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

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

3651 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Ministry of Finance Act (Bill 49). Hon. Mr. Curtis.

Introduction and first reading –– 3651

Livestock Act (Bill 50). Hon. Mr. Hewitt.

Introduction and first reading –– 3651

Tabling Documents.

Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development annual report, 1979-80.

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 3651

Oral Questions.

Pathology Services. Mr. Cocke –– 3651

Disposition of Crown lands for B.C. Place. Mr. Macdonald –– 3652

Projected resource revenues. Mr. Stupich –– 3652

TIDSA funding for Terrace Slumber Lodge. Mr. Lea –– 3653

Fire safety in rest homes. Hon. Mr. Williams replies –– 3654

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

On vote 75: minister's office –– 3654

Mr. Mitchell

Mr. Hanson

Mr. Hall

Mr. Lorimer

Mrs. Dailly

Mr. Gabelmann

Mrs. Wallace

Mr. Skelly

Mr. Segarty

Division on vote 75 –– 3667

Votes 76 to 81 inclusive approved –– 3667

On vote 82: Creston Valley wildlife management –– 3667

Mr. Nicolson

Votes 82 to 84 inclusive approved –– 3667

Committee of Supply; Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development estimates.

(Hon. Mr. Phillips)

On vote 134: minister's office –– 3667

Mr. Lea

The House met at 2 p.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

HON. MR. HEWITT:

Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today we have two ladies visiting us from

Vancouver: Kathy Huettl, secretary to the president of ICBC, and Claire

McCormick, secretary to the chairman of the board. They are here to see

how the Legislature works. I ask the House to bid them a warm welcome.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Mr. Speaker, last Saturday a very momentous event took place. My

charming secretary, Linda Brandie, was wed. I am pleased to advise you

that this afternoon in your gallery are her mother and father, Glad and

Jim Brandie, from London, with their friends, Claire and Jim Dartnall.

Perhaps the House would welcome them.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery are two young men from

Toronto who are seeing Canada, Mr. Simon Parker and Mr. Alex Ross. Mr. Alex

Ross's father is the notorious Alexander (Sandy) Ross, a British Columbian

who was an editor of Maclean's magazine and is now the editor of Canadian

Business . I would ask the House to make them welcome.

Introduction of Bills

MINISTRY OF FINANCE ACT

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

a bill intituled Ministry of Finance Act.

Bill

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

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

LIVESTOCK ACT

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

a bill intituled Livestock Act.

Bill

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

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

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Hon. members, yesterday the hon. Leader of the Opposition sought a

ruling from the Chair as to whether or not the House could properly

proceed with a certain bill now on orders of the day for second

reading. It should first be observed that any discussion of the content

of the bill on the order paper is generally not in order during other

proceedings in the House. Such discussion, if allowed, would offend the

rule of anticipation. See May's sixteenth addition, page 404;

Beauchesne's fourth edition, page 148, clause 5.

In raising his point of order, the hon. leader quoted from the nineteenth edition

of May at page 754, under the heading "Matters Requiring the Queen's

Recommendation — Moneys to be Provided by Parliament." This reference confirms

the necessity of any measure which provides for the appropriation of public

revenues being initiated by recommendation of the Crown. This is a fundamental

principle established some 250 years ago in the British House of Commons to

the effect that financial bills and resolutions must come to the House by message

recommending the same. This constitutional requirement is imposed on all legislatures

of the Dominion of Canada by

section 90 of the British North America Act, and

on British Columbia by

section 10 of the terms of union by which British Columbia

became a province. It reads as follows: "It shall not be lawful for the

House of Commons to adopt or pass any vote, resolution, address or bill for

the appropriation of any part of the public revenue or any tax or impost to

any purpose that has not been first recommended to that House by message of

the Governor-General in the session in which such vote, resolution, address

or bill is proposed."

This

principle is incorporated in our standing order 67, which provides: "It

shall not be lawful for the House, to adopt or pass any vote,

resolution, address or bill for the appropriation of any part of the

public revenue or of any tax or impost to any purpose that has not been

first recommended to the House by message of the Lieutenant-Governor in

the session in which such vote, resolution, address or bill is

proposed."

The bill in question was introduced on a message

recommendation from His Honour the Administrator on July 29 last, in

conformity with standing order 67. Procedurally, therefore, the House

correctly has possession of the bill. The merit or otherwise of the

method of appropriation of public revenue contained in the bill is for

the House to make a determination upon in due course. Any legal

question arising during the passage of a bill has been ruled to be one

for the courts and not for the Speaker. I refer members to Speakers'

Decisions, 1916, volume 2, page 22.

Hon. Mr. Phillips tabled

the annual report of the Ministry of Industry and Small Business

Development for the 1979-80 fiscal year.

Oral Questions

PATHOLOGY SERVICES

MR. COCKE: The Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair) gets his pencil out.

would like to direct a question to the Attorney-General. As a result of

a major dispute between the pathologists and the chief coroner,

virtually all the pathologists in the province have submitted letters

of resignation, to take effect tomorrow. What steps has the minister

decided to take to settle the dispute and restore pathology services to

the coroners' service of B.C.?

Interjections.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I understand that the boxes are full but the bottle is empty. That is not the answer to the question, Mr. Speaker.

am aware of the problem on which the member for New Westminster has

addressed his question. For the past several days the matter has been

the subject of discussions between the Deputy Attorney-General and

officials of the ministry, with the coroner and pathologists involved.

I am expecting a report on the matter this afternoon or tomorrow and,

if necessary. It is my intention to intervene directly in this

[ Page 3652 ]

dispute.

This morning I was advised by the chief coroner that the suggested

withdrawal of services will not, certainly in the short term, interfere

with the discharge of the responsibilities of his office.

MR. COCKE:

I am delighted that the Attorney-General realizes the gravity of the

situation and has decided to intervene. There has been tremendous chaos

in this service for some time. Mr. Speaker, when the minister

intervenes, I wonder whether or not he might iron out a number of

differences that appear to be growing in the service.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Is that a question?

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: I asked a question, Mr. Speaker, and these little turkeys over here from the north are having difficulty.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, prior to putting your question, I must ask if you will....

MR. COCKE: Yes, I withdraw "turkeys."

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you very much.

MR. COCKE: I would ask whether the Attorney-General would look into the whole question of dissatisfaction across the service.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Mr. Speaker, I'm aware of the expressions of dissatisfaction there have

been in the necessary reorganization of the work of the chief coroner

and his branch, and I wish to assure you and the members of this House

that this is of great concern to me and has been a subject of

continuing discussions between the chief coroner and me. It is our

intention to ensure that we have in this province the highest possible

standard of performance from all those persons engaged in work which

devolves upon the coroner's office, and we wish to ensure that there is

no improper dislocation of the services required to be provided by a

large number of people in order to see that the work is done adequately.

DISPOSITION OF CROWN LANDS

FOR B.C. PLACE

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I have a

question to the Attorney-General. In the light of the fact that the

British Columbia Place Act, which has been introduced, does not make

any reference to the disposition of Crown lands, and in the light of

the statement of the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers) that

tracts of public lands of British Columbia are being appraised with the

object of giving them to the CPR in exchange, I ask the

Attorney-General, as the chief law officer of the Crown, whether the

government has decided that this matter will be brought to the

Legislature — rather than a misuse attempted of the provisions of the

Land Act — for specific authority from the Legislature for the

disposition to a private corporation of what will amount to vast

acreages of the public lands of the province of British Columbia.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Hon. members, I must comment at this time that we seem to be very fast

approaching an area that is very difficult for the Chair to define,

bearing in mind the anticipation rule that we have. I will allow the

question, but I must ask members to bear in mind the fact that we are

referring to a bill that is presently on the order paper. I appreciate

the very skilful way in which the question has been worded.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

It is not my intention either to offend against the rule against

anticipation in debate. I would simply say to the hon. member that in

the discharge of the responsibilities of the corporation responsible

for B.C. Place, it will be required to comply with all of the laws of

this province, the same as any other organization or citizen.

MR. MACDONALD:

Just a short supplementary question. The question is whether the

government will.... It isn't B.C. Place. It's the government that's

preparing to make a disposition of a great many acres of the public

lands of the province of British Columbia. Will the Attorney-General

assure the House that this disposition will receive legislative

authorization before it takes place? Has that decision been made?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: With respect to the disposition of Crown lands, they will be governed by the laws of this province.

PROJECTED RESOURCE REVENUES

MR. STUPICH:

I asked questions earlier of the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis)

that he did not take as notice but indicated he would answer by the end

of the month.

Can the minister now confirm that revenues

from BCPC are estimated to be down some $300 million from the forecast

tabled in this House on March 11?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Before this afternoon is out I will be tabling and presenting to all members the quarterly financial report.

MR. STUPICH:

Previous quarterly reports have not indicated whether this kind of

information will be available; that is, whether the revenue for the

first three months indicates what will be the revenue for the total

year. Is the minister telling us that the question I asked — whether or

not BCPC revenue in the course of the whole year will be down $300

million from what was forecast in the March 11 budget.... Is he telling

us that that information will be available in the first quarterly

report?

HON. MR. CURTIS: No, Mr. Speaker. The

quarterly report deals with the first three months of this fiscal year,

as the member for Nanaimo knows. There is, however, an outlook

section

contained in the quarterly report, and I believe that has been the case

in previous quarterly reports introduced since this government

established this unique and regular reporting mechanism. With respect

to an outlook regarding revenues from the export of natural gas, that

is the very nature of the problem which is being faced in the United

States, Alberta and this province. It is extremely difficult to

forecast what the demands will be six months hence or before the end of

the present fiscal year.

[ Page 3653 ]

MR. STUPICH:

As I understand it, the specific information I have asked for will not

be in the quarterly report. So I am once again asking the Minister of

Finance if he can, from all the knowledge available to him about all

the things he has talked about, tell the House whether or not revenue

from BCPC in the current fiscal period will be some $300 million short

of what was estimated just four months ago.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

I already indicated, when the question was put previously and again

today, that I don't believe I can confirm or deny that. I will assist

the member in the course of the balance of this session and members of

the press who inquire from time to time. That is about all I can do at

this particular moment.

MR. STUPICH: I have another

question, which was asked previously — again, I had the indication it

would be answered in the quarterly report. Can the minister confirm

that BCPC sales are now down to half the level of sales of last year,

measured on a daily basis?

HON. MR. CURTIS: As I

indicated, I am going to produce the quarterly report in just a matter

of minutes. The member then would have not just an answer given in

question period, but he would have all the information that I think may

assist him to ask further questions in subsequent question periods.

MR. STUPICH:

The member for Nanaimo will not have an opportunity to ask such

questions of the minister until Tuesday next. What I am asking now is

whether or not the Minister of Finance, in answers to questions asked

by other people who will have other opportunities, will tell the

citizens of British Columbia whether the sales are down to the level I

indicated in my question.

Interjections.

MR. STUPICH:

The minister is indicating he will not answer that question in the

event that it is asked by someone else between now and Tuesday next.

have another question. Can the Minister of Finance advise whether

stumpage revenues are down — not by any specific amount — from the

level predicted in estimates presented in the House on March 11?

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Again, the root of the problem which we face in British Columbia today

relates to the export of natural gas, so the question with respect to

stumpage revenues.... Again, the quarterly report will show that we are

very close to budget expectations.

MR. STUPICH: We

are making real progress here. I believe I heard the minister say that

stumpage revenues will be very close to the forecast. Will that will be

indicated in the quarterly report? Does he believe the quarterly report

will indicate that natural gas sales are close to the budgeted figure?

HON. MR. CURTIS: No.

MR. STUPICH: I thought you said "as with."

HON. MR. CURTIS: No, that wasn't what I said.

MR. STUPICH: Okay, the information with respect to gas sales will not be in the quarterly report.

MR. BARBER: Give a straight answer.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Speaker, at all times I attempt to give straight answers. Sometimes

the questions are a little convoluted. The last question of the hon.

member for Nanaimo dealt with stumpage revenues only, and I answered

the question.

TIDSA FUNDING

FOR TERRACE SLUMBER LODGE

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, my

question is to the Minister of Tourism. Has the Slumber Lodge in

Terrace — Slumber Lodge, as I understand it, is owned largely by Argus

and Conrad Black — received any provincial funding through TIDSA?

HON. MRS. JORDAN:

I believe the member is aware that at this time TIDSA is under the

Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips).

MR. LEA: Is the minister telling me that she has no responsibility for TIDSA — none?

MR. HOWARD: Why don't they give you that, Pat?

MR. LEA:

Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Industry and Small Business

Development: did the Slumber Lodge in Terrace receive any provincial

funding under TIDSA grants, low-interest loans or a combination of both?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, the TIDSA program is administered by

a joint federal and provincial group. The answer to the question is yes.

MR. LEA: On what basis was funding provided for the Slumber Lodee in Terrace?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

Mr. Speaker, in answer to the member's question, there are criteria for

TIDSA loans. They are standard criteria that we use for every loan that

we make. They relate to the individual application and not the total

company. I am sure that the member, knowing the north country, would

want to see tourist accommodation in Terrace.

If the member

is concerned, as I am sure he is, about Slumber Lodge being partly

owned by Argus Corporation and related back to David Radler, a member

of the British Columbia Development Corporation, I'd like to inform the

member....

MR. LAUK: What was that?

Interjections.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes. Well, let's lay it right out on the table, Mr. Speaker.

the time TIDSA approved the loan, Argus Industries did not own Slumber

Lodge. The deal was completed before Argus took over. However, for the

information of the House

[ Page 3654 ]

and

all British Columbians, Argus doesn't own Slumber Lodge even now. Argus

has 1,100 minority shareholders and at the time of the TIDSA approval —

that's the time of the disbursement of funds — Argus owned 51 percent.

They now own 67 percent. In other words, there are 1,100 minority

shareholders in the Slumber Lodge operation.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In answering the hon. member

for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) a few moments ago, I indicated that stumpage

revenues were pretty close to forecast. I would not want to mislead

this House; that is not in fact the case. I'm sorry that, in my haste

to answer the question, I did not give the correct information.

now ask leave to table the British Columbia quarterly financial report

for the first three months of the fiscal year 1980-81, April to June.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Speaker, may I explain that copies of the report are being

delivered to the offices of all members within the next few minutes.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to respond briefly to a question posed two

days ago in question period by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr.

Cocke).

Leave granted.

FIRE SAFETY IN REST HOMES

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

He posed a question with respect to certain concerns which had been

expressed by the Hospital Employees Union to the fire commissioner with

regard to practices in fire safety in some health delivery

establishments in this province. I wish to advise the member that the

representations from the Hospital Employees Union were received by the

fire commissioner. There has been communication between the fire

commissioner's office and the union, the union suggestions are being

considered now and arrangements will be made to meet with the hospital

union to discuss their proposals in a way in which the regulations and

practices may be improved as a result thereof.

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. MITCHELL:

Just prior to adjournment the minister said he was not clear what I

meant when I talked about aerial spraying. In my conversations with an

agent of one of the manufacturers, he explained that the most efficient

and economical way of spreading X number of pounds of 2,4-D over a

given area was by aerial spraying, in which they could monitor the

spray, speed of the plane and acreage covered. It was at this rate that

they came up with a figure of 7.5 as an effective spray for this

particular product while spraying for alder. He stated that to do it by

a hand-pack and by hand-spraying, without the control of the speed and

the delivery, you have a higher rate needed to do the same job. This is

what I meant by aerial spraying being the most effective from the

manufacturer's point of view.

MR. HANSON: Mr.

Chairman, I think perhaps you should bolt the Minister of

Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) into his place. There are

others who are going to be speaking on this side. It will save him the

effort.

I think probably the largest file that I have

accumulated as a new member in this House is on the portfolio of the

Ministry of Environment. More is happening in that area in terms of

chemicals and other toxic materials and so on, and my filing cabinet is

bulging. But today when I was thinking about what Icon wanted to talk

about to this minister in this House the thing I have chosen is what I

believe to be of the utmost concern to my constituents. It is the most

long-term chronic environmental problem over which this minister has

responsibility; that is, the pollution of the marine waters adjacent to

Victoria by domestic sewage. I don't want this solved for myself or

just for my constituents. I want it solved for all the people of

British Columbia because this is the capital, the showcase, the tourist

centre of our province. But we have over 12 major domestic outfalls

between Pedder Bay around from the western communities through to

Sidney and the Saanich peninsula.

I'd like to take this

minister on just a brief tour of what we have in place at the moment.

Pedder Bay Marina has an outfall; so do Pearson College, William Head

prison, Esquimalt Lagoon — which is a proposal — Belmont Park, the

dockyard, Macaulay Point. To give you an idea of the size of these

outfalls, Macaulay Point is licensed for 12 million gallons a day,

presently only operating at about threequarters capacity. Further to

the east is the Clover Point outfall. The permit is for 13.8 million

gallons a day, presently operating at about six million gallons per

day. My point is that the pollution we are experiencing now is not even

the full volume of what is going to be happening in the very near

future. Continuing on from Clover Point we have McMicking Point, which

operates without a permit under this minister. It is what they call a

registered outfall. It discharges around the high-water mark in one of

probably the most expensive residential areas in British Columbia,

adjacent to Oak Bay. Further on we have the Finnerty Cove outfall,

operating at around two million to three million gallons a day. This is

also a registered outfall; it operates without a permit. It also does

not extend far enough and the pollution is surrounding all the waters

adjacent to Victoria. Further to the north, central Saanich has an

outfall, as does Bazan Bay and Sidney. What I have outlined to the

minister is that these are domestic, not industrial, outfalls. We have

a number of those as well.

The Sooke area, central Saanich

and north of Sidney are unsewered areas. They have septic tank fields

and they are looking in the future to sewers which will possibly mean

three additional outfalls. There are drainage ditches and storm sewers.

What

I am trying to indicate to the minister is that we have a very chronic

degradation of our environment here in the greater Victoria area that

must be addressed seriously by this minister. We want it done soon and

we want to see the

[ Page 3655 ]

leadership that was called for by our debate leader from Port Alberni. We want to see some leadership and action.

don't want to have the minister stand up and read out the list that I

just read him. I want him to tell me what he intends to do. I want him

to tell me what he intends to communicate to the Capital Regional

District, that he is going to exercise some authority, that secondary

treatment is going to be a reality in this area — it is going to be

located in one of a number of areas, possibly the Trial Islands,

possibly Macauly Pint, possibly another area — and that he is going to

go to the member for Saanich, who is the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr.

Curtis), and he is going to demand an appropriation so that he can hold

his head up in his portfolio, so that he can turn and stand in good

stead to the people of this part of British Columbia and say: "No

longer am I going to stand in my ministry with the responsibility for

the quality of water and allow this tragic degradation of our

environment here in southern Vancouver Island."

This is not

just an environmental issue. It is a health issue. It is a social and

psychological issue. As I said earlier, we have a capital city that

relies on tourism. It is an administrative centre. It is a place where

people come and retire. We have a large number of young families moving

into Victoria and we have the tragic situation of people being unable

to take their children unattended to any of the beaches in Victoria

without fear that their children are going to put their hands in the

water and contract some disease like hepatitis. They cannot, in good

conscience, leave their children unattended. As a representative of the

people of Victoria, I must stand up and say to you that you are not

providing leadership. Today I want you to stand in your place and give

the direction to the Capital Regional District that secondary treatment

is going to be a fact of life and that you are going to demand it and

it is going to come about.

Mr. Minister, I am aware that

secondary treatment costs money. It could cost between $60 million and

$100 million. My colleagues in Victoria, Esquimalt, Oak Bay and Saanich

surely must have their phones ringing off the hook from concerned

people who really want a quality-of-life question addressed in a

serious way.

I know it's going to cost money, but our

priorities are clean water. We are not asking for an Annacis Island

bridge; we are not asking for a B.C. Place, and most certainly not for

a tunnel. We are not asking for monuments. We are asking for the kinds

of things that my colleague from Port Alberni talked about the other

day. We want clean water, we want clean air, and we want productive

land.

Mr. Chairman, what I want from this minister is for

him to contact the Capital Regional District. Tell him that the time

has come; the crossroads are here. We can either go one of two

directions. We can keep building outfalls, extending them, spending

millions and millions of public dollars on what is not the solution but

the problem. We can try to keep extending these out and degrading our

marine environment when, in fact, we must turn the comer and go to a

secondary treatment process.

It is a regional problem. It is

not a problem that can be resolved by any municipality on its own.

Perhaps Macaulay Point is going to work for a while. Perhaps Clover

Point, if extended, is going to work for a while. But in actual fact

it's a regional problem and it is a regional degradation that is

occurring.

Let me give you a little background, for example,

on the comedy of errors that occurred on the Clover Point outfall. The

original design specifications called for a pipe that would extend

6,700 feet. In actual fact, what was constructed was a 600-foot pipe.

In other words, it was 10 percent of what it was originally intended to

be. Now an additional $3.4 million — possibly up to $7 million — is

going to be expended on Clover Point alone to take it out 2,800 feet

from the point of land — less than half of what the original design

specifications called for.

What I am trying to illustrate to

you is that if at each one of these outfalls additional taxpayers'

money is expended on modular units, more pipe and more construction,

then this is just leading us down the garden path. Mr. Minister, what I

am asking you to do is to sit down with the Capital Regional District

and say: "Under my authority we are going to have to take action." In

consultation with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, whose ministry the

Sewerage Facilities Assistance Act comes under, and also the Minister

of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), who happens to be a minister representing

constituents in this area and who is in charge of the purse strings of

this province, you should negotiate an arrangement so that a secondary

treatment facility could be amortized over a considerable period of

time so that the taxpayers in this area could afford to make up for

some of the neglect and mistakes that have been made over a large

number of years.

This is what we want. It's a quality of

life question. We want it addressed now. We want leadership from you.

You know, Mr. Minister, in the United States they no longer permit

outfalls discharging into the marine waters. They just don't allow it.

Here we have an antiquated system that is not serving the residents and

is resulting in a deterioration of our environment. It is something

that is having an impact beyond our economy and beyond our recreational

attributes. It is something that we have in the highest priority, and I

want you to address it.

I really want you to take these

remarks seriously and not get up and give us your glib performance that

has characterized your role as the Minister of Environment so far. We

will pay our share. The residents of this area realize that there's

going to be a cost but we're prepared to pay it. I think that local

leadership are recognizing that this is the way the public wants to go.

Now is the time to do it, and I ask you to do it now.

HON. MR. ROGERS:

Mr. Chairman, the member makes some very good points. You are probably

quoting from the same document that I have in front of me. You are

fully aware that this problem goes back a very long time; the active

file, if you like, starts in 1965. It's interesting to hear you say,

speaking on behalf of the taxpayers of Victoria, that they are prepared

to pay their share. The regional district people don't feel that that's

the case at all. Nonetheless, Macaulay Point is working well at the

present time. McMicking Point is on trial and Clover Point, as you

quite rightly pointed out, is violating its permit.

We have

an agreement with the Capital Regional District that Dr. Ellis, a

biologist from the University of Victoria, is doing tests to determine

whether or not the extended sewage outfall system in Victoria is going

to work. I have no doubt that at some time — I don't know when; I wish

I could say sooner than later — Victoria will ultimately have to go to

secondary treatment. The cost of $50 million to $60 million in today's

dollars is just a ballpark estimate.

We have been in contact

with the Capital Regional District, as you suggest; we have

consistently been in contact with them on this matter. They think that

there are alterna-

[ Page 3656 ]

tives.

Because they think so and because their people feel so strongly, we

have made this agreement to do a test with Dr. Ellis, whose opinion I

trust you respect as an independent individual whose opinion should be

treated with nothing but the greatest sincerity.

In the

meantime, I think we are going to have to settle for the proper

extensions of those sewage outfalls. In the long run they will be

required, whatever happens in terms of secondary treatment. It's not a

waste of money. They will still be part of the system in times of high

flow. But there is no doubt in my mind that at some time the Capital

Regional District will have to address it. There were problems, as you

know, when they tried to build a pumping station in south Oak Bay to

pump sewage around, to put it through the outfall. The local resistance

got pretty heavy and the Capital Regional District people backed off.

It is an ongoing problem. I wish it were a simple one to solve, but it

isn't.

MR. HALL: Mr. Chairman, I want to echo again

and again the fact that most of the members have got large and

extensive files on this ministry, at the head of which is this new

minister. In fact, we often find contained in these files in historical

and capsule form some of the great political debates of the last 15

years: Western Mines, Buttle Lake, Utah Mines of Port Hardy, Roberts

Bank superport and others. Many of the things that were predicted at

the time of those debates and at the time of those developments have

actually come to pass.

I'm not suggesting for one second

that the minister, had he been in the House at the time, would have

taken any different position than the position I took. I don't know

that. He wasn't here and I don't know which party he was in then. I

don't know what his position was. But let me assure the minister that

the position that this party took about pollution and about the

environment at the time of those debates has been proven. I just ask

him to accept that as a fact.

I give him the benefit of

holding his views and his portfolio sincerely and honestly, hoping to

do a first-class job. But I want him to understand that those fights of

the last 15 years that we have conducted on the floor of this chamber

on every one of the environmental issues, those arguments that are put

forward.... Unfortunately they are not recorded in Hansard , because we didn't have a Hansard .

But look through the cuttings in the library and you will find that in

those large efforts of the day the environmental issues were first

borne in this chamber by the then member for Alberni, John Squire. He

was the first person in this chamber to talk about the modern pollution

problems. I mention those items just to give you an idea that some were

true. My file is still full of some of those details.

this particular estimate draws to a close, I want to deal specifically

with my constituency of Surrey. I want to suggest to the minister that

he is developing a habit — and I say this to him kindly — of taking

questions as notice, not responding to the worries of the members of

this House and in effect hoping that the problem goes away — the

problem being either the questioner or the problem the questioner is

dealing with. Well, let me tell you, Mr. Minister, neither one will go

away. The member won't go away and the problem won't go away. Sooner or

later we're going to have to grapple with it. Sooner or later we're

going to have to come down to the facts and get the thing ironed out

and get something going about some of the problems we've brought to

your attention. I know that half of the problems we've given to you

from this side of the House you don't have full jurisdiction over. But

I think it's fair for me to say that you have not been as forthcoming

as you should have been and you have not been as strong as you should

have been with our federal officials in Ottawa. If you have been, you

have neglected to seize the opportunities that the opposition has given

to you to prove that, in that you have refused — not on one occasion

but certainly two occasions with me personally — to either inform me or

inform the House what you've done by tabling documents.

Let

me deal with specifics. For instance, what I am worried about — as I'm

sure my colleague, the first member for Surrey (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm),

is — is the growing fact that Surrey appears to be inadvertently

becoming what may eventually be the new Love Canal of British Columbia.

You may say that's alarmist talk or demagoguery at its worst. The fact

of the matter is that already in 1980 we've dumped in Surrey two lots

of radioactive material and we've got storage plants for PCBs already,

none of which has really been authorized by anybody that I can find,

other than private companies without certificates. I feel they should

have certificates by virtue of the dangerous nature of that kind of

material. I may be technically incorrect in saying that, but that's the

way I feel.

Let me tell you what Hydro has reported on the

storage of polychlorinated biphenyls: "Interim storage of PCB waste at

the B.C. Hydro Surrey stores complex is within a specially designed and

constructed building." It goes on to describe the building, the space,

the storage, how many floors there are, what the floor area is, what

the future development of that building is going to be, how many drums

can be stored there and what the current inventory of these PCBs is.

When I asked you this question some time ago, you indicated to me that

you were fairly confident that this was just a temporary problem.

The

current inventory of PCB waste at the storage building is listed here.

It includes three 45-gallon drums, one 5-gallon pail, one 45-cubic-foot

bin, three, 45~gallon drums, two capacitors, three more capacitors, and

it's growing all the time. The report says: "In general, we're

instructing the major generators of PCB waste to send that material to

Surrey. Disposal of PCBs in the U.S.A. continues to be closed, and our

Surrey PCB storage building approaches its capacity. We may arrange for

storage of these wastes at the Kinetic Contaminants facility in

Alberta." Oh, I'm not going to hold my breath until they arrange that

we're going to truck these things to Alberta. "The liquid PCB may be

trucked away from Surrey next time they have a truck in the area,"

which raises a whole new series of problems. What are our standards

about shipping dangerous cargo over the border into Alberta?

The

report continues: "There are no PCB destruction facilities currently

available in Canada, nor for that matter in the U.S.A., that would

accept landfill of some PCB contaminated materials, even if the border

were open." I agree, that's the problem.

I'm not going to

thrash around saying you're at fault by not having one. I'm not going

to make that attack. I might do that in the heat of the moment

sometimes when I get angry, but it is not fair for anybody to blame you

for that at this particular time. What we're trying to find out is what

we can do about getting some facility and having some input from our

community, finding out, on a rational basis, where the correct place

should be, and not in that area. I know you may

[ Page 3657 ]

say:

"Everybody wants one of these things, but not in his backyard." That's

the problem, but there surely has got to be a better area than in the

fastest-growing place in British Columbia.

Interjection.

MR. HALL: Okay. We'll share it together. The western borders of Langley and the eastern borders of Surrey.

"The handling of PCBs by B.C. Hydro is generally in accordance with our

safety-engineering department's practice. " I'm sure it is. I'm

not suggesting for a second that Hydro handles it dangerously. The point I'm

making is that we've got to work on this thing together, I think that by

not allowing the members the full amount of information you have.... I think

we can be of assistance in this, and I'm suggesting to you, Mr. Minister,

that this is a first-category, red emergency problem, and if the apparent delay

continues then we're going to be in serious trouble.

The

second one is the Bates commission. I'm going to have nothing to say

about uranium mining. That's been said. Other members have dealt with

it. But I am going to point out to you that in March, in view of the

doubt expressed by Dr. David Bates that the commission would be unable

to fulfil its promise to Surrey residents that it would study

radioactive wastes in Surrey, I asked what advice you could give your

own government, and what measures could be taken to solve this problem.

No answer.

Marc Lalonde has been advised by his Atomic

Energy Control Board that the federal-provincial task force on

radioactivity has been actively pursuing the determination of a site

for this material within the province of British Columbia on the basis

that industrial waste should be disposed of in the province deriving

the commercial benefits from the process which produced it. Having

initiated contact through the B.C. Deputy Minister of Health, officials

of the AECB are currently awaiting a position statement from the

province.

When I asked you what position you had, you

wouldn't tell me. You wouldn't table documents; you wouldn't give me

any idea of the response you'd made to the atomic energy people at all.

I have to wait until I get letters from MPs in Surrey–White Rock and

Fraser Valley West before I find out what is happening in our east-west

connection.

There are two dumps of radioactive waste in

Surrey — one in Ambrow Way and one near Bridgeview. I would now like to

say again, Mr. Minister: what has the government's response been to

Marc Lalonde regarding the target removal date and regarding a policy

on the determination of a site for radioactive material as suggested to

you and confirmed in these letters from Marc Lalonde to various federal

members? The files are full — as you know — of material, and you said

to me when I spoke to you on March 20 that the province had no

intention of letting the matter lie idle. We wait for your further

response.

The last two questions deal with pesticides. Again

in Surrey we had a particular problem in which there were two areas of

activity that were requested of you, both confirmed and supported by

myself. I was also joined privately by the first member, the Minister

of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm). One was to cease all

private and commercial use of 2,4-D in the province until your

department had conducted an investigation into it. That's a sweeping

step, I agree. It's a very heavy step to take, one which would need

some thought, to say the least, but one which I think the evidence now

compels you to do, one in which I think I've been supported by the

other member for Surrey, and one in which I was supported by the Surrey

municipal council.

The second point is that somewhere along

the line, as the Minister of Environment, you should offer some

protection to those people whose areas are going to be sprayed — if not

from the material themselves, then in the form of notification. I think

it's absolutely absurd in this day and age of communications for us to

see whole areas of our townships subjected to spraying at a minute's

notice. Last year we had the whole question of spraying blackberry

bushes down the beaches and the railway line in White Rock. This year

we've got condominium tenants in townhouse developments having their

lawns and play areas sprayed by absentee landlords with 2,4-D at a

minute's notice. It seems to me that everybody should be entitled to

some notice that that's going to take place, so they can get out of

there if they want.

Forgetting for a second about the

chemical itself, let's say that the Dr. Strangeloves of the world have

won. Let's say that the scientists have won. Let's say that we are

forever now going to be slowly but surely chemically bombed to death.

Surely we must have this last chance of getting out of it. I think that

the Minister of Environment has a responsibility to insist that when

that kind of activity goes on we're entitled to notice. His rejoinder

may be that if I'm in a private home on my little 60x100 lot in

Shaughnessy I can't do anything about my next-door neighbour who's

going to do something about his cabbage white moth or something. I

don't know that.

I want you to do something about the 474

people who wrote me a letter. I want you to do something about all

those people who went up and down the Great Northern tracks. I want you

to do something about those people who were really terrified about that

spraying of the fruit. And I want you to something about your poor

colleague, my good running mate, Bill, when he gets a headline that

says all he can do is phone. If you don't understand the health, the

environment or the chemistry of it, then may I implore you to

understand the politics of it — that if you're going to save him,

you're going to save me, and if you're going to save me; then you're

going to save him.

Whatever was happening in 1979 either

began or stopped in Surrey, Mr. Minister, and you're stuck with it. So

I'm saying that that's got to be attended to.

I'm not going

to get into the big issues of copper, lead, zinc or the leg-hold trap.

I've got my small-bore hunting rifle out now. I'm not looking at 2,4-D.

I'm not even going to comment on the fact that Knapps nursery is

selling diazinon. I just want those four problems looked into: two

dumps of radioactive material in Surrey, sprayed out of our lives in

Cloverdale, blackberries on the Great Northern tracks. I've had it up

to here.

You're a new minister and I don't think.... I mean

this sincerely. I can tease, trumpet around and get blustery, but I

think that the tendency you have of taking these questions as notice

and not coming back is not going to serve you well. I've been here a

long time. I don't want to lecture either. I want you to be much more

forthcoming, as I think we need a minister in this job. We've needed

one for a long time. We needed one when we were in government, and I

was the one who felt we should have one right away. We needed one.

We're going to need one with some ideas, fists, backbone and decision.

[ Page 3658 ]

HON. MR. ROGERS:

With your cabbage white moth, might I suggest that if you plant garlic

in the same vicinity, one row apart, or if you plant onions or leeks,

you will solve the problem without having to use any chemicals.

In a more serious vein....

MR. LEVI: That was in Vander Zalm's column last night.

HON. MR. ROGERS: I don't read Vander Zalm's column. Some of us manage to get our summer vegetables in without fertilizer, too.

Surrey,

the Love Canal and your Love Canal and algae. I think the whole world

has come to know the Love Canal and an excellent program done by one of

the American networks called "The Killing Ground, " which described

that situation. I don't think it's appropriate to describe the

situation in Surrey — certainly with the PCB storage — as similar to

that, but I do understand your concerns.

First of all, it's

our garbage, and my ministry has to deal with our provincial garbage.

It would be nice to say that we could put it on a boat and ship it away

somewhere, in which case the boat would sink and come back on our

shores in any event, or that it would go away to somebody else's

property. Once again, who wants a garbage dump around their place?

That's precisely the problem we face.

There is an

organization, a private corporation in Edmonton, that has nothing more

or less than precisely what you describe in Surrey with B.C. Hydro.

They have a warehouse near Nisku. They have drums in storage. They have

no disposal. There is no disposal anywhere in the United States.

Incineration was tried for a while, but that's proven to be

unsatisfactory. This chemical, which has been around since the

1920s.... I want to tell you that great efforts are being made to find

ways to dispose of it.

One of the things that we did do was

to get together at the western meeting of the Canadian Council of

Resource and Environment Ministers and try to hammer out a plan for one

facility that would be adequate for western Canada because of the

problems. There was a press release that I put out; maybe you didn't

see it, but we asked for an advisory committee to be set up to

recommend steps that should be taken by the Ministry of development to

develop safe and acceptable methods of disposing of hazardous wastes in

British Columbia.

The following organizations have been

asked to nominate people to sit on this committee, which will take up

where the joint federal-provincial study on hazardous wastes is leaving

off: Ministry of Health, Ministry of Transportation and Highways,

Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development, Ministry of

Municipal Affairs, Council of Forest Industries, British Columbia

petroleum association, the faculty of applied science at UBC, SPEC,

Union of B.C. Municipalities, Mining Association, Paint Manufacturers'

Association, Canadian Manufacturers' Association, Canadian Chemical

Producers' Association, federal Minister of Environment and the Greater

Vancouver Regional District.

I have invited all of those

people plus the federal government to come together and address this

common problem. One of the difficulties is that we have very hazardous

wastes, like the radioactive wastes you talk about and the PCBs, and

then we just have straight ordinary liquid industrial wastes, which are

hazardous or not hazardous, but they all require disposal, and we

really have never had a proper inventory of what these matters are.

I've said earlier in the House that greater Vancouver has got a solid

waste disposal system for inert solid waste. There's not an awful lot

of that around. They have a liquid waste for domestic sewage — for what

goes down the sewer line. That system, like the system in Surrey, is

not designed to handle oily wastes, PCBs or anything else that's thrown

down there. They just go right through the sewage system. So we have to

find and develop a way to do that. I have asked this task force to do

that, and I must admit I'm getting an excellent response from the

people who are involved.

You said you'd like to make

suggestions. If you can come up with a suggestion on a place for the

storage of pesticides, herbicides, or contaminated liquids anywhere in

this province where you can find local people ready to accept it.... It

is a provincial problem. It is our garbage, and I think we really can't

go on blindly saying that if the border were open we could ship it to

the United States. Some time the people down in Seattle are going to

say: "Why are we allowing Canadian garbage to go through the middle of

our city in a tanker truck at 11 o'clock at night down Interstate 5?"

They'd be very right in saying that. Well, that border has been closed,

in any event, for PCBs, but not for all substances. But we have to

address that, and it's to that end that I have struck this group to do

that very thing. We've just tried to get a global group of those whom

we thought would be interested. If there are other groups that have

been missed we'd certainly be prepared to include them.

said in the House the other day, when we were discussing pesticides

earlier in my estimates, that we're going to consider — and are

considering in the ministry — requiring linear developments: that is,

requiring private companies like the Burlington Northern and the

E&N railways and others to get permits and to publicly announce

when they're going to spray. It's difficult enough to do it on a

private property-to-property basis, but these thin linear developments,

which are almost always railways or power lines, create no end of

problems and concern for everyone along the way. Even if the work that

they are doing is perfectly safe and harmless, I've noticed that people

have a tendency not to trust railroads or their public relations

departments. In any event, the ministry and I are working on a program

where we're going to require that they apply for a permit to use

pesticides in their own private properties.

On the

radioactive wastes that you have in Surrey, I have talked to M.

Lalonde, I've talked to Mr. Roberts; I have had correspondence with

them. They've been pressured. When Mr. Roberts came out to Vancouver he

and I personally went on a tour of the lower Fraser Valley by air,

because we wanted to look at some of the river problems, which were

just as pressing as the problem you face, and he was well aware of it

that night. In fact, he went out and spoke to the Liberals in Surrey. I

wasn't sure they had that many of them, but anyway, he went out to

speak to them and he faced that very problem. So it's not going away as

quickly as I would like to see it go away, but on the other hand, it's

not being neglected as much as you'd like to think it is.

MR. LORIMER:

I want to talk a few minutes to the minister with reference to the

fishing industry in this province. First of all, I acknowledge that the

fishing industry, to a large degree, is the responsibility of the

federal government. But the province certainly has a stake in that

industry and has certain responsibilities. My position is that those

[ Page 3659 ]

responsibilities are not being carried out properly by this Minister of Environment.

You

know, 50 or 60 years ago, the oceans, creeks and lakes in this area

were full of fish. These have substantially disappeared. We can see in

the papers month by month that certain areas are being closed for

fishing and certain fishing periods are being reduced and so on. A lot

of that is caused through the inactivity and the activity of provincial

spheres of influence.

The mining and forestry industries are

causing a great amount of damage to streams in some areas of this

province, and to the habitat in which the salmon are trying to spawn

and in which the trout and inland fish are trying to live.

The

minister, during his term in office, and the government itself, have

basically shown a disregard for the fishing industry. In my opinion,

the fishing industry should be one of the major industries of this

province. It's one that provides food, and in the long term will be of

much more importance than the logging or mining industries. I think

that we should make sure that this industry is nurtured and nurtured

carefully so that in the years to come this industry will be back as a

lively industry in the province once again.

[Mr. Kempf in the chair.]

The

Riley Creek experience is an example of the reckless ways in which

different industries look after their own affairs to the destruction of

the fishing industry. This is the minister — whose estimates are before

us — who has the responsibility to make sure that other interests in

this province and other ministries, in carrying out their operations,

protect and look after this other resource. My position is that this

minister is failing to do this. This minister has been asked a number

of questions in question periods. He has taken most of them as notice.

I suggest to him that he is afraid to give an answer that he would like

to give because he's afraid he's going to get into trouble with the

Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland)

or the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) — somewhere down the

line he is going to be in trouble.

I believe this minister

should be one of the strongest ministers in this cabinet. He should be

able to take an overview of the situation. He's really got no empire to

build. His main project should be to see that the different industries

live side by side compatibly. He should be the one to direct what

should and should not be going on, as it affects fish, wildlife or

whatever. In my opinion, this minister has failed miserably to do this.

I know he's only been in the portfolio for a reasonably short time, but

it is my hope that when these estimates come forward next year we will

see a different situation, that we will see that the creeks in the

province are protected, that logging functions are not destroying

creeks, rivers and lakes, and that road building operations and so on

are making sure that the dirt they move and dump does not affect the

streams and lakes of this province.

I spoke earlier, in the

estimates of the Minister of Forests, with reference to the Brandywine

Creek area and the apparent destruction of that creek. That is only a

small creek; it is a small thing. But I am suggesting to this minister

that this is not the only case in this province where this sort of

thing is being done by the mining, forestry or other industries and

affecting areas in which this minister should have a special interest.

want to make sure this minister is not a loser when it comes to

competing with the other ministers in the cabinet. I want to see that

minister be a strong minister, to tell the other ministers where they

have to take corrective action and make sure that this is done. He is

the one the people of this province have to rely on to make sure this

resource is protected, encouraged and will live on forever.

MRS. DAILLY:

I am going to bring up a subject which I've brought up for a number of

years with the former Minister of Environment, unfortunately without

too much success. That is the subject of leg-hold traps. I don't intend

to take a great deal of time, because I know that our critic for the

ministry will also be speaking on the matter. I just have a few simple

questions to ask and points to make for the minister's attention.

note that on June 23, 1980, there emanated from this minister's office

a news bulletin which announced that the Ministry of Environment had

allocated $8,000 to educate trappers in the techniques of humane

trapping, skinning, pelt-handling, etc. That is commendable. On the

other hand, I thought it was very ironic that the Ministry of

Environment in the Social Credit government, which has been sitting on

this whole matter of helping to find a humane leg-hold trap, has found

money to teach humane trapping. My first question to the minister is:

how on earth can you teach humane trapping when you don't have a humane

trap? That is the first point that I want to bring to the attention of

this minister. I want to ask him for a progress report on what has

happened to the development of the humane trap which we have heard so

much about, which this ministry says they have committed themselves to.

After all, this government has been in office for five years, and from

what I can see we're no further ahead with the development of a humane

trap than we were when they first took office. I hope the minister will

be able to tell me I'm wrong when I make that statement, but all my

facts, the reading I've done and my discussions with the people I've

met with seem to point to that very sad fact.

I have some

specific questions. I'd like a general progress report on the

provincial committee that was formed to find a humane trap. I'd also

like to discuss with the minister the $100,000 from the lottery fund

which was allocated to help find a humane trap. Out of that $100,000, I

understand that $25,000 was sent to the federal committee, which has

been sitting for years and has a million dollar budget, yet still

hasn't produced a humane trap. Yet $25,000 of the $100,000 was given to

this committee which apparently has not performed its function despite

the money it has received.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

want to ask again about Mr. Gabry. Mr. Gabry, I think we all know by

now, has been a pioneer in developing and working on a humane trap. Mr.

Gabry has improved on his old 1974 model and he needs help with the new

model he has. Yet I don't know if the provincial government or ministry

or committee — whoever is handling it at this time — has assisted Mr.

Gabry in testing his new humane trap. I'd simply like to know what's

holding up the development and finality we're all waiting for — an

announcement in this House that a humane trap has finally been tested

and will be put into use in our province.

MR. GABELMANN: Yesterday the minister lied to me in response to questions.

[ Page 3660 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. member, I'm sorry, you'll have to withdraw that remark. Imputation

of false motives is unparliamentary and cannot be allowed.

MR. GABELMANN: It is true, but I will withdraw it. I intend now to prove the charge.

Yesterday,

quoting from the Blues, the minister made a number of comments

responding to questions I had raised about Hernando Island. I am going

to read from the Blues: "The reason I told my conservation officers not

to go in there and poison the animal was because our guidelines

specifically state that we do not use poison against wolves or any

other animal in this province until all other methods have been tried,

including having a conservation officer go in there and shoot the

animal if it is in fact a problem animal."

He went on later,

in a subsequent response, to say: "On Hernando Island I called off the

poisoning, not the conservation officers." A few lines later he says:

"The only poison that existed was in Williams Lake at that point." He

then says: "There was no way I called off the conservation officers."

Very

clearly yesterday in the House the minister said to me and to the House

that he called off two conservation officers who were on their way to

Hernando Island, not calling them off their investigation, he said, but

calling them off their poisoning.

Let me just go through the

facts of the matter as they are. The report reached the RCMP office in

Campbell River at 5:15 on Tuesday, May 6, of an attack on Hernando

Island. The next day Mr. Larry Killam called the minister's office and

talked to Donna Hall, the minister's secretary. That same day,

Wednesday, May 7, Mr. Killam talked to the RCMP in Campbell River and

suggested to the RCMP that the charge was likely baseless. Until that

point the RCMP had decided not to investigate the charge. When they

were informed by Mr. Killarn that a false charge might have been made,

the RCMP decided that in fact they would investigate. On Thursday, May

8, the RCMP officer was with two conservation officers at the

helicopter pad in Campbell River when they were asked by a phone call

to the helicopter pad area not to go to Hernando Island. There was no

poison on the helicopter. There was no poison in their possession

because, as the minister stated, the poison was in Williams Lake. They

were told by the minister not to go. The minister was responding to a

request from, not someone in his department, but an old friend.

According

to Constable Peter Attrell, who was due to fly to Hernando on May 8

with the two officers — whom I won't name — to investigate the

authenticity of the alleged attack on May 6, the two Fish and Wildlife

officers were waiting for the aircraft at Okanagan Helicopters,

Campbell River base, when they were told by telephone not to go. No

statement on the withdrawal procedure has been issued to date and all

inquiries about the incident were being referred to the minister's

office last week. The office was notified of the alleged attack by

island shareholder Larry Killarn, who said last week: "Rogers is a

friend of mine, and a large number of other people on the island."

Very

clearly ministry staff were on their way to the island together with an

RCMP officer; very clearly they had no poison in their possession,

because the poison was in Williams Lake. No procedures had been

developed, because the authority to poison wolves had only been granted

two days earlier and the procedures were not in place. Yet they were

called off. The minister says they were called off because he was

unwilling to poison the wolves. I've quoted from Hansard

to demonstrate that that's what the minister said yesterday. In fact,

what happened is that the officers were called off. They were unable to

conduct an investigation — which is why they were going over there —

because of the minister's interference based on a phone call from an

old Vancouver Club friend.

As I said initially, I can't say

again that the minister lied to me; I'm not allowed to say that, so I

withdraw that in advance of saying it. Nevertheless that's what

happened, and I have just proven it.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: Horse what?

Mr.

Chairman, I have withdrawn that term, but that's in fact what happened.

Whether we call it a white lie or a Nixon tactic, or what.... What he

was doing was absolutely untruthful, and that's a fact, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN:

I will call all hon. members to order, and remind all hon. members that

we can debate the administrative actions of a minister, or of a

ministry, but we cannot make comments about the integrity of another

hon. member. That is most unparliamentary, and I'm sure all members are

aware of that. I'm satisfied that the member for North Island has in

fact withdrawn any imputation of dishonour against another hon. member.

HON. MR. ROGERS:

Well, Mr. Chairman, perhaps I can clear up some misunderstanding. If

the member will bear with me, I will go through the sequence of events

as they were reported to me.

At the time that the matter was

first reported to me, we were in a cabinet meeting. I received a note

saying: "A woman has been attacked on Hernando Island and we are

dispatching poison to dispatch the wolf." At that point I said: "Under

no circumstances will we do so." A member of my office staff phoned the

conservation officers in question and said: "You are not to go." That's

quite correct; he did say they were not to go. My directive had been

about using poison, not about them not going. There was some confusion

among the staff, however; they were phoned back in relatively short

order and told: "There is nothing wrong with the conservation officer

going, but we will not use poison." And we didn't use poison.

Now

you may wish to call me anything you like, but that's the matter as I

understand it. Whether or not I personally know someone who lives on

that island, and whether Mr. Killam, who chooses to call himself a

friend of mine, interfered or phoned the Mounties.... Mr. Killarn

phones police officers all the time, I think you'll find, if you....

MR. GABELMANN: He phoned your office. He phoned Donna Hall.

HON. MR. ROGERS:

Yes, he may have phoned her as well. He may have phoned all sorts of

people. But I don't take instructions from Larry Killam, or from anyone

else.

The member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) asked

[ Page 3661 ]

about the leg-hold trap — and she has left. I was going to tell her about the leg-hold trap.

MR. SKELLY: We've seen a demonstration before.

HON. MR. ROGERS: You've seen it before, yes.

MR. SKELLY: Garde used to do it when he was in opposition.

HON. MR. ROGERS:

But he stuck a pencil in it. You see, the leg-hold trap isn't.... These

are almost out of date now. Very few leg-hold traps are still being

used. They are used on some species of animals. They are approved for

use with what they call an offset jaw. This is what they call a

long-spring trap, and the offset jaw is one where the animal, if its

foot is trapped, is held — but it's not in pain and the skin is not

broken. As you saw, I stuck my hand in the trap and my fingers are not

bleeding or gushing. But this thing is still a fairly crude instrument.

have been going on a very, very extensive program of trying to find a

new trap. The trappers themselves have been the ones who have worked

the hardest on this particular subject. They have developed what are

called humane traps. When you kill something, then the definition of

"humane" means how quickly you kill it. I appreciate that if you don't

believe in killing anything in the first place, then there's no such

thing as a humane trap.

The concern is that we have a trap

like this being used to catch the animal which wasn't the target

species. Obviously, if you catch a very small animal in a trap like

this, the animal's foot or hand is going to be very adversely affected.

First of all, these traps are now not mounted on a chain of this length

— which is about 50 centimetres, I guess — and this, if staked, allows

the animal to travel in a fairly broad arc. The animal — especially if

it's of the dog species, like the coyote and the wolf — will stay very

close to where it's trapped, provided its paw is held firmly; they

won't wander around. Nowadays, instead of having the swivel on the end

of the chain, they have the swivel mounted on the bottom of the trap, a

short chain and an offset jaw. A trap like this is boiled in water and

then drawn up through a layer of wax that exists on top of the water.

It would be set for a coyote. This trap would be set in a field, in a

burrow, in a hole where a coyote would be probing. It is covered with a

thin layer of wax-paper and then a layer of dust, and then the area is

surrounded with coyote urine which would attract the other coyotes.

They stake the area so it's identified.

This is what the

trappers are working on when they still do use these traps. It's

difficult to understand how other species get caught. They do

occasionally catch whisky-jacks in traps where the trap is baited with,

say, a piece of beaver meat or something similar, because the

whisky-jack is a friendly and very brave little bird, and it tends to

go out and go after the baits.

The trappers themselves — and

I've been to both their recent conventions — spend the majority of the

time discussing humane trapping: how to do it the best way. A former

conservation officer, Jack McKill, is devoting his time to trapper

education. We have had excellent response from the native communities

throughout the province. In one particular school in the province,

humane trapping is the course to take — obviously it's not in your

constituency or mine; it's actually in the constituency of South Peace

River — and we offer it in conjunction with the school district in that

area.

The trappers that I have met — and they've invited me

to go on a trapline, which I would like to do this fall — to a man are

people of the wilderness. They are not cruel or inhumane people; they

are people who live out in these remote areas and work very, very hard.

I think they're at peace with nature because they have to come back and

do the same trapline the next week. They very seldom carry large guns

with them, and they have no dreams of going off and shooting a trophy

animal. They make a living with trapping. I could say a lot more about

them; I'm very impressed with their efforts.

Now the

federal-provincial Humane Trapping Commission, which is made up of

people from the SPCA, people from the Trappers' Association and

concerned citizens' groups, have unanimously supported the

recommendations and the conclusions of the federal-provincial

committee. They have a very extensive program of testing traps and new

schemes. Barry Saunders, who is the provincial trapping advisory

officer, has been down to Ontario to see the government of Ontario's

new trap that they've devised, which is a foot-operated trap set off by

a pan. They think you have to have some instructors, so we sent two

people down; the president of the Trappers' Association and Mr.

Saunders went there to see this particular project. At each of the

meetings of the trappers — and obviously, just by the very nature of

the business, they are a long way away from each other — they all come

together with yet another better idea of a more humane trap.

This

group of people does not take the criticism and the concern of people

like you lightly; they take it very, very seriously, and I have given

them as much encouragement as I can to come up with a humane trap. They

presented me with this particular trap, I guess, as a memento of going

to one of their conventions. I didn't know much about trapping when I

got into this ministry. It's one of those things which I was quite

concerned about as a backbencher. Lots of people express concern, and

you and I have both seen lots and lots of letters about it. Well,

before I condemned them, before their day in court, I went to see what

they were doing and I was very much impressed. I would suspect that

this particular type of trap will probably be extinct in two or three

years, but I can't give you that guarantee. Its use is very restricted

now; it's not a particularly good trap to aim for most species that the

trappers are aiming for. In most cases they use as humane a trap as

possible. If we had the kind of effort in other areas in the

environment that the Trappers' Association is putting into solving

their problems, we'd really go a long way.

MRS. WALLACE:

Mr. Chairman, when this government introduced a Ministry of

Environment, I was a bit suspicious that it might simply be a ministry

that would prove to be a bit of a red herring, a ministry that would be

a sop to the growing public opinion expressing concern about the

environment and take off a bit of the pressure to do something. My

suspicion has now become my conviction; that is exactly what this

Ministry of Environment is all about, and the choice by the Premier of

ministers to fill this post indicates to me that that was the reason

for establishing a Ministry of Environment. First we had a minister who

said he knew nothing about the environment; then we had a minister who

did nothing about the environment; and now we have a minister who is a

glorified bureaucrat, a technocrat who likes to display his trap and

tell us how he can catch his fingers in it, who talks about measuring

the heights of diving boards,

[ Page 3662 ]

who

talks about naming streams — he hasn't named any after himself yet, but

I assure you, as soon as he finds one big enough he probably will.

don't believe he has any concept of what his responsibilities are.

Being the Minister of Environment — or what it should be — is being a

minister in charge of the one most critical area that's facing British

Columbia, Canada and the world today. It's truly a matter of life and

death, because what we do about our environment today is going to

dictate whether our children and our children's children have an

environment in which they can even exist. Instead we get leg-hold traps

and diving boards. We get permits to pollute and court cases that are

going to crowd the courts of this province for years. I know one case

in my constituency that started in 1976 and it hasn't been resolved

yet. There's been one adjournment after the other, finally a hearing,

then an appeal, and the pollution goes on. That's the kind of minister

that we have: one who is obsessed with these kinds of piecemeal

projects — nothing that's really getting to the root of the problem.

That's what is concerning us here on this side of the House. Instead of

being a minister who is prepared to grasp the nettle and do something

about it, he hides behind technicalities, reports, numbers, figures and

gimmicks. That's not the answer to protecting our environment. This

minister is so able to avoid the real problem and hide behind any

little pretence, any little gimmick that will take him out of answering

the real questions or facing up to the real problems.

Not

too many years ago those people who stood up for the environment were

considered hippies, queer or negative obstructionists. But that has

changed, and somehow that government hasn't realized that has changed,

that the real need is there now, that action has to be taken now and

that you can't put it off. Somehow, some way, we have to jog those

people into realizing that if they don't take some very strong and

adamant steps now, the time is going to pass when they can be taken.

The ecology is in the balance. Some people think it's past the point of

no return. I think there's still hope here in British Columbia, but not

with this minister and not with this government. That's why we're

concerned about the environment in British Columbia. It is a matter of

life and death, and to put a matter of life and death into the hands of

that minister — that bureaucrat, that technocrat — is akin to putting a

loaded revolver into the hands of a six-year old.

MR. SKELLY:

Just following along on the lines of the speech made by the member for

Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace), it's remarkable to me how insensitive

the Social Credit government and its Ministry of Environment appear to

be to the concern expressed by Canadians and Americans in North

America, and in Europe generally, about the condition of the

environment in which they live, and the condition of those

life-sustaining resources which I mentioned earlier: pure air, pure

water and productive land. Gallup polls that have been done across this

country, across the United States, throughout Europe and around the

world have indicated that up to 70 percent of the subjects of those

polls were concerned first and foremost with the quality of the

environment in which they lived, and by quality of environment I mean

the quality of air, water, land and the life-sustaining ability of the

environment. In spite of those surveys and in spite of that

overwhelming public opinion in its concern with the environment, what

our government does in British Columbia is to appoint a rookie minister

to a junior ministry. That's the level of their concern about the

environment, and that's what concerns us over here on the opposition

side.

I've listened to this debate ranging over the last

three or four days, and listened to members, on our side of the House

predominantly, stand up in the House and express their concern about

environmental issues. The reason why so many people have spoken on this

side is, as they have said, that their files are crowded with letters

and expressions of concern from their constituents around the province.

The largest percentage of the mail we get on this side of the House

relates to environmental issues, and I would say that's the predominant

concern of people in the province of British Columbia.

What's

going to happen to the Peace River Valley when Hydro floods it at Site

C? What's going to happen in Alice Arm when mines are allowed to

proceed there and dump tailings into the arm? What is happening with

Buttle Lake and the quality of our drinking water and the quality of

water in which fish have to survive? What is going to happen to the

races of salmon that are going to be wiped out in the Nechako River

unless the minister takes firm action to get water of a certain

temperature released from the Skins Lake spillway? Thousands of people

from every single comer of this province are writing to the minister

and members of his government and being frustrated, or writing to the

opposition in the hope that the opposition can do something which the

government refuses to do.

Your ministry is more than a

service to other government departments. It should be more than a

junior ministry. It should be more than a rookie minister. It should be

one of the most important ministries in the Social Credit government.

Look at other governments in comparison. Under the previous Social

Credit government, Agriculture was considered a junior ministry. Nobody

paid much attention to it. In real terms the budget went down year

after year and you appointed junior ministers to that portfolio. When

the NDP came to office it became a senior ministry and we appointed a

capable minister to that office, and many things were done in

agriculture which would have put agriculture in a sorry position today

if they hadn't been done. Now Agriculture has been demoted and given a

junior minister again and agriculture is suffering in this province as

a result.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Would all hon. members come to order. I would remind the hon. member

for Alberni that we are on debate of vote 75, the estimates of the

Minister of the Environment. Our standing orders do not allow us to

discuss whether or not a member should be in cabinet or not, and of

course it is a general rule of this House that we do not make personal

allusions towards a minister during the debate of his estimates.

MR. SKELLY:

What I was referring to was the importance of a ministry and how the

importance of that ministry should reflect the importance of the

environment as it is felt by the citizens of the province of British

Columbia and in fact people around the world. Citizen and environment

groups are getting tired of politicians of both stripes, mine as well

as yours; socialists in Europe as well as Christian Democrats in

Europe. It doesn't really matter, because nobody seems to be addressing

the issues. They are forming separate, very strong

[ Page 3663 ]

environmental

groups — the Green List in Germany, the Green Ban in Australia — all

over the world. Sweden is a perfect example of the problem. Unless

politicians do something about it, that movement is going to grow until

it destroys politics as we know it in the province or country today.

These political parties assembled in this Legislature do not seem to

reflect the concerns of the people about environment and the wishes of

the people to correct the problems which they see in the environment.

One

of the things that happened to this ministry — it is not the fault or

the responsibility of this minister — is that it was broken up, Lands

was taken away from it. There is very little you can do about that, but

it is very critical that Lands be considered a part of an environment

ministry. Unfortunately Lands were taken away and given to a patronage

ministry so that the lands could be dispersed into private hands. That

is unfortunate.

The second member for Vancouver South (Mr.

Hyndman) a short time ago talked about the conservation trust and

congratulated the minister for setting up the conservation trust. This

ministry had within its jurisdiction a very short time ago the greatest

conservation trust that any ministry anywhere in the world could ever

have hoped to have been blessed with. That is jurisdiction over the

Crown lands of the province of British Columbia. They had the greatest

conservation trust and they blew it. Now they are given a token amount

of money to try to buy some of it back. You congratulate the minister

for that? That is insane. We had the biggest, greatest conservation

trust that any province or jurisdiction could hope to have and your

Premier blew it in order to give that land away. I don't congratulate

you at all for the conservation trust. I don't blame you for the fact

that Lands was taken away from the ministry. It is the Premier's fault,

and unfortunately you have to live with a ministry that is an abortion,

when you consider the three most important common property resources

that an environment ministry should deal with: land, air and water —

those life sustaining resources. It is absolutely impossible to get

along without land. I realize the problem you're dealing with, the

burden you have to bear as a result of a silly decision that was made

by the Premier of this province. It leaves the ministry absolutely

crippled. If there's one thing that should be done by this government

if it wishes to keep a suitable Environment ministry — one that can do

its job well — it is to restore jurisdiction over Crown lands to that

ministry as soon as possible, because without Crown lands the ministry

is crippled.

But what is the minister doing? In his public

statements, is he going out and saying this? Is he asking in cabinet

for restoration of some or all of the Crown lands of the province? I

don't mind seeing certain sections of the land under Crown ownership

taken away and used for housing, agriculture and industrial

development. Certainly a great deal of land could be taken away, land

that's more suitable for that use than it is for, for example, wildlife

habitat, protection of water supplies or fisheries and spawning areas.

Why did they take all the jurisdiction over Crown lands away? It's

ridiculous. It cripples the ministry. Yet the minister seems to have

very little to say about that. In fact, he seems to have very little to

say about the direction of his ministry. What are we trying to do? What

is the overall policy of our ministry? In which way are we headed in

this province with the Environment ministry?

Occasionally you hear the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development

(Hon. Mr. Phillips) talking about a commercial fisheries policy for the province,

or the Minister, of Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan) talking about a tourism strategy

for the province. They are good things. But we don't ever hear from this

ministry about an overall environmental policy for the province. What do we

want? What do you want? If you have an idea of what you want, some objectives

in mind, then we can understand what you're trying to do to set out to achieve

those objectives. But we simply do not have, from this minister or his ministry,

any kind of consistently stated objectives as to what we want the environment

of the province of British Columbia to be like and what we're doing to move

in that direction. It's this lack of direction and, seemingly, a lack of

interest on the part of the minister in developing a policy direction for his

ministry that has us concerned.

One

of the problems that came out in the debate today was the kind of ad

hockery of the ministry. Some people are concerned about the hoary

marmots, some people are concerned about wolf bites on Hernando Island,

and some people are concerned about this and some people are concerned

about that. There seems to be no consistent set of problems that this

minister is dealing with.

One of the problems that was

brought up today was the problem of the sewage system in the greater

Victoria area and the problem of pollution control in general. It

doesn't seem that this minister has taken any innovative approach in

that area at all. What are other areas doing? A couple of years ago I

went down to Los Angeles and took a look at the Hyperion sewage

treatment plant down there. It's right on the end of the runway at LAX;

you've probably been over it a number of times. In that plant they're

turning sewage into methane. They use the methane to generate

electricity in the plant and they sell excess electricity to Southern

California Edison. They used to turn the sludge in that plant into

fertilizer and sell it throughout the state of California.

Unfortunately, with the cheap price of B.C. natural gas, the fertilizer

plant had to be shut down, because derivatives of natural gas were

being used for fertilizer and they simply couldn't compete, although

that sewage system, in converting to fertilizer, was doing the

environment and people of California a longer term service than natural

gas ever would, and a cheaper service in providing fertilizer than

natural gas ever could over the long term. Yet it's shut down now, but

it's still on site and probably will be revived when the price of gas

goes up.

What alternatives have you looked at? When I hear

you talking about the sewage system in Victoria and saying that those

outfall pipes are going to have to be extended in any case.... When

have sewage outfalls ever solved the problem anywhere? They solve the

visual problem, because, based on the old engineering adage, I suppose,

that the solution to pollution is dilution, they spread the sewage so

far out that nobody can really see it; it isn't really that evident.

That is not the ultimate solution to the problem of disposing of sewage.

The

second member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) asked the minister to convene a

task force to look into the sewage problem in the greater Victoria

area. I suppose we got into a problem of defining our terms. By a task

force he didn't mean the SWAT force that the member has in the lower

Fraser Valley to go out and prosecute municipalities for not keeping

the beaches clean. What he was referring to was a group of people who

could go out and work out a solution in consulta-

[ Page 3664 ]

tion

with the Capital Regional District, the municipalities involved and the

waste management branch to work out a solution to that problem. Go to

California and take a look at what they're doing with the Hyperion

plant. Maybe go to other parts of the world and find out what they're

doing with pollution problems. Let me put it this way: if the state of

Oregon and the city of Portland and all those small towns along the

Willamette River in Oregon can turn that river from an open sewer a

very few years ago into a recreational river now where people can swim

and boat without any fear of health problems and where edible fish are

now coming again.... That was done with assistance from the state, the

federal government and the industries along the bank. It was no threat

to industry because none of those industries closed down, with the

exception of one factory, which was about to close anyway because it

was too old and unproductive. Those things are possible here in British

Columbia if we have a minister with initiative, interest and concern

about the environment, and the willingness to do battle with his own

cabinet to make environment, clean water and summer recreation on the

beaches of Victoria priorities. We are capable of doing it. The

technology is there and, if the government decides and restructures its

priorities, the money is there also, so it is not a question of money.

When

you look at the Thames River and the city of London years ago, the

stories of the pea-soup fogs, and the fact that you couldn't fish in

the river and that it was an open sewer from one end to the other.... I

remember one time in 19731 went to a Commonwealth parliamentary

conference in London and we were taken out on the terrace at the House

of Commons. The British MPs boasted to us about the cleanliness of the

Thames River and said that occasionally they could come out of the

terrace now and go fishing in the Thames River. For years and years

that had never been possible because the river was so filthy. The

government decided and had the initiative, and their Minister of

Environment had the interest and gumption and concern to get up and do

it, and they did it.

It is not a question of lack of money,

it's a question of gumption, interest, concern and initiative. If you

don't have it, don't make excuses. Just quit and let somebody who has

it take over.

The second member for Vancouver South (Mr.

Hyndman) was talking about the courageous statements you've made

against fishing derbies. Again it is a band-aid, ad hoc kind of

approach. The management of fishing and fishery in this province

certainly leaves something to be desired. You can't pass the buck all

the time to the federal government, because the main problems in the

fishery in this province are problems that stem from the way we manage

our common property resources on land. If we abuse fish habitat, if we

allow people to drag logs through fish habitat, if we don't severely

punish people who destroy fish habitat, cancelling chinook derbies

isn't going to solve the problem. It is simply a band-aid solution to a

symptom that's way down the line from the actual cause. We have to deal

here with first causes.

I remember a few years ago I stood

up in this House and presented a petition — which was delivered to me,

to the Leader of the Opposition and to the member for Prince Rupert

(Mr. Lea) — in the Legislature expressing the concern of thousands of

fishermen and people dependent on the fishing industry about the way

the industry was being managed in British Columbia and calling for a

complete royal commission inquiry into the management of that industry,

including the protection of habitat. We see a royal commission into the

management of the logging industry in the province. Every ten years we

were supposed to have one of those, and that's a good thing. I think we

should re-examine in full public view anything we do, any major

industry in this province, through royal commissions to see if we are

doing the right thing and to see if our goals are being accomplished.

What was the result of the presentation of that petition? I suppose

it's sitting on a dusty shelf in the Clerk's office like they always do.

What

was the government's response? There was no response at all. Doesn't

the government feel, in view of the actions it has to take in speaking

out against individual fishing derbies and talking about

catch-and-release programs on rivers on Vancouver Island because of the

declining stocks of steelhead...? Doesn't the government see that

there's an overall problem that the government should be analyzing on a

royal commission basis and dealing with on that basis in full public

view? You simply don't solve the problem by those band-aid approaches.

You

have to deal with first causes, and the first cause is the decline and

destruction of fish habitat. When the first minister came out with his

statement — I gather without consulting his Minister of Environment —

that British Columbia should take jurisdiction over fisheries, I was

100 percent in support of that statement. We should have total

jurisdiction over the fishery in this province. It has not been well

managed by the federal government. One of the reasons is the continual

conflict they face with the provincial government over constitutional

issues.

We had a debate at another Commonwealth

Parliamentary Association regional conference — and I'm sure the second

member for Vancouver South (Mr. Hyndman) will realize that — when I

stood up and suggested that B.C. do precisely that: take jurisdiction

over our fishing resource. Another member added some information to

that statement: the fact not commonly realized that of the ten

provinces of Canada eight are maritime provinces. Only two,

Saskatchewan and Alberta, are landlocked provinces. Strangely enough,

those are the two that have the oil resources. It would be a great

division, a fair and equitable division, of the wealth of this country

if the federal government turned over jurisdiction for the fisheries

resource to each of those maritime provinces.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

the present ministry is structured I'd be scared spitless to see this

minister responsible for the total fishery of the province of B.C.,

especially since he shares his cabinet responsibilities with a number

of people that I don't think should go near waters inhabited by fish,

because of their lack of respect for that resource. But I certainly

think that we should have total responsibility for the fisheries

resource.

But what has the minister done, and what has the

minister said? Does he feel that a royal commission should be struck to

took into this resource? It is one of the major sources of income and

employment in the province of British Columbia. It is one of the most

sensitive and critical areas of habitat — the rivers and the waters of

the province of British Columbia, how they're managed, treated and

polluted. Does the minister not feel that these should be the subject

of an

[ Page 3665 ]

intensive

royal commission of inquiry, and that objectives should come out of

that royal commission that should be followed by this government?

When

I look at the operation of the Pollution Control Board or the waste

management branch it absolutely amazes me. First of all it amazes me

from the point of view of some of the people you deal with — for

example, oil refineries. Any company doing business in the United

States that trades shares on a public exchange is forced to disclose

statements of material fact to the Securities and Exchange Commission.

As part of that statement they have to disclose the violations that

they've been convicted of. If you want to know the criminal record of

the company you're dealing with, they have to post it in the back of

their Form 16 so you know exactly what kind of criminal you're dealing

with. Here's the name of one that does have a refinery here in British

Columbia and is licensed to pollute here, All over the world it has

refineries. There are four pages of pollution control offences and

convictions: emissions in excess of limits, sulphuric acid plant in

violation, emissions in excess of limits, loss of 200 gallons of jet

fuel into a river, oil spill, spill of 100 gallons of diesel oil,

violation of permit, oil spill, spill of 40 barrels of crude, violation

of permit, oil spill, oil spill, oil spill, oil spill.

You're

dealing with companies that have consistent records of violating

pollution control statutes all around the world, and you grant

additional permits to those companies right here in British Columbia.

Why aren't they forced to disclose statements of material fact here? If

they have a consistent record of pollution control violations, of

destroying the environment and the quality of water, air and land, then

they shouldn't be allowed to operate here at all. Would you invite

convicted criminals into the province of B.C. to practise their trade

here? It's ridiculous. Yet we don't even keep records; the only records

we have, the only statements of material fact that must be filed along

those lines, we can get from the United States of America. Yet these

people, with a record of conviction like that, have a pollution control

permit to operate in British Columbia. I'll bet if you went through

their files you'd find that they've been operating in contradiction of

their permit a number of times.

The minister could do in the

Victoria area what the former Minister of Environment — the member for

Richmond (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) — did in the case of Penticton. At that

time Penticton was applying to increase its effluent into Skaha Lake.

The minister overturned the Pollution Control Board permit. He said:

"No way, You'll have to find a land disposal system." What you should

be doing is demanding that these municipalities look at alternatives,

and assisting them, but where is your interest? It's not enough to

stand up in the Legislature and to explain and rationalize it away.

It's a way of getting around doing the actual job that has to be done.

But it's simply not enough for a Minister of Environment in this

government to do that. We're looking for action. The people in Victoria

and the tourists want to swim at those beaches. They know that the

technology is available to clean them up. It simply isn't being done,

because the minister seems to) lack interest in it.

The

minister talked a little about the Fraser task force. I think the

minister should be congratulated for what he has done in that area. I

think SPEC should be congratulated for drawing the fact to the

minister's attention in the first place — the Fraser River Coalition.

Whether they were right or wrong in the evidence they submitted, at

least this minister took action based on the evidence they submitted

and set up that SWAT force. I think you should be congratulated for

that. It was a good deal.

But that ministry needs much more

enforcement capability. You mentioned, in response to one of the

members down here, that you're now getting more phone calls from people

asking how they can conform with the legislation. I think that's a good

thing. But it only came as a result of the minister taking action and

prosecuting offenders. Companies tell you time after time that they

will do as much as the law demands, and that's the limit to which they

will operate. But if the law isn't enforced, they'll laugh at it. I'm

pleased that the minister has taken a step in the Fraser estuary to

enforce the law, to set a standard of obedience and compliance which

companies now appear to be conforming to. That's why those calls are

coming in. But you have to carry a big stick, and you have to use it.

And I'm pleased to see that you did in the case of the lower Fraser

Valley.

We need much more of that. We need it here in

Victoria. We need it up-Island in Port Alberni, where the pulpmill

there has been in consistent violation of its permits; your personnel

have come up there and talked to them to try to get them to change

their emission levels. What's needed are orders and charges, and the

full weight of the law has to be brought to bear against those

polluters.

Mr. Chairman, I see that my time has expired. I would like to wind up by saying

this to the minister: we really cannot support the vote for this minister's

office. We don't think enough has been done. We don't think the minister

has shown enough interest in his ministry, and we don't think the minister

has enough concern about the ministry and about the resources which he is here

to protect. Until we see that evidence of concern we simply cannot vote for

this minister's office.

MR. SEGARTY:

Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to participate in the debate of the Minister

of Environment. It has given every member of this Legislature an

opportunity to help this minister establish policies and priorities for

the environment as we move into the 1980s.

I would like to

take this opportunity to congratulate the first member for Vancouver

South on becoming Minister of Environment. I believe it to be one of

the most important, if not the most important, ministries of government

in the 1980s.

In the Kootenay area we are fortunate to have

an abundance of natural resources. We're also fortunate to have the

most spectacular scenery in all of British Columbia. We boast the

highest wildlife population in all of Canada. We're also fortunate to

have coal and logging companies operating in southeastern British

Columbia that have demonstrated their willingness to protect the

natural environment.

There are three coal companies

operating in southeastern British Columbia at the present time. There

are three mines under construction, I have great faith, Mr. Chairman,

that there will be long-term employment opportunities and continued job

security for British Columbia workers and their families in

southeastern British Columbia. The region will continue to be a

reliable supplier of our natural resources.

There has been a

lot of talk in recent years about the possible construction of a

thermal coal plant in southeastern British Columbia to utilize existing

waste coal from companies operating in the region. While the

construction of such a plant would generate approximately 2,000 jobs

costing $500 million and create approximately 300 or 400 permanent jobs

when the construction phase completed, I have some

[ Page 3666 ]

major

concerns with respect to this project. Air quality is a major concern

of mine. The high walls and narrow valleys in which Sparwood is located

make it highly susceptible to atmospheric variations and, hence, severe

air pollution. The poor quality of waste coal may necessitate washing

before consumption. Then, of course, there is the pile of ash that is

left behind from the burning coal which also has to be managed.

would hope that modern technology and techniques might be applied in

the design and construction of this plant and that all questions

relating to environmental protection will be answered before this plant

is given the green light in the Elk Valley. Along with providing

long-term employment opportunities for British Columbia workers and

their families, we must also protect the great outdoors which is so

dear to the hearts of the many people living in that region. There has

got to be a lot more to working in coal mines than working, sleeping

and eating. People don't come to the East Kootenays to make a stake and

move back to the coast. They come to the region because they enjoy the

security of their job, but more than that the natural beauty and

environment.

One of the most serious problems in the East

Kootenays at the present time is the greatly increased access to

wilderness areas. The hinterlands where wildlife cannot be assaulted by

hunters or picnickers or snowmobiles get smaller and smaller each day.

Increased public access through logging and mining roads previously

closed to anyone but hikers and horsemen has resulted in the steady

decline of several species of wildlife and valuable winter range.

you really want to see a sad state of affairs, there is an Alberta

mining company that works in Galloway in my constituency. They have

just pushed an exploration road all over the face of Bull Mountain.

Bull Mountain is a critical wildlife wintering area for sheep, elk and

deer. It is also prime grizzly bear habitat. This road has already done

irreversible damage to the area. I am told there are plans to continue

the road access across the face and around the back of the mountain.

This road would penetrate a vital area of Bull Mountain. In fact, it is

a sanctuary for all types of wildlife. The company has also carved

roads all over the face of the Lizard mountain range and is now

defacing Bull Mountain as fast as it can. The present Wildlife Act

should include protection of wildlife habitat which would include

exploration roads.

The people of the East Kootenays have

expressed concern over the erosion of recreational values in the Elk

Valley and the Flatheads due to proliferation of road access. I would

like to see a management plan for the recreation and conservation

resource which would include a program of access control. This plan

could be made in conjunction with resource industries operating in

southeastern British Columbia, along with the East Kootenay Wildlife

Association. Clearly, present levels of resource management will be

unable to deal adequately with the impact of future coal-mining

projects. A resource planning program for the coal fields is required

in the Elk and Flathead drainages of the area, if the areas are to be

maintained and if outdoor recreation demands are to be accommodated.

During the last provincial election campaign I supported the East Kootenay

Wildlife Association's stand for the establishment of a heritage fund for

the preservation and development of wildlife habitat. The East Kootenays has

key wildlife habitat areas that deserve immediate attention. Bighorn sheep herds

are by no means common in British Columbia or in any part of North America.

The first priority, therefore, must be the restoration, conservation and maintenance

of bighorn sheep populations in the East Kootenay area, such as on Sheep Mountain

and the east side of Columbia Lake. These are key wintering areas for bighorn

ungulates and are key breeding, lambing and calving areas.

There

is also a need in the East Kootenays for an intensive grizzly bear

inventory study. The East Kootenay Wildlife Association feels that

there is an urgent need to improve the information for the management

of this important big game resource. I hoped that this project could

begin in 1980. This apparently was impossible. However, I urge that we

pursue this project, perhaps in the 1981 budget. I would appreciate

learning more on the status of that in the near future.

The

forage resource has increased substantially over the last few years in

the East Kootenays to the benefit of agriculture and wildlife. I was

pleased to get the minister up to tour some of those other projects

last year. The coordinated planning program has also forced a climate

of cooperation between wildlife and cattle interests that is essential

for the enforcement of long-term resource management. I would certainly

like to see the continuation of this program through the years.

Another

area of concern in the East Kootenays, because of the demand for

outdoor recreation — and I was pleased with the minister's response in

this regard and, indeed, the government's response in not allowing the

construction of a new townsite north of Elkford in the Kootenay

constituency — is that we should establish a program to enhance our

lakes and streams in the East Kootenays. We must have an extensive

program of restocking and an inventory of what we have and how we're

looking after it. Sixty percent of the fish from the Bull River

hatchery leave the region. The fish hatchery is not operating at

maximum capacity, Mr. Chairman, and one more staff member could bring

this up to capacity. This would be of benefit to the region, because we

could restock our lakes and streams with rainbow and cutthroat trout.

There

is great pressure on the lakes and streams in the East Kootenays

because of our close proximity to Alberta. This is causing serious

problems, and I wonder if we couldn't consider the possibility of

establishing a two-price system for freshwater fishing in British

Columbia. The present rate is $5 for a resident to fish year-round, and

I wonder if we couldn't have a non-resident status there where it would

probably cost $10 a year or something like that for non-residents to

fish in freshwater streams and lakes.

Interjection.

MR. SEGARTY: There is currently a two-price system for hunting licences in British Columbia.

agree that the province of British Columbia, Mr. Chairman, should

acquire jurisdiction over salmon and commercial fisheries within the

200-mile limit from the federal government, with the latter retaining

responsibility for enforcement of the 200-mile limit and participating

in international negotiations such as presently done in matters of

international water negotiations. Funding of the Salmonid Enhancement

Program should be continued on a shared basis by the federal and

provincial governments.

There is another area of concern to

me, Mr. Chairman, and it was recently brought to my attention by an

accident prevention officer of the WCB, Mr. Gerry Salmon of Cranbrook.

Gerry advised me that the only way to dispose of

[ Page 3667 ]

PCBs

is through incineration, and there are no facilities currently in

Canada to dispose of PCBs. PCBs used to be shipped to the United States

for incineration. This is no longer possible because the United States

has imposed a border closure on all waste materials going into that

country. This closure became effective on June 1, 1980, and since that

time PCBs in Canada have been kept in storage areas. This is causing a

severe hardship in the workplace, and I wonder if the Minister of

Environment perhaps could take some leadership in British Columbia and

establish an incinerator for the disposal of PCB, perhaps at a central

location in western Canada, and get into some sort of cooperation with

the federal Ministry of Transport to provide some regulations and

standards for the transportation of dangerous chemicals across British

Columbia and Canada.

Mr. Chairman, those are some areas

which are of concern to the people of the East Kootenay region of

British Columbia. I don't expect an answer on them now, but I would

like to hear from the minister later on.

Vote 75 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 28

Waterland

Nielsen

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Brummet

Ree

Wolfe

McCarthy

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Mair

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Mussallem

Hyndman

NAYS 23

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

King

Lea

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Hall

Lorimer

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann,

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Chairman, I ask leave of the committee to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. BARBER:

In the precincts today and shortly in the gallery is a very good friend

of mine. He was formerly a city police officer. He was at one time the

sergeant-at-arms of the board of directors of Victoria Cool-Aid. He is

currently an RCMP officer in Grande Prairie. His name is Peter Lund. I

ask the House to make him welcome.

Vote 76: general administration, $3,157,388 — approved.

Vote 77: resource and environment management, $54,802,563 — approved.

Vote 78: Environment and Land Use Committee secretariat, $1,312,446 — approved.

Vote 79: Provincial Emergency Program, $1,663,822 — approved.

Vote 80: Salmonid Enhancement Program, $2,000,000 — approved.

Vote 81: Flood Relief Act, $10 — approved.

On vote 82: Creston Valley wildlife management, $131,468.

MR. NICOLSON:

I point out to the minister that this thing hasn't increased for about

the last half a decade. Does the minister have any good reasons for

that?

HON. MR. ROGERS: On the Creston Valley area? It

will by next year because we've added some more area to it. But there

hasn't been a big request for an increase from them.

Vote 82 approved.

Vote 83: building occupancy charges, $5,958,000 — approved.

Vote 84: computer and consulting charges, $1,908,045 — approved.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF INDUSTRY

AND SMALL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT

On vote 134: minister's office, $187,509.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

I'm actually proud and humble to be able to ask for this small amount

of money to run the minister's office. As the members of the

Legislature know, I have a relatively small department run very

efficiently by very, very devoted civil servants. I want to tell the

House that I'm certainly proud of the members of my department who

have, during the last year, at the drop of a hat, forgone their

weekends, worked overtime, for the good of the economy of this

province. Regardless of what we read in the papers and what members of

the opposition say, I know the economy of British Columbia is indeed

fairly healthy. I know that all the members of the Legislature,

including those of the opposition, are very interested in the economy

because they want opportunities for young people who are growing up

today. During my estimates I certainly look forward to members on both

sides of the House giving me some very positive suggestions as to how

our department can indeed improve on the economy in this great province

of ours. As I said last year, I look forward to those suggestions.

Suggestions that are made to this ministry certainly do not fall on

deaf ears.

I have tabled the annual report of the ministry.

Rather than take up time to go through all the different divisions of

the department I'm going to suggest that the members on both sides of

the House read this report, because this year we have outlined all the

different divisions of the department; what they do, what their

function is and some of the results. I

[ Page 3668 ]

know

the members will take that report home tonight and that it will be one

of their priorities as bedtime reading material because, as I said, it

does explain how the department functions and what we try to do.

Certainly I look forward with great anticipation this afternoon to

having good positive suggestions and good deliberations on my ministry.

MR. LEA:

We have some questions that we'd like to ask the minister. The first

questions I have to ask relate to northeast coal and the proposed

development. I would like to bring the minister's attention to page 79,

item 5 of the report of the Royal Commission on the British Columbia

Railway, volume 1. In this report it says:

"Northeast

coal. Involvement of BCR in the northeast coal development project

should not be undertaken except with assurance of traffic sufficient to

recover all capital and operating costs. The decision to route this

coal traffic via the port of Prince Rupert ensures that BCR's long-term

role will again be no more than that of a feeder line to CN. In such

circumstances there appears to be no benefit to the province in BCR's

involvement unless the railway is assured full recovery of all costs.

Should use of any route from the coal fields directly to the CN line

prove feasible so that routing over existing BCR trackage would be

unnecessary, the commission recommends that BCR avoid involvement in

northeast coal development."

The policy statements that have

been made by the minister and government seem to fly in the opposite

direction of this recommendation by the royal commission. I would like

to ask the minister to outline for the House the costs involved that

would ensure this House that flying in the opposite direction from this

recommendation by the royal commission is indeed sound. Would the

minister then tell the House what it is, the costs, and what new

factors have arisen in the minister's and government's minds to make

this recommendation invalid?

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

Mr. Chairman, I certainly appreciate the sincerity of the member's

question. I understand the recommendations of the royal commission. I

know that all members of the House would like to see this great

economic development take place because it will provide many hundreds

of millions of dollars, additional taxes and employment. I'm quite

happy to inform the House that it is not the intention of northeast

coal development to have the British Columbia Railway build the actual

spur line. The intention is to have the spur line from Anzac to Tumbler

Ridge built by what will basically be a new company. That company will

be funded by borrowings and partly by taxpayers' dollars.

Once

the Anzac spur line is built, then the BCR will be given running rights

over the new spur line. There is some cost involved to the British

Columbia Railway. They say it will be $30 million to upgrade the 77

miles from Anzac to Prince George. This is about $168,000 per mile

higher than what the CNR is asking to upgrade their line from Prince

George to Prince Rupert. However, on the Prince George to Prince Rupert

line, part of their upgrading, naturally, has to be to haul grain.

might add that there has also been a lot of controversy about the cost

of building the Anzac line. It's really amazing to me that to open up

an area which not only has reserves eight million tonnes of coal, but

indeed is one of the hottest spots in the petroleum industry.... There

is also lumber in their area. Really, all we're having to do to open up

this vast new inland empire is to build a 77-mile spur line.

Seventy-seven miles, in the opening up of our country, is not a long

spur line to build.

The amazing part of this whole situation

— and I think we've hired the best engineers to look at alternate

routes that are possible — is that we have to have less than nine miles

of tunnels. Two of them are about 2.8 miles and one is about 3.5 miles.

It's the cost of building those tunnels that really blows my mind. It

is $150 million. That is the highest cost estimate we've had. That

means that we start the three tunnels separately and we come in from

both ends. The tunnels could be built more cheaply by starting at one

end and just having one camp go through to the other end, but because

of time constraints we have to do it the expensive way. As I say, it

just blows my mind that the tunnels cost that much.

In 1962

the federal government built a 400-mile spur line from Grimshaw,

Alberta, to Pine Point to haul ore out from that area. At that time

that 400 miles of rail line cost approximately $80 million. Today we're

looking at building a 70-mile spur line, as I say, into a new inland

empire where the resources are already there, known and proven, in

guaranteed tonnages. It really is, in the public's eye, such a huge

expenditure of funds. But someday, whether now or later, in order to

get those resources out of that area we have to build that 77-mile spur

line.

AN HON. MEMBER: What's the total cost?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: The total cost at the present time is estimated at $315 million.

I say, the spur line will be built by a sepa