1980 Legislative Session: 2nd 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)

THURSDAY, JULY 31, 1980

Morning Sitting

[ Page

3639 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

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

On vote 75: minister's office –– 3639

Mr. Passarell

Mr. Cocke

Hon. Mr. Hewitt

Ms. Brown

Mr. Mitchell

THURSDAY, JULY 31, 1980

The House met at 10 a.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Prayers.

HON. MR. GARDOM:

Mr. Speaker, before calling Committee of Supply, and following my

discussion with the hon. opposition House Leader (Mr. Howard), I

understand that the Crown corporations committee will be sitting this

morning. I have also received notification and a copy of the notice

that next Wednesday the public accounts committee is proposing to sit

at 10 a.m. The House is in session this morning, so I am going to ask

leave that the Crown corporations committee be permitted to sit this

morning. Should the need arise next week — should the House be in

session next Wednesday morning — I will be making a similar request for

leave that the public accounts committee be entitled to sit, and the

government will be supporting that request. This morning, first of all,

I request leave that the Crown corporations committee be permitted to

sit while the House is in session.

MR. HOWARD: Mr.

Speaker, I want to say how pleased I am to see that the government has

seen the error of its ways and is now operating with common sense.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'm afraid it's just bad memory on the part of the opposition; it's no government error.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I therefore move, Mr. Speaker, the appropriate motion: that the Crown corporations committee be empowered to sit this morning.

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT

(continued)

On vote 75: minister's office, $152,422.

MR. PASSARELL:

I have a number of questions for the hon. Minister of Environment. The

first of many questions concerns the Amax Kitsault project up in Alice

Arm, and a number of special orders-in-counciI that were passed to

allow this mine to proceed.

The entire environmental issue

has to do with tailings — on-land tailings or sea disposal. Presently

the federal-provincial governments have allowed Amax to proceed by

dumping approximately one hundred million tonnes of mine waste in the

ocean. This has raised a number of concerns, particularly from the

Nishgas, who are inhabiting the area and use it for food fisheries.

Mr. Chairman, could you bring this House to order a bit?

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Yes, I'll try. Will all hon. members please come to order. The member

for Atlin does have the floor, and it is quite unparliamentary for

other members to be speaking or distracting from the member's debate.

MR. PASSARELL:

Mr. Rod Robinson, who's the acting president of the Nishga tribal

council, made the statement: "The share the company has offered us in

the mine — our share — is death." The Nishgas know quite well that if

this mine proceeds the environmental damage done will destroy part of

their fishing, a livelihood that they have to depend on — particularly

one community, Kincolith, that fishes in the Alice Arm area for their

foodstocks. There have been a number of problems that have been related

to this mine besides the Nishgas coming down and saying that their

share in the mine is death. Yesterday morning the Nishgas have said

that they are talking about a blockade. I don't particularly believe in

any type of violence. In yesterday's Province

Mr. Steve Berry told how they have the full support of Greenpeace, the

United Fishermen and Allied Workers Union and the area residents in

setting up a blockade. I don't particularly like to see groups having

to go up against the government, whether it is federal or provincial,

by using any type of demonstration, but the Nishgas are pushed into a

corner. I have asked the hon. minister on a number of occasions what he

can do about this mine and why they've been given a pollution control

permit to allow 100 million tonnes of waste to be dumped into the ocean.

The

bishop of the area, a very respected man in the northern part of this

province, Bishop Hambidge — to the member for Kootenay (Mr. Segarty), I

don't know if that's Irish — stated that the entire aspect of allowing

Kitsault-Amax to go ahead with this project is morally wrong. This man

isn't a radical; he is a bishop of the Anglican church. He and a number

of people and organizations — particularly Project North, which is an

inter-church organization — have written numerous letters to the

Minister of Environment on this aspect, sending me quite often what

correspondence they've received back from the hon. minister concerning

environmental and pollution problems. Very few people have ever said

that they've received anything worthwhile from the minister. I wonder

at times if the minister is aware of the pollution control permit that

the Ministry of Environment has given to Kitsault to proceed with this

damage. The 100 million tonnes of tailings that will be dumped into the

ocean, if the minister isn't aware of it, contain arsenic, lead,

radium-226 and other poisonous elements. The mine says they wouldn't

get into the business if they knew it was going to cause some type of

environmental damage. But by the same token, when you ask the minister

a question in the House he gets up and takes it on notice. When you

give him a short snapper he says yes or no. I doubt if he really

understands what's going on up there. I also wonder, if the hon.

minister lived in the area, if he would allow his children to eat the

fish and the sea life that the Nishgas are expected to eat, which have

been exposed to this 100 million tonnes of tailings dumped into the

ocean.

The president of Amax says that the whole problem

right now isn't the 100 million tonnes going into the ocean; it is

simply land claims that are the whole nub of the issue and not the food

chain. This is the president of a major company preparing to dump 100

million tonnes of waste into an ocean

[ Page 3640 ]

and he says that the whole problem right now is land claims. Nonsense! He also goes on in a statement in the Vancouver Province

to say that we feel the project is environmentally sound; otherwise we

wouldn't be involved. The only reason Amax wants to dump 100 million

tonnes of waste into the ocean is because it's a lot cheaper to put an

exhaust pipe into the mine itself and just run this waste into the

ocean instead of constructing tailing ponds. Then Amax comes back and

says: "We've done a very in-depth report on this that we've submitted

to the ministry so they've been able to give us approval."

This

is the report. It is two and a half pages that Amax did on land tailing

disposal saying that it is a lot cheaper to run it into the ocean. I

suppose the minister has looked at the report that the mine itself

constructed, and said: "Oh, a two-and-a-half page report, that's good

enough for me; allow them to dump the stuff into the ocean."

Using

the example of Utah Mines, which I wonder if the minister is aware of,

and seeing the problems that they have had of dumping mine waste into

the ocean, a 1978 environmental protection report stated that the

tailings have spread across the ocean floor, affecting a highly

productive region of the system. But still, Utah Mines dumped waste

into the ocean, and as the only example of a mine that dumps waste into

the ocean Utah Mines is a very poor corporate citizen.

wonder why the minister has ignored the Nishgas. Is he afraid of them,

Mr. Chairman? Is he afraid to face the fact that this mine might do

some real destruction to their livelihood and society? He has continued

in this House not to answer questions concerning this. During the

opening remarks on the Environment estimates, the hon. member for

Alberni (Mr. Skelly) asked him about Kitsault, and in his reply he

never answered the question that was directed to him either.

shift, for the time being, to another mine and its environmental damage

and consequences, the Placer development up in Atlin, the same type of

token questions when asked of him receive a "yes" or a "no" or "I'll

take it on notice," his usual procedure when you ask him a question

concerning the environment. Environmental impact studies done by Placer

Development state that approximately 500 pounds of uranium per day will

be pumped out of this mine and put into tailings ponds. Numerous

newspaper articles have attacked this project, and the minister has

received numerous letters from concerned citizens across this province

stating that they're upset with 500 pounds of uranium being stored per

day in a tailings pond, and the minister has come and said that the

decision will wait until the Bates commission decides. Can't the

Environment minister make a decision concerning 500 pounds of uranium

stored per day in a tailings pond on a mine life that will be 20-some

years old?

I wonder what the motive of the minister is. Five

hundred pounds a day of uranium are stored in a tailings pond that's

made out of plastic-lined garbage bags that they're putting on the

bottom. I wonder particularly if the minister would like his family to

live around a tailings pond that contains tonnes and tonnes of uranium.

The ministry and the government made a decision back in February not to

allow the Blizzard company to withdraw 220 pounds of uranium per day,

because it fell into the moratorium on uranium; but since that time the

minister has more or less given an allowance for Placer to go ahead

with their development to build a moly mine, supposedly, that will

withdraw 500 pounds of uranium per day. Maybe to this extent the

minister does not care that hundreds of residents will be living around

this tailings pond containing tonnes of uranium. Maybe he doesn't care

that people in the area, particularly the native people, would hunt and

fish in the area, shooting animals that drink in the region that has

been described by the Bates commission as having some of the highest

levels of radon gas in the world.

If the minister was

concerned enough he would go up into the area to see exactly and

particularly what is happening to the environment in the area north of

the Atlin community. I remember going into that area four or five years

ago. You used to be able to catch grayling and other fish in Surprise

Lake. If the minister was concerned, as Environment minister, he could

go back there today and find out that there is not one live fish in

Surprise Lake. Plus it is right on the migration trail of the caribou.

They stop off and drink at that lake. Still the minister has the

audacity, when asked a question in the House, to take it on notice.

wonder when this minister will ever show concern for the environment.

He is told exactly what to say at particular times. Maybe the minister

is waiting for a particular study to be done by the company, saying

that environmentally it is 100 percent correct to go ahead with dumping

500 pounds of uranium per day in a tailings pond. There is enough

evidence that the Minister of Environment should proceed in some way to

stop this mine from doing some type of uranium madness up in northern

British Columbia. At times it appears that the minister is more

concerned about dollars than people's health and livelihood. He could

certainly make a decision concerning Placer Developments.

third topic I would like to address to the Minister of Environment is

the environmental impact of northern dams. I wonder whether the

minister is aware of this issue in northern British Columbia. It has

been reiterated in this House numerous times by myself. In the 1979

Hydro report concerning environmental damage done by northern dams,

particularly on pages 20 and 21, B.C. Hydro states that any dam on the

Stikine-Iskut would have a detrimental effect upon the migration of the

salmon mainstream spawning, as well as the animals in the area,

particularly the mountain goats — one of the last wild herds of

mountain goats in the province.

Mr. Chairman, do you know

what Hydro says they are going to do with these mountain goats for

their environmental concern? When they build this dam, it is going to

flood the region where the mountain goats live. Hydro says they are

going to protect the animals, even though the Minister of Environment,

at times, is unaware of the situation. Hydro has made a statement that

they are going to buy a helicopter, fly down the Grand Canyon of Canada

— where they are going to build this dam — with a sling underneath the

helicopter, pick up the goats and take them to another mountain range.

Rubbish! It would probably be easier for Hydro to go down with a couple

of machine guns off the side of the helicopter and annihilate the

mountain goats.

MRS. WALLACE: Probably kinder too — more humane.

MR. PASSARELL: That's probably right — than going down with a sling on a helicopter and trying to pick up mountain goats off a canyon wall.

Hydro also says the destruction of the mountain goats.... What does the minister do?

I brought up in this House a report on a northern transmission study. In the terms of reference, on page 28, it said

[ Page

3641 ]

not to contact certain groups of people in the area

because it would be very negative for them to understand exactly what

Hydro and the government are proposing.

It's been three

weeks since that time. Why hasn't the minister gotten up and refuted

the anti-environmental statements made by Hydro concerning the northern

transmission study? They were very strong anti-environmental statements

made by a Crown corporation, and the minister has the audacity, once

again, just to sit there. I wonder at times if the minister is unaware

or uncaring about lifestyles of people up in the north, particularly in

this project, the Tahltans. If the minister is so unconcerned about the

environmental damage done by these projects then maybe he should change

his portfolio to something he maybe can relate to or enjoy — maybe,

just as a suggestion, a portfolio concerned with downtown development

or uptown fashion.

A fourth topic I'd like to talk to the

minister about is Fish and Wildlife. Last year in the community of Fort

St. James there was a statement made by a Fish and Wildlife management

official that the ministry was looking at the possibility of a bid

system concerning traplines that would, in a sense, cause the Ministry

of Environment less paperwork but also develop a fur monopoly in the

province of British Columbia. It would be very difficult for many

native people — there are quite a few white people who are into the

trapping aspect up in the north and throughout this province as well —

to be able to bid against the Hudson Bay Company concerning traplines.

That was done about 18 months ago, and the minister is relatively new

in his portfolio. I wonder why he hasn't stood up and made a public

statement condemning this aspect of a bid system. Also, what would be

the minister's reward on something like that? Why would he be allowing

management officials of the Fish and Wildlife to go around and start

talking about bid systems? Certainly not to have his picture hung up in

Hudson's Bay stores.

The other aspect of fishing is a statement made today in this morning's Province .

The title is: "Indians Claim Rare Defence." Is the minister aware that

four fishermen in northern British Columbia were arrested a few days

ago? He doesn't appear to be. Just to go over it for the minister, four

native fishermen from the community of Kincolith, approximately 80

kilometres north of Prince Rupert, were arrested by the Alaska state

troopers in the Portland Canal last week. There were three boats and

5,000 pounds of fish confiscated. Their spokesperson, Mr. Tommy Dennis,

stated that these fishermen should be protected by a 1794 treaty called

the Jay treaty, signed between Britain and the United States. I wonder,

without getting into too many of the details of a treaty that's

180-some years old, whether the minister has given any type of

assistance to the native people up in the north who are fishing and are

being charged and pushed around by Alaska state-troopers in some of the

canals up north, even though he will get up and say it's the

responsibility of the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

They're still residents of British Columbia and they are providing

livelihoods and jobs for residents in the north. I would certainly hope

that the minister would be able to make some kind of a statement to

help these native people who are fishing in the Portland Canal and

being hassled by Alaska state-troopers.

Another concern I'd like to raise to the minister is regarding trophy hunting.

I don't know if the minister has ever hunted himself. He might or might

not have. I'm a hunter, but I dislike trophy hunting. To a certain extent

trophy hunting keeps some people employed; it's a good tourist scam. But

if the minister was ever concerned about trophy hunting.... If we go up into

Spatsizi Park next month and see exactly what's going on, you would know

that quite a few hunters come into our province of British Columbia and shoot

an animal just for its head. If you've got ten hunters with you in an outfitting

group — if they do go through an outfitting group.... Quite a few hunters who

do come in hunt illegally and get away with it, because there are so few Fish

and Wildlife officers in the north. The trophy hunter comes in and shoots an

animal just to take its head so he can mount it in some community hall or over

his fireplace, and he allows the meat to rot. If you're up in northern British

Columbia back 50, 60 or 70 miles from the closest road and you've been flown

in on a little plane, you don't particularly want to pack out 1,500 pounds

of meat. So you take its head and allow the meat to rot out there. Then the

ministry turns around and says there are too many wolves in this province. "We've

got to annihilate the wolves — put a little bit of poison around" — poison

that does more destruction of wildlife than just wolves.

That's

a problem that concerns quite a few people in the north: trophy

hunters. Most of us up in the north do hunt, but mainly for food,

especially where there are not too many stores around. If you hunt you

are able to pack in 1,500 pounds of meat, and it will keep you going

all winter. We're not all fortunate enough, as some members are, to be

able to afford certain things.

Getting back on the track,

Mr. Chairman, I think the minister should look at the possibility of

some type of strong legislation. I know we can't propose legislation

during the estimates, but I certainly would have the minister look into

the possibility of doing something about these head-hunters that are

coming into our province and annihilating vast numbers of wildlife and

allowing tons and tons of good meat to rot into the bush just so they

can take a head back to their own country. It's criminal. I certainly

hope that the minister would address himself to some of those problems

that are of concern to many people in this province.

Another

topic goes back to fishing. I didn't particularly like the statement

made by the hon. Minister of Environment regarding sports fishermen in

this province, talking about the cancellation of sports derbies. It's

bloody ridiculous, Mr. Chairman. Sorry, I withdraw the word bloody.

It's ridiculous that the Minister of Environment would go and make

public statements condemning salmon fishing derbies when you look at

the amount of foreign commercial fishermen off the coast of British

Columbia that are scooping up millions of tonnes of fish. And he's got

the audacity to say, once again: "We should do something about the

sports fishermen, because they're taking too many big fish out." It's a

derby that very many concerned sports people in this province enjoy,

and I can't see why the Minister of Environment would make a statement

condemning sports fishermen being involved in derbies.

Another

aspect on fishing is that, as he's done in many instances concerning

the environment, the minister has displayed a lack of interest in

protecting native fishermen — as I reiterated earlier in my speech

concerning the fishermen up in Portland — in our rivers and streams, by

allowing forestry companies and mining companies to destroy spawning

grounds. You've got to take a hard line, Mr. Minister, on some of these

environmental damages.

Lastly, the pipeline. The minister has made statements previously that have definitely shown a lack of concern and

[ Page 3642 ]

interest

in the whole pipeline aspect — a pipeline that will go thousands of

miles across our province and down into the United States. He's said

absolutely nothing concerning the environmental concerns of a pipeline.

Mr. Minister, have you ever been up north? Just as he usually does, he

turns his back and takes it on notice. I wonder if he's ever been up

north. Maybe he'd come up there and see exactly what's going on — take

an interest, to a certain extent, in his job; take a took into the

environmental concerns of the people up in the northern part of the

province concerning the pipeline. It's fine and dandy to say it's the

federal government's responsibility. So often when a minister doesn't

want to address something he says that. It's in this province that they

want to build this pipeline — this steel wall.

You've done

absolutely nothing. Why don't you come up into the area and talk to

some of the native people — the Tlingit, the Kaska and the Tahltan?

Find out how they feel and what type of environmental damage this steel

wall will do to the livelihoods of native people up north.

I'm

not going on much further, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to hear some answers

to some of the questions that I've raised, and I believe that there'll

be more time to discuss some of these things. I have some suggestions,

Mr. Minister. I think you should get a little bit more involved with

your job; look at some of the environmental problems happening around

this province. I've given you some examples of some proposed and

present projects that are going to have a drastic effect upon the

environment of our province. Once you allow something like Placer

Development or Amax to go in and destroy part of our environment,

either through uranium or mine tailings, it's very difficult ever to

have the environment cleaned up and have it go back to its present

condition.

MR. COCKE: I note the minister isn't

terribly anxious this morning to continue his filibuster, so we'll

probably be seeing an entirely different attitude today than we saw

yesterday. Yesterday he was all too anxious to answer questions. The

member from the north, who has unique questions, asked questions today

and the minister yields to this side of the House.

I have

two or three areas I'd like to discuss. First and foremost, I've

listened very carefully over the last two or three days, and I've

listened to a minister tell us how terribly concerned he is over the

environment. I listened to his partner, his colleague from Vancouver

South (Mr. Hyndman), tell us how terribly concerned the minister was

and how terribly concerned this government is and that they were the

people who would really get things done with respect to the

environment. I know the member for Vancouver South feels the way he

feels because he has a pair of glasses that not only affect his

eyesight but they affect his hearing and every other sense he has when

it comes to Social Credit and what they do and don't do.

just want to give you an example of the arrogance and stupidity of this

government in terms of their dealings with the environment. There is a

darling little place called McIntyre Bluff, up in the Okanagan. It is a

very beautiful setting, and there is a 500-kilovolt B.C. Hydro line

that is to come from the Kootenays down into the Okanagan. That is

called the Nicola-Cranbrook transmission line, just in case somebody

wants to define it. For some years, since 1976 specifically, Hydro has

suggested that they want to put through this line.

HON. MR. HEWITT: It was before that — 1973-74.

MR. COCKE:

Since 1973-74 — but they haven't had the right. I'm glad the Minister

of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) opens his mouth on this because his

constituents tell me he has been absolutely no help to them whatsoever

in having Hydro change the direction. There's not a word from that

member.

The minister will stand up in the House, I'm sure,

after I'm through and will defend himself. But I have talked to

environmentalists in the area; I have talked to interested people all

over the Okanagan Valley. They are concerned. They are aware that what

is happening here is just going to be another eyesore. There are

alternatives; of course, Hydro offers very few. They say: "We like a

straight line from here to there and, damn it, anything that's in our

way can just pretty well suffer."

What does this government

think of that country? I'll tell you what the now Minister of Human

Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) thinks of it. She thinks it's "super"

country because when she was Minister of Tourism not only did this

particular area appear in Beautiful B.C.

but the specific promotion card for the Okanagan is a picture of that

exact area. There is McIntyre Bluff, there is Vaseux Lake, and that is

where the line is going to go. On the back of this card it says:

"Welcome to the Okanagan and the Similkameen, beautiful British

Columbia, Canada." Tourism British Columbia printed this card. Neither

Tourism British Columbia nor the Minister of Agriculture nor the

Minister of Environment nor anybody else seems interested enough nor

have seemed interested enough over the last four or five years to do a

thing about changing the course of that particular line.

The

decision was made for that line in December 1976. There had been

discussions on it long before that but the final decision was somewhere

in that particular area. There is no line yet. I suggest that we've had

ample opportunity and time for ministers of the Crown and other

government members, if they wish, to oppose this particular travesty.

It is a travesty. It comes down from a beautiful bluff down into a

beautiful farming area, then goes back onto the bluffs again. But isn't

it ironic that this specific area that is about to be defiled is the

very area that Tourism British Columbia shows for their depiction of

the Okanagan Valley. It is a beautiful picture, but it is a beautiful

picture that you won't be taking three or four years from now, because

you'll have to go elsewhere.

Hydro has to be faulted

for their arrogance, but a government that lets them get away with it,

Mr. Chairman, really isn't worth the powder to blow it as far as from

here across the street. We all know that the Cheekye-Dunsmuir

500-kilovolt line — it's been discussed by my colleagues, and I won't

go over that again — is exactly the same kind of a proposition. It will

go from point A on theSunshine Coast to Texada, to Lasqueti, to

Vancouver Island, etc., etc., and that's it; it's going to go exactly

where Hydro wants it to go. People can squawk all they like, but Hydro,

very much the same as this new B.C. Place that we're setting up, is a

law unto itself. It's about time that this government under this

Premier who said when he first became Premier, or within a year or two

of becoming Premier, that Hydro had to be contended with; that Hydro

had grown out far too large, far too strong and far too callous; and

that it was going to be a responsibility.... I'm certainly not quoting

him exactly, but certainly the impression that he left was that this

government was going to deal with Hydro. Have they dealt with Hydro, I

ask you, Mr.

[ Page 3643 ]

Chairman?

I've seen absolutely no evidence of it. If Hydro asks us for $750

million borrowing, they get it; if Hydro asks us — or tells us; they

don't ask, they tell us — that they're going to put in the

Cheekye-Dunsmuir line, that's what you get. If Hydro say that they're

going to run a line across McIntyre Bluff, that's exactly what you get,

and we get a whimper from this government, and less than a whimper from

the member for that area.

Well, Mr. Chairman, there are

other areas that I'd like to cover. I'd like to talk to you about the

Bates commission just for a moment or two. Remember when the Social

Credit declared a moratorium on uranium mining....

AN HON. MEMBER: Just before an election.

MR. COCKE:

...just before an election? They said: "There will be no more uranium

mining for seven years, and then they went on to say that there was no

need for the Bates commission any longer and so they would just wrap it

up. Well, that was changed. Public opinion was such that the anger

could not be borne by the Social Credit Party nor by the government. So

what happened? They said: "Okay, Dr. Bates, come back from Australia,

finish your report, submit your report, continue until you've finished

your report." I've had long talks with a number of people that were

advocates within this situation, not the least of whom were the Medical

Association, and the Medical Association informed me that they are

angry. They are angry for this reason: that the Bates commission report

will be on inadequate evidence. The social impact, the environmental

impact and the health impact evidence was not in yet when that Bates

commission report was called off. In some cases 80 percent of the

information has not even been given as testimony to date.

But,

Mr. Chairman, I'll bet you that all the mining company evidence was in

there and all the uranium interests' evidence was in there, but not so

with the evidence that I think is very, very people-oriented, very

people-concerned. As far as I'm concerned the government stopping it

midstream the way they did was not only nonsensical; it was dangerous

and stupid. This government can waste more taxpayers' money than any

government in the history of this province and they display their

ability to do that every time they take on a task. Imagine spending the

hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars that it cost to put

together this kind of a commission, and then stopping it midstream! Why

not let them finish so that the report we get is finished, final and

adequate? The report we're going to get is going to be a biased report

— and biased on the wrong side, as far as the people in this province

are concerned. I'm really sick about that, Mr. Chairman. I think that

this government has got to be brought to answer for its mis-spending of

money, and there can be nothing less.

Once having decided to

go that route — and the only reason they decided to go that route was

because they previously had supported uranium mining, obviously — of

getting the information, putting it all together, then for heaven's

sake let us have it all. Now we'll never know all sides of that

particular issue.

I have one more touch to make in this

particular area. I want to deal with my neighbour, the biggest sewer in

British Columbia, and that sewer, of course, is the Fraser River.

Mankind, in his infinite wisdom, uses watercourses wherever possible to

get rid of his waste. The Fraser is probably one of the best examples

of that in this country. We hear about how the reclamation of rivers in

Europe — the Thames and in other areas — is going on. We find that it

may be humanly possible to reclaim a river after generations. I suggest

that we should start our reclamation early, before we have completely

wrecked that river. We insist on pumping the sewage in, but even worse

for negligence are the chemicals.

I've got a list in here as

long as your arm, and this list was compiled by the Fraser River

Coalition. They did a fine film with narration by Stanley Burke. It was

the power of this that drove the minister to put together his sleuths —

to, I presume, give CLEU a call, to ask whether or not they could get

themselves involved. How do you charge people, etc.? There are a mass

of companies here that are spewing out everything into that Fraser

River from soup to nuts and a lot of chemical poisons — no charges, no

permits to dump. Pine Lake Lumber, no permit to dump; B.C. Forest

Products, no permit to dump — yet dumping they are. Marathon Realty —

that outfit that we're dealing with now for B.C. Place, our $100

billion friends at Marathon — got pollution control branch approval for

dumping 100,000 cubic yards of hog fuel. Do you know what they did?

They dumped 500,000 cubic yards. Why should they conform to their own

permit? No prosecution, nothing. This list has been available for

months. You don't need a bunch of sleuths to go down there. All you

need to do is just read the list that was compiled by the Fraser River

Coalition and you've got lots of charges to be laid. Instead of that, I

read in the paper we're talking to CLEU, who are out looking for heroin

smugglers and so on. God bless them, they've done a super job. The

minister now has a bunch of sleuths down there.

I'll tell

you something. I'll pop some of these sleuths on to some of my

fishermen's boats from Queensborough. They'll take them alone, and not

only will they tell them where the pollution is coming from, they'll

tell them what's in it. Do you know why? Those guys are worried. Those

guys are saying: "You're killing our river." Fish come up and down that

stream. They're not terribly worried about those old fish coming back

up to spawn; they're tough and they're ugly. They're worried about the

fingerlings, the result of the spawn — fragile little fish, coming down

the Fraser River to go out into the gulf and finally out to sea, and

come back as mature fish. That's what they're worrying about, because

without them the whole thing is dead.

I really worry. I hear

all sorts of talk from this government. There is no government that I

have seen in history that uses PR any better than this one. They give

an impression of work, and they don't work. They give an impression of

interest, but they're not interested. They give a message of concern,

but they're really not concerned. We see that particularly in the area

of health. We see a whole department concentrating on a problem that we

hardly have in this province — heroin. It's the same thing with each

and every one of these government departments. We ignore the major

issue and we put all our money where we look sexy.

The

Fraser River is still in danger. They're still dumping logs. I'll say

this for one good multinational corporation whom I've talked to for

years, and that's Crown Zellerbach. They said: "We'll quit that

practice." They had that huge mill at Fraser Mills, and they were

bringing all these logs on dumpers. Naturally when logs are dumped in

multi-tonnes at a time, bark goes to the bottom, deadheads go to the

bottom and the whole bottom of your river looks like a muckbank. They

said they'd quit and they did. Now they do dryland sorting. Good for

them. But there are still any number of log

[ Page 3644 ]

dumps,

and the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) will tell you that it

just makes the bottom of the river look terrible. You go down that

river in a fishboat with an echo sounder and the river has two bottoms,

one the firm bottom and the other — five, six or seven feet higher

sometimes — is all that muck, chips, rotting vegetation and bark. We

have to be mighty concerned. That river is an absolute lifeline in this

province. That is why I've always absolutely opposed any thought of a

Moran dam. There will be a day when protein will be so significantly in

need in this province that if we don't have our fishery, if we wreck it

any more than we have, then we deserve everything we get. The trouble

is that it isn't our generation that's going to suffer. It's the next

generation that will suffer. It will be the kids of the Minister of

Forests who sits there and smirks about a very important problem that

we face. The biggest lifeline this province has is the Fraser River.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

This

government brought in a Ministry of Environment. I said at the time to

my colleagues: "I'll bet it's window dressing. I'll bet they're trying

to tell us something that they're not going to do." So far that's what

they've proven, as far as I'm concerned. This minister is new and

that's why I haven't talked to him particularly. Let this minister

prove that he is something more than his predecessors have been.

They've been a disaster. They have not turned anything around in this

province, as far as I'm concerned.

HON. MR. ROGERS:

The member for New Westminster is certainly right on the one thing,

that the Fraser River definitely is the lifeline of the province and

perhaps the area that's the most widely abused in terms of the

environment. That list of charges you produced and information that was

brought forward by the Fraser River Coalition, whom I met with and was

pleased to receive and talk to.... Subsequent to my appointing

investigators from the ministry, the people from the Fraser River

Coalition, who have worked in close harmony with us, have agreed that

in many places where they said charges should be laid they were

inaccurate and they had missed some themselves. I and the staff of my

ministry have had great praise from them for the work we've done. Since

that time in January we have laid charges against 12 companies. We have

another 12 that are pending right now — information is before the

regional Crown counsel.

What is more encouraging is that we

have seen a remarkable clean-up as a result of the fact that our people

are there. People are changing their attitudes. We have had numerous

calls from industries along the river saying: "We've been doing this

for a long time and now we'd like to stop doing it because we know

you're cracking down on us." It is a carrot and stick process and I

share your concern very greatly. As you know, that river goes by my

riding as well and it is the worse piece of pollution in the province.

The Westwater Research Centre at UBC have done all sorts of studies to

indicate what the oxygen levels are and the rest of it. At the present

time they are adequate, but that's not good enough for me. I'd like to

see the river come back to what it once was. It was never a clean river

that didn't have a lot of sediment in it — otherwise we wouldn't have

the Richmonds and the Deltas — but it was certainly a river with a lot

less pollution in it.

We can't continue to use the rivers of

this province as a sewage dump. We always have. Man has done that since

the very first incorporation of New Westminster in the province, the

Sapperton area and the rest of it. I only hope that by this time next

year when my estimates come up again the efforts we started this year

will begin to show through in an even more effective way. There will be

further announcements coming along about the Fraser. I really share

your concern and I think it's been well documented.

You

mentioned the thing on the power line. That went through the 20

different agencies it had to under the Environment and Land Use

guidelines and came back and was approved by ELUC before I became the

minister. I can appreciate your frustrations, as no one wants to have a

power line through their property or anywhere near a beautiful place or

place they live, but everybody wants to have electric light. It did go

through the process. If the process needs to be changed, then maybe

that is what we should change. We set down guidelines for Hydro and

other agencies that want to do linear developments. If they're not

adequate then we should change those.

The member for Atlin

(Mr. Passarell) started off on the Amax mine at Kitsault. I'll try to

go through it briefly. Because the provincial and federal government

have a joint agreement on pollution control permits that all permits

will go through the one window, we incorporate the federal and

provincial regulations and enforce their regulations. The main problem

at the Amax mine is to deal with federal fisheries, an anadromous fish,

and I think the member would agree with that. The federal Fisheries

department reviewed the requirements put forward by Amax for their

discharge. They in fact modified their own regulations by

order-in-council, and that was the decision of the federal government.

We can find no quarrel with their particular findings, because they are

the definitive experts insofar as freshwater fish are concerned. I'm

told that the federal government is at this very time having a second

look at it. That's fine, but the reason that we are involved in such a

way is because we are the one-window approach. If they wish to change

their regulations, then we'll certainly follow through with it.

Utah

Mines. We have a joint federal/provincial study right now. Dr. Buchanan

is our provincial representative on that. In some ways the tailings on

the bottom of Rupert Inlet have proven, so far, to be a benefit, not

just a negative factor. Certainly the eel grass grows a lot better.

It's a little early to tell what the results of that particular

situation are, but it's not nearly as bad as was indicated in the

further situation.

The placer mining operation proposal for

your riding has to go through the full review process, and if we're not

satisfied with their proposal, they just won't proceed. It's as simple

as that. We do have to wait for the results of the Bates commission

report, because we have undertaken to do so. Just speaking briefly of

Dr. Bates and his report, we asked him — I asked him in conjunction

with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr.

McClelland) — if he had sufficient data to complete his report. He

indicated to me that the cross-examination portion of it may not have

been completed, but as far as he was concerned at that time he had the

data that he wanted to complete it.

You talked about

traplines, the trapping monopoly and putting traplines up for tender. I

have attended both the mid-winter and the end-of-trapping-season

conventions of the B.C. Trappers' Federation, and I'm in reasonably

close contact with the pressman of the trappers' association. This

[ Page 3645 ]

may

have been discussed at one time by some official, but it certainly

isn't a subject which they've discussed with me. It may have been

thrown out for public discussion — run up the flagpole, as they say —

but it's certainly not something we're advocating and certainly not

something that they've brought up with me.

In terms of your

fisheries comment on the Indian problem where they're getting arrested

by Alaska state people, quite frankly — I know you'll get mad at me

when I tell you this — it's Intergovernmental Relations, the Ministry

of Justice, and Indian and Northern Affairs. It's a federal/provincial

problem much more than it is a provincial environment problem. I don't

like it when our people get hassled, but if they're in another country

and another jurisdiction I really can't go out and start complaining

about it, because that's not within my jurisdiction.

Trophy

hunting. By the way, you've asked if I've been to your riding. Yes, I

have been to the northern part of British Columbia and travelled very

extensively in it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Flying?

HON. MR. ROGERS:

No, I haven't just flown over it. If I counted the number of times I've

flown over it, I've been to your riding a lot more than you've ever

been to your riding, because I used to do it once a week. I travelled

extensively through northern British Columbia, but I don't send you a

notice of my itinerary and I don't plan to do so.

I share

your concern about trophy hunting, but the trouble with trophy hunting

is that a lot of people are employed in trophy hunting when they use

the guides and outfitters. They employ the native people and local

guides and are a boon to the local economy. I particularly find it

repugnant that people would go out and shoot an animal unless they

wanted to take the animal home and feed it to the family. That's my

personal thing. I don't particularly like trophy hunting, nor do I like

trophy fishing, for that matter. I think it's great to catch one and

take it home and eat it, and if you want another one.... But to fill

your freezer up just because you happen to get into a good fishing

spot, I don't find that particularly exciting. I've shot for upland

game birds and I've done a little fishing, but I'm not a trophy hunter.

Nonetheless, I have that responsibility and there are an awful lot of

people who are involved in that. I don't know what makes man want to go

out and shoot an animal, stuff it, and put it on his wall, but there

are a lot of people who want to do that.

I think that answers the questions that I have so far, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

Mr. Chairman, I want to make a few comments, first of all to the member

for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke), who is a part-time constituent of my

riding and has dealt extensively with the Nicola-Cranbrook transmission

line and the fact that it impacts on the environment in the Okanagan

Valley. For the record, Mr. Chairman, the first efforts started back in

1974 when B.C. Hydro attended the regional district meetings, held

public hearings in the area, and indicated the alternative routes for

the Nicola-Cranbrook transmission line. They started with mile-wide

corridors and then narrowed down, after discussion with affected

property owners and with regional districts, to where they made

amendments to that transmission corridor to allow for people's concerns.

I say, there were public hearings throughout the route through my

riding, starting at the Okanagan through to Christina Lake, and I was

privileged to sit in on many of those meetings. After 1975, when I

became an MLA, I had the opportunity to take up the cause of those

affected property owners and meet with staff members of B.C. Hydro. I

can tell the hon. member that the stack of reports on the

Nicola-Cranbrook transmission line is about that high — and that high,

for the benefit of the text of Hansard , is about a foot. If

ever a case was made for an effort by B.C. Hydro to ensure that they

listened to and received agreement on a transmission line corridor, I

have to say that this was one time that Hydro took into consideration

the many concerns expressed by the people in the area.

Now

the member for New Westminster talks about the beautiful farming area

at the McIntyre Bluff. I know he's there periodically on the weekends,

because he's got a little vacation spot on the south end of Skaha Lake.

Where the transmission line crosses the Okanagan Valley there is no

farming at all, and I think the member, if he recalls his words, will

agree with me that it's basically scrub land right across the area.

It's not to deny that the McIntyre Bluff is a very scenic area. It is a

historical area. I can tell the member that in the meetings and

discussions held in the regional district, amendments were made to the

site for the line in the McIntyre Bluff area, and the final site

selected was more expensive for B.C. Hydro to put in as opposed to

their original line. So they did make adjustments. When it was all

finalized, after the hearings and all the input, they had agreement

with the regional district of Okanagan-Similkameen and with the various

organizations that expressed concern in regard to that area. It only

happened in 1979, I believe — maybe late 1978 — that on the scene came

what was called the Save the Bluff Committee. They came on after all

the agreements were made and after everybody concerned, knowing that

the transmission line had to go across the Okanagan Valley at that

particular area, felt that justice had been done. Sufficient, or

considerable, public input had been made, and the final site was the

best and least environmentally impacting site that could have been

chosen. As I say, allowances were made by B.C. Hydro and extra costs

incurred because of that site.

Mr. Chairman, in somewhat of

a defence, being the MLA for the area, I think my part-time

constituent, the member for New Westminster, should do his homework and

shouldn't listen to the comments made at NDP coffee parties that I'm

sure he attends in the area, from one group in particular who came on

the scene very late. The Save the Bluff Committee didn't do their

homework, didn't know what had gone on before, met in my office with

me, and finally recognized that they weren't going to get support from

the public in the area, because the public felt that they had been well

treated and the decision made was fair and just.

One thing,

Mr. Minister, that I'd like to discuss, which I'm amazed that the

member for New Westminster didn't touch on, is Eurasian milfoil. He

sits at the south end of Skaha Lake, and I'm sure he is as concerned as

I am about the Eurasian milfoil problem in the Okanagan Valley.

Mr.

Chairman, at the south end of the Okanagan Valley, which happens to be

my constituency from Summerland on down, it is a major problem. I

recognize that 2,4-D is what you could call a no-no in trying to

control this weed, and I'd almost have to say that Eurasian milfoil has

gone far beyond the control that could be applied with 2,4-D — possibly

not in isolated areas, but the total problem is so immense that

[ Page 3646 ]

application of 2,4-D would have to be so substantial that it would have some serious environmental impact.

The

Minister of Environment has a program in conjunction with the regional

districts in regard to harvesting the weed. I recognize that that is

cosmetic, in attempting to maintain the beauty of the Okanagan lakes,

and they are doing a good job. That program is funded partly by the

regional districts and partly by the Ministry of Environment. But the

problem is major and all I'm asking at this point in time, as MLA for

the area, is that the Minister of Environment continue that program

and, if at all possible, expand the efforts in that area to ensure that

the tourist attraction of the Okanagan Valley is maintained at the high

standard it was in past years and is at present. The lakes involved are

Okanagan Lake, of course, Skaha Lake, Vaseux Lake and Osoyoos Lake.

They all have the Eurasian water milfoil problem. The major problem, I

think, is Vaseux Lake, which is just a small lake. But as the member

for New Westminster I'm sure knows, it is almost covered with Eurasian

water milfoil. It's not just for the local residents I'd like this

program continued and possibly expanded. I consider all those lakes in

the Okanagan Valley as provincial assets, not just lakes for local

residents. They relate to agriculture, to tourism and to the domestic

water-users in the area. I recognize that there's no simple solution to

the problem. All I think we have to consider is that they are

provincial assets. I am asking the minister, on behalf of the people

who have property in the area and the local tourist and agriculture

industries, that we ensure that an adequate program is maintained in

the future in order that the Eurasian water milfoil problem in the

Okanagan is kept to a minimum.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for

giving me the opportunity to make those remarks to the minister. It's

not very often that one member of the cabinet gets up and raises an

issue with another member of the cabinet, but I just wanted to take

that opportunity to advise the minister. I support his program with

Eurasian water milfoil; I hope he continues it and expands it if at all

possible.

MR. COCKE: By the way, the little klatsch

the minister talks about is a committee that was set up in 1976, which

did a major brief and presented an alternative which the minister knows

about. The alternative was a mile south of Gallagher Lake. The minister

knows that as well. He also knows that the particular McIntyre Bluff

mentioned in the proposal does drop onto farmland. As a matter of fact,

it comes right down in the middle of a guy's meadow. Anyway, that is

neither here nor there. Unless you've moved it in the last few months,

that's where it was destined to be. As a matter of fact there is a

picture of the guy's farm.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The Eurasian water milfoil problem strikes a nerve. Of course, I've

spoken on it every year in the House and I deigned not to this year for

obvious reasons. We've been flukey lucky, you know. It's bad but it's

not as bad as it could have been. Certainly the 2,4-D did nothing. All

you do with 2,4-D is kill it; it goes to the bottom, lays there and

rots and provides all the nutrients for next year's growth. That is the

dumbest way I've ever heard of doing anything. Harvesting — this is an

entrepreneurial type of government. Eurasian water milfoil happens to

be high in methanol. I don't know if you can get it all together and

build a methanol plant and tap this marvellous source of energy, but

I'll tell you — I've said it every year in this House — that if you

want to control Eurasian water milfoil, bring in the predator that

takes care of it; that is grass carp. Grass carp are vegetarians and

they don't take care of the other fish too. What is the fishing

industry in the Okanagan? There are no fish in there.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The hon. member for New Westminster has the floor. Will all other members please come to order.

MR. COCKE:

The grass carp has been used satisfactorily and is now being

introduced, of all places, into the Tennessee Valley, where they

claimed they would never introduce it because it would harm the

residual population. I know the minister is going to say that it might

eat some vegetation that other fish would eat or somehow or other wreck

the food chain. That grass carp is one heck of a fish. It grows to 70

pounds.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: My

colleague wants me to suggest that you get long-legged water buffalo.

But I suggest that we take a very hard look at grass carp because I

believe that is the only way we're going to retain the shoreline of

those Okanagan Lakes. It is just too bad that that stuff ever got in

there, but it is obvious the growing conditions for Eurasian water

milfoil there are such that there are going to have to be some very,

very extreme methods utilized in order to control it. Grass carp will

eat nothing else if there is milfoil in its environment; it will ignore

any other plant life, and it only eats plants. But, Mr. Chairman, I

don't think we've taken it seriously.

MS. BROWN: Mr.

Chairman, I certainly would like to support the recommendations of the

member for New Westminster about the grass carp, although I must

confess I wouldn't be too happy swimming around with 70-pound fish

swimming beside me.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, they're harmless; they don't eat people.

MS. BROWN:

Even if they are harmless, I think I would be a bit nervous that the

fish might think I'm some Eurasian milfoil or something and take a

nibble out of me.

HON. MR. MAIR: I can see why; the resemblance is striking.

MS. BROWN:

Oh, yes, this is what I would be worried about. But anyway, anything

that could deal with Eurasian milfoil, I guess, is worth a try.

What

I would like to talk about, Mr. Chairman, to the minister again, is the

Fraser River, because I really believe that it's too vital to us in

this province to be dismissed just with a couple of sentences from the

minister promising to make further statements in September and

remarking on the change in attitudes of the people who have been

polluting the river down through the ages. Now as you know, Mr.

Chairman, the minister issued a press release in February in which he

assured us that he was going to take very serious steps to

[ Page 3647 ]

enforce

pollution control on the Fraser River estuary and that all complaints

were going to be investigated and there were going to be charges laid

against violations and they were going to be dealt with appropriately,

because the Fraser River was really in serious jeopardy. As George

Manuel said, the Fraser River is not just dying, but dying at such a

tremendous rate that, unless the government did something about it, he

was certainly prepared to take the issue before the United Nations.

heralded the minister's commitment to do something about the Fraser

River and sure enough, the report was completed, and as the minister

says, a number of complaints were investigated and to date 12 charges

have been laid. But I haven't heard anything about any of those

charges, Mr. Chairman, in terms of what's happened to them, whether

there have been any convictions or whether there have been any

penalties. I think it's great that charges are being laid and I think

it's great that attitudes are supposed to be changing, but the

pollution continues, and unless there are some really serious

convictions made and these companies dealt with in a very firm way —

and I'm not talking about penalties where they can pay the fines out of

their petty cash; I'm speaking about serious penalties and convictions

and ways of dealing with the companies — then the pollution of the

Fraser River will continue.

And it will continue because of

the minister's actions as opposed to his word; because of course the

first thing he did after the report came down was to disband the

committee. Now we find that there is one officer, Don Thatcher, I think

is his name, left who is supposed to continue the work that was being

done by the team. Now, that's not a very auspicious indication of the

minister's serious commitment to clean up the Fraser River. No matter

how powerful and how wonderful Mr. Thatcher is, I doubt that simply by

himself alone he's going to be able to deal with it. I certainly hope

that unless the government comes to grips with it Mr. George Manuel

carries through on his threat and takes the whole thing before the

United Nations, because the Fraser River is, as the minister himself

said, too important and too vital to us to be treated in a simple way.

Specifically

I want to deal with the north arm of the Fraser and that part of it

that touches on the South Burnaby area, which is my riding, the

Burnaby-Edmonds area. One of the real problems that we have, Mr.

Chairman, is the Stride Avenue dump. The Stride Avenue dump, because of

its location and because of its proximity to the river — it's not that

close but because it's on the top of a hill everything leaches out and

leaks into the water — continues to pollute the river. I think one of

the findings of the Fraser River Coalition which was submitted to the

minister certainly indicated this and told in some detail about what

the Stride Avenue dump was doing to the river. It talked about low

levels of leachates which flow from this closed dump affecting the

water quality in the drainage ditches used for irrigation etc. I'd like

to know what, if anything, the minister is doing in terms of dealing

with the municipality as far as the Stride Avenue dump is concerned.

This other thing about this dump, of course, is that it's so close to

all of those incredible market gardens that we have in the area where

green vegetables are grown that are just washed and eaten. I wonder

about the impact of the dump on the gardens too.

There are a

couple of companies that have been polluters. One in particular is the

Belkin company, which I know is one that was brought to the minister's

attention; an investigation was done and a charge laid. I'm curious to

know what's happened to that, because Belkin, which is supposed to be

dealing with recycling and helping us clean up the environment, was, as

a matter of fact. pouring PCB into the Fraser River, contributing to

its pollution and the destruction of the quality of the water.

the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) said, that North Arm is the

worst part of the river. It's one of the most polluted areas of the

river, and I certainly have not seen any indication that the change of

attitude which the minister commented on is reflected in any way in

terms of improving the quality of that particular area of the Fraser

River.

The other thing brought to the minister's attention,

of course, was the whole business of wood wastes. There's still quite a

lot of natural land bordering on the Fraser River in the Burnaby area.

Most of that land is owned either by MacMillan Bloedel or Canadian

Forest Products, and of course Belkin has some of it. The municipality

itself has only developed a very small part of that area at the foot of

Byrne Road as a park. The rest of the land needs to be reclaimed, and

certainly the dumping that's going on and the garbage, wood chips,

barks and this kind of thing that's continuing to flow into the river

need some serious attention from the minister. It's just not enough to

say that charges are being laid. I want to find out what's going to

happen, because we still have no indication that they're going to be

dealt with in any serious way.

The final area, in terms of

garbage flowing into the river, has to do with the storm sewers. Again,

I know that was brought to the minister's attention. It's just

beginning to come to our knowledge the real damage that these storm

sewers do in terms of helping to accelerate the flow of pollutants into

the river. It's not going to be possible after a while for anything to

live in the Fraser River unless the minister does more than just have

one person supervising that particular area, does more than just

promising to make further statements in September, and does more than

just lay charges without doing something serious in terms of penalties.

if the minister would deal specifically with the North Arm of the river

where it touches on Burnaby — the big bend area of the river — with

those specific points; the Stride Avenue dump; the three companies, but

primarily Belkin, which has been pouring PCB into the river; and the

whole pollution caused by the storm sewers, as well as the garbage from

logs, barks, log salvage and that kind of thing.

HON. MR. ROGERS:

I touched on some of these points earlier in committee when the member

wasn't here, but I'd like to go over some of the things she brought up.

The 12 companies that have been charged — the charges are now before

the courts. I have no idea, nor do I wish to influence or try to

influence, what the decision of the court will be on these matters, nor

do I wish to influence what the penalty will be. I have personal hope

that it's a real discouragement for people to continue doing it.

There's no point having a fine with people pleading guilty and paying

the fine every day as opposed to cleaning up their act. I think we all

share that. None of these matters has been resolved yet before the

courts, so you might wish to address that to the Attorney-General.

Storm sewers. You're quite right, one of the main causes

[ Page 3648 ]

toxic materials getting into the river system is the storm sewers.

Automobiles which still burn regular gasoline deposit the tetraethyl

lead on the roadway as they drive along and that gets washed off and

goes down the storm sewers. We can actually monitor a considerable

increase in the lead content in the river after we've had rain. For

example, we've now had about 12 or 14 days of relatively good weather.

If we had a heavy rainstorm in Vancouver today or tomorrow — I hope we

don't have one this weekend — that lead would come off the roads. It's

sitting there now. It would come off the roads and go down into the

storm sewers, and it's very measurable. It's an area that has been

seriously neglected in all the municipal systems. Well, not all of

them, because some of them have a joint system that storm sewer runoff

goes through the municipal treatment plant where these things can be

recovered. Once again, when we have a heavy rainfall, many of the

sewage treatment plants haven't the capacity to handle the great volume

that comes when we do have a tremendous amount of water coming down.

But you're right about that.

The group of people that I

disbanded — it's not disbanded; they've been given some summer holidays

— were from all over the province. They came down, left their families

and lived in motels down here. We may not reconstitute it in exactly

the same form. I'm waiting for a recommendation from the team leader as

to what particular form we'll reconstitute it in. But I certainly don't

think it's fair to ask people to leave their families for five months

at a time and come down and life in a motel and do this kind of

investigation. But they are specialty people that we need for this

work, and all but one of them comes from outside of the lower mainland.

MS. BROWN: It's not fair to ask people to leave their families for five months at a time?

HON. MR. ROGERS: Well, we do it.

MS. BROWN: Right.

HON. MR. ROGERS:

However, they don't have the privilege that members have of going home

to their constituencies on the weekend or seeing their families.

Interjection.

HON. MR. ROGERS: No, my children have come to visit.

The

member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke), who has left briefly, asked

about Eurasian water milfoil and the use of grass carp. Just let me

remind members that it'll grow up to 12 feet long and it grows two

inches per day. Mechanical harvesting is strictly cosmetic. It does

nothing. In fact, it may tend to encourage the spread of the thing by

chopping it up into little pieces. If there was a controlled

environment, in which case we could try using the Chinese carp, and if

the federal government would allow us to import some of the fish which

they will not allow us to do....

MS. BROWN: Oh, not Ottawa again.

HON. MR. ROGERS: They're banned now in 21 or 22 states.

Well,

you know, someone took a rabbit to Australia and they meant well, and

it turned out to be a bit of a disaster. I'm not going to be the one

who brings the rabbit to British Columbia in terms of the Eurasian

water milfoil.

HON. MR. MAIR: They took two rabbits.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Well, yes, I guess they took two rabbits to Australia.

MR. MITCHELL:

I'd like to bring three items to the minister's attention. I imagine he

is aware of the problem of 2,4-D spraying along rights-of-way. The

particular right-of-way that I would like to discuss today is the

right-of-way of the B.C. Hydro line from Sooke to Jordan River.

application was made by B.C. Hydro for permission to spray this line. I

would like to review the application, the type of questions that are

asked and the lack of enforcement and any serious studying of these

applications prior to a permit being issued.

The application

was submitted to the Ministry of Environment from B.C. Hydro on March

14. I would like to go over some of the figures and statements made in

the application. It was for the spraying of 2,4-D along the

right-of-way between Sooke and Jordan River. The total area, according

to the application, was for 320 acres. They stated that the treatment

area within that application would be for 200 acres. The land was

described as being public and they were going to use 2,4-D Ester, which

is sold under the trade name of Guardsman. The carrier was to be diesel

fuel.

In the application, Mr. Chairman, they stated that

they would be using 1.2 pounds per acre. The manufacturer's

recommendation for this particular product is 7.5 pounds per acre used

in an aerial spray. According to the manufacturer's specifications, the

aerial spray is the most effective and the most uniform, as far as

controlling the spraying or the amount covered.

I'll go

through the whole application and then we'll review the lack of facts.

The product was going to be dispensed from a back sprayer, and the type

of application would be on vegetation.

The part that really

gets to everyone who lives in the area is this

section 6 of the

application. where they request water information. "Are water bodies —

examples: rivers, lakes, streams or wells — within 10 metres of the

proposed treatment area?" The answer given was no. Throughout that

area, Mr. Minister, there are many rivers that cross this line,

including the Sooke, Marniel, Tugwell, Jordan, Muir — they go on and on

— which are being sprayed. The next question is: "If yes, are these

water bodies or wells used for domestic purposes?" No answer was given.

"If yes, are these water bodies or wells used for irrigation purposes?"

Again no answers were given. "If no, what is the estimated distance to

the nearest water intake or well used for domestic or irrigation water

purposes?" The answer given was 500 metres, which, for a lot of us who

still think in feet, is 1,640 feet.

The application was made

and it was advertised in the local paper. This is one of many

applications that are submitted throughout the province. Normally there

is not the technical input by local people that was given in this

particular case. In so many cases, the permit is granted without a

proper study of the application.

But what actually does it

mean? It stated that they were going to spray 200 acres with 1.2 pounds

per acre. From studies made by competent people who live in the area,

less than 25 acres needed to be sprayed. The total amount of spray

[ Page 3649 ]

that

was applied for in the permit was 240 pounds, For back-spraying it is

approximately 10 pounds per acre. What they were applying for was

enough to do a proper spraying. According to the manufacturer's

specification, the amount of material requested was sufficient for the

area that actually needed to be sprayed — not the inflated figure of

200 acres that was presented in the application.

If you are

going to make an application and you're going to deliver 2,4-D, there

has to be some type of reasonable control in the delivery of that

spray. The type of back-pack that they were prepared to use was one of

the very common back-packs for spraying gardens. It was not something

that completely controlled or monitored the amount of spray that was

given. There were no controls on the air pressure. There were no

controls on the flow from the nozzle. It varied by the pressure pumped

into it and the amount sprayed out by the applicator.

Later

on, when objections were made to the application, when studies were

made of the particular application and some of the facts given in it —

the manufacturer's recommendation for aerial spray was 7.5 pounds per

acre — they were found to be unrealistic, for 1.2 pounds per acre. When

they studied the location of the domestic water intakes in the area....

There are many intakes, but three of them I will bring to the

minister's attention. One was 60 metres from the area sprayed, where

the application said 500 metres. Another was 130 metres, again within

the 500. This was only one small

section of one river. Throughout that

whole area there are homes of every type, and cottages and logging

camps, that are taking water from these water bodies. It was stated in

the application that there was no domestic water use in that area.

feel this is where the minister and his department must give a certain

amount of leadership. When an application has numerous false statements

made in it, I think it is the responsibility of the minister and his

department not only to enforce it, but also to check it out prior to

its being submitted. If an application is given, it should be checked

out before the advertisement is put in the local paper. This should be

the responsibility of the minister. Once these falsehoods are brought

to the attention of the department, I feel that the ministry should

enforce the Pesticide Control Act that we have.

Section 22(

d) says: ''A

person commits an offence who intentionally makes a false statement to

or misleads or attempts to mislead the administrator, board or another

person in the exercise of powers or duties under this act." When this

information is brought to the ministry's department, I feel it is the

minister's responsibility to enforce that act, not to tell those people

who are attempting to monitor what is going on in their locality to go

out and take private action. If we have

an act and it is controlled by

the ministry, I think he has a responsibility to monitor, check and

enforce it. This is the leadership we feel the minister must accept. We

feel that maybe he is making a step in the right direction when he

brings in his group from all over the province to monitor the Fraser

River, but there are other areas in the province that need to be

monitored. Once B.C. Hydro realizes that you are going to check every

application, that you are going to check the facts and understand what

the manufacturer recommends in a particular product — that when the

manufacturer says 7.5 pounds per acre and an application comes in for

1.2, it is just not realistic.... If you are going to do a job, you are

going to do it properly.

Not that I am trying to dump on the

minister, but I would like to read a part of a letter he sent to me in

return for my concern on this particular application. I know that as a

minister he has certain responsibilities, but it says here, talking on

2.4-D: "This committee wholly believes that the use of 2,4-D in the

rather limited areas near Sooke would not result in any adverse effect

to the natural environment, man or animal." This is the part that

really bothers me: "I hope you will realize that where manual means of

control have been attempted recently in British Columbia, they failed

because men no longer enjoy performing physical labour." In British

Columbia we are building highways, mining coal and building a whole

industry. To say as a kind of cop-out that people are not prepared to

perform physical labour, and this is why we should use poison in an

area of domestic water intakes, is wrong. If there are certain people

who are not prepared to work, if a contract is given out to clear it

manually and if people are hired who are not prepared to work, then it

is the responsibility of the person who takes that contract to lay that

group off. There are people in British Columbia who are prepared to

work. There are youth out there who are looking for jobs. To say, as a

cop-out, that people in B.C. are no longer prepared to do manual work

is an insult to the people of British Columbia.

Again, Mr.

Minister, I think the responsibility of your ministry is to get people

working to protect our environment and make sure the intakes to my

water system — my water system.... My water system is also in part of

that area that they are going to spray — if I ever get out there in the

summertime.

Another issue I would like to bring to the

attention of the minister is the need of

interpretation from his

ministry of what a freshwater lagoon is, what a tidal lagoon is, and

what is the intent of the environment and sewerage act where it says

that you cannot run septic tanks into non-tidal waters. I believe I

have spoken to you about this personally. I am referring to the area

known as Weir's Lagoon in the Metchosin district. This particular area

is a lagoon that is near a residential subdivision. It is in a

non-shooting area. Your ministry has issued a conditional water licence

on that lagoon. From my information within the ministry, water licences

are never issued on tidal waters. Water licences are issued on

freshwater lakes, streams and other bodies of fresh water, but never on

tidal waters. So the natural

interpretation is that if it is in an area

that has a water licence, then the water licence would be on a

freshwater lagoon.

From correspondence with many members

within your department. the best that anyone said of that particular

area was that it was a modified tidal lagoon. The Sewerage Disposal Act

states — it's quite specific — that any septic tank built near a

non-tidal water body would have to be at least 100 feet from the water.

It didn't say "from a modified tidal area '' it said that it has to be

100 feet from a non-tidal water body.

When the regional

board, the health board and the citizens came to your ministry, your

ministry would not give the leadership or a positive

interpretation of

what a body of fresh water is. I feel that responsibility rests on the

minister's shoulders. I feel that the minister and his ministry must

take some leadership in protecting the environment. It must accept the

responsibility of giving assurance to those people who are living in an

area that has freshwater lagoons, freshwater bodies, that when

development comes in the laws don't change. When one group has to build

its septic tanks 100 feet away from the body and then someone else can

come in, make an application and say it's tidal, when all the facts

show it is a freshwater lagoon and it has a water licence on it....

[ Page 3650 ]

The

best that any one person within the whole ministry would say was that

it was partial or modified tidal, which doesn't qualify for tidal.

These are some of the questions I would like the minister to answer.

There

is one other question. If he is going to get up, I would like him to

bring to the House the particular program he has for the environmental

protection of the Vancouver Island marmot. I know that you have made it

an endangered species. Now that it is on the endangered species list,

has there been any thought of bringing in any regulations and fines to

protect that animal and to study its current habitat and see how many

we have now? I am hoping that before we get through your ministry's

estimates you can bring to the House your particular plans for that

animal.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Chairman, on the problem

raised regarding the use and application of 2,4-D, I'd have to look at

the details of that. If it is possible that the spray can be done at

one pound per acre and not seven.... I don't understand what definition

of "aerial" they are applying. Is that a commercial package designed

for helicopter application, or do they mean spray application? If the

member would like to bring those details to me, I would personally look

at them.

I must admit that Weir lagoon is a difficult

situation. It is partly fresh water and partly salt water. We've had a

lot of correspondence over that particular thing. The Ministry of

Health has been involved. I will undertake to give it a second look.

The

Vancouver Island marmot is one of four species that we put on the

endangered species list. The biggest problem that we have with the

marmot, I guess, is that people now want to go and have a look at it.

That's part of the problem that we had with them in the first place. If

people would leave them alone, they would do quite nicely on their own.

They do suffer, of course, from natural predators, but human predators

are the ones we would most like to control. So far we haven't come to

grips with how we can draft legislation to stop people from harassing

endangered species, but it is something that I would like to work on.

MR. HANSON:

Mr. Chairman, I have a number of important things that I want to deal

with with the Minister of Environment. I move the committee rise,

report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair,

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:04 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1980,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada