1992 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 35th 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)

TUESDAY, JUNE 2, 1992

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 3, Number 24

[ Page 2039 ]

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

L. Hanson: In the audience today are two constituents and very good friends of mine, Ken and Joyce Little. Ken is a former fire chief, as well as a former alderman, in the city of Vernon. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. G. Clark: Hon. Speaker, I am delighted today, on your behalf and on behalf of members of the House, to introduce the High Commissioner to Canada from Tanzania, Fadhild Mbaga. I ask all members to make him welcome.

Hon. P. Priddy: It's my pleasure today to welcome 30 grade 5 students from Panorama Park Elementary School in the riding of Surrey-Newton. I'm not sure if they're in the House yet, but they are due to arrive. With them is their teacher, Arlene Cooper; teaching assistant, Donna Hall; and two parents, Wendy Phillips and Barb Nilsen.

This particular school has worked really hard -- as schools do in all communities -- to make the community a better place to be and has participated in such events as a salmon release into the Little Campbell River and the Terry Fox Run, working, in general, to make their school and community better places to be. It's an additional pleasure when we can welcome students to the House.

G. Brewin: I would like the House to make welcome a very special guest who lives in Victoria-Beacon Hill. Her name is Janine Wear. She represents OXFAM Vancouver Island and is chairman of the steering committee. I'd like the House to make her welcome.

S. O'Neill: We have with us today Derrick James Allen, along with his mother-in-law and father-in-law, Anna and Benny Ouellette, who are visiting here from Nova Scotia. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. G. Clark: I have a couple of people to introduce today. One is a mutual friend of Keith Baldrey's and mine, Chris Gainor, who is a constituent of mine. I am delighted to see him in the gallery today, watching the proceedings. I would also like to introduce to the House someone who was the president of the Vancouver East NDP when I joined the Vancouver East executive at the age of 17. He is in the gallery today, and his name is Chester Jantzen. I would ask all members to make him welcome.

Introduction of Bills

HEALTH STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1992

Hon. E. Cull presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Health Statutes Amendment Act, 1992.

Hon. E. Cull: In this bill there are amendments to eight statutes administered by the Ministry of Health. These amendments make minor housekeeping amendments to a number of acts to remove unnecessary or obsolete wording. A number of amendments are made to legislation administered by the division of vital statistics. Amendments to the Name Act remove unacceptably restrictive provisions for the election of a surname upon marriage. Amendments to other acts will permit the division to function more efficiently in providing its services to the public.

Some revisions are made to the legislation governing licensed practical nurses and psychologists, to remove some procedural impediments to permit the governing bodies of these professions to discipline their membership more effectively in order to ensure the protection of the public. These are consistent with the general directions in professional legislation and with the directions suggested by the British Columbia Royal Commission on Health Care and Costs.

These amendments, though minor, will ensure the continued efficient delivery of services by the Ministry of Health and the effective regulation of the health professions.

Bill 30 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.

Oral Questions

NANAIMO COMMONWEALTH

HOLDING SOCIETY

W. Hurd: My question is for the Attorney General, and it pertains to a letter on file at the gaming branch. This particular letter, which is on MLA stationery and is addressed to the Gaming Commission by the hon. member for Nanaimo, deals with a decision by the gaming branch to lift the bingo licence of the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society and was written in support of the society's reapplication for a licence in October 1990. This letter, addressed to Commissioner R.

Macintosh, reads: "I implore you therefore to re-examine this matter, and I am writing with a view to overturning the decision to cancel this bingo licence" -- by the society. My question to the Attorney General is: is he aware of any other members of the NDP caucus or the executive council who have written letters supporting the restoration of the bingo licence for the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: No. Nor was I aware of that letter. I think the best thing I can do is take the question on notice.

The Speaker: Is there a new question, hon. member?

W. Hurd: Yes, a new question to the Attorney General. Can he confirm that the member for Nanaimo is a past director of the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society? Has he questioned this particular

[ Page 2040 ]

member to determine what links may exist between his society and the laundering of charities bingo money by the New Democratic Party?

The Speaker: Hon. member, the Chair is not clear how that falls within the ministerial responsibility, but the Attorney General may wish to answer.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Hon. Speaker, I took the first question on notice. This is clearly supplemental. I don't want to use the rules to appear to be avoiding questions, but at this point I can't answer that question any more than I could the first one.

The Speaker: Hon. member, please keep in mind that the minister has taken the questions on notice.

W. Hurd: My question is to the Premier. I'm wondering if the Nanaimo Commonwealth Society is a society that this government goes to bat for. At least the last government was scamming billionaires; this government and its friends are ripping off charitable organizations in Nanaimo. Will this Premier stand and say that his party will divest itself of all links with this society that stands accused of skimming money from charities, and in 1988 was the subject of an RCMP investigation? Will he stand today and do that?

The Speaker: Hon. member, the Chair does have difficulty with much of the wording of that question, particularly with some of the language used in it. I noticed that the Premier did rise, and if he chooses to respond to the small portion of the question that may fall within his responsibility, I would recognize the Premier.

Hon. M. Harcourt: I said yesterday that if there was a relationship between the Nanaimo Commonwealth Society and the New Democratic Party, all dealings between the two should stop. I have requested that if there are any dealings between this society and the New Democratic Party, it be conveyed to members of the New Democratic Party that they stop.

SCHOOL FUNDING

P. Dueck: My question today is to the Minister of Education. Information has been faxed to me with respect to severe cutbacks in the elementary school system, namely in District 34, which is the Abbotsford and Matsqui communities. Of 18 elementary schools, 13 schools reported music programs cut completely, 13 schools reported band eliminated, nine schools reported swimming programs discontinued, 14 schools reported libraries severely cut back, 14 schools reported....

[2:15]

The Speaker: Hon. member, can the Chair assume that you're getting to your question very quickly?

P. Dueck: Well, I have to explain what I'm talking about and what the question is going to be. I take your advice, and I will ask the question.

It has never been this bad in 40 years. Does the minister agree that children need a balanced education? What is she prepared to do?

Hon. A. Hagen: I thank the member for his concern for the children in his district and for forwarding that question to me. First of all, yes, of course I care about every child and every school in the province of British Columbia, hon. member. I'm not able to provide you out of my recollection the increase in funding to the Abbotsford School District this year, but one of the highest increases in funding in recent memory was to that school district. That acknowledges the increase in the number of children in the district and the increase in the number of ESL and native children.

It is part of our plan to ensure that that school district can manage in the interests of all of the children of the district.

P. Dueck: We're talking about our children; we're talking about the most important resource in our community. We are not asking the minister to say how much the increase has been. Our district is very frugal and has operated very well for years. It has never been like this in 40 years. My question is: will the minister, since she is also the Deputy Premier, plead with the Premier and cabinet to restore these programs? We're cutting back programs that children need, and we ask that they be restored. It is a matter of priorities, in my opinion, because....

The Speaker: Your question, please, hon. member.

P. Dueck: Will the minister take that as notice and lobby cabinet, which she is a member of, to restore these programs for my community?

Hon. A. Hagen: As the member well knows, it is the responsibility of the province to provide resources to the school district that will enable it to provide those programs. We have indeed, as I've noted, increased the resources to Abbotsford -- your school district -- by the largest measure in recent history. I am hopeful, as I have said to parents who have written about their concerns, that that district will use those resources wisely in providing a balanced range of programs for every child in the district.

There is $300 million more in funding to the school districts of British Columbia this year, almost a 10 percent increase, as well as capital funding -- significantly for your district, hon. member -- to build new schools for children in all areas of the district. There has been very significant attention paid to your school district by my government.

NANAIMO COMMONWEALTH

HOLDING SOCIETY

G. Farrell-Collins: In response to the Premier's answer to an earlier question, I would like to say that it's simply not good enough to sever past NDP ties with the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society. Will he

[ Page 2041 ]

commit as the leader of the New Democratic Party to pay back the money that was skimmed from the charities and funnelled to the New Democrats?

The Speaker: Again the Chair is having difficulty relating the question to the ministerial responsibility. If the minister chooses to comment....

Your next question, hon. member.

G. Farrell-Collins: I assume that he as the Premier is responsible for his government and responsible for investigations and activities of his government. That is why I'm asking the question of the Premier. The only difference between the Vander Zalm government and the Mike Harcourt government is that Bill Vander Zalm took money from billionaires while this government takes money from old age pensioners, handicapped children and single mothers. Will the Premier, as leader of the NDP, today order his party to stop the reverse Robin Hood tactics of stealing from the poor and giving it to the New Democrats?

GAMING COMMISSION APPOINTMENT

J. Weisgerber: My question is to the Attorney General. Will the Attorney General confirm that he has received communications from an umbrella group of charities in New Westminster, including longtime NDP activist Margaret Birrell, objecting to the March 27 appointment of Lynda Fletcher-Gordon to the Gaming Commission, and will he further confirm that Miss Fletcher-Gordon is the same person his ministry staff recommended that action be taken against respecting irregular bingo activities dating back to her days in New Westminster?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The first question relates to correspondence that the member suggests was received in my office. I don't know whether that's true or not. I have not seen correspondence to that effect. Lynda Fletcher-Gordon was involved as executive director of an organization in New Westminster which, several years ago, was in receipt of bingo revenue. To my knowledge, she has not been involved for some time and is not now involved in any activities that relate to bingo licences or the Gaming Commission.

Her experience in the field, in the community, was such that I felt she would be an important and useful addition to the Gaming Commission. As a result she was appointed to the Gaming Commission earlier this year.

J. Weisgerber: A supplemental to the Attorney General. Given that Ms. Fletcher-Gordon is the same individual that Bob Williams went to bat for in an appeal to have her licence reinstated for bingo, and given her close ties to the New Democratic Party, the Burnaby Purpose Youth Society, Bur-West and the lower mainland youth society, will the Attorney General agree today to rescind her appointment to the Gaming Commission and investigate thoroughly the allegations of impropriety in his office now?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: First of all, I know of no allegations of impropriety. Secondly, the member suggests that Lynda Fletcher-Gordon was in receipt of bingo licences. In fact, she was executive director of an organization that had a licence to operate a bingo.

I really am not sure where the member's questions are directed. I'm clearly happy to assist if I can, but I don't know where you're going.

NANAIMO COMMONWEALTH

HOLDING SOCIETY

J. Weisgerber: Can the Attorney General confirm that following the 1988 RCMP investigation of the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society the RCMP recommended charges be laid? Can he further confirm that it was the then Deputy Attorney General who decided not to proceed with charges, and would he tell us on what basis that recommendation was made?

The Speaker: The Attorney General could try to keep his reply as brief as the question allows.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I can't confirm the answer to that question. I don't know.

D. Mitchell: I have a question for the Premier. The Minister of Finance is quoted in this morning's Victoria Times-Colonist as saying that he cannot distinguish between putting his own money or the public's money in a bank. As a result, we are developing yet new concerns about the appropriateness of the use of a Revenue Canada charitable organization number by the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society. To the Premier, who stripped away some of the responsibilities of that minister last week, would it be appropriate today for the Minister of Finance to give up that portion of his ministry which deals with the interrelationships between British Columbia and Revenue Canada?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I find the links that were suggested very difficult to connect, and I will take that question on notice.

D. Mitchell: I'd then like to direct a new question to the Minister of Finance. We have established that the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society has a charitable tax number from Revenue Canada. Yet because it has not remitted the appropriate amount to the umbrella charities in Nanaimo and stands accused of funnelling money to the New Democratic Party, it may be in violation of Revenue Canada statutes for charitable tax status.

Did the Minister of Finance ever advise Revenue Canada of any concerns he might have had about his friends in the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society and their responsibilities as a registered charity under the Income Tax Act?

Hon. G. Clark: The short answer to that is no. However, let me go a little further and say that the member should know that I have had no dealings with the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society. I deal

[ Page 2042 ]

with Marwood Services Ltd., a private company. And I might just correct the record while I'm standing. I requested the Premier at the first opportunity to remove the societies and registries from my ministry just to ensure that the appearance of any concern would be dealt with. Frankly, I think we're getting further and further obscure in the questions.

Orders of the Day

Hon. D. Miller tabled a petition on health care.

Hon. G. Clark: I call Committee of Supply, both sections. In

section A will be the Ministry of Advanced Education and in

section B the Ministry of Environment.

The House in Committee of Supply B; E. Barnes in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

ENVIRONMENT, LANDS AND PARKS

On vote 32: minister's office, $347,279 (continued).

[2:30]

Hon. J. Cashore: I would like at this opportunity, which is early in the afternoon, to make an announcement that carries with it a great deal of sadness with regard to the parks branch of the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. I want to take the opportunity to make this announcement while other members are in the House because, as I said yesterday, we often take for granted the role of people who work in the public service, and often these people are in situations where there is danger. Indeed, sometimes that danger occurs in the most unlikely of circumstances.

[M. Lord in the chair.]

I'm very sorry to have to report the death of a parks employee. Dave Brewer, age 62, of Westbank, B.C. was killed yesterday by lightning strike -- of all things -- in Wells Gray Park. He was on a trail adjacent to Helmcken Falls, which is an extremely beautiful place in this province. It is a trail that I understand was developed by Derek Thompson, who is a senior staff person in the parks branch.

Dave was a seasonal employee during the last 15 years, and he had worked for B.C. Parks in a number of park locations around the interior, including Hamber Park and Bear Creek Park. He was also involved in the Outdoor Recreation Foundation. Dave is survived by his wife Helen and two children, one of whom graduates this year.

At the time of the accident, Dave was working with Troy Jones, who was also slightly hurt as a result of electrical shock from the lightning strike. Troy tried to assist Dave, but unfortunately the death was instantaneous. I understand the situation was one in which lightning struck a tree, travelled down the tree and then went through Dave, causing his death.

It was the first shift of the year going into that area, after three days of safety training. I know that all members of the House would join me in expressing profound sympathy to the family and co-workers of Dave Brewer. I would like, in writing a letter to the family, to include the deepest sympathy from all members of the House.

J. Tyabji: I would certainly like to reflect the sentiments of the minister. Unfortunately, these are things that even the minister has no power over, and obviously it would come as a great blow to the family. I know that we on this side of the House will be sending a card and expressing our condolences. It happens to be in the riding of the environment critic for the third party, and although he is not here to express the feelings on behalf of the third party, I'm sure he would share the same sentiments as the minister.

The Chair: Shall the vote pass?

J. Tyabji: Hon. Chair, I was assuming that the minister would be starting off the estimates again with some introduction. Or should I?

Hon. J. Cashore: It still is a question-and-answer phase in these estimates. When the opposition environment critic advises, I will then give some introductory remarks with regard to the Lands part of our ministry, and then again when she advises later on with regard to the Parks part of our ministry.

J. Tyabji: I was waiting. I thought there might be some transition from the minister's announcement to the estimates. That's my mistake.

For the minister's information, then, as we had given over the majority of this morning's estimates debate to the third party environment critic, we are now back to our format -- the format of the official opposition -- where we have our five categories. We are still technically in the first category under land use. Our critic for agriculture asked you some questions today. We will be going back and forth between category A and category B -- category B being solid waste -- because there's some kind of overlap. With that I'll pass the floor on to one of our other members.

K. Jones: I'd like to talk to the minister about my riding, which is quite involved with farming, and how farming and the residential buildup of the area are interfacing and some of the difficulties that we're running into. In the South Surrey-Hazelmere-Kensington area of my riding there's considerable concern being expressed through a series of experiences last year in relation to problems where children were sprayed by aerial spraying of blueberry fields. There was quite a bit of concern. As a result of that, the Ministry of Environment implemented a series of regulations under which spraying would be done.

One of those 11 points was that there shall be no agricultural aerial pesticide application within the municipalities of Surrey and Langley. I think that was a very good move, and I commend the ministry for taking that action. It was one which, at the time, relieved residents of a great deal of concern about a serious area that was affecting them.

[ Page 2043 ]

That ban on aerial pesticide applications did not include the area of Delta and other parts of the lower mainland.

I would like to make it clear that I recognize that the farm people -- the people growing various crops, including the blueberries in our area -- require certain applications to make their crops continue. There has to be a definite control of it. I understand the ministry is working closely with the agricultural people in maintaining and adapting to safer types of application so that we have less impact on the environment of our community. We have a very deep concern about the fact that the majority of the area is fed by groundwater wells, which receive their sources from runoff in the regional area.

All of these are of concern to people. We have salmon streams and salmon enhancement programs in the general vicinity, and these are also of concern. Of primary concern is children as they're going to and from school, and also the fact that we have organic farms in the immediate vicinity. Organic growers really have trouble with their status as an organic grower if there is over-spray into their areas from a chemical spray. There has been a lack of control in spraying in the past. There was spraying while children were walking to school, and there were indications of serious illnesses.

In one case there was a suspected brain tumour which caused the death of one of the children -- an 11-year-old who was walking to school and came under the spray as they looked up, got it in their faces and breathed it in their noses. It's a very tragic situation. There is a great deal of concern. The results of your action relieved many of the members of that concern.

Just lately this year, one or two of the helicopter companies that do aerial spraying made an appeal to the ministry to permit them to spray these areas again, within the boundaries of Surrey and Langley. This has created a renewal of that fear and concern. It's rather ironic that the particular field that was of concern last year -- one of the largest blueberry fields in the area -- is today able to be sprayed by ground spraying with backpack, and it's actually employing people through that process. So there is an alternative to aerial spraying.

The spraying company has said in its application that they should have the right to be able to do it, based on the fact that the ministry has allowed spraying to occur in Delta, Richmond and other parts of the lower mainland. The concern now is that the decision pending on this application may be in favour of the helicopter company and, as a result, will mean that there is again the problem that was previously addressed.

I'd like to ask the minister if it would be more responsible in this situation, rather than having an appeal process giving these spraying companies the feeling that they could come back and request an opportunity to spray, not to have that appeal process -- that the minister set down the rules; that it be clear to everyone that there will not be any spraying within these built-up areas of the lower mainland, so that this fear is removed and the farm people know the basis under which they have to do their spraying.

Hon. J. Cashore: I think the hon. member makes several very good points, with a lot of awareness of the difficulty of achieving balance on many of these issues. We see those issues especially in areas where the urban landscape has recently come upon former rural areas. This is certainly a factor where there is that interface. I'm advised that within the last two weeks, the internal appeal procedure that was conducted within the ministry has denied the application to aerial spray in Langley and Surrey. Therefore the decision is the one that I would expect the hon. member was hoping would take place.

It was an internal appeal within the ministry, and it comes under Mr. Ron Kobylnyk, I believe. Again, as I said yesterday, he has that authority. The minister doesn't have that authority with the way the statute is presently written.

K. Jones: I'm very pleased, if what I heard was correct. The appeal has been rejected, even though it was only last week that the appeal was heard. Is that correct?

Hon. J. Cashore: Yes.

K. Jones: That's wonderful. Our people will be very, very pleased. I hope that that will give the clear message to all of those people who think that aerial spraying is appropriate in this area that this will no longer come up for further appeal. Is that the indication you have -- that you will be taking that position?

Hon. J. Cashore: It continues to be appealable under the statute, which enables recourse to the Environmental Appeal Board.

[2:45]

K. Jones: It does concern me, hon. minister, that these people will have to continually battle against any future appeals. It's very onerous and very stressful on their way of life when they have to constantly be alert to the chance that somebody will be coming up with an appeal to take away the protection that is established there. It is time for this government to take a very clear stand: to eliminate this apprehension that can always be held over these people and to make a very clear position that it is not acceptable to have this type of spraying in the community. Could this minister please give us more of an assurance that he's not going to have this open-ended?

Hon. J. Cashore: This is the situation for this year; the appellants have not filed for an appeal. Therefore, de facto, there will be no aerial spraying this year. That is a given. Whether or not they would file an appeal in time for next year remains to be seen. I think, though, that the hon. member, in examining his advice, has to ask himself, and has to be prepared to say to the House in order to inform our debate, how he would apply that recommendation as an alternative, given the rights that we cherish in our society of recourse to due process and natural justice.

I know that it is very frustrating for people who feel wronged, whatever side of the issue they happen to be on, to feel that they have to go through a further process. I think that we know that the processes in democracy, and in our courts, do

[ Page 2044 ]

grind all too slowly, and sometimes it appears that justice delayed is justice denied.

However, in order to criticize and condemn, we have to be able to come forward with alternatives. I haven't heard this hon. member articulate a clear alternative that would be responsible to the rights of members of our society to due process and, at the same time, be ensuring that these processes move on appropriately quickly. If he does have that kind of advice, and if he can outline that kind of a program, by all means, we'd be willing to look at that.

K. Jones: I'm rather disappointed with the response of the minister. Literally what he's saying is that the people who want to spray poisons on our houses and on our children should be allowed to have the right of appeal, to continue to appeal and appeal so that everybody could continue to wait until the next time the person will sneak their appeal through, maybe, without having sufficient opposition on board to do it. I've seen this type of process done in city councils before. You just keep on appealing until you finally break down the opposition, so you finally get the results you want. This is unacceptable.

People should have some security in their homes, security in their lives and security in their farms. They shouldn't have to be continually going out there to protect against a commercial enterprise that wants to spray poisons in the air and onto the people of our community. You have to take a position, Mr. Minister. Today is the time when you need to take that position, not put it off.

Hon. J. Cashore: On the contrary, the hon. member has it all wrong. I've explained to him that under the present legislation the appeal goes to Mr. Ron Kobylnyk. Under the present existing legislation in this province, which is based upon principles of due process and natural justice, that's how it works. The hon. member, in calling on me to make this decision now, is calling on me to make a decision that is not within my authority, given the way in which the legislation is set up.

If the hon. member is saying that he would like to see the legislation change; if he's saying that he would like to see a bill introduced in the House that would take away that authority, then I would suggest he exercise his right as a private member and introduce a private member's bill so that we can see how he would go about that, and so that those constituents of his, who would obviously want to know that he was doing that, could see what his alternative is, how he would deal with this balance and how he would deal with the issues of natural justice and due process.

He makes a good point when he says that people who see this substance being sprayed are deeply concerned, and they have a right to not be harassed by this type of situation. But he also said in his comments that he was concerned about the farmers and the people who live in those residential areas, etc. Presumably it's farmers who are contracting with these private enterprise people to come and do the spraying.

I've pointed out that there will be no spraying this year. That's under the present, existing act. The process works such that they factor that it will not happen this year.

If this hon. member has a really good alternative for how the Pesticide Control Act should be drafted or applied or amended, we're willing to look at that. One of the things this House should be about is not just standing here and taking shots at each other but coming up with alternatives. Frankly, hon. member, I don't think it's enough of an alternative to say: "You, Mr. Minister, should take a stand." I have explained to you what the present legislative circumstances are. It's not within my power at this point in time to do that even if I wanted to. Clearly he has an idea that this should be changed.

I'd like to see his proactive recommendation that covers the whole gamut, because that would be something we would look at very seriously.

K. Jones: I appreciate the offer from the minister. I'm sure that the minister is well aware that private members' bills are just a token approach. They really have a very poor record of ever getting through the process, particularly in a case like this, where it would be controlling government direction. It would be unacceptable to the government to proceed with it. I think you have the ability in your own ministry to set down guidelines. You have staff to prepare that. I would certainly be glad to consult and work with them in preparing the legislation if you would permit me to.

I'm sure I would have the support and assistance of many people who have done a lot of research in this area. To pass the responsibility that is truly yours onto me is reprehensible. You have a job to do. Your ministry is mandated to protect the people of British Columbia. You can't expect everybody to do your job for you.

Hon. J. Cashore: The new environmental protection act will include pesticide control. That whole area will be reviewed. The hon. member will have a chance to have input into that. I think he should look seriously at his comments in view of the fact that he hasn't responded to the issues of natural justice and due process. As a responsible member he should do that.

I take exception to his remark that private members' bills are mere tokens. That's an unfortunate putdown of a very important instrument that we have available to us in this House, one that I exercised fully during my time as the Environment critic and one that I think had a key role in the fact that I'm now over here, implementing some of the very good ideas that I put forward at that time.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: Take that.

K. Jones: Pardon? The hon. minister is being quite entertaining.

I think you have given an indication -- and perhaps you didn't mean to -- that private members' bills have a very good record of being passed in this Legislature. Could you tell us how many private members' bills were passed in the last Legislature?

[ Page 2045 ]

The Chair: Could the Chair take a moment to remind members on both sides of the House that we are debating the estimates of the administration of the Ministry of Environment. Could we please confine the debate to that topic.

Hon. J. Cashore: Private members' bills are very valuable, because they're an opportunity that you have to put an idea out there, but not just as some knee-jerk epithet that you toss across the floor of the House. But when you're willing to put your money where your mouth is, to sit down and burn the midnight oil, work it out and deal with all the anomalies that you have to deal with when you're trying to come forward with something constructive and usable for the people of the province, I encourage you to do that. That suggestion is given in very good faith.

Of course a lot of private members' bills aren't actually passed. But what is wrong with putting an idea out there? I have pointed out to you that I am now implementing ideas that I put forward during my years in opposition. I did my homework, and because of the confidence the electorate has shown in my party, I now have the opportunity to bring those ideas forward. That's a good process. Hon. member, you have an opportunity to participate in that. So don't ever downgrade the efficacy of private members' bills. That's a very important resource that we have within this House.

Be willing to take the chance, too, that you might get shot down in flames for what you put out there. That's part of the process as well: being willing to take some risks, putting your ideas out there and getting something a little more productive out of this House, rather than just taking shots. We don't want to work with that process; we want to work with ideas. It's not good enough simply to say: "Minister, you're the one who should shut this down."

I'm dealing with situations all over the province. It behooves me to manage our legislative framework with care and fairness and with the recognition that we live in a diverse province of people with diverse interests. While it often seems to be too slow, the fact is that when you have to have that overview perspective -- which I think the people of British Columbia really want their leaders to have -- then you have to consider all aspects and not just the one aspect that you're looking at.

K. Jones: Hon. Chair, to the minister. You're talking about taking potshots? You got into this topic, literally, by taking potshots. Do you want to look at the documentation on the meetings I've had with people in my community and the preparation I've done for this? You call this a potshot? I'm aghast. It's totally unacceptable.

I'll work on getting this for you and doing your job for you. Maybe one of these days we'll have a different minister over there. I think that you're totally abrogating your responsibility.

The Chair: Excuse me, member. Could I remind you to address your comments through the Chair.

The Chair recognizes the member for Richmond Centre.

[3:00]

D. Symons: For fear of being chastised for asking a question that has been asked before.... I was incorrectly chastised, I think -- and the minister can correct me and chastise me again if I'm wrong on this -- when he missed some of the words in the question that I asked quite a while ago this morning. I asked about any new regulations for the testing -- and I think you missed the word "testing" -- of pesticides. I was concerned about what the federal government has allowed through. All too often the provinces simply accept what Environment Canada says.

They will accept a chemical -- herbicides and all the rest -- to be used in spraying or for other purposes, without adequate testing. Too often we find that these chemicals are accepted simply because the manufacturer has said to the people: "Here are the results of our tests on it." I am somewhat concerned that there is no adequate testing on these chemicals that are being used on our fields and in our environment in British Columbia.

I'm wondering what your government is doing in regard to seeing that the materials that are used are safe, and that we aren't going to suffer something in ten, 20 or 30 years down the line when we find out that these are carcinogens or have some other effect on the environment that we will be sorry for. That was the intent of the question before, and I think we took the wrong track on it.

Hon. J. Cashore: There was a major federal government review of all aspects of pesticide use that included testing procedures being reviewed. The provincial government had input into that process. That is an ongoing need. The member makes a good point. As long as we as a society accept the use of pesticides, I don't think we will ever get away from the need for that.

D. Symons: Again to the minister, somewhat in the same regard, I am concerned about the gathering and disposal of hazardous wastes. A year or two ago someone sponsored -- maybe it was greater Vancouver -- a gathering of hazardous waste from people who might have had tins of DDT and various things of that sort, along with paints, oils and other things. Has the provincial government considered doing that sort of thing, where people can dispose of these things so that they will be collected and then safely disposed of?

Has the provincial government thought of some way to coordinate, sponsor and pay for this, so that the people who have these hazardous wastes around their homes, businesses and so forth would have some safe way of disposing of them?

Hon. J. Cashore: Yes, we have had hazardous waste collection days throughout the province, which were joint projects of the provincial government and municipalities -- or whatever the municipal entity was. There continue to be six sites around the province where the hazardous waste collection process continues.

[ Page 2046 ]

Also, while the Hazardous Waste Management Corporation was in existence, it was the entity that operated that program on behalf of the provincial government. They had the hazmobile at that time, which ran into difficulty and ceased to exist. As the hon. member knows, I have announced the demise of the Hazardous Waste Management Corporation, and an announcement will be forthcoming with regard to the appointment of our toxics reduction commissioner and some other attendant initiatives relating to that.

The member makes a good point. In the continuum of dealing with various kinds of waste, people need the opportunity to dispose of the hazardous products around their homes.

D. Symons: I have another question in a slightly different area that deals with what had been a moratorium on uranium mining in the province. I notice this would come under the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, but the aspect I'm looking at is the environmental effect of uranium mining. I'm wondering what your thoughts are on allowing exploration or possible development of uranium mining, and whether the Environment ministry may end up making sure this will not happen in our province.

Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Chair, I'm sure it will not happen as long as the present government is in power.

One of the difficult things when we're talking about the problem of uranium mining.... I acknowledge this is a question that my colleague the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources is more fundamentally responsible for. But from an environmental perspective, it often concerns me that someone could be out there mining for something else, and it could be that there's an incidental factor involving the presence of uranium. There I think you get into both an ethical and a management problem. That's a question I often put to myself, and it is a difficult question coming from anybody.

We're not out of the area of difficulty when it comes to the danger of uranium being released, given that just to go out there and explore for minerals sometimes will disturb it while we're looking for gold or some other mineral. But if it releases uranium, then the problem is still there. We have to consider that a very serious problem that we have to address in different ways.

D. Symons: I don't think your suggestion that it might be discovered accidentally is likely to be accepted. Uranium isn't like lead, zinc and silver, which you find in similar formations; when you find one you often find the others. I don't believe that's true of uranium ore.

I have a concern with an answer you gave earlier on the water supply at Naramata. It was a question asked by one of my colleagues over here. In promise 22, during the election campaign, these words were in there: "Clean air, clean water and uncontaminated soils are our heritage and our right." Yet I found, when somebody pointed out to you the difficulty the people around Naramata have had with their water supply.... This is something I became fully aware of very soon after I was elected. I got a rather large document from those people up there outlining to me the problems they have -- to me, as just a new MLA.

I'm sure this information had been supplied to the government then in power and had been supplied to your government when you were in opposition, so you would not be unaware of what I was being informed of at that time.

As I read through that document, I couldn't believe that cows were allowed to walk around the source of water for this community, and that logging was taking place in their watershed, right up to the water itself. The answer that was given when the hon. member here asked about that very issue was that maybe they can be looking at some alleviation, or some act, and so forth, that will address that problem by 1994. It seems inconceivable that we would have a situation where we realize that the health of people is at stake, and that we're going to delay on this.

This is something that you should have had ready and in place the moment you took power and addressed the issue. Can we look forward to something more immediate than 1994 for the community of Naramata and their water supply?

Hon. J. Cashore: I think I gave most of the information yesterday about the integrated management that has been worked out, where we have achieved a consensus or where the people of the area have achieved a consensus in seeking to address this issue. I have no hesitation in reiterating that clean air and clean water is a right. It's unfortunate that we as a society have impacted on that right. I think that is something all of us have to answer for. I don't think there's anybody in this House who is particularly proud that we have seen circumstances develop in our province where our water supply is impacted.

If the member is trying to suggest that somehow that should have all changed on November 5, I think that that's a bit presumptuous -- maybe give us to next November 5. It's going to take a little while to get some of these really difficult issues sorted out where there is a heritage and a tradition of mixed use. If the member is saying, "Okay, you take every site in the province where a similar problem occurs and remove the agriculture," then say that, but say it outright. If you're going to say that, then make that a very clear statement so people know exactly what you mean by that.

The hon. member is from Richmond Centre. I suppose that's a good place to look at water contamination issues, the issues of the water coming down the Fraser River. When the people in Kitimat talk about their river, they talk about it as their table; it's the table where they find their food. Yet we know about the impacts on the Fraser River, we know about sewage going into the Fraser, we know about illicit dumping into the Fraser after dark, we know about the gauntlet that salmon have to run when going up to spawn.

We are seeing some beginnings in addressing those issues with the Fraser basin management agreement, but, hon. member, we have a long way to go. We have a long way to go in Richmond. We have a long way to go in Naramata. In addition, isn't it interesting to learn that British Columbia's drinking water is not among the best-quality drinking water when compared with other

[ Page 2047 ]

provinces? That's quite a shock for all of us -- something that, whether you're in government or not in government, is a real concern that we all share.

D. Symons: I'm not sure if this is a question, but just in response, because I seemed to be asked if I would take a stand then, and indeed I would. When it comes to the drinking water of communities, I will say definitely that that water must be kept uncontaminated. That means keep the animals out of it and see that that water source is preserved for people's health. I have no hesitation at all in saying that is my stand.

J. Doyle: Hon. Chair, I'd like leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

J. Doyle: It's a great pleasure today, hon. Chair, to make an introduction of a school group down from the riding of Columbia River-Revelstoke. They're from Invermere. This is the first student group that has been down to Victoria since I've had the honour to be the MLA for that area. They are 46 grade 7 students from J.A. Laird Elementary School. With them are their teachers, Mr. David Sharp and Mr. Brent Gillis, and parents Pat Andreychuk, Anne Plassinar, Elmer Green and Mel Casey. I'm really pleased that they could be with us today and that the weather is so good. I really hope they enjoy their visit here. I'd like everyone to join with me in welcoming them to Victoria.

K. Jones: I just wanted to go back to an item that the minister was talking about, with justifiable credit being given to the work that B.C. Tel's been doing in the environmental areas. I particularly wanted to relate to the Langley project, where the office is located in Langley on a trial basis. I'd also like to give credit so it would be on the record that it was a partnership. B.C. Tel was in partnership with the Bentall Group of companies: Bentall supplied the offices and B.C. Tel provided the workforce and the equipment. I think due credit should go to both partners in that. I don't take away from B.C.

Tel's participation and its very active initiation of it, but the Bentall Group also was very much involved in the initiation of this concept. I think it's the beginning of many more to come.

I would like to go over to another area, hon. minister: construction waste landfills. I have a proposal for recycling that has been brought to my attention. Right now it is not feasible because of the low dumping fees charged by the commercially operated construction waste dump, which I believe is the only one in the lower mainland.

[3:15]

I'd like to give you some idea of the cost difference between that and the sanitary landfill price charged in the lower mainland. For a container of approximately 30 yards -- a standard unit used in the construction waste area -- the sanitary landfill cost, I'm told, would be about $1,035,

whereas a person can dump construction waste into the construction landfill for only $85. That's the difference. If this was raised to something in the range of what New York City is charging for its landfill -- $600 per 30-yard bin -- this project would be quite feasible from an economic standpoint.

Are you prepared to take on these privately operated dumps and have them charge appropriate prices so that we can initiate proper recycling rather than continue developing landfills with construction wastes? It's similar to that problem in Richmond where the landfill caught fire. It burned and burned and created noxious smells and smoke for quite an extensive time.

Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Chair, that Richmond landfill fire is an excellent example. It was my second day on the job, and I was out there observing that fire and also the one out in Maple Ridge. Those are two good examples that support the point the hon. member is making.

I know we're not supposed to discuss bills, but a bill is before the House that would provide for regional districts -- given that they conform to an approved plan -- to have the authority to set fees. The purpose of that, hon. member, is to do precisely what you are requesting. It will be done on the basis of the regional district, which has the expertise to know what the market should be in their given area to set that in place, as long as it's done within an approved plan. So I'm very pleased to see that the hon. member is supporting Bill 29.

K. Jones: Does that mean that you are giving the regional district the ability to set fees for both private and public landfills? The construction waste landfill is a private landfill.

Hon. J. Cashore: In an approved plan, yes.

K. Jones: I'm not quite sure what you mean by "in an approved plan." What are we talking about?

Hon. J. Cashore: A plan approved by the Ministry of Environment, put forward by the regional district.

K. Jones: Is that plan that's put forward by the regional district and approved by the ministry a plan for all dumps, controlling both private and public dumps?

Hon. J. Cashore: It's the solid waste management plan, which was a process that came into existence by virtue of 1988 legislation, which is underway to help achieve the goal of 50 percent waste reduction.

K. Jones: When will this proposal be ready? What

schedule have you got for implementation of these higher rates, if there are going to be higher rates? Basically, I don't hear that you're going to implement any higher rates. It could stay the same as what they are presently.

Hon. J. Cashore: I'm absolutely appalled that this member is not aware of something that is known by people in municipalities all over British Columbia. This

[ Page 2048 ]

is a process to get plans in order to help get on board with achieving the goal of reducing municipal solid waste by 50 percent. It's most interesting to hear this member advocating for haste in terms of: "When are we going to see these plans?" We had this filibuster going on in the House that would simply achieve the opposite, to avoid us being able to take steps that would enable regional districts and municipalities to be involved in developing their solid waste plans through the beverage container strategy. So this doesn't make an awful lot of sense.

The Chair: Excuse me, minister. A member has risen on a point of order.

J. Tyabji: I think we were allowing some flexibility as far as the minister's initial comments with regard to the bill. If I could remind the minister, we're not debating a bill here; we're in estimates. We'll have time to debate the bill in committee tonight.

The Chair: That's a prudent reminder for all members on all sides of the House.

Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Chair, I think your point is well taken. I would remind the environment critic, though, I was responding to her colleague's question.

K. Jones: I'd like the minister to respond to my question. What date do you have for implementation of this plan to determine the rates for the landfills? There must be a date. You must have a schedule. I'm not trying to rush things or anything like that. I just want to know what date you have for it so this constituent of mine can do some planning. He wants to be part of the recycling process, but he needs to have some idea of how to set up his business.

Hon. J. Cashore: These plans have to be completed by 1995. Those communities that are completing their plans earlier are, obviously, very much ahead of the game. But I would advise the hon. member that if he's going to insist on seeking to discuss the bill, when the direction that he's getting from his own critic is pointing out that he should be staying off that turf, I would hope that in terms of solidarity with your own bench, you might consider whether you want to pursue that type of question.

K. Jones: Hon. minister, we are not discussing the bill. We are talking about your ministry and your plans for a

schedule to deal with waste management in the lower mainland of British Columbia. What timeline have you got to set down to bring forward an increase in the construction waste costs so that they can be made reasonably and will encourage a proper recycling business?

Hon. J. Cashore: We have met with the GVRD, and they have agreed to set up a joint task force with the provincial government to speed the process up. I've already answered the question. I said that the plans have to be submitted by 1995, but if they're submitted earlier, that's better.

I'd also point out to the hon. member that I'm glad we're discussing my ministry's estimates -- as he puts it -- but it seems that when I give an answer that the opposition doesn't like, I then get called out of order by the environment critic. You can't have it both ways, hon. member.

K. Jones: If we could get an answer instead of a filibuster, it'd be okay.

Hon. J. Cashore: You've got an answer.

J. Tyabji: I would like to ask some general questions with regard to the estimates. I know that we're still in the first

section on land use, which is going incredibly quickly, wouldn't you say, hon. minister? I would like to ask the minister about the changes in the budget. I'm happy to see that it's gone up by approximately 7.5 percent, but I would like to ask the minister if he feels there have been any changes with regard to the financing due to the amalgamation of the Environment, Lands and Parks portfolios. Also, why does vote 32 show a decline of 44 percent for the minister's office?

Hon. J. Cashore: Starting with the last question, the simple answer is that we've consolidated two ministries into one, and therefore there's only one minister's office; economies of scale.

With regard to the first question, if I understood it, it was with regard to the.... Hon. Chair, I'll sit down and listen to the question again.

J. Tyabji: Perhaps the minister was so flustered from the previous exchange that he was distracted. I believe the hon. minister has answered the first part of the question with his answer to the second part.

Very briefly, I'd like to take this opportunity to congratulate the minister on a decision that he made yesterday with regard to the Tsitika. In this House we often get fairly adversarial. I think it was an excellent decision. I'd really like to commend him and the joint initiative that was taken there. I know all of us on this side of the House share your feelings with regard to the value of that area of the province.

With regard to the land use

section of the estimates, I have some fairly specific questions with regard to conservation officers and wildlife. First of all, I have some information that the minister may be considering an auction of Rocky Mountain sheep. I believe that would be in the Kimberly area of the province. I'd like to know whether the minister is planning that or if he knows whether his managers are planning that, and how he feels about this.

Hon. J. Cashore: The answer is no.

J. Tyabji: Am I to understand that no, you're not considering an auction, or no, you're not aware of...?

Interjections.

[ Page 2049 ]

J. Tyabji: Okay. Great. Further to that, conservation officers have an incredibly enormous job. I know that they are all extremely capable and very committed people, but I would put to the minister that we don't have enough of them right now. I'm sure he feels the same way, and I know he's going to talk about budget restrictions. However, there is a growing concern on two fronts among some of the conservation officers with whom I and my researchers have spoken.

One is with regard to potential dangers on the job when confronting poachers or hunters who may be in violation of their hunting licence -- with the bounds of it and potentially then levying a fine. I'd like to know if the minister is taking any steps.

I know that this was covered this morning to some extent, but I would like to also mention to the minister that although we allowed a lot of generosity with regard to the third party's environment critic, we would like to canvass some of the same issues in this forum, because we believe we have a different approach. Having said that, with regard to conservation officers, we on this side of the House are concerned with some of the increases in fines -- if you have an armed hunter in violation of a permit, who may be facing a fine, being confronted by a conservation officer.

Is this minister considering any steps to provide a support service to the conservation officer, or is there any planned prescribed action that officers can take so that they can avoid the kind of dangerous situations that may arise with armed hunters in the bush?

[3:30]

Hon. J. Cashore: That question reflects a really important concern, and I take that question very seriously. First of all, in terms of professional development there are ongoing programs in Malaspina College, the University of Lethbridge or wherever it may be from which we recruit conservation officers, that deal with safety, firearms training and a wide range of methodologies to try to avoid getting into dangerous circumstances.

Indeed one of the reasons that we have put $2 million into hiring 20 full-time employees is to try to address the safety factor of one-member conservation service offices, where sometimes a person goes out on their own. That's a dangerous situation. I guess it's similar in some ways to the one that I described earlier, about that unfortunate lightning strike in another part of the ministry.

Where a conservation officer is going out into a situation where it's potentially dangerous, and if that individual's aware of that, he or she can often ask for backup service from the RCMP. There's that type of availability. I do agree with you, hon. member, that we don't have enough conservation officers in the province. I think we need more, especially in a province such as British Columbia. I do recognize that what I have said doesn't cover all the possibilities that are out there. It continues to be a job that can be very dangerous. Tragically, drinking is too often associated with hunting and fishing.

My own feeling about that is that it's really inappropriate with regard to the outdoors and the wilderness environment. I would hope that through various processes it might change over time.

I mentioned earlier that I've been trying to get around and visit our employees in the regional offices. I've talked to a number of COs, and invariably the discussion gets around to some of the situations they have found themselves in. Some of them are really hair-raising. So we do rely on their training and their ability to discreetly move away from a situation if it appears that they need a backup.

J. Tyabji: With regard to the whole issue of conservation officers, as this minister is aware, there is a growing problem with B.C. being the supplier to the black-market trade in animal and wildlife parts. Poaching has become a more and more significant issue with regard to black bear parts and some of the ungulates.

I'd like to know what the minister is doing and what his ministry plans to do to change the access or to somehow monitor poachers better. Does this minister have a five-year plan to increase the number of conservation officers so that the northern and interior parts of the province are better represented in terms of having the staff to monitor the kind of poaching and environmental degradation that could be going on and that falls under the conservation officers' jurisdiction?

Hon. J. Cashore: I wouldn't describe it as a five-year plan, but I see my role as continuing to advocate for increased conservation officer services. That always has to be in the context of a number of other priorities that are being addressed. So I can only reassure the member that I will continue to advocate for that. That's all I can say.

I didn't want to leave the wrong impression when I was talking about drinking being associated with hunting and fishing. I would like to qualify that drinking is associated with a very high proportion of the problems that result in a potentially dangerous situation. The vast majority of those who are involved in organizations like the B.C. Wildlife Federation are very responsible people who certainly don't abuse that. In fact, they are good at monitoring the situation and trying to ensure the appropriateness of those who are out there.

It is true that there are people who often aren't associated with such organizations and who, from time to time, are involved in situations that are potentially dangerous for our staff.

The hon. member asked about how we are addressing the issue of poaching and the illegal trade in animal parts. As we have announced, we have a special investigation unit right now. I am somewhat careful of what I say about that because of the covert nature of their operations. We don't want to telegraph our methodology, because we want them to strike in areas where they aren't expected. Their work, of course, is very important.

J. Tyabji: I understand the minister qualifying his statements. I assume he doesn't want to receive bags of mail from those who may have thought they were included.

Further to those comments, does the minister have any plans on the drawing board with regard to monitoring? I agree with the minister that the majority

[ Page 2050 ]

of hunters are generally responsible, and that there are those who, as in all areas, will spoil it for the rest of them. Does the minister have any plans to monitor those who could be drinking and hunting or fishing?

Hon. J. Cashore: We do keep track of all the situations that we encounter out there, and there is data kept. It's not what you would call a scientific survey, but situations are logged in. So we do have some sense of the incidents out there.

J. Tyabji: For information purposes, would the minister share with us what the general penalty is if someone is caught drinking and hunting?

Hon. J. Cashore: The problem would be associated with drinking and hunting if the person did anything that violated the Wildlife Act. It's my understanding that the liquor part of the offence would come under some other act, not under the Wildlife Act. As I said before, it could involve a member of the RCMP in circumstances such as that.

J. Tyabji: Would this minister be considering any kind of amendment to the Wildlife Act that might make it an offence to be caught armed and hunting in the woods with a level where you would not be able to drive?

Hon. J. Cashore: That certainly isn't in the Wildlife Act now. It's my understanding that it's covered under other legislation. The answer to the question is: yes, I would consider it. I'm not going to say yes, we would do it, but we would consider it. I think it's worthy that we review that recommendation in the context of the array of existing law that is presently there. Obviously the Attorney General's ministry would be consulted on such an issue.

J. Tyabji: I'm happy to hear that the minister would consider a law like that, because that tends to protect those who are not abusing their recreational privileges.

I would like to canvass the minister's feelings on the black market toxic waste trade that is a growing concern to many conservation officers. To provide the minister with some of the specifics from the conservation officers we have been talking to, our understanding is that there are those who are willing to collect toxic waste from companies and dump it illegally in areas where they cannot be monitored. This is because some companies -- none that I would be interested in discussing now -- would not want to pay the fines that currently exist for the existing methods of getting rid of toxic waste; therefore there are those who are willing to enter into a black market.

Obviously the monitoring of this black market is the responsibility of the conservation officers. There are those who feel that one of the most dangerous aspects of their jobs right now is having to deal with those who are being paid to dump illegally on behalf of a company. And because this minister, very commendably, is going the polluter-pay principle in some other areas within his ministry, this may become a concern of even greater magnitude as the fines get yet larger. Obviously, then, it puts more pressure on the conservation officers.

Hon. J. Cashore: When I was in opposition, there was a situation out in Langley. I won't say the name of the farm, but it was a farm close to where there was a residential area. People had a complaint that went back 15 years about just the situation the hon. member has described. The smell was terrible, not to mention the potential impacts on health. For 15 years conservation officers from the ministry tried to nab this combination of a trucker and a farmer and get the goods on them. There were some times that it actually -- if it weren't so tragic -- played out like a Keystone Kops scenario.

As a matter of fact, there was one incident where a conservation officer waited up all night for this truck to come into the yard. Finally the truck came in with its lights off, and the conservation officer was sitting there. He raced into the yard and tried to get the evidence, but the trucker had installed a high-speed, super-efficient pump and managed to sewer the load within half a minute. I think the conservation officer ended up reaching in and turning off the switch, and he broke the pump, and that ended up with him sending a bill to the Ministry of Environment.

It's just bizarre when you try to get evidence that stands up under the rules of our courts. A bit of an irony was that the very first news release that I signed, on November 6 -- the day after I was sworn in -- stated that the Ministry of Environment had charged that individual. Of course, I told all my friends that on my first day on the job I had success.

Anyway, I guess you would call it a black market. Obviously, that is an area where it is really difficult to get the evidence that stands up in court. I'm not sure, for instance, if the administrative penalty approach could apply in a situation like that, but we should look at it and see if it could. We should try to find ways of dealing with those situations that don't have to go through costly court procedures. The other thing is that the vast majority of people in the agricultural community, when a conservation officer knocks on the door and talks to the people, try to do the right thing. This is another area where our undercover team would be of use.

J. Tyabji: I would definitely encourage the minister to try to get some kind of recourse or penalty without going through the courts, because obviously that is extremely costly and often not that effective.

I would like to find out from the minister how much money he feels will be coming into the general revenues as a result of the increase in fines for pollution.

Hon. J. Cashore: The estimate is $1.6 million.

J. Tyabji: What is the increase over last year with regard to just pollution fines?

[3:45]

Hon. J. Cashore: I will get that for you in a moment. That's an estimated increase based on the year before. It's a target; I mean, that's the best you can do. But I would point out to the hon. member that, as I said

[ Page 2051 ]

this morning, I did some research between the years 1986 and 1989 and found that the total amount of fines collected under the Waste Management Act, averaged over those three years, was less than $35,000 a year for the entire province.

There has been a dramatic increase even to the point of some historic high fines having been levied against some major polluters. That's kind of important too, because I don't think that it should always be the smaller businesses that are being nailed. I've noticed that two jail sentences have now been issued against individuals. That's historic. One was here on Vancouver Island, and the other was just last week in the interior. You don't like to see that happen to anybody, but we have to send out a clear message that some of these practices are simply inappropriate. I'll get you that figure in a little while.

J. Tyabji: I would say to the minister that it's about time we started to get serious with polluters in the province.

I would ask the minister if he plans to have a special fund set aside that comprises the money brought in through fines and other sources of revenue generation under his ministry that would pay for cleanup of some of our waterways -- for example, the Fraser River. Is he planning to use the money that comes in because of pollution to pay for getting rid of pollution or some of its by-products?

Hon. J. Cashore: On the question of the amount taken in in fines, it was $1,059,000 for the year 1990-91. We're still trying to find that for fiscal '91-92. I believe it was more.

With regard to the question of where this money goes -- I think that was the question -- it goes into the sustainable environment fund. That fund is within government, dedicated to an array of environmental measures. I read them into the record this morning. I think I left the copy of that document up in my office. I could read them into the record again.

J. Tyabji: I know the minister was canvassed to some extent by the third party Environment critic this morning with regard to the Environment Youth Corps. This is something that's of concern to me as well. We have a number of members in my constituency, and I've been contacted by past participants of the Environment Youth Corps from around the province. The minister said that the budget restrictions have resulted in cancelling this program.

It seems to me that provisions have been made in the Social Services ministry for a very similar program. We have seen that initiatives in the Advanced Education ministry and in many other ministries to train youth have been more or less eliminated. I understand that the minister has numerous priorities in his ministry. I'd like to know when we on the opposition side can see some investment from the government side in the youth of the province, to train them in necessary job skills, whether it be through the Environment Youth Corps or volunteer programs.

If the minister doesn't have any money to pay them, would he still be willing to work out something in conjunction with the federal government so they still receive job training, even if they're not getting paid a salary? A lot of these youth said that what they liked about the program was the access to information, experience and training. I understand that the minister can't afford to pay their wages anymore. There are so many employees in the Ministry of Environment that surely somewhere in there we could find someone who would be able to offer the same services and provide some guidance to them.

If nothing more, could the minister commit to be a liaison or to have some staff who would work with community environmental groups to bring some youth on stream? Many of the youth have said that they would like to have some way of being included in the system. Even if the minister has a financial constraint, perhaps he could then work to have youth volunteers, who at least are acquiring job training and experience. They may be able to go out and get a job afterwards.

Hon. J. Cashore: As I said before, I really wasn't happy about having to see the end of the Environment Youth Corps, but in going through our mission statement and listing our priorities and trying to make some decisions so that we could have an expanded conservation officer service, so that we could have wildlife biologists, so that we could have the $10 million that we needed to catch up on inventory, which would require 40 full-time employees, we had to make some tough decisions. As important as the Environment Youth Corps was, it did not rank high enough in our listing of priorities.

I think all of you who have families know what that's like, when you're looking at the family budget and there are some things where you say: "Okay, we can't do that this year." It's really unfortunate, because our young people certainly are very valuable and important in terms of a sustainable future.

I should point out that the dollars in that program were our dollars and also the dollars of the Ministry of Social Services, which were used.... Both of those envelopes, in a sense, were used to administer the Environment Youth Corps program. The Social Services portion of that money has gone back into the Ministry of Social Services for them to continue to administer a somewhat different program, but still dealing with youth.

As to the point about the ministry finding a way to work with young people and to facilitate and enable the worthwhile way in which young people would like to be part of the solution in working on environmental issues, I think that's a good suggestion. I do have to recognize that within the job descriptions of all of our employees, they are full-time jobs, and they are also doing vital things. We can always use more staff for a variety of needs. However, in the work that I have done in visiting staff I find that our staff are very open to those kinds of initiatives. We see it in different ways.

We see it in the environmental education program. We see it in the kind of work that goes into programs involving the Ecosaurus and the program that is taking place in schools in environmental education. Also, I have

dis-

[ Page 2052 ]

covered that people who work within the ministry living in different parts of the province are very community-oriented, by and large. Just as we're talking about volunteers working in some of these ways, our own staff do that in those communities. In those settings they probably are now working with a lot of the young people of the province.

Finally in looking at the role of youth, yes, I will continue to look for opportunities to facilitate the role of youth in working on environmental subjects.

J. Tyabji: I notice that the minister, on January 24, released the province's non-compliance pollution concern list. This is obviously a practice carried over from the former administration. There are 102 industrial operations and municipalities on this list. Would the minister please tell me what action he has taken subsequent to the releasing of the list to remove some of those groups from the list, when he plans to come out with another list, and if he feels that some of the initiatives he's undertaking in his ministry now will result in the list getting longer?

Hon. J. Cashore: I was talking, and I didn't hear the question.

The Chair: Could the member repeat the question?

J. Tyabji: Yes. Perhaps I should write everything down and shoot it across in paper airplanes or something. The question was with regard to the non-compliance pollution concern list which the minister released on January 24. There were 102 either industrial operations or municipalities on the list. What has he done since the release of the list to remove these people from the list so that they are no longer in non-compliance? Is he coming out with another list, and if so when? Does he believe that the initiatives...? Now you're not listening again. I'm going to have to repeat this last part of the question.

Does he believe that any of the initiatives in his ministry are going to result in the list getting longer?

Hon. J. Cashore: I'm not sure. The way the question was phrased -- the list getting longer.... I think the goal is to get it shorter, to try to eliminate the list. The complution -- the pollution compliance list.... I think I'd better have a glass of water here.

J. Tyabji: Is it half empty or half full?

Hon. J. Cashore: This one's half full.

The compliance list is something that came about in the previous government, but with a great deal of encouragement from the official opposition at that time, and also from organizations like the West Coast Environmental Law Association. It comes out twice a year, so it's due to come out again, I would estimate, in about two and a half months.

[E. Barnes in the chair.]

How do we work with the 102 that are on the list? I think I've met with most of the municipalities that were on the list, because they don't like to be on the list and they want to talk to the minister about it. There are some situations where they feel that it's a bit unfair, given their circumstances with regard to primary and untreated sewage and that sort of thing.

The purpose of the list is to recognize that the public has a role in moving the environmental agenda forward, in the sense of public will leading to political will. So if the information is out there, that means that people's attention focuses on that, whether it's a corporation or a municipality. Our staff meets with these companies and with these municipalities. I can't say if they've met with all 102 of them, but one of the functions of the Ministry of Environment is to work with these people to help them get off the list.

R. Neufeld: Could you tell me what the rules are at present for leases on remote lakes for guided fly-in fishing? Do they compare much the same as with leases for the big game guiding associations?

Hon. J. Cashore: It's my understanding that a lease is a Crown land issue, but if you're referring to the guide outfitter, I believe that's a tenure situation. We may be able to answer some of those questions in more depth when we have Lands staff present in the House, which I think will be a little later on. There is an element of your question that relates to officials who I have here now.

R. Neufeld: I can wait until that time. I was just going by the list here and it said "Recreation," so I may have confused it a little.

Your ministry is going to allow a certain amount of bison hunting, up to 60 animals, in the Pink Mountain area. As I understand it, that's going to be bulls only, which apparently poses a bit of a problem because with bison, they're hard to distinguish. The big game guiding associations feel that there may be a lot of wasted meat left in the fields if that's the case. Do you have any information on that for me?

[4:00]

Hon. J. Cashore: The hon. member for Peace River North has outlined the scenario pretty well. Some bison there are not indigenous to the area. Those are the ones for which the licences are available, and 60 is about the right number. There is that potential problem, although we'll be monitoring it closely. In view of the management consideration involved in this process and given that we will be watching it closely, it should go ahead.

R. Neufeld: Yes, I understand. There are wood buffalo. I know that there are some historical problems which go back a long time. The major question that I have is: why bulls only when it is difficult? It could end up with carcasses being left behind, rather than being taken out, because hunters get a female. Couldn't there be a relaxation of that rule so that if they do happen to take a cow, there would be no problem, and they could

[ Page 2053 ]

take it out? As it stands now, they could be charged, I guess.

Hon. J. Cashore: The wildlife management science feels that since there are only about 600 in the herd, we would rather retain the reproductive capability of cows; therefore the licensing would be done for the bulls. But we do recognize the problem in identification.

R. Neufeld: It has probably gone far enough now, but maybe it's something that we could take into account next season. If there is a presumed waste or if they find that a number of cows have been shot and left that.... I agree with you about target bulls. But if by mistake they take a cow, the hunters should not be penalized. I think that would go a long way towards making the guiding association a little happier with the rules.

I'm going to go on to some other areas here. One is the difficulty faced by municipalities and regional districts with landfills, specifically in the north. I'm sure you know how large the north is. My constituency covers 600 miles of highway and has very few people. You have places that are maybe 150 miles apart where small groups of 20 or 30 people live. They have dumps, but the rules in place to cover those dumps daily become difficult to enforce because there's such a small amount of waste. Also, in the winter it's frozen pretty hard. That happens even in Fort St. John and Fort Nelson.

Does the ministry staff look at that in a favourable way? Or do they enforce the rules as they are? Down here it's fine to cover it up every day. It works; you're not frozen up. But up there it's a little different. Is there a little bit of lax like: we will just watch it and make sure that we don't get out of hand?

Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Chair, if there's one characteristic of this province that I think we all agree on it's that every area is unique. To apply a blanket policy to any part of the province and deny its unique aspect would simply not work.

Therefore in the plan to reduce solid waste by 50 percent, we are calling on regional districts to come forward with their solid waste management plans. These plans must be approved by the Ministry of Environment. Giving the authority to the regional districts to come forward with those plans ensures at least a degree of recognition of the unique aspects of those different areas. There are constraints when you realize that we have this goal in place that is time-driven, and we want to see those plans by 1995 at the latest. We'd like to see them sooner rather than later.

We have an enormous problem in the province with regard to losing landfill space and also with the fact that some potentially worthwhile resources are being turned into garbage, when using the three Rs of reduce, reuse and recycle would be a much better use of that resource.

Yes, we are trying to recognize the differences by enabling that planning process to be driven by the regional district. I agree there needs to be flexibility.

L. Hanson: I ask leave of the House to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

L. Hanson: In the gallery today we have a number of grade 7 students from St. James School in Vernon. They are accompanied by Mrs. O'Leary, Mrs. Chan and Mr. Nick Shaigec. Would the House please join me in welcoming them to Victoria.

R. Neufeld: On landfills and toxic waste dumps, has the ministry been successful in negotiating for some part of British Columbia where this waste can be stored until it can be handled? I know they have been looking for a place for a number of years, and it's always "not in my backyard." I was wondering if you have a place now where batteries and those types of things can be stored.

Hon. J. Cashore: As I understand the question, it's about the process for establishing a toxic waste facility. We're going to be making a major announcement shortly with regard to the appointment of a toxics reduction commissioner in order to carry forward the work that we have brought into the ministry. We now have a toxics reduction branch headed by Mr. Don Fast. We are going to be using the principles of reduce, reuse and recycle and applying them to toxics. We will be going beyond that, because we recognize that once we apply those principles, we still have the problem that you have outlined; I guess we could call it the residual.

We need to be careful about how we go about it, so that we're not creating a monster which then has to be fed. This is sometimes the problem with certain types of facilities being set up; they're so costly that it requires the production of toxic waste in order to justify their cost. That's a sticky wicket that we need to address in tackling that issue.

We are also looking at the whole question of biomedical waste in this context as well, recognizing that much of the volume of so-called biomedical waste is really packaging and isn't toxic or biomedical at all. It's just that there is a great deal of packaging associated with waste, especially in hospitals. We need time to review that appropriately. It is true that we're going to need a facility that can deal with the residuals. As long as we don't have a facility, we're still going to see people going out under cover of darkness and dumping in the Fraser River. We don't want that.

R. Neufeld: Do you have a time-frame in mind, Mr. Minister, when you think that you're going to be able to secure a site for all of this toxic waste?

An Hon. Member: Is there any room in your riding?

Hon. J. Cashore: The question was just asked if there's any room in the Peace River North riding. So we get into the old NIMBY syndrome.

No, hon. member, I'm not going to give a time. I'm going to say that we're working on this appropriately with careful planning. We will be announcing

time-

[ Page 2054 ]

lines, though, after we have the office up and running and are able to do the initial planning stage. Then we will be able to announce the plan and the program, and there will be dates attached to it.

R. Neufeld: The one problem with waste -- and I guess there's an awful lot more of it down here in comparison to the north -- is used oil. There is a tremendous amount of used oil. I've been in the oil industry for a number of years. I know that the governments before had told the oil companies that they had to do something with their waste oil, but most refineries won't take it because of the stringent rules regarding metals that are in the oil. They are faced with storing it.

Specifically in my area there is a waste facility for used oil, but they have to send out a sample from each container that they get the oil from to get it tested to make sure it can be recycled. If it can't, it's just stored. The storage areas get bigger and bigger. Possibly the rules that the Environment ministry has on what constitutes reuseable and non-reuseable oil are a little too stringent. Do you have any thoughts on that?

Hon. J. Cashore: An excellent question, because this is one where we have announced a program that is working quite well. We've expanded the requirement to all retail outlets that they have to have facilities to receive oil back so that there's an alternative for people who change their own oil at home to take it back. As we know, Mohawk has been a good corporate citizen in being much in advance in this whole process. I think it will result that Mohawk, since it has the technology, will be receiving used oils from a number of retailers and, in doing that, rerefining themselves.

I believe that we in government have a real responsibility through procurement policies to set good examples whereby our government vehicles use rerefined oil, which is in fact the situation in British Columbia. We have to be looking at other ways to get fleets in industry to use oil which we know is perfectly good. As for testing for possible contamination of the oil, I believe that the Mohawk facility has that testing capacity in their rerefining process, although I could be corrected on that.

R. Neufeld: Yes, they have that testing capacity, and they do recycle used oil, but they don't recycle all the used oil in British Columbia. Most outlets that sell oil have containers, but I guess some stores previously didn't have containers for bringing back used oil. In the north the service stations that I know of have tanks for the used oil. But the rules are set by the Ministry of Environment as to the amount of metals in the oil and what can be recycled. Is there any way that we can relax those rules so that more of that used oil could be recycled?

Hon. J. Cashore: We as government don't set the rules on what can be recycled, given the breakdown of the components. But I'd be interested in the information that the hon. member has. I've been advised that the member for Delta South has had a role in the Mohawk Oil process. I repeat that they're a good corporate citizen and have been a source of re-refined oil for provincial government vehicles for quite some time. We want to take that procurement policy and expand it within the Ministry of Government Services.

I've had discussions with the hon. minister, and we're taking a look at a wide variety of ways that we might expand procurement of supplies to government that address a number of these issues.

R. Neufeld: Excuse me. I thought it was the ministry that set those guidelines, but I've just been informed that it's the industry itself that sets them.

I want to go to land use in the north with regard to seismic, oil-related activities and the crossing of creeks. In my constituency this is always a bone of contention. The problem is that the ministry has some fairly strict guidelines with crossing creeks and bringing in portable bridges.

[4:15]

If you're familiar with the north and through the muskeg, you will know that some of those creeks dry up totally in the summertime, but they wind tremendously. It's not as though it's just a river heading over that way; it goes all over. A seismic line is generally straight and can cross the creek quite often. Although the oil companies make a point of trying as often as they can to not cross the creek, it does happen. So having to facilitate quite a number of bridges just for a few days' work gets very expensive.

Is there some way that maybe the ministry could relax the rules there a little bit to allow these oil companies to use more of just a straight snow-fill? I think that this would suffice in most cases, because the creeks do dry up later in the summer.

Hon. J. Cashore: The short answer is yes. We're currently working with the industry and with the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources to address that issue. It's just as the member outlines, and hopefully we're going to come up with some agreements that will be more reasonable.

R. Neufeld: That's good to hear.

The other question with this

section is on ice bridges across major rivers. Do the same rules apply for everyone in the building of ice bridges?

Hon. J. Cashore: I am advised that the problem in the past has been that once one of those bridges is established, there's a great deal of debris added to it. But when the member is asking about the rules that apply, I recall seeing something recently -- I think it was in the evening news -- where there was one set of rules for one industry and another set of rules for another industry. I wonder if the member could expand on that a bit, because that might help us get focused on where he's heading.

R. Neufeld: As I understand it, for crossing major rivers -- and there are a number of them in the north in my constituency that the oil companies cross almost every year, as do the logging companies; in fact, they will cross the Liard or the Fort Nelson River probably

[ Page 2055 ]

half a dozen times or more -- in the logging industry you're allowed to use logs and then you freeze the water in,

whereas in the oil industry you have to build an ice bridge out of straight ice. They can be across the same river going in the same part of the country. But I just wonder why there are different rules.

The reason I ask is that bridges enforced with logs are stronger, and it doesn't take nearly as much ice. If you're going to build a bridge with straight ice that's going to haul heavy loads for the oil patch, it has to be fairly thick, in excess of 48 inches, to haul an average load for an oil rig. It becomes very difficult to build those bridges without logs.

Hon. J. Cashore: At this point it's not clear that the Ministry of Environment has the authority over these roads. We're going to find out about that. It could come under the portion of our water legislation in and about a stream. The way the hon. member describes that situation, as I remember it, it was an ice bridge where logs were not required, while in another industry it was required.

We'll find out.

R. Neufeld: It's just a process where it would make it a lot easier for everyone to understand. I know that there's a little more debris with logs in the bridge, but the rules are that those bridges have to also be taken out, as I understand, so there isn't a lot of debris left in the river. Usually the rivers in the north flood pretty heavily in the springtime anyhow.

F. Gingell: If I may, I'd like to just go back to cover the subject of the disposal of lubricating oil, which the member for Peace River North brought up. Mr. Chairman, I'm sure you can appreciate the necessity for the company that is doing the rerefining to first of all ascertain that the material is lubricating oil, not bunker oil. You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

The second problem, of course, is whether or not the oil might contain any PCBs. All the members of the minister's department are aware of the problem that one company has up in Kamloops with what is really not a very great concentration. They just happened to go over certain accepted levels for transportation.

Also recognizing the discussion that went on earlier with regard to toxic waste disposal facilities and the need to feed them with sufficient materials, I wonder whether the minister has considered the -- what seems to me to be obvious -- tie-in of the Alberta government's facility at Swan Hills and the need to dispose of certain amounts of PCB-laden lubricating oils from our province.

Hon. J. Cashore: I'd like to thank the member for Delta South for his input on this issue of lubricating oils and the role Mohawk has had. I think it would be good sometime to be able to chat with him more about this. We want to be making the best possible decisions to make use of that technology.

With regard to Swan Hills, I can only say that that is a possibility. We're looking at it. There is some thinking in the environmental community that it's inappropriate to transport waste across a border. I have some personal concerns about that. However, it may be that in certain circumstances, if you saw that there was a real, genuine, honest exchange, something might be worked out. For instance, we're receiving lead acid batteries from Alberta into the Cominco plant. I am not writing that off. It's one possibility that we would consider along with others.

We have to wait on the process that would ensue from the appointment of our toxics reduction commissioner and the work of our toxics reduction office in the ministry.

Hon. J. Cashore: Again, we're willing to look at that as one possibility. We have to be awfully careful, though, when we look at certain types of options. For instance, if we are contracting into a process that you can't get out of, it means that you've contracted into a method which is not high on the hierarchy of reduce, reuse and recycle. In fact, it falls off that hierarchy. It's either the fourth or the fifth R. We really do have to take a look at it. But I think there is also probably some sensitivity on the part of Alberta with regard to the potential for importing.

It's something where we would have to go cautiously. We have to be able to demonstrate to ourselves that we have really got a grasp on the need to reduce, reuse and recycle. If we start making it look as though we've come up with a magic solution, then it tends to say that we really don't have to worry too much about the basic problem; and yet we know we do.

F. Gingell: If I could just go back to the subject that was under discussion prior to that from the member for Peace River North, we were discussing the problem of landfills. You'll appreciate that in Delta South we have the Burns Bog landfill, something that really does cause us a lot of problems. All you've got to do is drive down Highway 99 in the middle of summer, and you know when you're close to Burns Bog.

The previous administration had given quite a bit of encouragement to proposals for the development of a private-enterprise solution at Burns Bog that would look into the composting of materials, the generation of power through stuff that was burnable and the recovery and recycling of all metals and materials. From sitting on the outside and listening to what was going on, it's my understanding that it required cooperation and decisions to be made by the Greater Vancouver Regional District with respect to it. The work and

[ Page 2056 ]

encouragement of the previous administration in trying to make something happen fell upon somewhat stony ground. Perhaps you would comment, Mr. Minister, on the future of the Burns Bog dump, whether you see it as a high priority, and what the solutions might be.

Hon. J. Cashore: The Burns Bog landfill is in the solid waste plan of the GVRD. We're trying to control its growth by phasing out solid waste from the waste stream. Hopefully, that process is going to have some success.

With regard to the plan for a resource-recovery plant, which would produce pellets, that's really the fourth R of the recycling hierarchy. We really prefer the first three Rs, which means source separation. At this point in time, I would see that as a non-starter. We do have a resource recovery plan in Coquitlam. I haven't seen the latest statistics, but I think it is less than 18 percent successful in finding markets for items that they remove from the waste stream there.

J. Tyabji: Since we're on the Burns Bog issue, I'm sure the minister is aware that some very successful projects have been done in other jurisdictions -- particularly in the eastern United States -- by tapping into the methane that's being produced for the purposes of running electrical facilities and plants and basically using that energy very efficiently. The methane being produced is being utilized to produce energy rather than being released into the atmosphere. There was a pilot project in the Burns Bog. There have been some difficulties there.

I wanted to know if the minister is planning to put any money towards this kind of initiative, if he's looked at where it's been successful in other jurisdictions and if he's planning to work with municipalities and regional districts to implement this kind of energy initiative in B.C.

Hon. J. Cashore: Methane is a greenhouse gas. We are looking at that whole thing under the greenhouse gas policy, which is part of the process that we're going through right now. I understand that the GVRD has conducted a study with regard to methane at Burns Bog. I think the member makes a good point: if we can find ways of using the energy that's there, we certainly should do that.

[4:30]

The answer to the question of whether we have dollars going into that at the present time is no. In combination with one other ministry of government, it certainly is an issue that we could well be looking to, depending on what comes out of those studies.

F. Gingell: If I may, while we're on the subject of methane gas recovery, I would like to add a little to this discussion. You will find that there has been as much work done in British Columbia as has been done in many other parts of the world. The original project was up in North Vancouver, where methane gas from an old landfill has been heating a field house and some other facilities at Capilano College for some time.

When I was on the Fraser River Harbour Commission, we signed a major contract for the recovery of methane gases from the Richmond landfill, which is on federal land and controlled by the Fraser River Harbour Commission. There are many wells on it -- somewhere in the region of 50 or 60. The methane gas is sold to the Lafarge Concrete plant, which is immediately east of that facility.

The ability to recover this methane gas, which is really another part of the recycling process in its greater sense, can be better done and more greatly helped by proper planning of the disposal sites in the first place. It just happened that it did work well at the Richmond site. They had the right kind of situation. I am afraid that that may not be the case at the Burns Bog. I was wondering if the ministry would have given any direction in the development of any new landfill sites that will assist in the recovery and sensible use of methane gases that will be produced from that garbage in future years.

Hon. J. Cashore: I'd like to say that we want to avoid the development of new landfill sites. I don't think we would want to consider planning the placement of new landfill sites when we're actually trying to find measures to avoid them coming into existence.

Listening to the hon. member with regard to his knowledge about the use of methane gas, I was not aware of some of the very interesting information that Capilano College is actually.... Their field house is using methane, and also the Lafarge cement plant is. I wasn't aware of that. I would like to suggest that perhaps we could arrange for you, hon. member, to meet with our staff sometime to pursue some of these ideas, because we don't want to see them lost.

This morning when we were talking about natural gas, I made the comment that natural gas is not a renewable resource. Somebody sent me a note saying it is, in this Legislature.

J. Tyabji: When I was referring to some of the successful projects that are happening right now, I know there is one city in the east that is tapping into the landfill's methane. I don't know if we're pronouncing it "methane" or "meethane," to tell you the truth. Anyway, they're tapping into that, and I understand they're getting paid by Toronto to accept their garbage. So they're not only making money by taking in the garbage, but they're producing energy from that garbage and running the city on it.

My understanding is that they've made an artificial hill out of it. With the mass that's created, they got an artificial hill that they've tapped into. I know that landfills have been made into ski hills back there, because they don't have the beautiful mountains we have out here, and I guess that's as close as they could come.

I have here an

article from the Vancouver Sun on Tuesday, January 29, 1991, so it's a bit dated. It's with regard to the Burns Bog landfill project to collect methane gas and burn it off. At that point it was not only behind schedule; it was 40 percent overbudget.

I'm wondering if the minister is considering in the future any projects similar to this by municipalities and regional districts and offering the resources that the

[ Page 2057 ]

ministry has in terms of the research and the ability to look at the successful projects in jurisdictions like the eastern United States, where landfills have been tapped for this very purpose or, as the hon. member for Delta South pointed out, where we have field houses being run on it in B.C. Is the ministry looking at collecting all this data and doing similar pilot projects in B.C.?

Hon. J. Cashore: We would certainly be willing to look into that, and our staff would be available to discuss that possibility.

J. Tyabji: I would really like to encourage the minister in any support that he could offer through his staff to the other levels of government in this initiative.

Going on to the subject of air, which is further down -- I think we have canvassed most of the subjects in the first two sections -- I understand the minister will be joining many other environmentalists around the world in Rio toward the end of the week. I wish him all success on that trip. I hope he can solve all the problems of the world. I know it's a very ambitious convention and a very necessary one, and I hope there are a lot of very constructive decisions made there.

I also would commend the minister on the fact that he has proclaimed tomorrow as Clean Air Day. I think it's very important for us to have a day set aside to recognize that we must be working toward clean air.

Having said that, I would like to know what the minister is doing in the portfolio with regard to the two overriding global concerns: what he can do locally with regard to the greenhouse effect and the further degradation of the ozone layer.

Hon. J. Cashore: With regard to the greenhouse effect, the towards clean air strategy is a discussion paper that is inclusive of that concern. That means that process is going to be completed pursuant to any particular actions being taken other than those already in process. With regard to the ozone layer, we have stated that we are wanting to move towards a target of no production of CFCs and of facilitating the recovery of CFCs so that they're not reduced into the atmosphere. We've been moving in that direction.

J. Tyabji: A few things in response to that. With regard to the greenhouse effect, I know the minister has a discussion paper, but is there any research and development investment underway to look at alternatives, so that B.C. can be on the leading edge in terms of the global approach to alternative methods to the traditional fossil fuel-based methods of transportation? Is B.C. also looking at forms of transportation similar to what Japan is doing, where they're moving toward the railways? We have a terrible tendency in Canada in recent years to move away from the railways as an efficient form of mass transit,

whereas they're expanding their railways in Japan. Has the minister looked at that as a possibility for mass transit?

I also wanted to know if the minister is working with some of the other ministries, specifically the municipalities minister, with regard to sustainable cities, and the whole issue of sustainable cities being built in such a manner that they don't result in a lot of traffic that also contributes to the general emission of greenhouse gases. I've canvassed this with the Minister of Municipal Affairs as well. He recommended that I ask you some of these questions.

Hon. J. Cashore: The point about railways is well taken. I think that the minister responsible for transit is in the House, and I know he's listening very closely to this emerging political will that we're seeing here. I think options such as, obviously, light rail transit and transit that make use of existing rail lines really need to be looked at. One that has been in the news a lot over the years, and it has certainly been a political football, has been the rail line on the south shore of Burrard Inlet. Every time an election would come along, somebody would announce that that thing was going to go ahead.

I know it would go right past your house, hon. Chair. But when you really got down to looking at it, what they were talking about was three trains a day going in each direction. I don't see any transit system working unless it's frequent enough for people to get on board it and use it, and get in the habit of using it. We have to look carefully at those different possibilities, but there's no question that transit is a significant part of the solution to the air quality problem.

As we've said before, 75 percent of the pollutants are caused by the automobile. The AirCare program, which is going to start in September, is going to be very important because it will help to deal with vehicles that are emitting far beyond the standards that they should. As I said yesterday, I have some personal concerns about solving that problem in that it ends up impacting on people in poverty who often can't afford to have the more up-to-date state-of-the-art cars. That's another issue that we have to be concerned about. Obviously we can't afford to take any more chances with the air quality, and we have to try to move towards a really good achievable target.

As I have said, I'd like to see a 20 percent reduction in CO2 in 15 years and realistic targets addressing a lot of the other gases that are going into the atmosphere.

As you know, the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment has approved a stabilization concept. In my view, that simply isn't good enough, but at least it's a base line and a start. We have to move forward from that sort of approach.

I've mentioned also that we need to look at high-occupancy vehicle lanes. I know the Minister of Transportation and Highways is interested in that. There's an array of considerations that have to be put in place, including the bicycle as a means of getting to work. I will leave it at that.

J. Tyabji: I will defer to the minister.

Hon. G. Clark: I am delighted to take

part in the discussion on B.C. Transit, for which I have responsibility. I want to assure all members of the House that we agree with the member opposite and are delighted that she shares our concern about transit issues as they pertain to clean air.

[ Page 2058 ]

One of the problems generally in government is that most strategies to deal with pollution deal with point sources, when many of the real problems we're facing as a society are non-point sources. In many respects, the automobile has always been viewed as a non-point source and as a difficult one to control in some respects.

[4:45]

Clearly, when you look at the southeast corner -- we have members here in the House -- and see the traffic problems with cars going by in rush hour with one occupant and spewing out tremendous problems in an airshed which has serious environmental problems compounded by other pollutants in the area, such as cement plants.... Burrard Thermal is a problem that needs to be dealt with.

When you look at that whole area and how to deal with air quality, the answer is so obvious: we have to do better on transit. We have to do better in terms of high-occupancy vehicles, and that is being addressed. We have to do much more when it comes to transit. I look forward to my estimates. Maybe I can ask this question again, because I hope we will have some exciting announcements soon.

We're working very hard on some major initiatives in public transit, so that we can deal not only with the efficient movement of people, which is good for the economy, and not only with the equity considerations, in terms of individuals who can't afford to buy a home, but also with insurance and other matters, and also with the air quality question, particularly in some parts of the lower mainland, where there are very serious problems.

Most of the last studies done on air quality in that region were done between 1972 and '75 -- in fact, all the major studies done on air quality that were dusted off by the previous administration when air quality became a matter of concern. They show that we have, in some cases, the potential to be almost as bad as or worse than Los Angeles because of the air inversions in that area. So we need to take some action. We are determined to take some action.

The Minister of Environment, who comes from that region, is acutely aware of that, so we can anticipate some major announcements over the coming months and years of this administration to deal with this very important concern. We are glad the members raised it, and we look forward to the Liberals supporting our initiatives over the next few years.

J. Doyle: Mr. Chairman, I'd like leave of the House to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

J. Doyle: Today in the galleries from the riding of Columbia River-Revelstoke, which I'm honoured to represent, we have 17 students from Edgewater in the beautiful Columbia Valley. Along with them is their teacher, Mr. Veysey, and parents Bonnie Hamilton, Margaret Feldmann, Jim Gilbert and Ruth Wingert. As we know, it's a long trip for these people to come down here by school bus, and I know they worked very hard over the last months on bottle drives and other things to make sure they could get here. I do hope they enjoy their trip. I'd ask you to join with me in welcoming them to the Legislature.

D. Lovick: Yesterday I took advantage of the opportunity in the minister's brief absence to sketch out in some detail what the consultation process was for the issue of environmental assessment. As you well know, our government has introduced a discussion paper called "Reforming Environmental Assessment in B.C." What we intend to do is table legislation on that very subject after some rather elaborate consultation processes.

What I want to do is simply offer to the opposition critic an opportunity, as I extended to one of her colleagues yesterday, to ask any questions about that environmental assessment initiative, and see if she wants to pose any questions while I am in the House. I'd be happy to answer them if she wishes to do so. Failing that, Mr. Chairman, I'm perfectly prepared to sketch out some of the detail of what we're actually looking at under the heading of environmental assessment. But I defer to my colleague should she wish.

J. Tyabji: I apologize for having missed the first part of the comments. However, with regard to environmental assessment, I understand that we're talking about the review of the environmental assessment process. I do have a lot of concerns. When I was talking to the minister yesterday, he indicated that 90 percent of the appeals are currently turned down. So we have a 10 percent success rate. If that means that 90 percent of the appeals are really not legitimate, then that's a huge waste of money.

However, if it doesn't mean that 90 percent are not legitimate, it means that some legitimate claims are not going through, are not being successful, and that in itself is a concern. Where I have a concern is that the way it has existed so far is really, for a 10 percent success rate, not worth the money. However, if a lot more than that are justifiable claims, we have to be seriously concerned with the process. That would be the main gist of what I would be bringing up.

D. Lovick: The question is perfectly legitimate, and I had the advantage of listening to the conversation that took place in the House the other day. I would point out, however, that it's only tangentially connected to the specific issue of the environmental assessment review process. The important point that emerges -- and I think it's probably instructive for us to focus on this, albeit for just a moment -- is the issue of what in fact is being appealed. Ultimately, one of the purposes of the new environmental assessment legislation will be to make very clear what is on the table and what can be appealed.

The difficulty we have right now, quite frankly, is that environmental assessment as a concept tends to be not rigorously defined or at least defined in a way that is universally accepted and understood. The result is that all kinds of people will look to the environmental assessment process or the Environmental Appeal Board as a court of last resort, and therefore they will bring to that all kinds of questions and concerns about the nature of all development and all processes going on.

[ Page 2059 ]

What we are trying to do at the moment, essentially, is clarify the regime under which we are governed, so that everybody knows the rules of the game

vis-�-vis the environment. The assessment process at the moment is effectively under the aegis and responsibility of three particular processes. One has to do with mining development, another has to do with energy and the third is a kind of catch-all, which deals with the others, called the major projects review process. The attempt of the new legislation will be.... I hope I'm in order, Mr. Chairman, talking about proposed legislation.

The Chair: You're sort of in and sort of out. But I understand, hon. member. Proceed.

D. Lovick: All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I waver from the straight and narrow, please advise.

The intention is to try to combine the three processes under one heading, thereby to streamline them, to make them more efficient and to prevent unnecessary duplication and overlapping. I think that is a noble and necessary initiative and aim for environmental assessment.

The predicament is compounded by the fact that many people are convinced that the existing regime of legislation doesn't provide us with an opportunity to grapple with what I have, on occasion, referred to as the existential question -- namely, whether or not development should go ahead -- rather than focusing more specifically on what the impact of a given development might be. As the member well knows, that, of course, opens the doors to a number of other initiatives that are currently ongoing, among them the Commission on Resources and Environment.

In any event, I think that the member's references to the Environmental Appeal Board probably deal more specifically with something like pesticide permits, and that, of course, is an existing regime of the ministry.

I see that the minister is back in the House, so clearly he is the one to whom I ought to defer and give that back to.

J. Tyabji: Through you, hon. Chair, to the minister, this is a very confusing format, by the way: to have questions to you, then to the Minister of Finance and then to the parliamentary secretary.

However, to pick up where we left off, we were talking about air quality and specifically about greenhouse emissions. You mentioned that you were looking at a 20 percent reduction in CO2 over 15 years. I would put it to the minister that just based on the advancing technology in cars, we would see a 20 percent reduction in CO2 emissions because they're going to become more efficient. As the minister knows, the gas mileage in cars has almost tripled.

So even though there may be more cars on the road, I would assume that based on the initiatives of this minister, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Transportation, we could do a lot better than 20 percent in 15 years. In fact, with some of the gasohol products currently on the market, if there were some encouragement in the way of financial incentives for people to go in that direction, we would see a much higher percentage. Either that or you'd see the 20 percent achieved a lot sooner. You'd see a lot greater than 20 percent achieved in 15 years.

Having said that, though, we were talking about initiatives with regard to the ozone layer. The minister mentioned that he wants to reduce the production of CFCs or anything that has to do with CFCs. He didn't talk about HCFCs. As the minister knows, the federal Standing Committee on the Environment has called numerous times for a reduction in all HCFCs and related products that are continuing to degrade the ozone layer.

When the minister said CFCs, was he