1982 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 32nd Parliament

Hansard

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

( Hansard )

MONDAY, JULY 5, 1982

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

8551 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Application by M&B to export unprocessed logs. Mr. King –– 8551

Imports of liner board from U.S. Mr. Skelly –– 8552

Mrs. Wallace

Tax increases. Mr. Stupich –– 8552

De-indexing of old-age pensions. Ms. Brown –– 8553

Government expense vouchers. Hon. Mr. Williams replies –– 8553

Tabling Documents

British Columbia Heritage Trust annual report, March 31, 1982

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 8553

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

On vote 32: ministers office (continued) –– 8553

Ms. Sanford

Mr. Kempf

Mr. Gabelmann

Mr. King

Mr. Nicolson

Mr. Lockstead

Mr. Skelly

On the amendment to vote 32 –– 8565

Division

On vote 33: resource and environment management –– 8565

Mr. Skelly

On the amendment to vote 33 –– 8566

Division

On vote 33: resource and environment management –– 8566

Division

On vote 34: emergency assistance –– 8566

Division

Petroleum And Natural Gas Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 56). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. McClelland)

On sections 5 to 8 –– 8567

Mr. D'Arcy

Division

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 53). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Williams)

section 4 –– 8568

Ms. Brown

Hon. Mr. Nielsen

Mr. Cocke

Division

Section 11 –– 8571

Mr. Cocke

Hon. Mr. Nielsen

Division

Section 12 –– 8572

Mr. Gabelmann

Mr. Cocke

Appendix –– 8574

MONDAY, JULY 5, 1982

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker,

there is a group of people who have served our legislators over the

years and have done such a very good job. I speak of the attendants to

this House, under the auspices of the Sergeant-at-Arms. A former

attendant, Mr. Charles Glauser, who has retired, is visiting in the

gallery today, which is a different role for him. Also in the gallery

today — in your gallery, sir — is his brother, who has been recently

elected to the Saskatchewan government, Mr. Calvin Glauser. I would ask

the House to welcome both brothers to our assembly today.

MR. HALL:

I would like the House to join me and the member for North

Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Ree) in welcoming to the House and to the city

of Victoria the delegates and their wives to the Fourth Annual

Conference of Canadian Council ofPublic Accounts Chairmen.

you know, Mr. Speaker, this conference started some four years ago

under the leadership of Mr. Patrick Reid, MPP in Ontario. Mr. Reid and

other members of public accounts committees across the country have

continued to work in the name of public accounts. We're now at a stage

where we're having conferences like this one, dealing with the public's

accountability in the public purse. You'll be pleased to know, Mr.

Speaker, that present in your galleries are representatives of all ten

provinces and one territory. Had it not been for the budget presented

last week, we would have had the chairman of the public accounts

committee of Canada, and had it not been for a recent election in the

Yukon Territory, we would have had their public accounts staff with us.

Further

in this welcoming note to these delegates, I would like to advise you

that last year's conference was attended by two delegates, one of whom

has since become a Speaker of a House, and the other has become a

Minister of Finance, which shows that when you become a chairman of a

public accounts committee, your bad luck can really start.

MR. REE:

I'd like to echo the welcome to the public accounts chairpeople by the

second member for Surrey. I'd also like to make specific reference to

two ladies in the gallery who are assisting the second member for

Surrey and myself in hosting these people: Mrs. Jean Hall and my wife

Cheri. I'd ask the House to welcome them.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

We have in the gallery today, for the first time this year, my daughter

Jennifer and her friend from Powell River, Paula Stewart. I ask the

House to join me in welcoming them.

MR. BARRETT: I ask the House to welcome today the darts champion of Kamloops, Freida Gordon.

Oral Questions

APPLICATION BY M&B TO

EXPORT UNPROCESSED LOGS

MR. KING: I have a question

for the Minister of Forests. It's reported that MacMillan Bloedel is

seeking permission to export 100,000 cubic metres of unprocessed

Douglas fir to China. Has the minister received such an application; if

so, has he approved that application?

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

The policy regarding the export of unmanufactured logs from British

Columbia remains unchanged. Any logs from Crown land are subject to

review by the log export advisory committee before such authorization

can be given. I understand that the logs contemplated for export by

MacMillan Bloedel are from taxation tree farm 19, which is fee simple

land and not subject to export regulations.

MR. KING:

In view of the fact that processing these Vancouver Island logs would

keep 600 British Columbians employed for six weeks, has the minister

decided to oppose any relaxation of the policy regarding the export of

raw logs?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: There is no

consideration whatsoever of relaxing the requirements for review before

logs are exported. That procedure will carry on.

I would

also point out that according to MacMillan Bloedel, the company which

is contemplating export of the logs, there are no markets for the

manufacture of the fir lumber that would be made from these logs. If

government were to take action to prevent them from exporting logs, it

would probably result in the laying off of some 500 loggers.

MR. KING:

Has the minister held any discussions with the Chinese commercial

consulate, or with any official of the Chinese government, to obtain

sales of processed lumber from British Columbia instead of exporting

jobs in the form of unprocessed logs?

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

I think the member is well aware that I visited China last fall, and

since that time several delegations of Chinese involved in the forest

sector have visited British Columbia. As is the case with trips to

countries such as China, they always ask if they can buy logs from our

country. Our answer is always no; we prefer to manufacture logs to

create employment and industrial activity here in British Columbia.

That has been the policy of this government, the previous government

and governments in British Columbia for many decades, and will remain

so.

MR. KING: If that is the case, can the minister

explain why the export of raw logs increased this year over last year?

Last year 42,800 cubic metres were exported from July to December,

whereas this year 445,841 cubic metres of raw logs were exported from

January 4 to June 17. Is that not a change in policy?

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

I don't know the source of the member's statistics and I would very

much question the first number that he gave. I'll find that information

and bring it back to the House.

[ Page 8552 ]

The

policy remains unchanged. Any logs contemplated for export must first

be reviewed by the export advisory committee, whose members are from

the federal government, the provincial government, the industry and the

IWA; only after approval of such committee is a request made for an

export permit from this government. I would also say that a substantial

surcharge is placed on any logs to be exported. So in lieu of the

benefits created in British Columbia by manufacturing, there is a

higher return to the province as well.

IMPORTS OF LINER BOARD FROM U.S.

MR. SKELLY:

A question to the Minister of Forests. MacMillan Bloedel recently

closed its liner board operations at Port Alberni, throwing more than

100 people out of work. MacMillan Bloedel's carton plants in the lower

mainland are now importing their liner board requirements from

M&B's Pinehill operation in Alabama. Has the minister contacted

M&B to insist, where processing facilities are available in B.C.,

that B.C. resources be used in B.C. plants in order to protect B.C.

jobs?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Indeed, MacMillan Bloedel

has imported a minor amount of liner board from their United States

operation. They did this because they could obtain it at a lower cost

from Louisiana. In spite of having to overcome a 12 percent tariff

barrier, they could still acquire that liner board at a much lower cost

than from their former supplier, Eurocan Company in Kitimat.

MR. SKELLY:

A supplementary to the Minister of Forests. Is the minister saying he's

in favour of allowing a company which started in this province, and

which expanded internationally using profits earned on this province's

resources, to convert its operations in this province to a branch plant

of its Alabama operation?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: No, I'm

not saying that at all. What I'm saying is that we must not put

artificial barriers into the free trade that exists between our country

and the United States, and other trading nations of the world. If our

industry is to survive in the long run, then it must be competitive in

markets. In spite of the fact that there is a 12 percent impost on

liner board coming into this country, they can still purchase it

cheaper from their subsidiary operation in Louisiana. That should be a

lesson to all of British Columbia that if we are to remain competitive,

we must be competitive in the true sense and not expect to be protected

by artificial barriers.

MR. SKELLY: Has the Minister

of Forests estimated the amount of unemployment insurance and welfare

order to make M&B more competitive within its own operations? I'd

also be interested in hearing from the minister how many people he is

willing to see unemployed in this province in order to make M&B

more competitive in its operations.

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

Like all members of this government, I do not like to see any

unemployment in British Columbia. The marketplaces into which we trade

are very competitive, and my position is that our industry must be

allowed to be competitive and it must be able to compete in these

markets. If we were to begin to do the types of things that that member

suggests, the chances of retaliation by our trading partners in this

world are tremendous, and in the long term it would be very detrimental

to the industry in British Columbia.

MRS. WALLACE: I

have a further question to the Minister of Forests. When Noranda took

over MacMillan Bloedel they advised that they would be investing some

$500 million in upgrading plant here in British Columbia. When the

Chemainus mill closed, a MacMillan Bloedel spokesperson said that the

portion of money that had been designated for the Chemainus mill would

be routed to Alabama. Did the minister take any steps to prevent that

export of capital and jobs from British Columbia?

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

Again, we have one of these undisclosed sources. I would hope that that

member could advise me who in MacMillan Bloedel made such a statement,

for I have exactly the opposite information.

TAX INCREASES

MR. STUPICH:

Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of Finance. On Tuesday

last week the minister announced further increases in gasoline taxes

resulting from indexing of such taxes. In view of the current economic

recession, has the minister decided to de-index the gas tax and stop

gouging British Columbia motorists?

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Without in any way conferring a comment on the word "gouging," we have

ad valorem taxation of petroleum products in this province, and that is

set by statute, as the member knows. It should be noted that the last

change prior to the one which has just occurred was very minimal.

he's asking about future policy, of course I cannot answer that

question. But this House dealt with the ad valorem principle of

gasoline taxation — as is the case in a number of provinces now.

MR. STUPICH:

Mr. Speaker, I did not ask about what we have done in the past, but

about what we are going to do in the future because of the problems. On

an annual basis, the current increase amounts to one of 25 percent,

which is beyond all reason.

MR. SPEAKER: The member will restrict his debate.

MR. STUPICH:

In view of the fact that the government has no political mandate for

the hundreds of tax and user-fee increases over the past two years, has

the minister decided to review these increases because of the sagging

economy?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, all fees levied by government and generally described as user fees are under regular review.

MR. STUPICH:

The president of the Union of B.C. Municipalities estimates that

regulations passed on Friday under the Revenue Sharing Act mean that

$54.4 million previously paid by the province must be borne by the

municipalities this year. Why has the government decided to impose

[ Page 8553 ]

this additional burden on local property taxpayers at this time in our economic history?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I have not had an opportunity to review the contents of that communication.

MR. STUPICH:

Mr. Speaker, I suppose I can't say at this time that the minister

should know something about the regulation he put through on Friday. So

I won't say that, but I will ask: in view of the widespread protests at

property tax levels, particularly by commercial and industrial

taxpayers, has the minister decided to restore this funding which was

confiscated by the provincial government?

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Speaker, the question seeks an answer with respect to future

policy. But I take exception to the continued use by that member of the

word "confiscation." As the House knows, when we introduced

revenue-sharing, we said that it is the best program in the country.

is a program which will increase as provincial revenues increase; it is

a program which will level out as provincial revenues level out; and

indeed, when and if provincial revenues decrease, then a similar

decrease will be felt with respect to municipal revenue-sharing.

Notwithstanding the decrease which has occurred, the revenue-sharing

program between British Columbia and its local governments remains the

finest in this country.

MR. STUPICH: Given the

position now taken by hundreds of small business owners to defer

payment of property taxes, has the minister now decided to provide

emergency funding to the municipalities to compensate for these losses?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, no, I have not decided.

MR. STUPICH:

Mr. Speaker, I have one more question for the minister. It is estimated

that the British Columbia government will receive a $60 million

windfall because of federal income tax increases imposed by the recent

federal budget. Has the minister decided to rebate these increases to

British Columbia taxpayers in view of the regressive nature of the

de-indexing imposed by Ottawa?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr.

Speaker, we have had experience in the past — and I think that perhaps

that member did when he was on this side of the House — with revenues

which it was indicated would be coming from Ottawa. That is the

difference between our sharing with local government in British

Columbia and Ottawa's oft-repeated grants to provinces. Somehow they

disappear a little between Ottawa and the provincial capitals.

DE-INDEXING OF OLD-AGE PENSIONS

MS. BROWN:

Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance as well. The

decision of the federal government to de-index old-age pensions at the

same time as it is de-indexing taxes will deliver a double whammy to

many senior citizens in this province. My question to the minister is:

has he taken this into account, and has he decided on any action to

cushion seniors from the blows of this decision?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I think that all of us, regardless of political persuasion, share concern with respect to

what was announced in Ottawa last week, particularly with respect to

the elderly. Any decision taken by this government will of course be

taken in consultation with all of my colleagues, and particularly with

the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy). Such conversation

has not yet occurred.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to respond to a question taken on notice last week.

Leave granted.

GOVERNMENT EXPENSE VOUCHERS

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Mr. Speaker, the hon. second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald)

asked the Attorney-General the following question: "...did his

department give a legal opinion to the office of the

comptroller-general that the audit records of government, which must be

kept secure, cannot be photocopied by members of the public accounts

committee, which would make them even more secure? Did you give that

opinion?"

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated to the member, an

opinion was sought by the acting comptroller-general. The opinion

doesn't quite fit the question. Perhaps I can say that audit vouchers

are of a class of audit documents which have traditionally been kept

secure, as the member in his question notes. The comptroller-general

has the custody and control of those documents under his oath of

office. He is not authorized to release them except as legislation in

this province may provide. A consideration of the order of this House

referring the public accounts to the committee, of the Constitution Act

and the Financial Administration Act makes it clear that the

comptroller-general can in this context only release these documents

when he has been subpoenaed by the public accounts committee to do so.

Hence the photocopying of those documents at any time prior to their

presentation to the public accounts committee would amount to an

unauthorized release of the documents and therefore one which is not

within the authority of the comptroller-general.

Mr. Speaker, the member asked a second question: did the Attorney-General give

another opinion that members of the public accounts committee could not have

the help of staff in examining the expense vouchers of his own colleagues? The

response to that question is no, no such opinion was given. However, I would

say to the member that if the examination of those vouchers by others than members

of the committee would constitute unauthorized disclosure, then the same opinion

would apply.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe tabled the annual report of the British Columbia Heritage Trust for the year ended March 31, 1982.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT

(continued)

On Vote 32: minister's office, $206,012.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, I have a copy of a press release issued in July 1980 by the Minister of Lands, Parks

[ Page 8554 ]

and

Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) with respect to a specific issue in my

constituency, the imposition of a three-year moratorium on issuing

log-dump permits in that area. "The three-year period would provide an

opportunity for rationalization by the forest industry of its

log-handling practices" — and I'm reading from the press release, Mr.

Chairman — "in Baynes Sound, considering intermediate and long-term

needs. Of equal importance, it provides a time for study and securement

of a mariculture policy for the sound."

The Minister of

Environment at that time supported this three-year moratorium, this

study, and I'm wondering what stage it is at this point. As the

minister pointed out in the press release, it is imperative that

long-term policies be established to provide for the security of the

oyster-growing industry. Over 60 percent of the oysters in the entire

province are produced in the Baynes Sound area in my constituency. I'd

like an update on that.

The other thing that I wanted to

raise relates to an issue that was brought before the minister last

Wednesday morning during debate, relating to the use of various

herbicides, pesticides and sprays. I'm very concerned — as are many of

my constituents — with the way in which permits are given out, the way

that forest companies, and Hydro in particular, can get permission to

utilize these sprays for the purposes of controlling weed growth.

People

are becoming more and more skeptical about items like 2,4-D, for

instance. People are becoming more and more alarmed that the government

continues to allow these as-yet-unproven chemicals to be utilized on

the Hydro lines and by the Ministry of Forests.

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD:

These programs, it seems to me, are being utilized with insufficient

testing, Mr. House Leader. We don't know the long-term effects of a lot

of these products. People are becoming more and more skeptical because

of the fact that many of the tests that have been done on these

chemicals are, in fact, false tests, and the information that we have

received about the safety of these products is indeed false.

Another

problem is the fact that many of these companies do their own testing,

and we, as citizens in this country, have to rely on the information

that's provided to us by these companies. Very often that information

is most suspect.

In addition to the fact that many of these

chemicals, in my view, should not be used, we have the fact that the

provincial government regulations regarding their use are not being

enforced. I have a letter from a constituent who is very concerned

about the 2,4-D that was applied last year near the Qualicum River,

near Horne Lake, by the Forests ministry. He went to visit the site

some time after the 2,4-D had been applied, and he found tracks.... I'm

quoting from his letter: "I found tracks, or tears, of the chemicals

had run down literally every tree on the site out of the hatchet cuts,

and even the regional inspector for the Ministry of Environment agreed

that the program had not been very well executed." This person has

taken water samples and paid to have them tested for traces of 2,4-D.

He has taken pictures of the way in which this material was applied and

the way in which the tears of chemicals were running down following

that hack-and-squirt program.

The other thing is that the people that were utilized — and I'm not

sure whether this applies throughout the province — to apply this particular

pesticide were, in fact, not trained. They had no training whatsoever, and they

were simply inexperienced people hired off the street in order to apply a chemical

which we all know is potentially very dangerous.

would like to know what alternatives the provincial government is

looking at in terms of the use of 2,4-D and other sprays. Can we not

put more people to work in executing some of these programs? Has the

minister looked at the suggestions made by Dr. Ross Hall, who is a

professor of biochemistry at McMaster and who prepared a report for the

Canadian Environmental Advisory Council in which he suggests a number

of alternatives?

But, Mr. Chairman, if we're going to apply

those materials as carelessly as they were in the Qualicum area, then

there's no way I can support the use of any of these chemicals in any

way, shape or form. I would prefer that they were eliminated entirely.

HON. MR. ROGERS:

The member for Comox asked some questions. The Baynes Sound study was

done by our ministry as part of the study by Lands, Parks and Housing.

I'm not aware of the status of that particular report. We weren't going

to do a separate report. I understand that it was going to be included

in the study being done by Lands, Parks and Housing. Perhaps that

question might better be addressed to the Minister of Lands, Parks and

Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot). In any event, I will endeavour to inquire

about it.

Pesticides. To the member for Cowichan-Malahat

(Mrs. Wallace), I spoke about pesticides last week. I think it's worth

repeating some of what I said then, but some of what I have to say now

is perhaps new. All pesticide applicators who wish to apply pesticides

on Crown land — or, in fact, everywhere except on private property,

homes and gardens and agricultural operations — have to go through a

school and pass the test. Every operator, including the hack-and-squirt

people, have to have had formal training, and if they haven't, then

it's incumbent upon your constituents to report that to our people, and

we will do what we can. One problem is that it's a relatively short,

seasonal system; pesticide-application jobs just don't last that long.

We're

aware of the Hall report and have had discussions about it with

Environment Canada and with my colleagues in other parts of Canada.

Research is going on. Most of the research into alternatives to 2,4-D

is done by the Canadian Forest Service through Environment Canada. They

tend to have more of a handle on it than we do. After all, our job here

is the regulatory and enforcement side rather than research. For

example, Agriculture Canada does much more research into various

herbicides and pesticides than would Environment in British Columbia,

because their constituency is much larger in terms of using these

things.

There is still the problem of the IBT testing

laboratory and the various compounds of 2,4-D, where the findings were

not as correct as they should have been; but that's being worked on. In

the meantime, we insist on using those 2,4-Ds made by the so-called

clean method, without the various ester compounds that create problems.

I think we're working towards it. I think wholesale removal of

pesticides or herbicides is out of the question at the present time.

MS. SANFORD:

The minister mentioned that people who had information with respect to

the application of herbicides by inexperienced people should contact

his ministry. I have a letter that I wrote, dated June 25 of this year

— just a

[ Page 8555 ]

few

days ago — in which I enclosed a letter which a constituent personally

asked me to get to you. He has been complaining about this situation at

regional levels for a long time and has got nowhere. He asked if I

would please deliver this personally to you. So I wrote a covering

letter and enclosed his letter — just for the minister's information.

MR. KEMPF:

I have just two or three subjects while we're still on the estimates of

the Minister of Environment. Before I begin, I would like to comment on

a few of the words uttered by the member for North Peace River (Mr.

Brummet) before we adjourned last Wednesday. The notes I made then are

a little puzzling even to me at this time. One of the things the member

for North Peace River was talking about was the wolf-predation problem.

Of course, that is a very real problem to many of my constituents. He

mentioned the voracious appetite of wolves, and I just wanted to pass

on to him some statistics which I have grown conversant with over the

years. A full-grown wolf will consume the equivalent of a full-grown

moose per month. I think that is very interesting, when you consider

that wolves travel in packs of up to 25 or 30. So you can see what a

problem our ungulate herds are having with wolf predation.

During

the speech of the member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet), I also

heard the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) utter the words "Farley Mowat

in reverse." Yes, that was true. What the member for North Peace River

was speaking about was absolutely Farley Mowat in reverse. Some of

Farley Mowat's works can be compared to Pinocchio. I've never met Mr.

Mowat, but I'm sure that he too must have a very long nose. That is

exactly what you can compare Mr. Mowat's works to, particularly

regarding the wolf predation problem which this province faces. He

doesn't know what he's talking about when he talks about wolf

predation, and it's unfortunate.

MR. SKELLY: What has he written?

MR. KEMPF:

Mr. Chairman, the member for Alberni chatters away. I guess Farley

Mowat is all he reads. I wish he'd come up to the north sometime and

learn what the wolf predation problem is all about and see the kind of

fictitious stuff he's read that Farley Mowat has written.

Before

I get off the subject of wolf predation, the member for North Peace

River mentioned the Spatsizi and other areas in the northern part of

this province which could produce more wildlife than they do. We

presently have a caribou population of about 4,000 in Spatsizi Park.

With a proper predator control program in the Spatsizi, that same area

could produce 40,000 and possibly twice that number of caribou. It just

points out the exact problem that presently exists.

The

member for North Peace River told the little story about the wolves

surrounding a herd of sheep in his constituency. To the member of

Alberni, if Farley Mowat is speaking the truth, the member for North

Peace River must have an awful lot of old, sick sheep in his

constituency.

Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the minister a few

questions. First, I would like to ask for his reconsideration of a

proposal that was put forward by a number of individuals in Smithers

for the lease of the game production and hunting rights for the Telkwa

Range, which is a range of mountains just southeast of Smithers. The

proposal is to have this group of individuals set this area aside and

attempt to practise true wildlife management — as is done in many

countries in Europe — to prove once and for all that to practise that

kind of wildlife management can certainly be fruitful to many areas of

the province. I can see the reluctance on the part of the minister's

staff about this proposal. The bureaucrats are apprehensive, and

rightly so, because for a long time in British Columbia we haven't

practised proper wildlife management. I can see their apprehension.

They don't want to be proven wrong. They don't want that particular

proposal to go forward to prove, which I think it will, that through

good and proper wildlife management our wildlife herds could be

increased tenfold in this province. Their proposal in the Telkwa Range

wishes to do this. So I ask the minister if he is going to reconsider

that proposal. If not, why?

The second question I have

regards a proposal by a Dr. David Kuntz of Hazelton. He has made

application for a zoological permit. His proposal is for the salvaging

of maimed animals such as moose and deer along the northern CNR line.

Dr. Kuntz has a ranch in the Hazelton area. It is equipped with proper

pens, etc. He is a medical doctor, one of the best in the province of

British Columbia, and his proposal is for obtaining a zoological permit

in order that he may, through cooperation with Canadian National

Railways, pick up injured moose and injured deer along about a 150-mile

stretch of that railroad so that he can take them to his ranch and

nurse them back to health. My second question of the minister is: is he

seriously considering allowing Dr. Kuntz to obtain a zoological licence?

would like to commend the minister for what he says in his letter to me

about small suction dredges and the possibility of operating them in

the northern part of this province. I suggested in a letter to the

minister — the reply to which I received in this letter — the

possibility of a pilot project on the use of small suction dredges in

rivers and streams of this province for the purpose of placer mining. I

would suggest to him at this point that we proceed with such a pilot

project as quickly as possible.

Before I leave the subject

of this minister's estimates, there are three questions I'd like to ask

about the staff of his regional office in Smithers. As far as I'm

concerned, that staff — although it has risen from two 15 years ago to

some 17 today — is not doing its job for that area. I'd like to have

the answers to questions that I've already put on the order paper of

this Legislature. Those questions are as follows:

(1) How many do you

presently have on staff in the regional office in Smithers?

(2) What

are their job descriptions?

(3) What are their salaries?

[Mi. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. GABELMANN:

I'm going to be relatively brief this afternoon, which will please the

member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly). There are two issues that I want to

talk about, the first very briefly, and that's the decisions that have

been made by various members of cabinet relating to Robson Bight. I

recognize that some decisions are in Lands, Parks and Housing, others

are through ELUC and what not. But I want to suggest to the minister

that over the last few years, while the question of preservation of

whales in Robson Bight has been high in the public mind, some of the

proposals made, although I think they were quite well motivated,

wouldn't be very wise if they were to be implemented. Among those

proposals that have been not so widely recommended is one that there

should be some kind of park development in and around the Robson Bight

area. I appreciate that parks isn't the minister's

[ Page 8556 ]

responsibility,

but the fact that decisions that relate to the development or

non-development of that particular area are going to flow through ELUC

— and the minister is chairman of that committee — makes it, I think,

appropriate to talk about them in general here.

I think the

minister knows that I have argued for some time that next to dumping

logs in that bight, the worst thing we can do is dump people into it.

Everything that government does in terms of attempting to preserve that

particular piece of foreshore and waterway must be on the understanding

that, while whales are a social animal and are quite tolerant of a

limited amount of public participation with them, if some of the

proposals that have been made for parks on Cracroft Island or in the

Tsitika River basin and down onto the foreshore of Robson Bight itself

were allowed to go ahead, I think we would have devastation of the area

which would be as profound in its impact as would have occurred if a

log dump had been allowed to proceed. I am pleased to report that that

particular program isn't going to be allowed to proceed, that there

will not be a log dump. It seems from decisions made so far by Lands,

Parks and Housing that there will be limited public access to that

area. Obviously it's a waterway, and you can't control boating traffic,

but my plea is let's not make it any easier.

But there's a

third element in all of this that I think needs to be dealt with a

little bit more seriously, and that is that the bight is a shallow

area. One of the major attractions to it from the whale's point of view

appears to be the stones, the rubbing rocks, and the fact that the

whales can go in and roll around on these underwater stones. If the

logging that is proposed for the Tsitika watershed is allowed to go

ahead, even under the limited restrictions proposed under the Tsitika

public plan — which I don't think are very strict at all — that's in

existence at the moment, there will likely be enough siltation, if not

refuse, coming down that river to wipe out that bay from a third source.

We've

protected it from logs. We're likely, judging from the mood of

conservation and environmental groups, and from the government's

response, to preserve the bight from people. It seems we're moving in

that direction. But the one area that we haven't done enough about —

and I wouldn't mind hearing the minister's response to this — is in

finding some way either not to log those reaches of the Tsitika River

or to log in a selective and very careful way, which we haven't done on

the coast before, so that we don't get the kind of situation that would

be inevitable in normal logging practices. In my view, such siltation

would probably do as much damage as either the logs or the people would

have done. We've prevented the destruction from those two aspects, but

I wonder if we shouldn't look carefully at the third.

wouldn't mind if the minister, in commenting on that remark of mine,

would give his reaction to what I would think would be the logical

public designation of the lower reaches of the Tsitika River: that is,

that it be made into a public wilderness conservancy. To make it into a

park, I think, leads us in the wrong direction. To create an ecological

reserve on the foreshore itself and a certain number of feet into the

saltchuck does not solve the problem of industrial activity up the

river a little way, and it seems appropriate to me that that's a very

logical area for some kind of wilderness conservancy to be established.

I would appreciate the minister's comments.

By far, the

major environmental issue in my constituency is one that the minister

and I have had many exchanges of opinion about and many conversations

about, including in previous years' estimates debates; that's the

question of the proposed Quinsam coal development in Campbell River. I

don't think it would be very useful today for me to go into all of the

questions that concern residents in that area, and the people who come

to that area from all over British Columbia and beyond, who are

concerned about the possible impacts of a coal-mine development right

in the middle of a very important salmon-spawning area.

don't intend to go into all those technical kinds of things today; I

don't think very much would be served by it. We've had the exchanges of

comment before, and the minister's response is always that he's waiting

for the recommendations or that he will wait for the revised

second-stage report or application from Quinsam coal and the technical

evaluation of that by his staff before making any comment. So rather

than dealing with the substance of the environmental impacts, which are

all arguable — although not much argued in Campbell River.... The

feeling there is pretty clear. I think if people were polled, and if

they had any say as to the decision about whether or not this mine were

to be developed or to go ahead, clearly it would not go ahead, because

the public is overwhelmingly opposed to the construction of that

coal-mine.

I want to ask the minister three or four

questions. In the ELUC reaction to the stage two request, will economic

impact considerations be included in that reaction and in that

decision? In other words, the company proposes that they will be able

to provide so many people-years of employment for the area. Will there

be equally detailed studies into the economic impact of jobs that could

well be lost were that mine to do anywhere near the damage that it is

being said it could do? Will studies be done by the ministry about the

loss of jobs through the tourism industry, sports fishing and

commercial fishing in the Campbell River area?

I know that

minister's response to that would be to say: "We won't approve it

unless it's safe." My retort to that would be that mines have been

approved in this province before that haven't been safe. The nearest

one to Quinsam is the one at Buttle Lake, where guarantees were made by

the government that there would be no damage whatsoever downstream, and

yet there have been dramatic, devastating results. We've got other

examples, and I don't need to recite them, Carolin Mines being just the

most recent of a mine where things go wrong that aren't expected. I ask

the minister: will studies be done by his ministry through ELUC or

through some part of the government that will measure the economic

impact should something go wrong with a mine on that site?

Secondly,

I wonder whether the minister has looked at and has any reaction to the

report commissioned by the Campbell River town council on the mine, and

what his reaction is to their recommendations that the mine could not

be safe and should not be proceeded with.

My third question

is: in respect of the coal guidelines process, how does the ministry

expect to be able to measure the possible impact of coal-mining in that

area when no site-specific guidelines appear to exist? It appears, at

least, as if coal guidelines are established and then applied to

whichever applications are made from whatever part of British Columbia.

No coal-mines exist in high-rainfall areas such as the one we are

talking about in the uplands to the west of Campbell River. We cannot

compare it at all to any of the Kootenay or northeast coal-mine

projects. There is a particularly high

[ Page 8557 ]

sulphur

content, a high rainfall, and a very close proximity to three important

salmon-producing rivers, not to talk about a hatchery.

The

company, Quinsam Coal Ltd., talks about comparing itself to an

operation in Centralia, Washington. However, a variety of differences

exist there: different terrain, rainfall levels much lower down there,

and the important one is that the sulphur content in that particular

operation is much lower. How does the evaluating team measure the

unique aspects of coal-mining in a rain forest on the west coast?

think that the minister and I have some difficulty — as will probably

become clear when he responds — dealing with this issue at this

particular time, because it's my understanding that the company has not

yet submitted its stage two application, or it's just come in; I'm not

certain of that. I understood it was supposed to come in in June. The

minister shakes his head, so he still doesn't have the application. The

problem with it is that the next opportunity we will have to debate it

will be in estimates next year. He'll be the critic then.

The

problem remains that from an environmental point of view this is

probably one of the most sensitive industrial proposals that this

province has seen for some time. I'm not going to refer to anyone by

name or make any reference that people can draw certain names from, but

there are some highly placed people in surprising sectors of this

province who would normally be seen to be totally for pro-development,

for creating new jobs, for mining — all of those gung-ho things about

job development — who, even though they're in private business

themselves, when they look at this particular proposal, react with

sheer horror that the company would even consider spending the dollars

that they have in proceeding as far as they have. There is a shocked

disbelief that a word wouldn't have been given to the consortium of

Weldwood and Brinco, that they are throwing good money after bad and

that they should just abandon the project now because it is one that

could never be tolerated in British Columbia.

When I've

asked the question before in those ways, the minister has always said:

"No, we've got the rules, we've got the regulations, and I'll deal with

them as they come in. I'm not going to say yes or no before any project

goes through its normal process." But this is not a normal application.

What we're talking about here — and I think the public of British

Columbia has yet to grasp the full significance of this proposal — is

open-pit coal-mining in the heart of three of the better

salmon-producing rivers of British Columbia. We're talking about

open-pit coal-mining within miles of a community well known around the

world as the salmon capital of the world. For the government to have

remained silent in all these years of proposals by this particular

coal-mine company is astounding to a lot of people.

Millions

of dollars have been spent by the company in preparing its

applications. If the minister is at all considering that there is a

possibility that the answer will be yes as a result of these

applications, I would be very surprised. The minister must know, as I

think everyone who has looked at the issue knows, that it is not

possible to develop a coal-mine in that particular vulnerable,

high-rainfall, salmon-producing area — period. Yet the government's

silence has been an implicit approval to the company to proceed with

spending millions of dollars in preparing its reports and its

application. If the government were to say no to them, they would have

some cause, I think, to say: "Why didn't you tell us at the beginning

you were going to say no, because you're going to say no not based just

on technical requirements that are not site specific but on a variety

of other things." There are some other factors involved in a case like

this when virtually an entire community opposes.... The only

organization in town that is split on it is the chamber of commerce,

and they're coming around. When virtually the entire community is

saying no, how can the government even consider saying yes to that

proposal, particularly when we have no other evidence or examples on

this coast of successful open-pit coal-mining in that kind of terrain?

While

I anticipate the minister's answer to be that he's going through the

processes, I appeal to him to make it clear that there will be more

than just technical requirements that apply to east Kootenay or

northeast coal proposals and that the standards and regulations will,

in fact, reflect the peculiar and particular nature of that area in

Campbell River.

HON. MR. ROGERS: I'd like to answer the questions put to me by the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) first. Unfortunately he isn't here.

There

were questions about a proposal put forward by a private group of

people who wish to take over an area of Crown land and manage it as

their own wildlife area. While many people dispute whether or not the

government runs wildlife well, I think it remains our mandate to do so

and am not prepared to reconsider any proposal which would have areas

of the province's wildlife farmed out to other people for operation.

Regarding

the doctor who proposed salvaging wounded animals.... He didn't really

say so, but of course the animals became the property of this gentleman

after he was able to salvage the animals. Those that met their untimely

death would be given to the government for distribution to people who

would normally get a sustenance permit, but the others that survived

would become part of the doctor's essentially game-ranching operation.

We proposed game-ranching and ran it out to people, not on a

come-and-shoot basis, but on the fact that some of the general public

would like to be able to buy wild meat without having to go hunting for

it — either for dietary or other reasons. So we asked, and I'll tell

you that we got a very heavy response provincewide saying that they

didn't want it. Then we asked in one of these polls, and even there

some of the people said that they'd like to see it but they didn't

really think they'd buy much of it. So we've rejected that at this

time. It was never our intention to allow a private hunting preserve;

it was only our intention to give consideration to offering

game-ranching so that people who wanted to raise ungulates, slaughter

the animals and sell the meat, the hide and the velvet could so so.

When

I looked at the operation in New Zealand, it turns out that it's just

the velvet that they're interested in. The prices of the other parts of

the animal are such that....

The velvet's harvestable every

year, and they haven't done it. He asked questions about the regional

staff. We have a program of going to regional offices, and so our staff

in Smithers — as with our staff in a lot of other areas — has

increased. Appropriately our staff in Victoria has decreased. I'll

answer his question on the order paper.

Robson Bight is one

of the things I think we've done very well. I think it's been handled

well from the very beginning by Environment, federal Fisheries, and

Lands, Parks and

[ Page 8558 ]

Housing.

I share the member's concern. Once you understand the rubbing rocks,

the beaches that they wallow in, and the rest of it, two problems

become apparent. One is that we identified for a lot of people who

didn't know about it the fact that here is an area where the whales

come to play and relax. We don't quite understand all the things they

do there, but we are understanding more every year. The best way to do

it is to let them go and do it and not to bother them. That means being

very diligent about what happens upstream and also not making it

park-bench, ten cents into the glass to watch them, and all that kind

of stuff. That kind of activity is going to lead to further problems

for the whales, who are doing pretty well, by the way.

don't think a park is the solution, but some kind of a reserve status

would be. Lands, Parks and Housing are working on it with the Tsitika

followup committee, and I think they'll have a successful resolution to

it. I hope so. I think it has been handled very well.

Quinsam

coal. I don't think I'd be misjudging the public in Campbell River if I

said that you were correct. The majority of the people in Campbell

River, if they could give their opinion on a ballot somehow, would

probably say that they are not prepared to take Quinsam coal. I don't

know if they would say no at any price, but I think if the simple

question were put there right now, they'd probably say no.

But

that's not the only criterion we're going to use. You asked about

impact on other industries. Industry and Small Business, of course,

does the positive side of the impact on jobs and spinoffs. Environment

is quite involved with what happens on the negative side of it — what

happens in the event of a water system degradation. So we balance

industry's optimism with a cloud of our own, saying that this is what

would happen in the event that we had a problem based primarily on

fisheries management. Tourism, of course, would have an impact as well,

but the fisheries side would be looked after by us.

The

submission I have from Campbell River town council should be part of

the whole ELUC consideration. Rather than dealing with them in

isolation — we haven't dealt with the company in isolation in advance —

we will consider it at that time, although I have read it.

You

asked about the site specifics. Of course, under the coal guidelines,

that is the stage three proposal, and there aren't other examples to

use. If the company gets through the stage two approval, from there on

in it's fairly routine, generally speaking, to go into stage three. I

don't think that would be the case here, because there isn't a signpost

along the way to say: "Here's another company that went through it two

years ago, and this is what their studies have to do." The site

specific studies as laid down by the coal guidelines steering committee

would be at the stage three level, although I think most of the

problems they would have to address in stage three would probably come

out in stage two in any event.

You asked why I don't go and

see the company and tell them the writing is on the wall or whatever.

There is no way a minister can do that with any company. I mean,

hindsight is 20-20. Imagine going to see some of the corporate

operations in the province and saying: "Well, we've looked at this

thing, and common sense would dictate that you people shouldn't have

made that decision." You know, if I'm an expert in business, I'd better

stand accountable to my shareholders — or to me, if it's a

proprietorship, or to my partners if it's a partnership — for the

decisions that I make or the decisions that management makes. The very

same thing has to apply here. Those are the kinds of questions that

they're going to have to answer for themselves. I'm not prepared to

make the decision in the absence of the information. They haven't come

and solicited an opinion from me particularly, and I don't think it's

my duty to go and give one to them either.

MR. KING:

I just have three matters to raise with the minister. I think he is

probably intimately familiar with each and every one of them.

Mr.

Minister, you've heard of the Illecillewaet River. It's close to

Revelstoke, as the minister knows. We have an annually recurring

problem with respect to flooding from that river at its confluence with

the reservoir created by the Keenleyside Dam. There are 13 families

affected annually by the flooding that occurs usually in the dead of

winter, Mr. Chairman, at a time when the flooding situation is about as

bad as it can be. Flooded basements are always a nuisance, often a

health hazard, and of course in the dead of winter they create all

manner of hazards to furnaces and other appurtenances that people keep

in their basements.

B.C. Hydro, when they first acquired the

land incident to the development of the Keenleyside Dam, did initially

offer to buy out at least some of the people involved in this flooding.

They eventually decided to dyke that area, and they did install a dyke.

Subsequent to that time the old dam on the Illecillewaet River, which

used to be the generating station for a power supply to the city of

Revelstoke, was removed, and literally hundreds of thousands of tonnes

of silt and gravel were washed down, elevated the level of the channel

and as a consequence slowed down the flow of that river, as did the

elevation of the Keenleyside reservoir; it is now much retarded in

terms of its flow into the river.

The problem has been

studied and studied and studied, Mr. Minister, and the people are tired

of studies — they want some action. It was dredged at one point in

time, and that relieved the problem for a period of time. But I want to

appeal to the minister. We've had correspondence over this matter, and

the only thing I can assure the minister of, Mr. Chairman, is that the

correspondence will continue until the problem is solved. But

realistically, a significant number of people are involved here; they

never had this problem before. You know, one can be over-technical and

one can engage in all the hydrological engineering studies; one can go

into a whole variety of costly analyses of precisely what is causing

the problem — whether it's the increased level of the groundwater,

whether it's the increased elevation of the channel from the

Illecillewaet River. I think it's a combination of all those things and

the phenomenon of extreme icing of that slowed-down river channel in

the winter, which tends to back up the river and probably increase the

level of the groundwater. But I want to submit to the minister that

we're spending more money on studies than we are on resolving the

problem.

Mr. Minister, I would like an answer. I appeal to

the minister, on behalf of my beleaguered, patient, tolerant

constituents, to please do something decisive — whether it's dredging

the river, an improved standard of dyking or some offer to purchase

those properties that are impaired greatly in terms of their comfort to

the landowners. I would appreciate something from the minister on that.

One

other issue I want to raise with the minister — and I shan't be long —

is the question of the notorious Eurasian milfoil problem in Shuswap

Lake, or in the Okanagan lake chain and the prospect of its major entry

into the Shuswap lakes. I'm concerned that the funding for control

stations to

[ Page 8559 ]

monitor

boats travelling from the Okanagan chain to the Shuswap chain has been

withdrawn. The statistics regarding the number of boats that were

actually apprehended containing Eurasian milfoil on the propeller or on

some part of the boat, which could then easily be introduced into the

Shuswap chain, was very high. It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that it's

false economy for the minister to withdraw the funding from those

control monitoring stations and allow the almost inevitable

introduction of Eurasian milfoil into the Shuswap chain in a major way,

which will present the government and the taxpayers of this province

with a far greater bill — indeed, an enormous bill — in terms of any

program of control and elimination of the nuisance after it takes root.

So I want to appeal to the minister to restore that funding.

note that the Salmon Arm and District Chamber of Commerce comment on it

in their newsletter of June 17. In case the minister missed that

document, I'll read it into the record:

Foiled again. As of May 5, 1982, the Ministry of the Environment

discontinued Eurasian milfoil quarantine check stations. Many areas

feel that replacing the stations with a public awareness and education

campaign will not reach enough of the boating public to be effective.

"Statistics

released by the aquatic studies branch for 1981: (1) three check

stations — Enderby, Midway and Falkland; (2) 12,679 boaters voluntarily

stopped; (3) 218 boats found to be transporting Eurasian milfoil weed;

(4) eight percent of boaters did not stop; (5) percentage of weed found

on boats checked at boat launches was much higher.

"Withdrawal

of the check-station program could accelerate the spread of Eurasian

milfoil in lakes in the Shuswap region, creating immeasurable problems

for the future of tourism and residential development in our area. We

ask all Salmon Arm and district residents to check their own boats and

those of your friends when boating in lakes known to contain Eurasian

milfoil weed. Help keep our lakes clear and clean."

I draw

this to the minister's attention simply to emphasize and stress that

the now relatively minor cost of maintaining those monitoring stations

is a prudent investment in terms of the cost of any cleanup after the

weed takes root in the Shuswap chain. When we're spending millions of

dollars to attract tourists to that part of the country offering one of

the most beautiful and well-used recreational spots in the interior of

the province, it seems penny wise and pound foolish to withdraw the

amount of funding necessary to maintain what intelligent monitoring can

be enforced, to apparently pretty effective use.

The other

matter that I want to raise with the minister is also of long standing,

one that we've discussed in past session, and of course in private. As

well, the minister has received correspondence on it from a variety of

local organizations in the Revelstoke area. The Rod and Gun Club has

written to him complaining of the bear problem in Revelstoke. Our

conservation officer was cancelled some years ago, and we are now

serviced only by a conservation officer stationed in the city of

Nakusp. He has as his territory all of the country lying between Nakusp

and Mica Creek, which is, as anyone can readily recognize, an

absolutely impossible task for the conservation officer, who is a

hard-working individual and does a pretty good job within the ambit of

the resources at his disposal. The recurring bear problem in our area

is getting beyond being a laughing matter. At one point, families in

the village of Mica Creek were barricaded in their trailers on the Mica

property because the grizzly bears had become so brazen they'd

virtually taken over the village. That is a dangerous situation. Black

bears are bad enough, but Grizzlies are unpredictable, and a highly

dangerous animal.

It's not good enough to rely on the RCMP.

They are not equipped to do the job of controlling bears. The minister

has in the past relied on Parks Canada to do the job that the

provincial government has jurisdiction for. The minister has conceded

that there is insufficient staff and resources to adequately patrol

that area for bear control, or indeed any of the other important duties

of a conservation officer in a rural area. Until last year we had an

assistant conservation officer in Revelstoke. He is a local chap who

worked part time and had a great knowledge of and dedication to game

management, control of the fisheries and to the ideals of environmental

control generally. His name is Alan Aho. The funding was withdrawn for

him. He worked at a very low cost to the ministry and did an

outstanding job. In fact, I can tell the minister, Mr. Chairman, that

the only time I have ever been checked in my life, either hunting or

fishing — and I've done both since I was very young — was by Alan Aho.

I think it was two years ago when I was fishing at Downie Creek. The

guy got around, did a good job and provided some control to the area in

terms of protection of the fish and wildlife and also in terms of

protecting people from problems with bears and that type of thing.

The

minister received a letter from Mr. Bill Gallagher, the superintendent

of Mount Revelstoke National Park. I want to read part of it. I don't

want to embarrass the minister. The minister is not a bad chap at all,

Mr. Chairman, but I think his government should be embarrassed at the

contents of this letter that was received from Parks Canada. I do this

not to embarrass him but to try to lend more emphasis and be more

persuasive in my argument that appropriate allocations be made so the

ministry assumes its full responsibility in this area. Part of the

letter says:

"For the past few years, black

bears have been few in number, no doubt due to the indiscriminate

destruction of these animals on provincial lands, in construction and

logging camps and townsites; also the uncontrolled illegal hunting

practices existing in areas surrounding the national parks because of

minimal coverage by B.C. Fish and Wildlife officers. The bear

population, as well as other game species, is on a drastic decline.

"If

I may suggest that, since the reorganization of the B.C. Fish and

Wildlife branch, the very few officers who are remaining to cover

impossibly large areas can only result in a very serious wildlife

resource situation in the Kootenay-Columbia region of British Columbia.

The national parks are directly affected since, as you are aware, many

of the wildlife species are migratory between provincial and federal

lands.

'"In conclusion, if any of the Fish and

Wildlife staff suspect that a problem bear is a national park animal

because of tags or otherwise, please have them contact immediately the

park warden staff as it is of mutual concern to both agencies."

[ Page 8560 ]

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Basically

what prompted this letter was a suggestion by the minister that all of

the bear problems emanated from the federal parks, which is nonsense. I

guess this government has gotten into the habit of pointing the finger

at Ottawa, and now they're even going to blame the problem bears on

them.

It's interesting that the minister responded to that

letter, and confirmed and acknowledged that indeed his ministry was

remiss in terms of providing the staff and resources necessary to hold

up their end of the bargain. He responded by saying:

"Thank

you for your letter. It is important to recognize, as your letter

points out, that management of animals which are potentially dangerous

to the public is a difficult matter, and that our agencies must work

cooperatively to find satisfactory solutions.

agree that additional Ministry of Environment management and

enforcement staff in the Revelstoke area would be desirable, and I am

taking steps to provide that staff. I know you will appreciate,

however, that in times of fiscal restraint, provision of additional

manpower can be a difficult task."

This letter was written on March 16, 1982.

I acknowledge that we are in difficult economic times and that

every reasonable area must be looked at very closely in terms of

curbing government expenditures. But I want to submit to the minister

that there is no way that something as serious as bears invading a

community, and to a great extent inevitably jeopardizing the lives and

safety of children in that area, should be subject to the restraint

program of this government. I don't think the minister intends that

either. I take him at his word when he says in his letter: "I am taking

steps to provide that staff." I ask for his assurance that indeed we

can expect additional conservation officers and the re-establishment of

a local officer in the city of Revelstoke.

HON. MR. ROGERS:

I'm reliably assured that a couple of votes from now is a vote that

will cover the massive increase in the travel budget for the

conservation officers, which you asked for last year and which has now

been included, thanks to the generosity of the Treasury Board, in this

year's budget. I'm sure there'll be a division on it. I hope you'll

stand up and support me.

Interjection.

HON. MR. ROGERS: We always have to enjoy a little humour on the thing.

I've

got some either good or bad news for you: the regional director is

considering locating conservation officers in Revelstoke. One of the

problems we want to solve has to do with having a single conservation

officer's depot. When people phone and he's not in the office, they

think he's not at work; when he's in the office and not on the road,

they think he's not at work. So where we can, two conservation officers

are operating out of one office; then we have a half-day secretary to

do some of the typing, which most conservation officers find to be a

skill they are not particularly adept at. Nonetheless, it is something

that is required because of the forms they have to complete and some of

the reports they put in.

So we try to put conservation

officers together to work as a team; and there is a very substantial

increase in their travel budget this year over last year. Considering

fiscal restraint, that's very positive. That was a big problem they had

last year. We kept hearing reports of their not having enough fuel. In

fact, they're on their own. They have a management problem; they talk

to their regional office, but they're literally left to manage their

own affairs. They do a pretty good job, by and large, on a

province-wide basis.

You mentioned $60,000 worth of funds

for the Columbia-Shuswap Regional District in terms of Eurasian water

milfoil. Last year it cost about $135,000 per station to monitor

vessels moving with Eurasian water milfoil. I think the public is

pretty well aware of it. We've got all the border points posted, and

most lakes are posted now. At the present time, Eurasian water milfoil

is so implanted in the Shuswap system that it's almost pointless. We

should now watch vessels moving from Shuswap to the Okanagan. It's not

quite as bad as that. You have some of the public cooperating, but you

only need one or two people not cooperating to destroy the whole thing.

It needs only one carrier to implant the weed.

The

Illecillewaet River: all your correspondence and all my studies really

don't solve the problem, but we are trying to do something about it. We

are working on it. We've put in three observation wells. There's the

question of whether the high-ground water comes from the backup in the

reservoir, or whether it comes from natural causes, such as an ice

buildup in the river. We'll go back and take another crack at it, and

see if we can do something. In the final analysis, we may have to move

the people, but that's not really the solution that most of them want.

I think they would like us to find a proper and workable solution to

the problem. It may be that they do want to be bought out; but we'll

take another crack at it and see what we can do.

MR. KING:

One further quick question to the minister. I recall asking the

minister last year — he may recall it too — about game permits for the

export of carcasses during hunting season, and the problem with

conservation offices not being open on weekends. A number of people

have had moose carcasses seized in Alberta simply because they forgot

to obtain an export permit. They were travelling back from the Alaska

Highway to southern British Columbia. I was one of those people, but

fortunately I remembered to get my export permit. The RCMP make a joke

out of it in Alberta and say it is a great way to get a free moose when

they find unsuspecting British Columbians coming out. The problem, of

course, is that the conservation offices are not open on the weekends.

question to the minister is: can you simply not allow the RCMP to issue

those export permits for the weekend so that people can go on their

way, without having to spend a harried weekend in Fort St. John or some

other exotic spot?

HON. MR. ROGERS: You said earlier,

when you were winding up your comments, that this is the only comment

you had to make. I have it written right here: "Bill didn't get his

moose." I knew darned well you would have brought it up again this year.

did ask the director of Fish and Wildlife to ensure that RCMP officers

could give those permits. I'd have to check to make sure it was done,

but I did talk to him; now that you've mentioned it, I'll make a note

to check, but I did ask him your question during last year's estimates.

Unfortunately, I had the same problem; I didn't have a transportation

of animal problem. However, the fishing was excellent.

[ Page

8561 ]

MR. NICOLSON:

I have six questions, one of which is similar to the question just

raised by my colleague on flooding. It's such an important problem. If

there's a flood in the lower mainland that affects 500 people and the

damage runs over a million dollars, it becomes a national disaster and

then there are funds available from the federal government and matching

funds from the provincial government. It is treated totally differently

from what happens when some small creek backs up and maybe nine homes

are flooded, yet the damage to those individuals on a per capita basis

is every bit as devastating. The problems even in my one constituency

are too numerous to go into them all, but as an example, one problem is

in Kaslo. The Kaslo River runs right through the village where a senior

citizens' housing project was being constructed. It was then designated

as being on a floodplain. Of course, there is other housing and

construction all around it as well. You know, there is a real need to

do something about it. We have to face the fact that having put all

this housing and so on into these areas, we do have to interfere with

nature and we cannot allow alluvial fans to operate in their normal

manner.

Another area is Salmo. They formed the Salmo

Residents Association, and I've worked with them. My colleague's

remarks were all too familiar. I recall the Brady report in 1974, the

Morley report in 1976 and now the Rungas report in 1981, but there has

been no real action. In fact, a little bit of work was done — some

dyking was built and so on. But I would submit to the minister that one

of the problems is that he has responsibility for a couple of the

departments — the provincial emergency program and certainly the water

management branch — but when it really does come to an emergency

situation, the Ministry of Highways are the ones with the equipment. In

real emergency situations they could move in and place rip-rap and

heavy equipment and do that kind of work.

I would like to

propose to the minister that he form some kind of intersector

committees in the various districts in which the provincial emergency

program, water management and the Ministry of Highways and such other

ministries as might be involved in certain problems — be it due to

Forests, the manner of cutting or whatever is affecting water sheds —

take on some of these identified priorities. I know there are probably

several priorities in every interior riding, but he should identify

some priorities and maybe even set class one, class two and class three

problems. Some of these involve fairly major river systems; others

involve creeks where the problem might be solved for something less

than $1 million and others might involve something where the problem

could be solved for less than $100,000.

We do know that each

year people are losing furnaces and contents of freezers; there is

warping, there is unsettling of houses and the cracking of foundations,

and all of these things happen because these areas are settled. The

Crown alienated the land, and nobody stopped people from building

houses in these areas. In some cases we even have municipalities

located in these areas that are designated as floodplain.

Last year in my riding, in the village of Salmo, there was some work done on

Erie Creek. There also needs to be work done on the Salmo River. This year in

Lardeau in the Meadow Creek area the river came up over the highway. There

is a huge log jam up there and people debate on whether removing the log jam

would solve some of those problems or exacerbate the problems. This year we

were very fortunate with the runoff in that we had very high snow and a very

late runoff. It stayed cool and clear for a long time and there was a very long,

controlled runoff. We escaped almost unscathed, but we just cannot tempt nature

much longer, Mr. Chairman.

would invite the minister's reaction to forming some kind of an

intersector committee, and I think it should be done all over the

province to start trying to pick these problems off one by one. There

have been three reports on the Salmo River since 1974. As my colleague

said, I don't know how many reports on the river or creek which I will

not even attempt to pronounce — Illecillewaet or whatever it is.

Number

two: I'd like to voice my displeasure with the manner in which the fish

and wildlife licence increases occurred this year. Licences have been

printed with several years on them, and you tick off or you actually

eliminate the years that do not apply on the licence form — and I don't

know if the current form will be usable until 1985. It does away with

the reprinting of licences every year. But look what happened this

year. For the fishing licence alone, you raised the fees from, I think,

$5 to $13. Word of this got out; there was almost a land-office rush

from some people who knew about it. In certain districts the word got

out and in other districts the word didn't get out, and before that

licence increase went into effect there were lineups in certain areas

for people getting their fishing licences, hunting licences and all

these licences. Now somebody comes along later this year and he's only

going to fish the last half of the season, but he's got to pay 13

bucks, and some guy who has had his licence for the whole season paid

five bucks. It just wasn't good management. I would hope that if you're

getting another directive to increase licence fees, you come up with a

better, fairer way of doing it so that all licence fees for that

calendar year will be equal. You could have realized just as much

revenue if you had put in a lower licence increase this year but had it

applied fairly and equally to all.

The third thing is the

water licence increase. It appears the minister was given a directive

from Treasury Board to raise so many dollars. A water licence increase,

of course, affects individual water-right owners. I've had senior

citizens who, on top of having to pay $500 property tax for the first

time in their life — having paid $1 in the previous year — to add

insult to injury have seen their water licence increase by a few

hundred percent or something — a very large percentage increase, at any

rate. But I suppose the most important one in our area is the effect of

the water licence increase to Cominco, where that increase represented

almost the equivalent of one month's payroll. Was any impact study done

as to what was going to happen to Cominco and its operations if you

were to suddenly levy an increase, when we know that the Bunker Hill

smelter operation down in the United States — a very similar operation,

although not as competitive and as modern as Cominco — had closed down

because of the world economics of the smelting business? Was any kind

of impact analysis done, or were you just following orders from the

Minister of Finance (Hon- Mr. Curtis)?

The fourth thing is the Valhalla wilderness proposal. The

Regional District of Central Kootenay has now endorsed a proposal which

would more or less include everything from the southern end of the

proposal at the Mulvey basin up through the Evans Creek drainage, the

Beatrice drainage, the Wee Sandy and the Nemo Creek drainage and

excluding only some of the most northern portions that were requested

by the proponents in the Valhalla Wilderness Society. I would like to

bring to the minister's attention that the regional district is

[ Page 8562 ]

now

behind us, after some debate, and that on that regional district are

the representatives from the village of New Denver, the village of

Silverton and the village of Slocan, the mayor of which is an employee

of Slocan Forest Products.

There has been a tremendous

amount of study, and the reports show... What they're calling for is an

exploitation of the Valhallas, but not the normal kind of exploitation;

the exploitation will be as a recreational resource, and they're

looking at it in a very economic way. I would just like to tell the

minister that there are very high expectations in the area. I imagine

it's to be reviewed by ELUC, of which the minister is chairman, and

certainly people are very well informed as to the kind of study that's

gone into it. I hope that after all this very careful work it's not

going to be disregarded by having a really political decision made on

the basis of some kind of ministry representation at ELUC rather than

government going back and telling their ministries what government has

decided on behalf of the people.

I'd also like to bring up

the business of budgets. I hope that this year the provincial emergency

program is not going to run out of an operating budget in June, as it

did last year. It's my understanding that last year the budget was

taken up because of some precautions they took about the drawdown of a

water supply in my colleague for Cowichan-Malahat's (Mrs. Wallace'

s) riding, but that actually drained all of the operating budget and cut

off a lot of the volunteer programs — or certainly made them very

difficult — to the point that by July programs had to be cancelled

because the local coordinators couldn't even rent a hall in which to

carry on instruction or serve coffee. I'm glad to hear that this year

there's an increase in the budget, because last year during the hunting

season COs were grounded. I don't know why there couldn't have been a

special warrant.

HON. MR. ROGERS: No, not quite.

MR. NICOLSON:

They were grounded. I know COs in our area. I socialize with COs in our

area, and believe me, they were grounded during the hunting season last

year. The minister can deny it if he likes, but that was the situation,

and I hope that.... The minister well knows that, doesn't he? The

member for Columbia River (Hon. Mr. Chabot) well knows that they were

grounded. I don't know if that was by order of some members, but....

Those

are six items. I would like the minister's response to the possibility

of forming intersector committees around the province to look into the

flooding problems of each area, and of having a better way of

introducing licence increases when they must be introduced in the

branch. I'd like his response as to whether there was any kind of

economic impact study done prior to imposing water licence increases,

particularly on Cominco, and to the Valhalla wilderness proposal

concept, how soon it will come before his committee and when a decision

will be brought down. I'd also like an assurance that funding problems

will not leave ministries or departments like the provincial emergency

program on hold for a whole year, or the CO vehicles and the

conservation officers virtually grounded during hunting season.

HON. MR. ROGERS:

You started off by mentioning flooding. I might digress a little bit

from what you said. Virtually every year during the season — if it is

such, because it's not really a season — people come and say that we

should have stricter regulations about people building on the

floodplain, but about now I start getting letters from mayors and

regional districts saying that onerous regulations of our ministry are

preventing people building on the floodplain — "We've got a couple of

old-timers up here who say it never floods in this area." We've had two

cases that strike my mind — one is a hospital that was proposed for a

fan and the other a housing development proposed for a floodplain, both

of which we were roundly criticized for stopping in the first place and

both of which flooded in the subsequent winter. I don't know how to

explain it. It happens every year: they come and see me saying that

they want it changed; they think that anybody should be able to build

anywhere they want — just because we say it's a floodplain — and then

they want assistance. Of those municipalities that have adopted our

floodplain regulations, many are much better off for it now. But there

are a whole host of residences and industries and businesses located in

areas subject to flooding, and it's a constant problem with us year in

and year out.

In terms of a disaster, we don't — at least I

don't — distinguish between one in the lower mainland and one in your

part of the province. Each individual disaster is addressed by cabinet.

Where a compensation program is decided upon, I am given a mandate for

the various items to be covered under that compensation program. Only

when the damage from a particular event — be it a tsunami or an

earthquake or a flood or even a fire for that matter — exceeds $1 per

capita for the province does the federal government kick in with

assistance. Had we had the kind of disaster that we could have had in

the lower Fraser Valley this year, for example, which we were very

fortunate about — we came very close — then the federal government

would in all likelihood have been involved, because the damage

certainly would have gone over that level. Some good things came out of

that. One was the fact that we have now moved the provincial emergency

program offices into the mainstream of the Ministry of Environment

offices. They used to be a separate entity, but they now have all of

the facilities available within the ministry. You're right, Highways

almost always has the equipment and almost always works with us in the

event of any disaster, because they have more earth-moving equipment,

trucks, tankers, or whatever else is involved. We have done what you've

suggested we do this year. The dress rehearsal that we went through for

flooding in the lower Fraser Valley was a good exercise for everybody —

everything from citizen's band radios to the availability of cots, high

ground, schools to accommodate people, cafeterias, and the whole thing.

It was a very well done rehearsal.

We have come a long way.

We could still use more money every year for riverbank improvement and

flooding-prevention assistance. It's a big dollar amount required

provincewide, and one that I'll continue to work on. Had the snow come

a little bit before Treasury Board, we might have been able to have it

this year, but in October, when these things are being considered,

people tend to forget the flood of the previous winter, or the lack of

one, whatever happens.

Fish and Wildlife increases. I was

upset about it as were the people in Fish and Wildlife. Our increases

were not as high as the recommendations that we had from groups on the

outside which said they should be increased. I was under considerable

pressure to increase them. We know that some people, suspecting that

the licences would go up, took advantage of it and got themselves a

bargain. It won't happen again next year, and I doubt if it will happen

for many years to come. Nonetheless, that's the situation.

[ Page

8563 ]

Water licence increases. Serious consideration was given, on a

province-wide application basis, to what those increases would do to

affect West Kootenay Light and Power, B.C. Hydro, and all the

industries. That's one of the things the cabinet considered when they

made that decision.

The Valhalla Wilderness proposal.

Colleen and I are now on a first-name basis. She's been to see me three

or four times and I think has met all the members of ELUC. I have

certainly signed my share of letters on the subject, and I'm sure you

have as well. It does come before ELUC, I would think in late July,

maybe sometime in August. There are about five things in the hopper,

including the Cascade Wilderness, Valhalla, Windy Bay and Robson Bight.

There are several things coming, and they're aware of that.

The

provincial emergency program. Yes, we did spend quite a lot of money

last year trying to solve a problem in the Cowichan area. Those pumps

which we purchased are back in our inventory. It was a capital

investment which we made and didn't give away, and it's nice to have

the extra equipment around. I think we'll be able to survive this year

because it was a very substantial outlay which was done to meet a local

emergency. I think we'll be able to solve that this year.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

Mr. Chairman, we do have a couple of serious matters that I'd like the

minister to be aware of. First of all, we're quite fortunate that to

date we haven't had the possible severe flooding problems that we could

have. I'm thinking primarily of Bella Coola. I have been in touch with

your engineers and water rights people — what they're doing, and what's

not happening. I should point out first that in that particular area

the major flooding takes place usually in August, so we don't know

whether there is going to be a major flood this year. I hope not, but

there is still a possibility. Just three years ago we had a major flood

in the 10-year cycle. The floods in that area, as you know, go in

5-year, 10-year, or 25-year cycles. The 5-year cycle in that area is

horrendous. It wiped out the whole community less than 100 years ago.

That could happen again this year, but we hope not. Those possibilities

exist in that particular valley because of the nature of the valley.

I've

got to tell you that I've been in constant touch with the committee of

the regional district in the community called the flood protection

committee. Your engineers are there quite frequently taking readings.

These kinds of things are all very useful, but the bottom line is

money. Perhaps the minister, if it's possible to get that figure at

this time, could tell us what funds have been set aside for actual

flood control banking for Bella Coola. The minister is very much aware

of what I'm discussing, so I'll leave that point.

Another

topic I want to briefly discuss with the minister is mariculture and

fish farming. I raise this topic every year under this particular vote.

The minister has a great deal of knowledge in these matters. However,

large parts of my riding lend themselves to this particular industry.

From time to time I meet with the various groups who are involved in

mariculture, oyster raising and fish farming, etc. They seem to be at

the bottom of the totem pole. They're not recognized as farm income

groups so they don't get the tax breaks on gasoline, for example, that

the farmers get in that regard, or the break in a whole lot of other

taxes.

When it comes to seeking waterfront leases for this purpose.... They're

usually relatively small areas. I know this is more under the Ministry of Lands,

and I don't want to get too far away from this, but you are in cabinet,

Mr. Minister, and you must have input into this particular industry. What we

have is application after application blocked. We see people getting applications

approved for waterfront leases in front of their private homes for moorage of

their $350,000 sailboats, but some person who wants a lease to go into business

to raise clams or oysters or for fish farming or whatever has a great deal of

problems. In fact, there have been lease applications refused in my riding because

on the uplands side is a TFL, of all things. It is utterly ridiculous that on

that basis they would refuse a lease to a person who wants to get into the business.

don't want to hear the fact this year that too many people want to get

into the business because it's lucrative, attractive and all those

things. That may be, but it's also a heck of a lot of hard work. The

markets aren't that great, but that's no reason. You're over there.

You're always talking about initiative. If these people want to go into

the business and make it, fine; if they don't, that's the way it is in

free enterprise. What I'm suggesting to you and your colleagues in

cabinet is that this is an aspect of the mariculture industry that

should be looked at.

One thing I might tell you under this estimate is that I have a great deal

of respect for some of the technical people in the ministry. I really do. They

know their stuff. If they've got the means to work with it, fine. They don't

often have the.... It always boils down to money, doesn't it?

The

next — and not the last — thing I have on my list is pesticides. I know

this matter has been raised before. I know the minister is familiar

with it. Most of the letters that I received on this particular topic

were actually addressed to you with copies to me. Let's be conservative

in this House, if we may, because there are no others here at the

moment. We received approximately 300 pieces of correspondence relating

to some companies and forest service applications to apply pesticides

in certain areas of my riding, primarily within the Powell River

Regional District in this particular case.

To apply to

pollute and dump these possibly very dangerous chemicals into

watersheds and in some areas where people live — certainly where

there's animal and fish habitat — it costs them absolutely nothing. But

in order for these 300 or 400 people, who have written me — the

minister has responded to every one with a standard reply, which is

fine — to appeal that application, they have to pay a $25 fee. Don't

you think, Mr. Minister, that your priorities are mixed up a little

bit? Don't you think it would be better to charge those large

multinational companies, and the forest service in this case, a fee for

application to use those possibly dangerous chemicals? Why shouldn't

those ordinary people out there who are concerned about the health of

their families and children be allowed to appeal for free? In this particular instance,

because of the local community pressure, the regional district has

hired a solicitor and will be filing —if they have not done so already —

a blanket appeal on behalf of everyone. That only happened because

there was enough public pressure at the local level.

What

I'm suggesting. Mr. Minister, is that you reverse that procedure. Those

people who are making an honest attempt to preserve their watersheds

and the health of their families shouldn't be charged $25 or whatever

to appeal those applications to use those dangerous chemicals.

I'm informed that I have exactly three minutes left, and I haven't even discussed Cheekye-Dunsmuir and all these

[ Page 8564 ]

things. But, Mr. Minister, we've discussed that hundreds of times.

There

is one last item I want to bring to your attention, and that is the

incident and the charges surrounding Hawkins Contracting. It relates to

a problem on the Louis River at the Stillwater division of the

MacMillan Bloedel company and what your ministry did. The very small

contractor was operating a relatively small gravel pit. One of the

employees made a mistake and dumped a load of gravel into that river,

which normally is and has been a fish-spawning river. Mr. Hawkins was

charged under various sections of the Environment and Land Use Act.

Approximately two months after he was charged with this offence — one

of his employees made an honest mistake and dumped one load of gravel

into the river — MacMillan Bloedel, Stillwater division, completely

opened the floodgates in front of the Gordon Pasha Lake — now known as

Lois Lake — and because of the high water at the time, it wiped out the

total spawn for the year in that river. Not one charge was ever laid

against MacMillan Bloedel. Banks were eroded, the whole bottom of the

river was scoured, the total spawn was wiped out, and not one charge

was laid.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

Well, I checked into it very carefully and I think that perhaps I

discussed it with you in an area of this building other than this room.

The

reason given, Mr. Chairman, was that MacMillan Bloedel has a water

licence dating back to 1800-and-something and they can do whatever the

heck they want. But the honest little contractor, hanging on

financially by his fingernails, gets charged. I ask you where the

fairness is in that. I think because the judge saw the injustice of the

situation, the charge was finally dismissed. It wasn't dismissed on the

grounds that the contractor was innocent but only because the case was

so gross. They opened the floodgates, wiped out the fish spawn in that

particular river for the total year and they didn't even get a

"naughty, naughty" from the government.

What I'm suggesting

to you, Mr. Minister, is that in this kind of case I think fairness

should be the criterion. I have a pile of correspondence from Mr.

Hawkins' solicitor dealing with this case and from residents of the

area. What I'm telling you is that the pressures that your ministry put

on that little contractor.... Nothing to this huge multinational

corporation that is moving its business out of British Columbia to

Alabama! I think we ought to have a minister from Alabama representing

this House. Most of our business seems to be going down there; and

we're providing jobs down there, but not in this province.

HON. MR. ROGERS:

Bella Coola. This year we only have funding for emergencies — and that

applies provincewide. We have not the funds in our budget for riverbank

improvement, although I'm sure when the situation improves we will have.

Mariculture and fish farming. The lease policy is a policy question that should

be directed to the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot), although

we have discussed in the past the possibility of turning over areas subject

to mariculture lease to the marine resources branch in the Ministry of Environment

for operation, which would probably be more conducive. I must tell you that

I get several applications a year from people who want a three- or four-acre

lease, and I really think it's more a question of an upland owner wanting

to keep the beach for himself. It's the same problem that you talked about

earlier. They do keep the legitimate ones out.

We've

had some real successes in your constituency. The Tidal Rush farm has

done very well with a very high degree of expertise in the management

of the company, which is one of the first times we've had it into that

level of fish farming. It's a great success and others are coming from

around the world to see it and people are trying to expand it. I'm

quite optimistic that that's going to be a really big success and will

go further on up, and there's even a black cod operation proposed for

further up in your constituency.

The fines. I get hassled

one way or the other whether we lay fines under the Pollution Control

Act. I would hazard a guess that that fine for dumping the gravel was

under the Fisheries Act and not the pollution act, but I'll look into

that.

I also want to look into the terms of reference of

the water licence for MacMillan Bloedel. If what you say is correct in

terms of their being able to dump that substantial amount of water

without giving due consideration for the downstream effect of

the....

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I guarantee what I tell you is correct.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Yes, okay. I don't mind getting together with you and looking into that either.

MR. SKELLY:

It has been the policy of the NDP caucus for the past two years to

examine the budgets of the various ministries vote by vote, nickel by

nickel, to find out where restraint can be imposed on these ministries,

where the minister is performing effectively and within his budget, and

whether or not that minister deserves the budget he has allocated to

himself, or that the government has allocated to him, during the

current year. It involved on our part a bit of a performance audit — an

effectiveness audit — to see how effective this minister is or how

effective those dollars are in accomplishing the mandate of the

ministry.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: I

fully expect that the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) is going to vote

with us on this one, given all of the excellent points that he made

during the debate on the minister's estimates. He scored many points

against Farley Mowat. I'm not sure he's ever read the gentleman's

books, but I'm sure he's heard of his existence from other people in

the constituency who are more well read.

MR. KEMPF: I also read Bambi and Pinocchio .

MR. SKELLY: Yes, I think that the member did have Bambi and Pinocchio read to him, and he shouldn't misquote them.

Actually,

what we are doing here is a bit of a performance audit on the minister.

We know that his travel expenses were $45,000 in 1981-82, and this

year he hasn't increased his travel expense budget. We think that's an

excellent example of restraint compared to the Ministry of Agriculture.

We even investigated the possibility of rolling it back a little bit,

because given the inadequacy of this minister in performing in his role

as minister and in the mandate of the ministry, we

[ Page 8565 ]

should

really have imposed a rollback on his travel budget. I ask you, Mr.

Chairman: what did that travel budget accomplish? How effective was it?

Did it prevent the spill at Carolin Mines? At Equity Mining? At

Granisle? Did it prevent the dumping of pentachlorophenol and

tetrachlorophenol in the Fraser River system by people the minister

calls good corporate citizens — although sometimes he doesn't call them

good corporate citizens?

Did this minister improve the

quality of the administration of the pollution control branch? Well, if

you look at the auditor-general's report, he was pretty much of a

failure in that regard as well. The auditor-general took a sample —

according to her report on page 129 — in which she selected 69

permits. She found out that there was complete data on nine of those

and partial data on 30 more. In other words, out of 69 permits, only 39

had data either in full or in part which could be used for this test.

Some 21 out of 23 were high-volume permits, 18 out of 46 low-volume

permits in the sample, and no data were available on the remaining 30

permits. "Using the above criteria..." according to the

auditor-general, "14 of the 39 permits where we were able to assess

compliance" were found to be seriously violating permit conditions, and

this is a chronic problem in the waste management branch.

What

has the funding for the minister's office done to improve the

effectiveness of the ministry in fulfilling its mandate? We considered

rolling back the minister's travel expenses because he didn't appear to

be accomplishing anything of value in improving the operation of his

ministry and fulfilling the mandate of the ministry.

During

debates we've talked about a number of things: about the Consolidated

Cinola and about the public-hearing process. During the debate on

legislation this session we talked about public involvement in

decisions made by the ministry. We mentioned the Cinola mines on the

Queen Charlotte Islands. The minister's answer was that he didn't have

any funding in his budget for public hearings. Yet he could easily

impose on those companies a requirement that they put on the public

hearings and that the Ministry of Environment could attend. In this

province the people have lost their day in court with respect to

decisions on environmental issues under this minister specifically, and

we don't feel that that is a good performance in fulfilling the mandate

of the Ministry of Environment.

A number of issues have been

outlined in the Legislature, mainly on a constituency basis, relating

to the operation of the fish and wildlife branch. Again, there's little

confidence in the minister with respect to his fulfilling the mandate

of the branch and his ministry.

Again and again it has been

brought up in issues relating to pesticides, for example. We have

advocated a change in the pesticide approval procedure, wherein the

procedure would have public involvement from day one, which would

eliminate a lot of the problems which surround the appeal procedure. If

the citizen feels that he has his input and his information when the

decision is first being made and has the right to his day in court at

the first instance, then the appeal problem is not so much a problem

and you don't have so many people wanting, to get involved in that

decision after the fact.

It's the structural problem the

minister has created which has caused a lot of the difficulties

surrounding pesticide appeals. Now he requires everyone who wishes to

appeal a permit to pay $25; yet the people who apply for the permit pay

nothing. It's grossly unfair. The $25 is not designed to pay the cost

of the appeal procedure; it's simply designed to keep the public out of

the environmental decision-making process. It shows the minister's lack

of confidence in the public, and it shows the minister's lack of

respect for the people of this province and their democratic right to

make decisions.

therefore don't feel that the minister

has earned his travel expenses or his ministerial office expenses to

the extent he has requested. For all these reasons we have mentioned,

and for a number of other reasons, we have moved the motion that the

minister's vote be reduced by $7,001. That represents a $1 deduction

from the minister's salary, which is our statement of a lack

of confidence in the minister and his ability to fulfil the mandate of

the Ministry of Environment, and the elimination of a $7,000 increase

in office expenses which we do not feel is justified, given the

restraint program apparently adopted by the provincial government as it

applies to their employees. We seek to impose this additional bit of

restraint on the minister. I therefore move that vote 32 be reduced by

$7,001.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The motion appears to be in order.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 21

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

King

Lauk

Stupich

Dailly

Nicolson

Lorimer

Leggatt

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Brown

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

NAYS — 28

Waterland

Hyndman

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Richmond

Ritchie

Brummet

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Mussallem

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Vote 32 approved.

On vote 33: resource and environment management, $84,419,142.

MR. SKELLY:

It appears that the policy of the ministry is now to try to reduce all

the expenditures of the ministry to four votes. This one covers all the

resource and environment management functions of the ministry. We've

taken a look through the expenditures projected for 1982-83, and have

taken a look at some of the increases over the previous year. We do

feel many are justifiable. The ministry relies to a large

[ Page 8566 ]

extent

on professional and special services and those kinds of things, and

office expenditures can probably be explained because of the change in

the conservation-officer staff, regionalization and that kind of thing.

Travel

expenditures went up 21 percent this year over last year. Of course,

we're looking for a little better enforcement in management as a result

of that increase in travel expenditures, so we will not be voting

against that. Office furniture and equipment went up 91 percent. But

even there, with the regionalization of the ministry and the changes in

the conservation-officer establishment, we're of course looking at new

offices and buildings. Advertising and publications.... But when we

get to data-processing, we feel a little bit can be cut back. We're

looking at the difference between 1981-82 and 1982-83. We feel that

increase should be rolled back, given the need for restraint on the

part of this government, and are therefore going to move that $789,700

be removed from this budget for data-processing. We feel that B.C.

Buildings Corporation charges should also be rolled back to the 1981-82 level — by $2,102,000.

In looking at the pesticide

control and waste management expenditures, again, as last year, we feel

that in these cases the people who have the benefit of pesticide

control permits and pollution control permits should be paying the full

cost, rather than the taxpayers subsidizing those permits, as is

presently the case. What we're therefore going to be doing is to reduce

the minister's budget by the amount of the pesticide control program

and the waste management program, which will bring the total reduction

under this vote to $11,020,263. We feel that if the ministry levies

the total cost of operations for the pesticide control program and the

waste management program against those who benefit from it, they will

not have these expenditures, and in fact will be releasing something

like $8 million within the budget to spend for other purposes.

I've

been advocating over the last little while that this ministry get

involved in an employment-creation proposal, which I prefer to call

the B.C. conservation corps, which is very similar to the conservation

corps established in California and the one which was established

during the last depression. It would employ people on the ground to do

a number of the functions of the Ministry of Environment. I estimate

that out of that expenditure you could employ something like 200 to 400

people partly on a permanent, partly on a full-time basis. The function

of these people would be very similar to the conservation corps in the

United States: observation of the natural environment; monitoring

wildlife populations and hunter and fishermen movements;

hiker-recreationist monitoring and search; weather, snow and flood

dangers and observation; monitoring of weirs and stream measurement

requirements; and coast watchers — an example of this requirement would

have been in my riding, where one of the fish boats was lost, the

Ramsey Isle . It appears that we have any number of dollars that we're

able to expend on radar and radio and navigation facilities for oil

tankers going up and down the coast, but for the average fisherman who

works day to day on the west coast of British Columbia, there's very

little in the way of navigation aids or radio assistance. They're

living at peril to their lives and safety every single day that they're

out working for the benefit of the people of the province of British

Columbia.

We feel that employment could be generated by this

additional $8 million if the minister would see fit to create a

conservation corps similar to what we have in California or what we had

in the United States up until Ronald Reagan did away with it a few

weeks ago. It would create something like 200 to 400 jobs with no

increase in the expenditures of the Ministry of Environment. I move

that vote 33 be reduced by $11,020,263.

Motion negatived on following division:

YEAS — 22

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

King

Lauk

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Lorimer

Leggatt

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Brown

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

NAYS — 28

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Waterland

Hyndman

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Richmond

Mussallem

Brummet

Vote 33 approved unanimously on a division.

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Vote 34: emergency assistance, $500,000, approved unanimously on a division.

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Vote 35: advances to habitat conservation fund, $750,000 — approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Divisions in committee ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

The committee, having reported resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 56, Mr. Speaker.

PETROLEUM AND NATURAL

GAS AMENDMENT ACT, I 982

The House in committee on Bill 56; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Sections 1 to 4 inclusive approved.

[ Page 8567 ]

MR. D'ARCY:

Mr. Chairman, with leave of the House, I would like to consider

sections 5 to 8 in one piece, otherwise we can consider them separately.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We could do that, hon. members.

On sections 5 to 8.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Chairman, we on this side of the House strongly oppose

these sections of the act. Once again we have heard in this House the government

indicate that they want to add some $13 million to $14 million this year

alone, and Lord knows how much in future years, in costs to an industry which

is already saddled beyond bearing by fees imposed on it by both this government

and the federal government. This is clearly another revenue grab. The government

earlier put a bill forward affecting the mining industry in a similar way —

Bill 53. The minister quite correctly withdrew that bill due to opposition from

this side of the House and from the industry themselves. We are going to oppose

this bill on the same grounds.

Most

recently the government was presented with the Govier report on natural

gas and the uses to which it could be put in B.C. We do know that that

learned gentleman indicated that there simply is not sufficient gas

available to the government to do the things that the government had

hoped to do — not because it was not there in potential, Mr. Chairman,

but simply because the conditions were not favourable for the industry

to develop those gas sources. We know, for instance, that in the

province of B.C. there were, as recently as the 1980-81 fiscal year,

nearly 320 new oil and gas wells brought on stream. Last year that

figure fell to 80; now we have only a handful of drilling rigs working

in this province.

With this kind of background, this

government seeks to increase fees from the industry by amounts in

excess of tens of millions of dollars this year alone, and it wishes to

give itself carte blanche powers to increase fees quite arbitrarily, as

it sees fit, in future years. I don't believe that any industry should

be faced with a situation where any government — this one, or any future

government — could arbitrarily move the goalposts, changing the rules

in the fourth quarter. If we expect a stable investment climate in this

province, if we expect stable, rational resource development,

particularly when it comes to fossil fuels, we have to anticipate that

we are going to be able as a province to tell industry exactly what the

rules are going to be and exactly what the fees and costs are going to

be.

For these reasons, this side of the House will oppose

those sections in the act which deal with fee, licence and

lease-rental, particularly as they take it out of prescribed fees in

the act and simply put it up to discretionary powers of that minister

or any minister in whatever government may succeed this one.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

I'd like to make a very brief comment, Mr. Chairman. The fees have not

been changed in this regard since 1974. They certainly haven't kept up

to inflation, and unfortunately they don't even keep up to the actual

costs of doing the business. What we are attempting to do here is to at

least allow us to maintain a financial base in the petroleum resources

division of my ministry that will at least pay for the cost of doing

the kind of work that is covered under these fees: recordings and title

searches.

Just

in case someone thinks we are talking about

huge increases and huge amounts of money, some of the fees....

Permits, for instance, are going from $250 to $500, but things like

recording under the Bank Act are going from $5 to $10; recording and

cancelling documents, from $5 to $10; other kinds of recording, from

$10 to $25; issuing of title searches, from $2 to $5. So we're not

looking at huge increases or huge amounts of money in most instances.

But it's necessary if we're to keep up with the workload that we

anticipate will come when the industry gets back to normal. We need to

pay for at least the cost of doing that business. That's really about

all we're doing here.

MR. D’ARCY: The minister

doesn't seem to realize that if he and that government continue on the

course they're on, we won't need the petroleum and natural gas

section

of his ministry because there will be absolutely no activity whatsoever

out there. There are few, if any, drilling rigs working in this

province today. There is simply no way anybody can make any revenue

from it. In many cases, companies have indeed gone bankrupt. And the

government seeks to load further fees onto them.

I would

like the minister to understand that he and his government have

contributed to that situation. At a time when both the federal

government in Ottawa and the Alberta government have realized the error

of their ways and are reducing fees and lease rentals, this government

increases them.

Sections 5 to 8 inclusive approved on the following division:

YEAS — 28

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Waterland

Hyndman

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Richmond

Mussallem

Brummet

NAYS — 22

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

King

Lauk

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Lorimer

Leggatt

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Brown

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Sections 9 to 23 inclusive approved.

section 24.

[ Page 8568 ]

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 24 as amended approved.

section 25.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 25 as amended approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I move the bill be reported complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Divisions in committee ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Bill

56, Petroleum and Natural Gas Amendment Act, 1982 reported complete

with amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the House after

today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call committee on Bill 53, Mr. Speaker.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, I 982

The House in committee on Bill 53; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

section 4.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak against this section, and I'm going to do it at great length.

What

this

section does is amend the Community Care Facility Act, which is

the act that has to do with the inspections of day-care centres,

nursing homes and other facilities. In the existing act it says that

these facilities have to be inspected at least once a year. This

section amends that, removing the compulsion for these facilities to be

inspected at least once a year. I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that

that is a mistake. When there is a compulsion that these facilities be

inspected at least once a year.... In most instances that is the

only inspection that they have.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

want to deal primarily with family day care. I want to talk about some

of the reasons why there should be inspection. The act should remain as

it is with a compulsory inspection of at least once a year. In fact, it

should be increased to call for inspection more than once a year.

The

Nelson Family Day Care Society did a survey of its own because they

were so concerned about the quality of care that was being given by

some of these family day-care centres. They did a study covering up to

the end of 1981. They said that in the past year they had assumed

responsibility for monitoring and assessing all family day-care homes

in all of the Nelson district as the need for ongoing frequent contact

of the day-care homes was being recognized. This need was recognized

because, in fact, the ministry had cut back so seriously in terms of

the quality, the level of inspection and the number of times that those

homes were inspected. They were beginning to recognize, and I quote:

"recent increasing incidence of child neglect and child abuse in these

homes. There is more need to acknowledge as crucial that there should

be constant contact and monitoring of these homes to protect the

children in those homes and to ensure their health and welfare." In

their report they go on to document at great length a number of

instances. They quote from reports in some of the Vancouver papers and,

of course, document some of their own experiences. I don't want to read

these experiences into the record, Mr. Chairman, because I don't think

that that is necessary. Suffice it to say that the Nelson Family Day

Care Society, which is an umbrella organization, was sufficiently

alarmed by the increase in the incidence of child neglect and child

abuse in the family day-care centres in that particular school district

that they took unto themselves some of the responsibility that really

belongs to the community care licensing facility in terms of inspection.

The

other thing that I want to bring to your attention, Mr. Chairman, is a

letter written by Karen Brandolini, who is the president of the B.C.

Family Day Care Association. She wrote in October 1981 to express some

alarm at the rumours circulating that the government was contemplating

relaxing the number and the quality of inspection of the family day-care

homes. She said: "Due to the deplorable and ever-increasing shortage of

staff in community care licensing and day-care information offices and

centres, the effectiveness of the present licensing standards and

requirements has steadily deteriorated, causing great frustration to

all those involved." As I said, this letter is from the president of

the B.C. Family Day Care Association. She said: "Family day-care

givers, parents as well as the children, would like to ensure that

there is safe, reliable and quality care for young children. To even

consider a change in policy would be drastic at this time. We would

appreciate and encourage your immediate attention to this matter." She

in fact quotes from a letter from Dr. John Blatherwick, chairman of the

Child Care Facilities Licensing Board, about the possibility of some

changes in policy.

I also have, Mr. Chairman, another letter

which I received from Kay Wallace, who was the corresponding secretary

of the British Columbia Family Day Care Association. I want to tell you

first of all that the statistics across Can