven't adequate money for the provincial

government to help very much with this type of erosion. I

realize it is on private property and that the property owner

has some responsibility, but at the same time we have farmland

legislation where we say that farmland must be protected as a

resource, so I think we have some responsibility to try to

assist in the protection of erosion that takes place.

Some of the rivers that are particularly bad in my area are

the Eagle, Salmon and Chase Creek. There are several others as

well. I know it is a tremendously large problem all across the

province, and there is no way we can protect all these rivers.

But I think that if there is some way the federal government

would cooperate with funding, and the property owner pay part

of it, we could do considerably better.

I was just wondering if the Minister has any agreement with

the federal government, or if there is any consultation going

on with them at this time to see if this sharing can be

expanded to more parts of the province.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Well, the amount under this vote, in

terms of projects, is $850,000, which, in terms of a province

like this, is not that substantial. But that is applied on a

75-25 basis, with the property owner paying 25 per cent of the

cost of the project and the province paying 75 per cent. So it

is a decision by the landowner to meet a quarter of the cost at

least. Now that is established on a priority basis after

engineering studies by our staff, so those funds, in fact, are

committed for this fiscal year on a priority basis now.

We have urged the federal government to expand the basic

Canada-British Columbia Joint Development Act which is covered

under vote 161. There has been some agreement in that regard

in terms of extensions of the Fraser River system, such as the

Thompson. So that is being applied in Kamloops for example. But

they haven't agreed to expanding beyond that, so we are

continuing discussions regarding that whole agreement at the

moment. That involves the federal Treasury Board and all of the

complications that are tied up in that chunk of the federal

bureaucracy.

MR. FRASER: I would just like to make a few comments on vote

158. I was pleased to hear the Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis)

get up and talk about it. I don't have too much in common with

him most of the time, but I agree with all his remarks

[ Page 3351 ]

except to say that he only has a little bit of streams in

his riding. In the riding of Cariboo I have the Fraser River

and the Quesnel River and the farmland erosion there is a big

item.

I would point out to the Minister that where a farmer has to

put up 25 per cent, that's a financial hardship. I know we are

coming down to the vote later that maybe is the answer, but the

farmer just will not contribute the 25 per cent; he can't

afford it. I've had experience on this with this Minister and

this department where they said: "Well, let the farms fall in

the river."

This government is for the preservation of farmland. I've

actually seen that in writing. If he won't contribute to the

farmland....

I might point out that these are in the valleys of the

Fraser River, and while the chicken farmers and egg producers

from the lower Fraser Valley think they have all the best land,

there is good farmland in the upper reaches of the Fraser River

as well.

There is something wrong here, but, as I say, maybe there is

an answer in vote 162, but it is rather a serious problem.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Well, that's true, but I would have

thought the Hon. Member for Cariboo would have thanked us for

the recent expenditures in his own riding, and his home town of

Quesnel, in terms of protecting the riverbank that their

general hospital is situated on. There probably wouldn't have

been a parking lot so one could visit people in that hospital

if we hadn't taken a generous chunk out of this vote for that

situation in his own riding.

The way the Member is nodding, I am assuming that he is

pleased that, in fact, we were non-partisan and applied

generous funding in his riding.

Just to indicate the range of creeks and streams we are

working on in this budget, this will give you an idea:

Allison Creek, South Alouette River, Anderson Creek, Antler

Creek, Apalmer Creek, Bear River, Bella Coola, Bellevue,

Bertram Creek, Bolean Creek, Bonaparte River, Boundary Creek,

Bulkley River, Capilano, Cecil Lake, Chase Creek, Chemainus

River, Cherry Creek, Christina Lake, Coldstream Creek,

Coldwater, Columbia, Courtenay River, Cowichan Bay, Cowichan

Lake, Cowichan River, Craigflower Creek, Cumming Creek, Duhamel

River, Fraser River, French Creek, Gates River, Glenora Creek,

Goat River, Gold River, Granby River, Green Lake, Hardy Creek,

Harris Creek.... We are only up to "H," so it gives you

an idea of the range we are covering even within that

budget.

MR. FRASER: I just want to reply to the Minister and publicly acknowledge

and thank him for being non-partisan in looking after the Fraser River erosion

in the town of Quesnel. I might say that I don't think the

town of Quesnel got anything organized and I doubt that they

will now until fall, but I imagine the money is good until

then. That is in the town of Quesnel itself. The area I was

referring to is really out in the rural area where the

farmlands are. But we do appreciate that.

You might also be interested to know, Mr. Minister, that you

are bringing the retaining wall up to within about 100 feet of

my home. I'm wondering why you can't go a little bit further.

Thank you. (Laughter.)

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: You're home by the Fraser; come on, you

don't want to do that.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The Minister mentioned that these

requests by landowners are established on a priority basis.

Would he indicate if he has received $10 million or requests of

which he can only handle one-tenth, or is he more or less

meeting the requests that come in with this money?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: There are requests well beyond the vote,

but it is established on a priority basis. The 25 per cent

funding does condition many people in terms of applying.

Vote 158 approved.

On vote 159: Water Resources Service: environmental

qualities studies, $380,000.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: May I ask the Minister if the

environmental law centre money comes out of this vote or

another one?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: No, that is under the Environment and

Land Use Committee secretariat.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Could he explain then a little more about

this vote? There is just one lump sum of $380,000. Are there

salaries involved in that or is it simply outside consulting

studies? How is the money spent?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: There is a range. This covers, for

example, grants to the Greater Vancouver Regional District,

which carries out air quality control in the metropolitan area.

In addition, grants to recycling depots in communities around

the province, studies jointly with the British Columbia

Research Council, and some aspects to do with litter are funded

out of this vote. It is a fairly wide range.

Vote 159 approved.

Vote 160: Water Resources Service: Okanagan

[ Page 3352 ]

flood control, $105,000 — approved.

On vote 161: Water Resources Service: Canada-British

Columbia Joint Development Act, $14,625,000.

MR. FRASER: This was referred to earlier under vote 158.

What is the difference between the programme under 158 with

75-25 sharing and the programme here regarding the Fraser River

programme?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: The difference is federal funding. This

is basically on the southern main stem of the Fraser River —

the lower mainland Fraser Valley. This was subsequent to the

1948 flood, various studies and the subsequent statutes. This

is covering diking and drainage programmes in Delta, Richmond,

Sumas, Chilliwack, Dewdney, Kent, Pitt Meadows, and all those

communities. It is basically a 50-50 funding between the

federal and provincial governments with the municipalities

contributing the right-of-way for the dikes.

MR. FRASER: That really means then that the only thing for

bank revetment in the central and upper regions of the Fraser

is back under vote 158. There is no money in this programme for

the middle or upper reaches of the river.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: No, unfortunately. That is a matter we

have been arguing over with the federal government.

MR. FX RICHTER (Boundary-Similkameen): Under this vote for

the Okanagan basin programme there is a slight increase in the

vote. But I want to ask the Minister if this is the area in

which the committee will carry out their implementation of the

results of the study, or does the money come from local

assessment?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: This is really the winding up of the

studies that have taken place. The technical groups are still

working together preparing recommendations to both the federal

Minister of the Environment (Hon. Jeanne Sauvé) and myself, but

that has not yet been finalized.

MR. RICHTER: For funding?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: That remains to be seen. There are some

recommendations regarding capital projects, as I understand,

but they still have to come up through the system.

Vote 161 approved.

On vote 162: Water Resources Service, B.C. hydrometric

stream-gauging, $522,000.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Is this a new programme?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: The federal Treasury Board has been

working overtime and it's pulling out of many various

programmes that they've been involved in in the past. They've

argued that much of the hydrometrics stream-gauging that's been

taking place in British Columbia is purely of a provincial

interest rather than a national interest. They've since

designated streams that they consider in the national interest

for stream-gauging purposes and have reallocated the costs.

That was jointly agreed to between Madam Sauvé and myself

several months ago. I think it was formalized here in Victoria.

So it's part of a change at the national level, in terms of

breaking costs down on a regional and federal basis. We got

stung for $300,000.

Vote 162 approved.

On vote 163: Water Resources Service, southern Okanagan

lands project, $20,000.

MR. RICHTER: This is a phasing-out vote, changing from what

was a government-subsidized irrigation district, and there were

large blocks of land which couldn't possibly be irrigated from

the system. My understanding is that this land will no longer

be administered under Water Resources but will be administered

under Lands. Has this transition taken place?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: No. What did happen, of course, was that

there was major capital funding by the province last year for

the southern Okanagan lands project, with the intent that it

would be a self-supporting organization managed locally.

Insofar as the lands that are Crown-owned that have been

managed by the Water Resources Service, we are considering the

transfer of the management of the Crown lands to the lands

branch but that has not been done yet.

MR. RICHTER: The other question I have for the Minister is

in regard to the airport lands which were transferred from the

federal government to the provincial government. The airport

lands are excessive acres there to the needs of air services.

Will these surplus lands be made available to the communities

for development of housing? There is a lack of land for this

type of development pertaining to apartment buildings.

My understanding is that a committee known as the Airport

and Village Advisory Planning Commission drew up a plan which

the municipal

[ Page 3353 ]

council agreed with and then made application for

the land, and the price of $10,000 per acre of this particular grade of

land seemed like it was excessive for the approximately eight acres

that were applied for, because I believe at one time they were offered

to the community for about $3,500. In the most recent application there

is also a proviso that if the village council is prepared to pay the

$10,000 per acre they will not have the prerogative of resale in the

event that they did develop it for a housing proposal.

Is there any clarification? I know applications have gone to

the Department of Housing on this, and it seems it's just

stagnant at this time.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I would think that really

part of the problem is that the Water Resources Service is

really not geared up for handling land development or

alienation programmes. That's why transferring to the lands

branch makes quite a bit of sense, from our point of view. So

the best bet probably is the transfer of the lands to the lands

branch and then getting them in harness with the local

community and trying to achieve some mutually satisfactory

arrangement.

Vote 163 approved.

On vote 164: pollution control, $3,641,734.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to try and get some

clarification of where we stand at the different levels of

government on the problem of oil spills and the costs and the

jurisdictional responsibility involved in cleaning them up.

We've had the most recent example in Mill Bay and the

explanations that have been given are a little confusing. I

just think it worthwhile taking a moment to go into this,

because although the oil spill in Mill Bay was fairly small,

and we had a small spill last year in my riding of Oak Bay,

there is obvious confusion as to where responsibilities lie.

There doesn't seem to be any problem as to who should actually

do the clean-up. The federal authorities, as I understand it,

admit responsibility at sea. But I would like the Minister to

clarify their position on the known origin of the spill.

If I could just digress for a moment, in relation to the Oak Bay oil spill,

the federal government says it doesn't know where the oil came from. So they're

taking a completely hands off attitude. Now the oil just didn't come from thin

air. Somebody spilled that oil from a ship, presumably. If there's anything

else sailing off Oak Bay I don't know what it would be, other than a ship or

a boat of some sort. There's been interminable correspondence between Oak Bay

and the federal government to try and determine who's responsible. The oil spill

occurred on January 22, 1974. The sum of money is not large; it is the principle.

The sum of money is $463.91. Even that isn't negligible to a municipality these

days. But at any rate the point was that the application for reimbursement was

made to the Department of Transport. They spent a long time exchanging letters,

and then finally they turned it over to the Minister of the Environment. The

correspondence continues, Mr. Chairman, and there's no end in sight.

The point which the municipality of Oak Bay and the mayor of

Oak Bay is concerned about is: who defines when a small oil

spill becomes a large oil spill? Okay, it was $463 this time.

Supposing it was $4,600 next time? That would indeed be a

substantial financial expense to the municipality.

In this latest incident that occurred in Mill Bay about June

4 or 5, it's very confusing for the public, I think, and myself

to read that different individuals and different levels of

government are all scurrying around denying responsibility. I'd

just like to quote Mr. Keir, who is the chairman of the

Cowichan Regional District. He says: "Since when is it a

regional district's responsibility to handle oil spills? We

don't have the know-how, the staff or the money to clean it

up." And then we have Mr. Doug Rodway, who is the Vancouver

Island co-ordinator for the provincial emergency programme, and

he says that the federal government will be responsible for oil

spills of known origin before it hits the shoreline. This is

really rather ridiculous. The more you think about it, if it

wasn't so serious it would be humorous. It's just a typical

example of different levels of bureaucracy passing the buck.

Then Mr. Rodway goes on to say that after the oil has washed up

on the beach, clean-up is the responsibility of the local

government.

In this instance, Mr. Chairman, the provincial government —

and I think it deserves credit — has stepped in and agreed to

foot the bill for $6,000. There again it would seem to me from

the information available that the provincial government is

setting a precedent here. I can't find anybody who can tell me

where there is any written agreement or any firm understanding

as to who is responsible for what, in terms of the cost of

clean-up. It seems to me that first of all we should have the

provincial and federal governments straightening out this whole

question of known origin of oil spills. Surely if the federal

government has jurisdiction over our offshore waters one would

assume, if any reason or logic were applied at all, that

whether it's known where the oil came from or not surely the

federal government is responsible. I suppose what the federal

government's trying to do by defining a known source is to try

and go after the ship that spilled the oil and get their money

back from the owners of that ship. That's reasonable enough

too, but I think to suggest that there should be some

preliminary definition of origin before the federal government

gets involved at all in

[ Page 3354 ]

meeting some of the costs is a pretty autocratic approach —

which, mind you, is nothing different from the federal

Liberals, I agree, but I think the provincial government should

be trying at least in a logical way to define the federal

responsibility and get some commitment.

The next problem is that as the oil hits the beach the whole

question, I guess, is a jurisdictional one of the degree of

involvement that the provincial government should have. I asked

this question the other day in question period and there really

wasn't time to go into it in the amount of detail that I think

it justifies, but I wonder if the Minister could answer just

one or two questions. Where are we at with the federal

government in our discussions? Secondly, what does the

provincial government feel it can do with the local governments

in terms of the know-how, the staff and the money? Is there any

agreement being developed? Thirdly, and most importantly, what

efforts are being made to classify and define the size of an

oil spill? As I mentioned, Oak Bay can pay $463 but they would

be pretty upset if it was $4,600 or $40,600.

I wonder if the Minister has been having, in co-ordinator on

with the emergency programme provincially, any discussions with

the municipalities. I would assume that through UBCM there

would be a channel of trying to develop an arrangement. The

Minister is nodding; perhaps he wants to respond.

Just before I sit down, there is just a last question in

relation to the pollution of rivers. The throne speech, which

seems to be a long time ago — let me see, when was that now?

February 18, 1975, which seems a long time ago. It mentioned

that there would be legislation somewhat similar to the

attempts that have been made in the United States to classify

different rivers in three main categories. The idea, I guess,

is to define rivers where some measure of pollution has to be

acceptable for commercial reasons while attempting at the same

time to provide legislation to preserve the so-called wild

rivers. We introduced a private bill trying to outline the

interests of this. I guess the wildlife federation is very keen

on this. Probably we've run out of time for new bills this

session, but I wonder if the Minister would touch on that

question, even though the bill isn't coming in this

session.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, the problems of working with the federal

government in this area are quite difficult. Like the Member for Oak Bay, I

find it difficult to understand their reasoning in terms of responsibilities.

If these spills take place, origin known or unknown, obviously it's in an area

of federal jurisdiction and the responsibility should relate to that. But we're

going through the usual kinds of arguments between the governments where money

is involved. That's disappointing, but something we got used to.

The provincial emergency preparedness people under the

Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall), in conjunction with the

pollution control branch, have carried on discussions with UBCM

people and municipal people in terms of the kind of

preparedness they feel they should be geared up for in these

situations. I suppose in a sense the emergency people, while

they've proved to be helpful in the Mill Bay situation, have

made it clear that this is regarded as a federal responsibility — that the source was in federal jurisdiction and it seems only

reasonable. I think the federal people have established other

precedents in Boundary Bay and West Vancouver as well in the

past, where it was such a scale that public opinion was greatly

aroused. Then they simply moved in and did much of the

work.

MR. WALLACE: Who defines the scale?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Exactly. That's it — and who goes after

the offender? In the situation the Provincial Secretary's

department has been generous and helpful with a local community

that's not of any substantial means at all. But it's the old

story: The provincial government is closer to the people than

the federal one so the expectations seem to be higher of us

than of the federal government, despite their high revenue

sources and wide sources of revenue. So I'm afraid that's a

matter for agenda for future federal-provincial meetings in

terms of resolving these matters. I can't really give anything

more definitive than that at this time.

The question of wild river legislation has been considered

by the Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr.

Radford) and by the Environment and Land Use Committee. I think

there is some general sympathy for the establishment of some

wild river areas in the province. It's still quite complex in

terms of interdepartmental jurisdictions and the like. So the

work is continuing at the staff level. I guess this session

will go on quite a long time, adjournments or not, so we might

well see it come forth once the staff work is done.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Mr. Chairman, I couldn't

allow this vote to go by without bringing to the Minister's

attention...

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: A pearl of wisdom.

MR. SMITH: ...something that seems to be a great change

of at least philosophy on the part of the present-day

government. I'd like to draw his attention to the facts that I

have before me — a number of pages from the British Columbia

Gazette, going back to 1971. In this particular edition of the

Gazette, I saw a number of applications for permits:

[ Page 3355 ]

"Application for permit under Pollution Control Act,

1967."

Because of the fact that the Act was in force at that time,

we see a number of permits from a number of companies including

Canadian Cellulose Co., Weyerhaeuser Corp., Savona Timber Co.,

and so on and so forth.

It is interesting to note that the almost identical wording

is found in the applications that are presently before the

pollution control branch. I would refer to a couple of recent

applications, one of May 28, an application by Weyerhaeuser

Corp. of Kamloops. There was another application of the same

date from the City of Prince George. I would like the Minister

to tell me, if he can, why when these applications were

published and gazetted in 1971, we heard a great, great outcry

from the now Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources

about the number of applications to pollute issued by the

provincial government. Every time one of them appeared in the

paper, it was an application to pollute. Now suddenly they have

become respectable. They are an application to control

pollution. Could the Minister define the difference between the

form that is used now as compared to that used in 1971?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: The new "Rinso white" approach, Mr.

Chairman, is one of regulatory protection of the environment.

Let's just look at the amount of regulatory protection that has

been achieved in recent years.

MR. SMITH: Take a look at the permits.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: In 1970 it was 59 under the former

government. In 1971 it was 99. In 1972 it was 166. In 1973 it

was 393. In 1974 it was 582. This is regulatory control of the

environment — environmental protection on a growing scale with

more significant industries all of the time coming under permit

and regulation.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, what difference a couple of years

makes. It seems that the permit application is exactly the same

now. It serves the same purpose that it did in 1971. I'm glad

to see that there is an increase in the number of permits

issued each year. I do believe that this is the type of control

that we have to effect. The way to do it is to identify the

problems through the applications that are required now and

always have been by the Pollution Control Board.

There is one other point I would like to briefly deal with. We talked about

oil spills for a few moments. The type of oil spills that I am mainly acquainted

with are land spills that take place in and around the oil patch. These people

have developed, within their own industry, a highly skilled, mobile force they

can mobilize on hours' notice. In setting up this particular force there was

a question of who would pay the shot. Of course, this is one of the problems

you face on a coastal spill where you are involved with the federal government.

They came to the conclusion that the most important thing is

to correct the problem immediately. Regardless of who the

companies are, if they happen to be operating in the north

eastern part of British Columbia, they will be assessed a

small, proportionate amount of the cost involved. They came to

that conclusion collectively. I think that we could de well to

look to them and their experience in setting up a highly mobile

and professional clean-up force for the coastal waters.

It's a technique that they can develop. There is special

equipment that they manufacture and use for cleaning up oil

spills. That's the main thing — do it quickly. Get on the job

and get the clean-up started before the really permanent damage

happens. They have found that it will work on land spills in

the oil patch. I would assume that the same technique with

modifications could be used in coastal waters.

MR. FRASER: I have just a few questions on the pollution

control directorate, I guess you would call it. I believe this

directorate is now all regionalized. I imagine the staff has

increased. I would like to know a little more about it. How

many regions are there? How many do they have on their staff

and what is proposed in this budget? I think the people we have

are doing a good job but I have reason to believe that the

people in the field, who I am talking about now, have their

hands full.

I would also like to know the position of the Minister and

the government regarding beehive burners. They were all to be

phased out for economic reasons, I understood. I believe an

extension was given to the operation of beehive burners in the

sawmill industry. How long is that extension for? Is it

indefinite, or just what is the government's policy?

The last item I have is the continuing problem from pulp

mills: (1) the odour;

(2) I think more vexing than the odour is

what they call saltcake. That is in the atmosphere, a sort of

foam.

There are no end of problems in my riding with the Cariboo

pulp operation. There have been a lot of complaints made to the

pollution control branch, and I have copies of the

correspondence.

I really think that this is unnecessary, as far as the

saltcake and foam, in the operation of this pulp mill. I'd like

to know what the branch intends to do about it and when. It's

been going on now for over a year and the complaints have been

pouring in for over a year. I imagine there is somebody there

who is conversant with this problem. I wonder if the Minister

could answer any of the questions.

[ Page 3356 ]

MR. WALLACE: There are just a couple of brief questions, Mr.

Chairman.

Oh, and before I forget — I wonder what happened to the oil

spills committee that was set up as a standing committee of the

House. Maybe the Minister could report. I seem to recall that

the Member for Esquimalt (Mr. Gorst) was chairman of a standing

committee in 1973, I reckon. I wonder if that was just a

committee for that one session of the Legislature, which,

presumably, was not reconstituted. I wonder if perhaps some

such committee — an all-party committee of the House — would be

any better a vehicle for the Minister to successfully bring

about some of the negotiations which he referred to earlier,

and which had been unproductive with the federal government in

particular. I think an all-party standing committee of the

House might be useful in meeting with the municipalities to

determine the kind of handling of some of the problems which I

mentioned earlier.

In relation to vote 164 I notice there's just a fantastic

increase in temporary assistance. Last year we had $6,000; this

year it's $338,000. I presume there's some explanation for this

tremendous increase, but I would like to know what the

explanation is.

I think the Minister has touched on this already, but I

wonder if he could just quickly tell us again what the reason

was for the actual reduction in staff in the pollution control

branch. One of the areas that this government emphasized in the

election campaign in 1972 was the former government's lack of

attention to pollution control. I just wonder why the staff in

this department has gone down from 191 to 173.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, the decentralization of

the pollution control staff has been underway over the last

couple of years. The orientation is to the resource regions

which were defined by the Environment and Land Use Committee

some six months ago or so. The regions are centred on Smithers,

Prince George, Williams Lake, Kamloops, Nelson, Vancouver and

Nanaimo.

There are now six regional organizations around the

province, and 85 staff members are out in the regions. So

that's a fair movement in the direction of decentralization of

activities.

In terms of the decrease in staff numbers — that's basically departmental reorganization,

so much of the research capacity of the pollution control branch has been shifted

into an environmental studies

section of the Water Resources Service. In fact,

most of the biological research is now within the environmental studies

section

of the service. The intent has been to make the pollution control board more

of a regulatory and policing agency with a strong regional establishment, with

the research function basically outside of this section.

The question of beehive burners was reconsidered. For a

period there was a steel shortage which was a factor in the

decision. In addition, the programme was by and large fairly

successful in terms of eliminating many of the worst offenders.

The matter has now been in the hands of the director of a

pollution control branch, as all other permit matters are. So

it is a matter of discussion, negotiation and sort of a

reasonable timetable in relation to specific situations.

There are many small operators, for example, that do not

have an assured wood supply. Until questions like that are

resolved, it seems unfair to require a high capital expenditure

in a poor market period. So it's a flexible situation at the

moment, but one that I think is reasonable and still is moving

towards elimination of the burners.

With respect to the Cariboo pulp situation, I understand new

spray devices have been used, or are in the process of being

used with respect to improving the situation considerably.

Discussions are ongoing regarding the salt question. Technical

people do not regard that as that serious a matter.

The House in committee question is certainly a matter for

the government to consider, because it's clear that the federal

government seems to be backing off this whole area.

MR. WALLACE: What about temporary assistance?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: The temporary assistance — there are a

fair number of summer employees involved in the programmes.

MR. WALLACE: Students?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Yes.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I was most interested in

two aspects of the Minister's more recent statement — one in

particular, the pollution control branch. He states that it's

going to become more of a regulatory agency and less of a

scientific agency. This is going to totally change the branch's

ability to grant any permits because if they are to be

regulatory and are to have their biologists hived off to other

departments, there is no way that the branch itself will be

able to make the initial decisions dealing with whether a thing

should proceed or otherwise. Perhaps once another scientific

body, or a more scientifically or biologically oriented group

under the Minister's department, has given the go-ahead, later

on they can carry out checks or enforce — be the policemen. But

in terms of taking a problem, analyzing it, doing research and

deciding whether or not, for example, a pulp mill should be

located on

[ Page 3357 ]

such and such an inlet, apparently the pollution control

branch will not have those powers or that ability.

I wonder whether this is why the branch has lost quite a

number of biologists — Palmer, Webster and Langford are three.

These people have left the branch mainly because of their

unhappiness with the bureaucratic setup. The Minister's

explanation for the loss in personnel tended to ignore the fact

that a large number of people have quit. Many of them are

scientists, good scientists, and they have quit because they

can't stand the branch's policy. They feel that the branch

simply is becoming a bureaucratic regulatory agency and is

ceasing to have any scientific justification — therefore

they've left.

I wonder whether the Minister could expand on this. Because

if he's correct in indicating the direction the branch is going

to go, there's really no point in having as many biologists as

there have been in the past.

The branch, clearly, has changed very substantially over the

last couple of years. This drop in personnel and the loss of

many of your scientists is a good indication of it. I wonder

whether the Minister really is a good indication of it. I

wonder whether the Minister really is aware of the extent of

the problem. I received, with no covering information, a

memorandum dated August 27 of last year, dealing with the

Ucluelet harbour. This was simply sent to me in the mail; I'll

read it so the Minister can....

"As per your request, attached is a brief outline

representing the present state of the Ucluelet harbour project.

No attempt has been made to interpret any of the data since

only 23 days has been spent obtaining it. In addition to the

reasons, which are listed under the heading of Introduction,

regarding the justification of this project to the

administrators, there is one other very realistic one which

should be stated in this covering memo, that is: already

several good biologists have quit the PCB, (i.e. K. Palmer, I.

Webster and B. Langford), all of whom had extremely good

potential as scientists and were an asset to the branch, but

they left because of poor administrative policy. That is: they

were tired of accomplishing nothing and being token biologists

for PCB administrators. In fact, so renowned is the reputation

of the PCB biologists for waffling, stalling, procrastinating

and being indecisive that it has gotten embarrassing that one

belongs to the PCB at all."

I go on and read a little more.

"The top pollution control board administrators can rest

assured that unless the policy of the branch drastically changes with regard

to its biologists, in a few years there will not be a single good biologist

among them, and we will have truly earned the reputation of coming from Hertz

'rent-a-biologist' department."

The memorandum covers a brief dealing with Ucluelet harbour.

The concluding paragraph is of interest. It talks about the

problem there:

"A sewage diffuser is going into a narrow inlet, and no one

knows what will happen to the ecology of the area. Whether or

not we are 'officially' responsible for it is not the point.

The fact still remains that the pollution control branch has

given the go-ahead for the construction of the system and

cannot simply shrug its shoulders and take on the negative

attitude that its responsibility ends when the pipe goes

down."

Apparently, from what the Minister has said, the pollution

control branch, indeed, is going to be totally emasculated in

terms of scientific ability and is going to become the

policemen. So how on earth can it be responsible for granting

permits? Whether or not at the present time it's doing a good

job — and it's indicated in this Ucluelet study that it's very

questionable because of lack of time and other things — in

anticipating problems and analyzing problems is one thing, but

when its staff is dropping, and in particular its scientific

staff, as the Minister has indicated, then you're into a

situation where the pollution control branch can only become a

policeman subsequent to a decision of some other division of

the Minister's department.

I think that it's a fairly serious thing when the pollution

control branch scientists are leaving. I think it's a serious

thing when the Minister, in such a casual way, indicates that

it's going to be downgraded so substantially because we have

had no clear indication of what is going to happen in the other

divisions of his department to take its place.

There obviously is a need for an evaluating agency, an

agency which can evaluate proposals from industry and from

municipalities and can then give some indication of what should

follow in terms of the environment. From the loss of the

scientific staff it appears that the pollution control branch

will not be this evaluating agency. It will simply become a

regulatory, policemen agency after these things are introduced

and certain criteria are laid down. I hope the Minister will

comment on what is happening to the scientific staff of the

pollution control branch. Why are there morale problems? Why

are they being downgraded? Are they being shifted around to

other departments? Is that what's happening? The pollution

control branch is generally considered to be what protects the

B.C. environment. And it appears that it has become not only a

smaller department in terms of numbers, but a very much weaker

department in terms of the role it's meant to play.

[ Page 3358 ]

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Well, I don't really think that's so,

Mr. Chairman. We have this regional organization and it does

include both engineers and biologists. It's not as rigid a line

as might have seemed from what I said earlier. So there is the

biological capability as well as the engineering and basic

managerial capability there.

I think the kinds of problems the Hon. Member is talking

about are problems of an earlier stage. We do have a new Deputy

Minister in the department. We do have a changed Pollution

Control Board with new membership and somewhat different

attitudes. I think that's apparent from the decisions the board

itself is making these days, be it in Ganges or wherever.

There's obviously a change of direction by the board since the

government changed that indicates greater sensitivity, I think,

to environmental protection. And the very kinds of problems the

Member raises seem to me to have indicated the need for the

kinds of administrative changes that in fact have now taken

place.

That the biologists have much of their research capability

being established in an environmental study

section gives them

a kind of pure base to operate within. I think that's all to

the good for the department. They're in the same building. They

have access to one another. It's all within the same

department. But it seems to me that that was the reasonable way

to deal with the kinds of problems we had.

I think that the problem of staff leaving is a problem of

the past and a problem we had prior to the changes we've made.

Now since that time, a fair number of the people who left have

in fact come back. That's an indication, I think, that the

steps we've taken so far have definitely been an improvement,

and the fact that the staff have come back is a good indication

of that.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Which members of the staff have returned?

I looked at the vote and it appeared to me that there were 11

biologists, roughly speaking; I think I counted correctly.

There are now only seven allowed for in the estimates. So

you've had a real cutback in your scientific staff. Your

agriculturalist is gone. Your technicians have dropped from 26

to 21. I've been doing a quick count here. By contrast it

appears your stenographic and clerical staff is increasing.

Your engineering staff isn't increasing. It appears that there

is a very definite switch away from the scientific, and if that

switch is taking place, we need more than a soothing word from

the Minister. We need a fairly clear statement of what the

branch is going to...or at least what other branch is going

to take over the analysis and scientific function of the

pollution control branch, because clearly it's going down

now.

If, as the Minister says, some of the biologists have returned, it appears

that the figure of seven, which I gave him a moment ago of the biologists who

were down here, was even lower a short time ago, and 50 per cent or more of

the biologists have left. I ask him about Palmer, Webster, Langford, Dailly.

Have those people left, or are they back? I certainly know that three of them

have left. But are they back among those who the Minister indicated were returning

to the branch?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Yes, that's my understanding. If you

check vote 157, you'll see that that's gone up by over

half-a-million dollars — which is the water investigations

branch. Water management environmental studies

section is

within that branch. That's where this staff have shifted to.

There are 16 biologists who were transferred from the pollution

control branch t o the water management environmental studies

part of the water investigations branch under vote 157. They're

currently carrying out watershed and air studies of study

areas: biological, limnology, hydrology, geology, engineering,

meteorology, airflow patterns, economics, public involvement

programmes, regional studies concerning water conservation,

water quality and development possibilities, studies to

determine the effects of various land use practices on

watershed yield and quality.

In addition quite specific detailed studies are now being

carried out: in the Kootenays a major baseline study, an

environmental baseline study for both the east and west

Kootenays, where there is a significant industrial base; the

Thompson River and the Kamloops area, the Coquitlam River

basin, and several local areas on a priority basis.

All of that is on going with the staff, much of which was

transferred from the pollution control branch to the water

investigations branch.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I thank the Minister for stating that the

pollution control branch is, indeed, not going to be doing the

studies that it previously did and that the water

investigations branch will be doing not only water

investigations but air pollution investigations as well. But

could he give a little scenario? How does the application go?

Do people still apply to the pollution control branch and they

farm out the scientific work to the other government divisions?

Or do they carry on as before but without their biologists?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: They are not without biologists.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: No, they aren't. They have seven instead

of 11, according to the estimates book.

[ Page 3359 ]

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: With staff in each region of the

province.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Yes, staff in each region, but we are

dealing with the overall staff for the province and there is

definitely a very substantial reduction in the number of

biologists.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: There are 16 of them in water

investigation.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: That's right. What I want to know is what

happens to the applications. Is the application made directly

to the water investigations branch, or are we carrying on with

the previous procedure? The Minister knows fully well that

there have been staff problems with respect to biologists in

the pollution control branch. He knows there has been a great

deal of unhappiness there. He knows that some, indeed, refuse

to admit that they belong to the pollution control branch and

suggest that they belong to other departments because they are

so embarrassed about the work they do. I would just like to

know, in the downgrading of pollution control, if they are

still going to be responsible for the initial applications.

Suppose that Company X decides to put a mill in a certain

inlet. After doing their own engineering and environmental

studies, do they still apply to the pollution control branch or

do they apply to the water investigations branch?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Neither. The initial broad work for any

major new project such as that would be carried out by the

Environment and Land Use Committee secretariat with input from

the Water Resources Service, water investigations branch,

pollution control branch, and possibly the Health and

Recreation and Conservation departments. The whole range of

staff would be involved in something of that nature. There is

now a planning capability within the public service that we

never had before. It is not a matter of a regulatory agency.

There is that planning capability involving all of the

departments.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: That's well and good, but previously the

pollution control branch was built up....

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: It may be well and good, but I don't

even know if you understand what I am saying.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: You told me that there is now more

government ability to handle problems of this nature.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Exactly.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Very good. I'm trying to sort out where

the responsibility lies. It is all very well to talk about the

Environment and Land Use Committee secretariat. In the past I

had some idea of what the pollution control branch did.

Apparently it is a very changed function. As the Minister

admitted, it has become simply regulatory.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: More regulatory.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: More of a regulatory agency, he says. Yet

he will not specify precisely what it is going to be doing.

From the point of view of the staff which, you know, has

staffing problems, I think it is important that they do know

what the function of that particular branch is going to be.

From the Minister's statement I would say that he is going to

take in everything from everywhere within his department before

he makes any decisions, something that was obviously not done

by the cabinet committee in the case of the Chemainus dam. I

just am not at all clear what the pollution control branch's

role will be in the future.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I think the list of permits alone is an

indication, Mr. Chairman.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): I would ask the

Minister if he can give us an idea of whether the government

has any real programme for cleaning up Howe Sound. It is an

important recreational area for half of the people of British

Columbia. The environmental quality of Howe Sound is

deteriorating alarmingly. It is an unsafe place for pleasure

craft because of the pollution of the waterways with wood

waste. That is increasing substantially year by year.

Two of the most polluting pulp mills in British Columbia are

located on Howe Sound, one at Woodfibre and the other at Port

Mellon. Of the two, the one at Port Mellon is by far the worst.

In connection with the pulp mills there are extensive booming

grounds where there is no attempt made at all to care for the

environment. On occasion the air pollution extends not only

over the Howe Sound area but comes right into the Vancouver and

West Vancouver areas and it is extreme. Only last week I had

occasion to take the chairman of the Science Council of Canada

for a drive up Howe Sound and we had to turn back before we

reached the head of Howe Sound because of the complete blanket

of fog from the Woodfibre pulp mill that had descended over the

whole Squamish-Woodfibre-Britannia region. I cite this to

indicate that as far as I can tell, since the new government

which was pledged to an anti-pollution programme took over, the

degree of pollution has increased substantially.

What used to be the most attractive recreational

[ Page 3360 ]

area in Howe Sound, namely the north side of Gambier Island,

has been completely run out by the pollution from Port Mellon,

and all of the former summer cottages that were along that area

have been abandoned. Not only the air pollution but the surface

water pollution from wood waste and the mixed water pollution,

if you could call it that, from the black liquor run-off into

that area of Howe Sound have created what some time ago was the

most attractive recreational area close to the lower mainland

into one of total blight.

I had occasion to call the pollution control branch in a

moment of disgust last summer — again when I was taking

visitors through that area, and we were appalled by the air and

water pollution — to ask what was being done by the branch. I

was informed that it was on a long-term programme and nothing

was really being done for approximately five years. But the

problem is that in this time, while the pollution control

branch is marking time on that particular area, the environment

is progressively deteriorating. I wonder if the Minister could

give us some indication of what his plans might be.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, the situation with respect

to the Woodfibre plant of Rayonier is that it is a five-year

programme commencing in 1973. We expect that by the end of this

year there should be substantial success in terms of air

emission controls which should be of considerable benefit to

the constituents of the Member in Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr.

McGeer) and the university district. I have many letters myself

regarding questions such as that.

The rest of the programme to be completed by December 31,

1978, and a capital expenditure anticipated in that period

between now and then is 10 million at the Woodfibre plant.

This is also a programme that will allow the productive

capability of the plant to continue so that jobs would not be

affected in the process of establishing those kinds of

controls.

With respect to Port Mellon, the Canadian Forest Products,

the plant is to meet the level B standards of the pollution

control branch by 1980. That means that they in fact will be

given greater flexibility than the Canadian Cellulose plant in

Prince Rupert. The abatement programme includes the

installation of scrubbers on the lime kilns this year, a new

precipitator on the No. 2 recovery boiler in 1977, incineration

of non-combustibles in 1979, smelt tank scrubber in 1979 and

topping scrubbers on the recoveries by 1980.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to pursue that.

Interjections.

MR. McGEER: Incineration of non-combustibles! Well...

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: ...that's the basic problem, Mr. Chairman. They

are incinerating non-combustibles, and the non-combustibles are

rendering the area unusable for recreation.

I'm pleased to hear that these pulp mills are beginning to

spend a little bit of money in upgrading their facilities. I

can assure the Minister that as of last Thursday no progress

had been made with respect to air pollution from the Woodfibre

mill. Now maybe as of this week there will have been some

progress, but as of last week the total north end of Howe Sound

was blanketed under a white fog of air pollution from

Woodfibre.

The cost-benefit factors that have to be taken into

consideration with respect to these pulp mills are the

recreational needs of half the people of British Columbia. To

give a kind of half-baked programme to the pulp mill at Port

Mellon, asking them only to reach level B by 1980, to my way of

thinking, isn't good enough. That pulp mill has desecrated a

large area of Howe Sound and, in my view, the pulp mill, if

it's to remain in existence, should be rebuilt now. The

Canadian Forest Products Co. is not a poor company. If it has

to take losses for a number of years in Port Mellon, let it

take the losses, because that company has made adequate profits

in other areas.

I don't think it's tolerable at all that that mill should be

permitted to continue desecrating an important recreational

area. The Minister is soft on pollution; he's tolerating a

situation that I consider intolerable. He's making half-hearted

efforts and he's extending way into the future the

opportunities for that company to make these limited changes.

In view of the importance of Howe Sound as a recreational area,

I would say quite flatly to the Minister that this isn't good

enough.

We used to hear about how he was all against pollution when

he was in opposition. Here's an opportunity to perform. Really,

Mr. Chairman, I think that the programme of the Minister is a

pretty sick one.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, we get a little confused

over on this side when the Minister brings forward his

half-baked programmes to incinerate non-combustibles. I wonder

whether the Minister could deal with another subject now — that

is, why the secrecy of the environmental report dealing with

the proposed Mohawk refinery and the proposed government

refinery? Are there no studies done? Is that why none have come

forward? Surely if the Surrey council gets this information the

citizens of Surrey can get it; surely if the Surrey council

gets

[ Page

3361 ]

this information, the Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland)

should get that information, and he hasn't got it. I haven't

got it. These are the environmental studies on the proposed

government refinery.

It's all very well for the Minister to have studies, to keep

them behind closed doors and to wait and wait and wait until

the decision is made and there's no possibility of public

participation. But it's just not good enough for us. We feel

that this information should be made available and perhaps now

is the time. Or else the Minister should come up with a fairly

convincing reason for keeping it secret. This was meant to be

an open government — the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald)

came in and told us about open door government and letting the

sun shine in. Yet this Minister is particularly secretive. We

only find out afterwards about things like the Chemainus dam

when the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) is good enough to

get up and give us a little information that was not previously

available. We'd like to know what studies have been done.

We've heard from government Members — the Member for Delta

(Mr. Liden), for example — about the tremendous problem of

locating anywhere but in the lower mainland. Yet we've heard

from government Ministers about the fact that it has to be

there because of transportation problems. What is the

situation? What is the situation with respect to water, air and

land pollution if a refinery is established there? I don't

particularly believe that this information, if it's available,

should be restricted to the government or simply to the Surrey

council. This is the type of information that should be made

public; the public should have an opportunity of participating

in any decision — that's always possible. But at least they

should know what the facts are and what they can expect, and

they should know that they've had the opportunity of

influencing government decisions. They're not getting that from

this government; it's secretive, closed-door government. These

two examples, both on refineries — the Mohawk one and the

government one — are cases in point. I'd like to know why we

are not getting information on those two refinery

proposals.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: With respect to the Mohawk refinery, the

studies are currently underway, so that may be an explanation

for not having received it. The studies that have been

undertaken in Surrey have been undertaken on behalf of the

petroleum corporation and the responsibility for the

corporation exists elsewhere. That material is still under

review by the Environment and Land Use Committee

secretariat.

As for the question of being soft on pollution, in the

period 1974-76, for example, environmental expenditure by the

forest products industry of British Columbia adds up to something like $95 million. How does

that compare with other parts of Canada? It's $51 million in

Ontario, $29 million in Quebec — a total in Canada of $188

million. Half of the expenditure will be in British Columbia,

because we've taken a harder line on pollution questions than

any other administration in the country, especially in our

primary industrial sector, the forest sector. So all the

comments by the drifting Liberal has-been or whatever they call

themselves these days just add up,to zero.

MR. FRASER: Don't get political — it's almost lunchtime.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Okay. I accept what the Member for

Cariboo says. I simply say that on any per-unit measurement

basis by independent outsiders, even the industrial observers

or whoever you like, they have come to the conclusion that the

expenditures in British Columbia are double on a unit basis

what any other administration in Canada has. In fact, we're

spending twice as much in terms of environmental control in our

major industrial sector than any other administration in

Canada.

MR. FRASER: That's enough.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Just to follow up briefly on

what the Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) said

about the environmental studies for the refinery in the Surrey

area and the Sumas area....

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think it was pointed out in the reply that

they weren't under this Minister.

MR. McCLELLAND: Oh, Mr. Chairman, I don't care what was

pointed out in his reply.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We're dealing with vote 164.

MR. McCLELLAND: I don't care what was in the reply, Mr.

Chairman. The Environmental and Land Use Committee is under

this Minister, and the pollution control branch is under this

Minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Not on this vote.

MR. McCLELLAND: The Mohawk Refinery is not under this

Minister, okay. But the other one is, Mr. Chairman, and the

Minister's reply bothered me somewhat.

Last week the Minister said that studies were going on under

the Environment and Land Use Committee and the pollution

control branch with regard to the proposed refinery in Surrey.

Later in the week, after the Minister gave that reply, some of

the members of

[ Page 3362 ]

the B.C. Petroleum Corp. met with two members of Surrey

council. None of the other members were allowed in at that

meeting. It was more than a closed door meeting; it was a

private little conflab between some chummy little friends. What

were they shown?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: The mayor is your man.

MR. McCLELLAND: The Minister tells us now that those studies

are still under review, so how could they go before any members

of Surrey council and make a definite proposal, which

apparently the B.C. Petroleum Corporation did, if the

Environment and Land Use Committee and the pollution control

branch are still making those studies and still reviewing those

studies?

Mr. Chairman, it seems incomprehensible to me that they

could go and make that kind of an approach to any council in

British Columbia, and then, presumably, come along later on and

say: "Oh, I'm sorry, the studies now show that we can't have a

refinery, so you can stop."

Interjections.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, that's an incredible approach,

in my opinion, to any kind of pollution planning in this

province.

Now the second question with regard to pollution control has

to do with, again, a comment that the Minister made in answer

to a question last week, and that had to do with the report

from Environment Canada which said that any study into

pollution problems with regard to a refinery on Sumas mountain

would take a minimum of one year and possibly two years to

complete.

The Minister gave a flippant answer in reply. He said that

if the federal government says two years, we can cut that in

half or in quarters, or something, because we can work that

much faster. But we are still talking, perhaps, three months to

six months. Yet here we have studies done in a matter of days

or weeks, and on the basis of those quick studies we're going

to build a $500 million refinery in Surrey.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Since when? When was that decision

made?

MR. McCLELLAND: You made the decision — that government made

the decision, and it is pretty obvious....

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think you are out of order in this vote. I

would like to remind the Member for Langley that the Petroleum

Corporation is under another Minister.

MR. McCLELLAND: Oh, well does this vote not have to do with pollution

control, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: It was answered earlier that those studies

were being done outside by another firm, and under another

Minister.

MR. McCLELLAND: Does this vote not have to do with pollution

control, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: It has, and I'll tell you when you are out of

order, and I'm suggesting to you that you're the first one who

has been out of order this morning.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Simply as a matter of clarification, Mr.

Chairman, I might confirm what I was saying earlier —

essentially the pollution control staff is a regulatory agency.

So the point is that it is an application for permit. The

preliminary studies would basically involve the Environment and

Land Use Secretariat, and this matter of permit is a matter of

certain standards. The standards that would be applied would be

as high as any on the continent, beyond, in fact, the kind of

San Francisco standards that are applied in the Bay area which

are extremely high.

So in terms of this agency's area of jurisdiction, it is a

matter of permit. The kinds of standards that would be required

are extremely high, but the analytical work and broad

environmental planning work comes under another vote.

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, thank you. Mr. Chairman, in regard to

the granting of the permit, if and when a permit is applied for

in regard to this refinery, if the refinery goes in that

location — in a gravel pit which has very porous soil which

could retain water and discharge it into the streams in that

area a year from now or a year and a half from now — will the

Minister assure this House and the people of that area that the

pollution control branch will demand that those studies will be

of such an exhaustive nature that it will be ensured that there

will be no pollution down the line a year from today? Will

those studies take that into account and will the pollution

control branch ensure that that happens?

That's the point that Environment Canada made, Mr. Chairman.

Those studies must go on that long.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I think there is every chance of that,

Mr. Chairman, in view of the enthusiasm in Merritt for the

refinery.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I'm still worried about the question of

revealing information on pollution an environmental matters. I

feel that this is a most important area. For years I tried to

push the idea that the public needs to know what might happen.

It is

[ Page 3363 ]

their environment and they should know. I am not at all

impressed by the Minister's argument that these studies have

been commissioned by the Petroleum Corporation of British

Columbia and therefore the public doesn't have a right to know.

We've heard a lot of things from the government about the

petroleum corporation being a public corporation, owned by the

people of British Columbia. Well, why doesn't the corporation

trust its shareholders? Why doesn't it trust its owners? Why

doesn't it make this information available?

It's all very well to say that certain people — a mayor or two or one or two

aldermen who may be friendly — can be called into a room and they can see certain

things, but others who are interested and concerned, such as, for example, the

local Member for the provincial Legislature, are denied access to that information.

I feel that if you are going to run an open government and if the petroleum

corporation and other Crown corporations of that nature which are meant to be

owned by the people are truly to be run in the spirit that the government says

they are run in, then surely this sort of information should come forward.

This is a subject which I feel very strongly about. I have

in my hand a speech I gave at the first annual UBC Law Review

dinner back in 1971 which was essentially on the need for the

government to trust the public and have the public participate

in environmental decisions. It is my belief still that there is

no reason in the world to deny access to this sort of

information to the members of the general public. They have

their own views and they should be consulted. They may have

information which has missed the experts. That has happened

time after time.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports

resolution.

The House adjourned at 11:59 a. m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1975, 2001, 2013: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada