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)

MONDAY, JUNE 1, 1992

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 3, Number 21

[ Page 1945 ]

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Prayers.

Hon. L. Boone: I have two sets of very important guests today. It gives me a great deal of pleasure to introduce a delegation of Australian parliamentarians from Canberra, sitting in the members' gallery today. Would the members of the House please join me in welcoming the Hon. Peter Walsh, Senator for Western Australia; the Hon. John Moore, member for Ryan, Queensland; Lady Florence Bjelke Petersen, Senator for Queensland; Mr. Harry Jenkins, member for Scullin, Victoria; Mr. Ted Lindsay, member for Herbert, Queensland; and Mr. Alexander Somlyay, member for Fairfax, Queensland.

The parliamentarians are accompanied by Mr. Don Piper, secretary to the delegation, and Mr. John Newell, Australian consul general in Vancouver. Would the members please welcome them to B.C.

W. Hurd: I'd like to introduce grade 8 to grade 12 students and adults from Semiahmoo Secondary School in my riding, along with their teacher, Ms. Russell. They are in the precincts today to learn about the House. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. L. Boone: An equally important group to me that is in the gallery today is my mother, Ann Chudley, and two friends of hers from Guildford, England -- Eileen Pullane and her son Richard Pullane. Would the members please make them welcome.

G. Brewin: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to welcome to the House today 35 grade 11 students from Victoria High School, and their teacher, Mr. Walter Christianson. I would like the House to make them welcome.

J. Pement: I have the great pleasure today of introducing from the area of Hazelton, a beautiful part of our province, from the Gitanmaax band and council, Chief Gary Patsey, Murphy Green, Lester Moore and Ted Mowat. Accompanying them are lawyer Peter Grant, Merius Vos, Ken Kerr and Lawrence Benjamin. I ask the House bid welcome to these people from far away Bulkley Valley-Stikine.

W. Hartley: Today in the members' gallery we have a former business partner of mine and a longtime friend, Candace Gordon. She is here today with her mother, who is visiting from Greenbush, Ontario. Would the House please make them welcome.

J. Pullinger: It is my pleasure today to welcome to the precincts and to the House a good friend of mine and a community activist and president of the Cowichan-Ladysmith Constituency Association, Mr. Tom Harkins. Would the House please help me make him welcome.

F. Jackson: I have two constituents from Kamloops-North Thompson in the gallery today: Imeke Swanton and her daughter Cheryl. Cheryl just graduated from the University of Victoria and is on her way to bigger and better things. I would like the House to join me in making them welcome.

J. Pement: I'd also like to introduce in the House today two people from the Woodlot Association in our province: from Burns Lake, Archie Strimbold, and from Vanderhoof, Bill MacIntosh. Would the House please bid them welcome.

M. Farnworth: I know that my introduction has already been made, but as someone who has very strong family ties to Australia, I'd like to take the opportunity to converse in the mother tongue for just a few moments and extend a very special welcome to the distinguished parliamentary delegation from Australia. Mr. Weisgerber and I had a wonderful lunch. It was an opportunity to reacquaint myself with the politics of Australia, which are very similar in some ways to those of British Columbia. I'd like to, as I said, extend a warm welcome to our Australian cousins.

J. Beattie: Hon. Speaker, in my best Ontario accent, I would like to have the House welcome my wife, Janet Murphy, and my son Cedric Beattie to the House today.

Introduction of Bills

RANGE AMENDMENT ACT, 1992

Hon. D. Miller presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Range Amendment Act, 1992.

Hon. D. Miller: This bill amends the Range Act to provide for management and enforcement measures to enable the Ministry of Forests to more effectively manage and protect the Crown range resource. The bill enables Crown forage to be allocated under the Forest Act for purposes such as sheep-grazing of forest plantations for brush control. It provides for the direct award of one-year grazing permits in cases where it is appropriate to do so. It enables the Ministry of Forests to maintain a balance between the forage grazed on Crown range by a tenure-holder and the holder's ability to support the livestock when the livestock are not on Crown range. It enables the ministry to require range

[ Page 1946 ]

tenure-holders to provide management plans to ensure proper management of the range resource. It provides tenure administration measures to enable the ministry to react to the needs of livestock industry while safeguarding the Crown range resource. It provides enforcement powers such as partial suspension and cancellation, and a monetary penalty for trespassed livestock, to enable the Ministry of Forests to better protect the Crown range resource.

Bill 55 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.

SCHOOL AMENDMENT ACT, 1992

Hon. A. Hagen presented a message a from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled School Amendment Act, 1992.

[2:15]

Hon. A. Hagen: Hon.

Speaker, this bill provides for a number of miscellaneous amendments to the School Act dealing with such matters as filling trustee vacancies caused by conflict of interest; requiring school boards to report to the College of Teachers any dismissals, disciplinary action or resignations of persons holding letters of permission to teach; the continuation of educational programs free of charge for students of school age who have met the graduation requirements; ensuring that the exemption from school tax for farmland is consistent with the Assessment Act; the definition of land for the purposes of the acquisition and disposal of land by school boards; clarifying the minister's order-making power with respect to student records; and other housekeeping amendments.

Bill 46 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.

Ministerial Statement

NANAIMO COMMONWEALTH

HOLDING SOCIETY

Hon. L. Boone: Hon. Speaker, I would like to make a ministerial statement.

I have this morning received a preliminary report from the registrar of companies on his review of the facts surrounding allegations both in the media and the Legislature last week on the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society, NCHS Charities Society, Harewood Community Hall Association and Harewood Social Centre Society.

Based on this information, I have decided to appoint an investigator and initiate an investigation pursuant to

section 85 of the Society Act to review the affairs and conduct of these societies, including compliance to the Society Act and the protection of public interest. The terms of reference of the investigation will be finalized within the next few days, and I will report to the House with this information.

Oral Questions

NANAIMO COMMONWEALTH

HOLDING SOCIETY

G. Farrell-Collins: My question is to the Premier. Last week the Attorney General advised the House that he had stopped using the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society to process his constituency allowance in 1983. Can the Premier advise the House as to the date when the member for Nanaimo, the member for Vancouver-Burrard, the member for Vancouver-Kingsway and the Premier himself stopped using the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society to process their constituency funds?

Hon. M. Harcourt: Hon. Speaker, as Premier, I do not have that information. Dealing with ministers in a previous government and a previous Legislature is not a matter that's before the executive council or within my purview. I can say that when I was an MLA in the previous parliament, the constituency arrangement that I had with Marwood Services Ltd. was discontinued in, I think, 1990, when my constituency assistant was brought in as a statutory employee and when the riding associations were being readied for single-member ridings. But I cannot answer for the other members.

As the questioner knows, that is under vote 1 and is a legislative matter among members, not with the executive council or the Premier.

G. Farrell-Collins: My question is to the Minister of Finance, and in light of ministerial statement today, I do believe it is appropriate.

Once the former Minister of Health, the current hon. member for Matsqui, was cleared of any wrongdoing last year in the Stan Dubas case, the current Minister of Finance stated in the House: "I think it is also clear that the former minister responded according to the highest standards -- which we have come to expect in a parliamentary democracy -- by tendering his resignation at that time." Will the Finance minister show the same high standards that he allotted to the hon. member for Matsqui and step aside until such time as he can be cleared of the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society bingo controversy?

Hon. G. Clark: The official opposition is a few days behind the independent member for Matsqui, but I will answer it again. I guess the distinction is that there has been no suggestion at any time of any personal benefit on my behalf. There has been no suggestion at any time that I've used any influence in my capacity as Minister of Finance. I acted immediately and promptly to remove the

section of the registry's branch to avoid any appearance of conflict. On top of all that, of course, the appropriate authorities are investigating each and every individual concern.

G. Farrell-Collins: My final supplementary is to the Minister of Government Services. Given that there are now a number of ongoing bingo investigations in this province, will the minister at this time commit to

[ Page 1947 ]

expanding the parameters to include the activities of the Nanaimo free enterprise holding society, one with strong ties to the Social Credit Party?

Hon. L. Boone: I'd dearly love to answer that in the positive, but at this point the member should know that anything that has to do with charities and casinos has to do with the Attorney General's ministry, is under the Gaming Commission and has nothing to do with the society registrar.

J. Weisgerber: A question to the Attorney General. Over the weekend it was reported that the RCMP had launched an investigation into the Nanaimo Commonwealth "slush fund" Society. Can the Attorney General confirm who ordered the investigation, when it was first started and what the scope of the investigation is intended to reveal?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think the best way for me to answer that question is to read a two-sentence press release issued today by the RCMP:

"The Nanaimo RCMP has contacted Mr. Jacques Carpentier of Nanaimo, B.C., regarding the concerns raised by the Nanaimo bingo groups. The police have also contacted the public gaming branch in Victoria, B.C. and will respond if there is any need to be involved in a criminal investigation."

J. Weisgerber: Given the number of concerns that have been expressed regarding this society, will the Attorney General take it upon himself to ask the RCMP to launch an investigation?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: No, I will not. But if the member or, for that matter, any other citizen in British Columbia has any evidence of any criminal wrongdoing, it is their responsibility to make sure that the RCMP have that information as quickly as possible so they can do an investigation.

Hon. Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.

J. Weisgerber: Last Wednesday I asked the Attorney General whether or not he would agree to appoint a special prosecutor to oversee the investigation by the gaming branch and by any other interested party into the affairs of the Nanaimo Commonwealth holding slush fund -- whatever it is. At that time the Attorney General said that there was no opportunity to appoint a special prosecutor because no charges had been laid or were pending. Does the Attorney General not understand that when Stephen Owen made recommendations regarding a special prosecutor, it was for situations exactly like this?

A special prosecutor would guide the investigation in order to ensure that charges were not subject to political interference. With that in mind, will the Attorney General reconsider and ask for and appoint a special prosecutor today?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: First of all, I'm sure the member knows that the recommendations made by Stephen Owen were incorporated in amendments to the Crown Counsel Act last year, I believe. Those amendments to the current Crown Counsel Act allow the Deputy Attorney General, where it is the "public interest," to assign a special prosecutor -- in other words, a prosecutor who is independent of the ministry. That would occur if the RCMP were in the process of investigating a particular issue and required guidance from Crown counsel or, in this case, a special investigator.

Should that situation ever arise -- it may; it may not -- the Deputy Attorney General is required by law to determine whether or not it is in the public interest to appoint a special prosecutor at that time.

W. Hurd: A question to the Minister of Finance. The opposition has learned that Marwood Services Ltd. negotiated a loan of $50,000 with the Hongkong Bank of Canada in June of 1991. What assurances can the minister provide this House that his own constituency funds were not used by this company to secure the loan? Is he concerned that Marwood Services has the same directors, the same registered office and the same records office as the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society's charities? Was the minister aware of the potential for money-laundering when he retained the services of Marwood?

Hon. G. Clark: Of course, all members of the House know that our constituency office allowances are not of sufficient magnitude -- if one is to run a constituency office and pay a secretary and the like -- that there would be sufficient resources in any way, shape or form to justify the use of those funds for other than what they are intended for. Members and the people of B.C. know that Mr.

Ted Hughes, a man of eminent qualifications and integrity, is reviewing the question of constituency allowances, including the use of Marwood Services or any other third party by other members, and I think that's an appropriate forum to have this discussion. But I can assure members of the House now that every penny I received for my constituency allowances was used to run my constituency office.

W. Hurd: To the Attorney General. Is the Attorney-General confident that the accounting firm of Ernst and Whinney, under the direction of the gaming branch, will have the broad mandate it needs to audit all aspects of the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The short answer for that question is yes, I do.

The Speaker: Final supplemental.

W. Hurd: Is he aware that, as a result of the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society losing its bingo licence in 1990, Ernst and Whinney is mandated by gaming regulations to focus only on the trail of bingo proceeds from 1990 to 1992? The opposition has been advised that the gaming branch will not be authorized for a regulation audit of all affairs of the society. Can the Attorney General confirm what the mandate of the gaming branch will be in this affair?

[ Page 1948 ]

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I don't intend to answer for the Minister of Government Services in respect of the issues under the Society Act, but I should make it clear to members of the House that the gaming branch has ordered this audit, and it will cover all issues relating to the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society since licences were first issued to it under the Gaming Commission procedures dealing with bingos.

A. Warnke: My question is also for the Attorney General. A document exists in the public gaming branch entitled "General Ledger for Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society Associates for January to June 1989," which shows under the heading "MLA Allowance Account" the names of sitting NDP government members who continued to have financial dealings with the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society during that time. Will the Attorney General commit to making this document public today?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: It might be easier for the member to make it public. I have not seen it nor heard of it before, and perhaps the member would be kind enough to table it.

[2:30]

I should add that the issues which appear to be raised in the member's questions either are being dealt with by the audit ordered by the Gaming Commission or will be dealt with by Mr. Hughes in respect of constituency allowances.

A. Warnke: Again to the Attorney General. I appreciate his remarks, but at the same time the opposition has also failed to obtain a copy of this, and this is the reason why we are raising this today.

Again to the Attorney General -- and it's also with respect to the same document -- will the government...?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please, hon. members. The Chair cannot hear the question.

A. Warnke: It's in the files, hon. Speaker. At any rate, with respect to that same document -- and I can assure hon. members it exists -- will the government, especially the government that has introduced freedom of information and pretends to advocate it, also undertake to release to the House the names of those MLAs listed under "MLA Allowance Account" next to those account references as well as make information available to the RCMP, the Deputy Attorney General, the Gaming Commission, Mr. Ted Hughes and the Society Act, who are all investigating the activities of this party?

That is a question, hon. Speaker, if members would....

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm not aware of what may be in the document that the member either has or doesn't have, but I can say that all information required by Mr. Hughes will be made available to him, and all information that is required by the audit conducted under the auspices of the Gaming Commission will be made available to them.

The Speaker: The bell ends question period.

C. Serwa: On a point of order, hon. Speaker. The opposition House Leader was on his feet well prior to the ringing of the bell, and he should be allowed to address his question.

The Speaker: The Chair has made the determination that the end of question period is signalled by the bell.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G. Clark: Hon. Speaker, I call Committee of Supply from 2 p.m. to 6 p.m.

Section A will be the Ministry of Advanced Education.

Section B will be Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks.

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).

Hon. J. Cashore: When we concluded on Friday I had given my opening statement, and we were into some exchanges on some various issues. I notice that the official opposition critic is present, so I assume that she would wish to begin proceedings.

J. Tyabji: My apologies for not being here on Friday. However, in this position there are always several different demands on our time. On Friday it was unavoidable that I be in my riding.

However, having said that, there's a lot of ground to cover here with regard to the environment, as I am sure the minister will agree. I'm sure he will also agree that this is the most important portfolio that exists, as obviously the environment is fundamental. I think anyone can agree that the environment gets to the fundamental issues of existence. Basically, everything else is undermined if it isn't operating successfully.

I want to spend a minute talking about the Liberal philosophy so that the minister can understand where we're coming from with regard to my questions. I would put to the chair that some of my questions possibly will not be exactly to the financial details, but will be to determine from the minister which direction he's going so that I can then detail my following questions. I will start from the generalities and work toward the specifics. With regard to the Liberal philosophy, we believe that the environment is fundamental to any operation of the economy and to the social aspect of society, and that every other part of what we do as people is related to the environment.

Having said that, we feel that there has been a history of not taking the environment into account. We

[ Page 1949 ]

see that a great reform, a motivation to change the way in which we do things, has come about primarily because of the resurgence of environmental awareness in 1990.

The Liberal party would like to see an environmental bill of rights implemented. That is something we've previously talked about very briefly in the House. I know that the minister is working toward an environmental protection act, and I commend him on that initiative. However, I would also urge the minister to undertake an environmental bill of rights, one that would guarantee us the right to clean air and water and a safe environment. Once we have those bottom-line objectives in place, anything we do following that obviously has to fall in line with that philosophy.

We Liberals recognize that the environment does not sit in a vacuum, does not stand alone, and that any decision made with regard to the environment will also be impacting our economy and the society we live in. There are several very difficult decisions that have to be made in the next few years with regard to the environment.

Having said that, to get to the Environment estimates, I would like to ask the minister.... We now have the CORE initiative that the minister has instituted, headed by Stephen Owen, who is a very capable man. We also have the B.C. Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. I would like to get a breakdown from the minister on how much these two initiatives are costing and what the mandates are: the mandate for CORE, as briefly as possible, and the mandate for the B.C. Round Table on the Environment and the Economy.

Hon. J. Cashore: First of all, with regard to the point that the hon. member made about an environmental bill of rights, I know that is a perspective that has been put forward a number of times, and is certainly worthy of consideration. The fact is that this government has indicated its intention to completely revamp the environmental legislation of British Columbia during its term in office.

That's going to result in four major environmental bills, including environmental impact assessment; environmental protection, which will take over the role of the Waste Management Act and the Environment Management Act; a water act; and a fish, wildlife and habitat act. That will go a step further than any environmental bill of rights, because it will have moved beyond a statement of principles to a statement of action that is entrenched in law. Therefore, that will be more effective than an environmental bill of rights.

Having said that, when the hon. member sees our environmental protection act, it will be apparent that the opening portion of that act is virtually an environmental bill of rights. I'm sure that she would agree that a rose by any other name.... But ours is going to be entrenched within the opening part of the environmental protection act.

With regard to the cost of the B.C. Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, the annual budget for this year is $1.8 million. Last year it was $2 million. This was one of those factors that we had to address in assessing our priorities given the budgeting constraints, but we still feel this is an adequate budget to fulfil that mandate.

With regard to the Commission on Resources and Environment, I'm just now getting a printout reminding me that it's $4 million.

J. Tyabji: Getting back to the comments about the bill of rights, the reason I brought it up is that the minister will remember that we were recently talking about the concept of pollution credits. It seems to me that when we're talking about the bill of rights, the principles and the way in which we implement those principles, and the way in which we implement the philosophy, that environmental bill of rights would take us in a different direction. That's where I was coming from with regard to making the comment about the bill of rights.

I would also like, if possible, a brief statement of the mandate of the B.C. Round Table, and a brief statement of the mandate of CORE. The reason I'm asking this is that I'd like to know where they don't overlap and where they do overlap, and what the minister is doing in terms of trying to streamline it so that we don't see a lot of duplicate effort.

Hon. J. Cashore: With regard to the question of the bill of rights, for the hon. member to say that an environmental bill of rights would, by definition, take us away from the possibility of trading non-toxic credits with regard to pollution.... I think that would preclude the opportunity to discuss what might be, upon considering all the information, an inappropriate opportunity that should not be precluded. I do not think the hon. member would want to stand here and advocate an environmental bill of rights that in the final analysis could possibly be demonstrated...to fit into at least the discussion that needs to take place on how that might work appropriately.

Now that she has raised that issue, I would just point out to her that apart from all the discussion that took place in the media last week, if it can be demonstrated that such trading could indeed be an essential part of lowering pollution, then I think she would want to consider it. It gives me an opportunity to make it very clear that given, for instance, a particular airshed, the authority would set a maximum amount of pollution that could go into that airshed.

If that credit process resulted in the termination of a filthy polluting plant, to be replaced by a high-tech plant that did much better in terms of the effects of pollution and was a step toward lowering the total amount of pollution going into that airshed and a means of enabling a viable and healthy economy to continue, then I cannot imagine for one minute that this member would want to be precluded from at least considering that possibility by having precluded it in a statement of environmental principles.

[2:45]

I'm a great believer in availability of information and access to information. I was frankly a little surprised when one of the editorials suggested that we not even consider it, given that the newspapers are even more adamant than the opposition in seeking information. I don't think people are ever hurt by information, if they

[ Page 1950 ]

can discuss it openly and appropriately in a free society. Therefore I was just a little dismayed that there was this blanket condemnation of that which might at least be considered. We also pointed out at that time that the recommendations that were in boldface were the ones that we were wedded to; we really would need to be argued out of those positions. The ones that were not in boldface were there for consideration. Again, in a free and democratic society, I think we should be open to consider that.

I would like to point out to the hon. member that if she chooses to review CORE during these estimates, she will technically be doing so in the estimates where they don't belong; CORE belongs in the estimates of the Attorney General. However, the question was asked about how CORE relates to the Round Table, and that's a question that I will try to deal with.

As the hon. member knows, the Round Table came into existence several months ago following the Strangway report, which was in response to the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment's response to the Brundtland commission. There are now Round Tables existing in every jurisdiction in Canada. The Round Table has a mandate that is to advise cabinet on how to integrate environmental, economic and social considerations to enhance opportunities for the future.

It has objectives: firstly, to develop strategies to foster sustainability in British Columbia; and secondly, to undertake public consultation on sustainable development. Therefore the mandate of the Round Table in its advisory capacity is as broad as the concept of sustainable development itself, dealing with such things as pollution, water quality, public involvement and a wide range of issues that go right across the spectrum of environmental issues.

The CORE mandate is more focused on land and water use issues and on those issues that have a very intense need for careful evaluation. Its mandate is to independently and publicly advise cabinet on legislation, policy and allocation decisions related to land use issues and processes in the province. Specifically, funding is provided to assist the commission in developing a land use plan for the province, a regional planning process, a community-based land use participation process and a comprehensive dispute resolution system for land use issues.

The short answer is: the Round Table has a much broader mandate; CORE has a more focused mandate. But it is also true that in order to glean the greatest amount of value out of these two processes, we have good communication and interaction between those who are involved in each of them. That is the case, and I think it's working very well.

J. Tyabji: I don't know whether I should continue debate on pollution credits or go back to the questions I have on the Round Table and CORE. For the purpose of this discussion, I will come back to the Round Table and the CORE questions. We have to deal with the issue of pollution credits. The minister has brought up the details of this.

Interjection.

J. Tyabji: I wasn't going to go into it; I was just making reference to why I would refer to a bill of rights.

I would say to the minister that as far as his suggestion goes, I would not stand here and say that we shouldn't discuss pollution credits. An environmental bill of rights would not mean that you don't discuss it; it would mean that you don't consider it. I would say to this minister that it is my very strong feeling that we do not consider it. I'll tell you why.

If the objective is to eliminate pollution, this is not the way to go. If the objective is to decrease it, we know it's effective. We can look at other jurisdictions where they've decreased it. The by-product of the pollution credit system has invariably been that free enterprise has taken over, and you get the institutionalization of pollution through trading credits on the market. We've seen that happen in several jurisdictions.

The discussion papers outline the manner and the potential for B.C. to use it. We issue credits, and those who come below a certain level are able to trade. In California, which is only one jurisdiction to have pollution credits, they actually have to earn the credits. We were going to a system similar to Tennessee's, I believe. They're issued pollution credits, and if you fall below that guideline....

All we're doing is putting a lid on the pollution that already exists. I find that totally unacceptable. If the objective is to eliminate pollution, you don't do it by institutionalizing it in a manner that will result in a huge economic spinoff. I would suggest to the minister that if you have pollution credits, you end up with an industry whose very existence depends on the continued production of pollution. You have actual brokers, who broker the credits. In the event of pollution being eliminated, they're all out of a job.

So you have a lobby group whose vested interest is in the continued production of pollution. I say that that's totally unacceptable, particularly with regard to airshed management.

We should be working toward the elimination of pollution. If that means giving people a ten-year phase, then that's fine. In the short term we would see a decrease in the amount of pollution or at least management at the same level. It doesn't even guarantee a decrease, but it might be able to guarantee the same the level of pollution being produced. In the long term it will end up being entrenched at that level, and you can't get rid of it. I think we can do a lot better than that.

We have to put money into the research and development of alternative sources. We have to work with industries to make sure that they meet acceptable guidelines that are working towards elimination. I recognize that the minister's discussion papers say that we are working towards zero pollution. We all know that we can never achieve zero pollution, but we have to work towards it. That's what I'm saying with the bill of rights.

We may end up living in a world where we cannot guarantee clean air and clean water, but if we have a bill of rights like that on the table, then we know that that's what we're working toward. Every decision that we make is going toward that bill of rights -- the rights to clean air and clean water. Obviously pollution credits go contrary to having a bill of rights -- a right to clean

[ Page 1951 ]

air. If you're entrenching the existing level of air pollution, you're working contrary to that. That's what I would put to the minister. That is why we believe that we have to start off with a fundamental bill of rights, and then we move from there.

If the minister is suggesting that a bill of rights would preclude discussion of these ideas, no, absolutely not. We can always discuss things. It would preclude adoption of these measures, because we do not believe that these measures are consistent with the elimination of pollution. That's with regard to the pollution credits.

I would pass the floor back to the minister so that he can continue this discussion before going back to the Round Table and CORE.

Hon. J. Cashore: Anybody who reviews the Blues will see that the member has gone full circle. She's come right back to agreeing with the position that I was stating last week -- that is, it was for the purpose of a discussion. I'm glad to see the hon. member now affirming the discussion purpose, which is why it's there. It was not there in boldface as a recommendation that we're wedded to. In the context of access to information, it's one of an array of procedures that are being used elsewhere, and we should be able to discuss it.

I'm glad the hon. member has come to the point of finally stating that she agrees that it should be there for discussion. She also said that a bill of rights would not preclude such a thing from being discussed. I agree with that too. I'm glad she made that point. We're obviously agreeing on the point that it should be something that's available for discussion. And with a good, thorough discussion we should be able to find out whether it could be useful and usable, or whether it might be inappropriate for British Columbia.

I've got serious personal doubts about it, but I'm not about to deprive the people of British Columbia of having an opportunity to discuss it.

With regard to the point that pollution credits would entrench a certain level of pollution from which society could never recover, that is absolutely incorrect and shows very shoddy research. The fact is that you will find some jurisdictions where the system works very, very badly.

However, you would set it up in such a way that there would be a ceiling on the total amount of pollution; then you would ratchet that back at regular intervals, as you had those badly polluting factories replaced by more environmentally appropriate, state-of-the-art facilities; and then you'd have a gradual progression towards -- as the member states -- the goal of zero pollution. I mentioned that trading does not prejudge standards; it's a tool for implementing standards. The member's research is not accurate on this. If the member is taking from my remarks that we are wedded to this, then she is simply wrong.

I do not hear her condemning a discussion paper that places in boldface those recommendations that we are, yes, wedded to and places in non-boldface those recommendations that we think the public is eminently well-qualified to discuss. I cannot imagine that she would want to prevent the public from discussing such an idea. If it's not a good idea, it should be set aside; leave it at that.

J. Tyabji: I can assure the minister that there is nothing wrong with my research, although I know that many of the members on that side of the House have been trying to spin the story in the media that the Liberals have poor research. That is not the case in this instance. I would also remind the minister that B.C. is experiencing a growth in population, and with this growth in population we are having an increase in the number of cars and number of emitters of air pollutants. With the increase in air pollution....

Obviously his scenario of a general decrease with a lid on a certain amount would assume that we have a stable population base -- which we don't; we have an increasing population base -- and unless we make a determined effort to go in a different direction, we'll continue to face the kind of problem that we have and will definitely be entrenching pollution.

Because the minister is talking about the discussion paper, I would like to make a couple of comments on it. The minister is saying that I surely would not object to discussing things. Of course I would encourage that we discuss things in the discussion paper. I would also like to take this opportunity to ask the minister how there can be a discussion paper -- and, I'm to understand, one year to discuss the measures in the discussion paper -- with regard to solid waste management, packaging alternatives and possible legislation for waste reduction when we have a bill that we're in the middle of debating.

With regard to that, that is definitely an enabling bill. We already have the Peat Marwick report that has come forward and has made very specific recommendations as to what the minister will then do. We have the proposal for an enlarged beverage deposit system. And we haven't yet had any discussion, because the discussion paper just came out.

If the minister is really going to get down to whether or not we should discuss things, I would like to ask him how he can have a discussion paper with legislation that's already been tabled and is already in the middle of debate. So it doesn't matter what people have to say about his discussion paper; he's already made the decision.

I'm not saying that those might not be the right decisions. But if we're going to be very sanctimonious about process, then I'd ask: how can we have a discussion paper? People could be taking it very seriously, spending a lot of time on it, and the legislation has already been tabled. We already know where the minister is going to go with it. So as far as that goes, I don't know how the discussion paper has a lot of credibility.

That gets to the point of pollution credits. How can any of us feel secure that what we're discussing is ever going to be seen in legislation when we know that the waste management legislation has already been tabled and, regarding the pollution credits, we don't know whether that's just something that is in a discussion paper, whether you are wedded to it behind the scenes, or whether there is legislation waiting to be tabled on it. We can't be sure, so if the discussion paper is meant to

[ Page 1952 ]

be some measure of reassurance I would put it to the minister that it's not.

Hon. J. Cashore: I'm delighted with this line of questioning, because I would much rather be criticized for being proactive than for dragging my feet, and we're being proactive. Our government is moving forward and dealing with a backlog of a great many issues.

[3:00]

There are a number of discussion papers out there, and given the importance and the urgency of doing what the hon. member said -- trying to achieve zero pollution, setting that as a goal and trying to move appropriately towards that goal -- I realize that it's very important that we move with dispatch; with adequate consultation, but, as the opposition can also criticize, that we not use the consultation process as a means of avoiding action. Therefore we are moving forward on some very significant themes in a timely manner.

The hon. member says: "How can you be having a discussion paper when you already have legislation before the House?" When she has been in this House for a few years, she will realize that that is as natural as the sun coming up in the morning. Legislation is constantly being revised to deal with current and urgent issues. The hon. member for Okanagan West made this point extremely well in the House the other day with regard to the portion of the waste management amendment act that deals with the beverage container strategy. That is enabling legislation, and for the hon. member to stand there and say that there hasn't been any discussion on that is simply an inadequate statement.

There's been discussion going on for ten years on that issue, and during the past two and a half years there's been a very clear process -- a very focused process -- involving the stakeholders. I guess I should be waiting until we get to the second reading conclusion of the bill, where I will be pointing out to the hon. member that I think it's good to have constructive criticism.

However, when that criticism is entirely written by a narrow portion of an industry opposed to that legislation, it behooves the hon. member to do the type of research that the hon. member for Okanagan West did, so that the research reflects a broader awareness of what the environmental community is saying -- what Ruth Lotzkar is saying -- so that it is looked at in a much more thorough way.

To say somehow that you shouldn't go ahead and have legislation in this session because we're going to be studying the total revamping of the waste management protection act a year from now.... We'll just have to disagree on that. I have no apology whatsoever for enabling the people of British Columbia to have a year for input into that process. All sorts of organizations -- people in industry, the women's environmental network -- have a great deal of interest in participating in that process. I encourage the hon. member to participate in that process as well.

She's right when she says there is going to be a growth in population. If the trading of pollution credits was to be one of the methods that came out of the process, it would have to be in such a way that it was used to ratchet down the total amount that industry could pollute, because of such things, as she points out, as the growth of population. Certainly we must move forward with dispatch. When the hon. member says that we should not be even considering that type of possibility, I would remind her of what she said on the occasion that I announced the pulp regulation.

If she goes back and reviews her comments -- I won't read them into the record right now, unless she insists that I do -- I think she would realize that she was cutting off that option too.

J. Tyabji: I would disagree.

However, there is a very interesting scenario developing here. We have a minister, on the one hand, putting forward a discussion paper that has things in it that are already in legislation, and saying, "Oh, I encourage discussion on it; however, I have already made the laws," and trying to justify that process, which doesn't make sense. He says there have been ten years of process. This means that he's relying on the previous administration's record with the environment, with regard to process. To have the minister stand up and be agreeing with the third party on the environment....

I would say to the minister that, as far as my research goes, it has nothing to do with a narrow part of the industry being affected. It has to do with the whole process and the whole objective -- the manner in which you want to reduce waste. I find it appalling that this minister is relying on a previous administration in terms of process and consultation, to say: "Oh well, there has been enough consultation. That's fine." I'm not objecting to the fact that he might be taking an initiative. Why would he, on the one hand, say to the people, "Here's your opportunity to discuss this initiative," and on the other hand table legislation dealing with the same initiative?

I can't make it much clearer than that to the minister. You can't have it both ways. Either you're going to discuss it with them before you introduce the laws, or you take the initiative in introducing the laws. You're trying to do both. To me, it doesn't make any sense. The discussion paper loses credibility because there are things in it that are already becoming legislation under this minister. You can't do it by justifying the previous administration's record. I would put to this minister that he can't be that happy with the previous government's record with regard to the environment.

Getting back to the comments about the Round Table and CORE, it's my understanding, based on what the minister has outlined, that there is an overlap in jurisdictions with regard to land use; that they have basically the same mandate with regard to land use; that the B.C. Round Table has a broader mandate, but it also encompasses land use. If CORE has a more specific mandate, why does it have more than twice the budget? And if the B.C. Round Table could have dealt with these land use issues -- and we understand that the B.C.

Round Table is having discussions with people of various backgrounds from around the province before they're coming forward with their recommendations -- why was the mandate that was given to CORE not put

[ Page 1953 ]

before the B.C. Round Table? It seems to me that we would save a lot of money.

Hon. J. Cashore: During the recent election campaign, I said many times that I was not one who would want to throw out the baby with the bath water; I would not want to waste an appropriate process that had been ongoing. I said that many times with regard to Parks and Wilderness for the 90s, for instance. I also say that with regard to the work in developing a beverage container strategy.

At the time that the Rabbitt report came in, I was the critic and I tried to offer constructive criticism. I did not stand up in this House and condemn a process that was going on simply because the government was bringing it forward; I saw my role as trying to nurture the process and ensure that it would come forward with the best possible result. In that way there is a dynamic that exists and functions within this place, and it is perhaps the most useful of all the dynamics we ever see here.

Therefore, I have no embarrassment in congratulating the previous administration on some of its initiatives and in trying to build on that one. I feel it is important that we bring to it a stamp of this government.

With regard to the work that has been going on for the past two and a half years, I know that the hon. member for Okanagan West and I would agree... Did I get it right that time -- west?

C. Serwa: West is best.

Hon. J. Cashore: West is best, okay.

...that the people in the Ministry of Environment who have been carrying this process forward, and from whom we've both learned a lot, are also willing to work with that hon. member. I would hope that it is in that type of format that we can come forward with the best possible strategy.

With regard to the comments that we shouldn't be having a discussion paper now when there are amendments coming into the House at the present time that fit into the same area, let's just agree to disagree on that. My short answer is that the work of government carries on. The government has a responsibility to enact legislation that is timely and needed. If some aspects of that come under of the purview of the discussion paper, so be it.

But I'm sure the hon. member will agree that when we are looking at a total revamp of the Environment Management Act and the Waste Management Act for one year ago, it is very appropriate that the public has the opportunity to discuss all aspects, and even those aspects that may have been legislated this session. If that public discussion was to inform our awareness of that issue to the extent that that should be changed, so be it. Hon. member, we do not have to hide from creating an opportunity for the public to have meaningful discussion.

When the former administration was involved in meaningful discussions, I applauded that. I expect that more often than not, that is the case.

With regard to the Round Table and CORE, the hon. member asked a question about comparative budgets. I would advise the hon. member that the Round Table, in its advisory role, has an ongoing mandate where it reports to government on a regular basis. But the work of government does continue vis-�-vis both the Round Table and CORE. The fact is that CORE's mandate is to deal, with great intensity, with some land use issues in the province that are of great importance to the body politic at the present time. I'm sure she would agree that those issues need to be addressed with some urgency.

The Round Table, in carrying on its mandate, has made several reports to the government on a wide variety of issues and is continuing to do so as it deals with different elements of its mandate.

The Chair: Before I recognize the hon. member for Okanagan East, I'd just like to caution all members that the discussion of legislation is not appropriate during estimates. It would be an error in judgment to allow this debate to continue at the risk of setting a precedent that we at one point will have to rule members out of order. Would the hon. member please continue.

J. Tyabji: Thank you, hon. Chair; I recognize that this is the debate on estimates. However, I would like to make one concluding comment with regard to philosophy on the part of the minister, and I want to respond to the comments he made with regard to his agreement with the former administration.

If the minister is really holding to the polluter-pay principle, which is fundamental to his discussion paper and is obviously what we're talking about in estimates, then he should not be pursuing the kind of recommendations that came out of the Rabbitt report, which we looked at with the former administration. In both instances, with this minister and with the previous administration, what we are doing is passing it along to the consumer, and that's nothing more than a tax grab. That's where I have a problem.

Having said that, I'd like to move on to the Round Table on the Environment and CORE. It seems to me that there isn't a need for that duplication with regard to a land use strategy. Based on the staff of the ministry -- the minister himself, his deputy minister, his assistant deputy ministers and the B.C. Round Table -- we didn't need yet another body dealing with these issues. I would agree with the minister that these are absolutely critical issues, but we have enough people to make the decisions right now. If we want to listen to people, the Round Table was the avenue for doing that.

I'd like to move on in this part of the estimates guide, as I had passed on to the minister, to the first category: the earth category, part A, land use. We're dealing with subsection 1, which is forestry. I want to talk about several issues in the forestry industry. I recognize that there is a lot of overlap between his portfolio and the Ministry of Forests in this, but some of them are fairly specific. In a lot of cases, I'm looking for direction from the minister as to what he is planning to do.

One of the first I'd like to talk about is the Blue Lead Creek area, which I'm sure the minister is aware of, and the fact that there is currently clearcutting going on there. The log-around strategy took in parts that were outside of an area that was designated for logging regardless. We have a parks plan strategy that seems to

[ Page 1954 ]

be very well designed not to include what's happening in the Blue Lead Creek area.

I'd like to ask the minister a couple of things. First of all, with regard to Blue Lead Creek, does he think that they should be clearcutting in that area, given the potential environmental impact? Does he think that the current stumpage rates of 25 cents are adequate? Or does he think that there's a greater environmental value in leaving that area intact and including it in the parks plan?

[3:15]

Hon. J. Cashore: I suppose you could argue, if you wanted to, that there's an environmental value in not having any industry in the province. You could identify any location in the province and ask: "Does the minister not agree that there would be a better environmental value if we didn't do that there?" So we could spend all the time of estimates with the hon. member picking different places in the province and asking: "Is there not a better environmental value if we do not do that there?" But she can't have it both ways. She has to be prepared to go to the public and say how she would deal with the job loss.

In stating that her environmental perspective in the context of sustainable development is that any time somebody points out a concern the answer is no, you can't do that there, that means shutting down industry in the province. If she's prepared to go that route, that's up to her. I think it's not prudent for her to go that route. I thought she was going off in the opposite direction on the beverage container strategy issue, but then that's another debate that is going at the second reading later on.

When it comes to the Blue Lead, that was one of the hot spots, as we said, identified by the B.C. Environmental Network. We made some tough decisions. We made a decision that would ensure that logging didn't take place in a very significant area. There was another area where logging is taking place. There's no question that there are some environmental values within that area that we're concerned about. I recognize that. It's very important that logging not take place there, especially during critical times with regard to the cycle of salmon spawning.

It is really to state the obvious to recognize that there are land use conflicts in the province and that it behooves us to work at them, and to recognize that when you work at those conflicts, you do not always come out with the decision that makes everybody happy. I would advise the hon. member as she analyzes these situations that she, too, is going to be watched for her comments with regard to where the balance is.

J. Tyabji: It's wonderful to have a lot of platitudes about where we draw the line, but I'd like to ask this minister if he thinks 25-cent stumpage is really an industry that's viable enough to justify the clearcutting of the entire valley bottom. To me, if we had identified this as an environmental hot spot and if we recognize the inherent value of this particular area in terms of the old-growth cedar in the interior.... I want to know from this minister if he really thinks that 25-cent stumpage -- I believe it's $9 for a truckload of cedar that they take out there -- is what we would consider a viable industry in B.C. and worthwhile sacrificing an environmental hot spot for?

Hon. J. Cashore: That is a question appropriately directed to the Minister of Forests, and I will not answer it.

W. Hurd: Just returning briefly to the mandate of the Commission on Resources and Environment and in light of the comments by the hon. member for Okanagan East with respect to the Blue Lead. In view of the fact that specific areas were set aside in conjunction with the announcement of the Commission on Resources and Environment, is the minister concerned that that might have raised the expectations of the people of the province? In fact, the commission's mandate was to deal with specific land-use disputes in the province.

Has he been receiving calls from concerned citizens throughout the province asking the very logical question: "Why would those set-aside or log-around areas in the interior and Vancouver Island be announced in connection with CORE, and not the area that I happen to be concerned about?" Is it not reasonable to assume that people would make that connection? Is he at all concerned that the commission may be perceived to have a mandate which in fact it doesn't possess?

Hon. J. Cashore: I really don't think I understood the question. Let me see if I did. I think the question was: is it not a concern that at the announcement of the CORE and the hot spots -- where there would be some set-asides -- there may be some people in the province who wondered why their particular area was not mentioned at that time? The short answer is yes, I have received phone calls about that; we've received a lot of phone calls. The majority of the phone calls have been very supportive with regard to the process we've been following, given the difficult scenario.

It is true that some people have asked: "Why not this particular area in this other part of the province that hasn't been identified in those log-around strategies?"

As I have stated before and as the Minister of Forests has stated, the log-around strategies were identified on the basis of a list that was given to us by the B.C. Environmental Network. We said that we would make decisions on each one of those recommendations. As a matter of fact, there were six areas on the list; we added one at the time of making the announcements. The announcements were made in two phases: first, those areas on Vancouver Island, and then several weeks later, those areas in the Cariboo-Chilcotin and in the East Kootenays.

We followed through in doing what we said we would do, and we realize there are people who had other areas that were their real concerns too. Having done this, we said that the process will then relate to the CORE process. So that was a decision government had to make in order to get on with the land use planning that hopefully was going to be in a more creative climate.

[ Page 1955 ]

W. Hurd: Continuing the line of questioning on the Commission on Resources and Environment. Is the fact that specific areas were tied to the commission's mandate not a concern to the minister, in light of what Mr. Owen appears to be saying -- namely, that his mandate is to pursue a process for resolving land use disputes? Would it be logical to assume that the process which the commission chairman is trying to evolve would apply to every conceivable area that has been set aside in conjunction with the announcement?

It seems that there are two different agendas being pursued here. One is to develop a philosophical framework for resolving land use disputes, and the other is to deal with the issues on Vancouver Island and in the interior, which are really site-specific and may require more urgent attention by the ministry than the four-or five-year mandate of the Owen commission.

Hon. J. Cashore: There's no question that everything has an urgent need. It's the role of government to make the decisions that can be made appropriately and to have a good balance between time and urgency. That's always a real challenge. In a way, that's stating the obvious.

I don't agree with the way the hon. member phrased it. As a matter of fact, we had to make those tough decisions at that time to enable a process to work. So that was an enabling decision: to enable a process to get underway and to get working. It is true that the process will be focusing on some areas that have greater urgency at this point in time than some other areas have. The government has appointed two areas of priority for CORE.

W. Hurd: Is the opposition correct in assuming that no decisions will be made with respect to these areas on Vancouver Island and in the interior until Mr. Owen has handed in his report to government? That leads me back to the Blue Lead issue. Why would it be appropriate for those particular areas to be walled off for the mandate or period of the Owen commission and not other areas of the province that might have been outside the knowledge of the B.C. Environmental Network?

Hon. J. Cashore: I know that the hon. members want to make good use of the time of the House. It would be interesting to look in Hansard and see if these hon. members have availed themselves of the opportunity to canvass these questions when they should have appropriately been canvassed, and that was during the Attorney General's estimates. I would be interested if somebody could indicate to me whether they raised those points at that time, because very clearly that's where this fits into the estimates.

I would just like to point out that the government has directed the Owen commission towards three significant areas of the province: Vancouver Island, the Kootenays and the Cariboo-Chilcotin. These are the primary areas to be addressed in the CORE mandate. That does not preclude the fact that the ongoing work of government continues. Therefore we still have a need to coordinate and to be in close consultation among various aspects of government and these instruments that are fulfilling very important roles in dealing with urgent issues.

J. Tyabji: Is the minister suggesting that the areas we are questioning him about, because they could potentially be of interest to CORE, are no longer his responsibility because CORE happens to be in the Attorney General's estimates?

Hon. J. Cashore: I have stood in this House and answered every question that has been asked of me. I simply have pointed out to the hon. members that there was a time in the estimates process where they had a responsibility to be asking those questions, and it's of interest to me to know if they did so. But I feel very much a part of the process that has created CORE, and I am delighted with CORE. I think it's one of the most innovative and far-reaching initiatives ever taken by any government in North America. So if you want to continue to give me an opportunity to wax my particular perspective on CORE, be my guest.

J. Tyabji: I actually would like to ask the minister about the parks plan that he, the Minister of Forests and the Premier unveiled. My first question does have some interrelatedness to CORE, in that I'd like to know if the minister thinks the unveiling of the parks plan undermines the CORE process in terms of pre-empting some of the land use.

Hon. J. Cashore: I won't use the obvious cliché in response to that kind of a question. I am quite prepared to answer this member's questions on the parks plan. It was my understanding that in consultation with the official opposition and the third party there was an agreement that we would deal with Environment and then Lands and Parks issues so that we could have some coordination in using the time of staff from those three branches. I see now that a question has been asked on Parks issues.

I'm not going to stand here and refuse to answer your questions, but I thought that we had an agreement, in keeping with the cooperation that was promised by the Liberal Party prior to the election. I thought that we had some cooperation agreed upon in terms of how we would follow through. The fact is that I have a vast ministry, and I don't have staff present from Parks at the present time. If the questions are going to start jumping all over the place, then obviously I'll be accommodating that. It's just that I thought that was an arrangement.

I am very proud of the parks plan announcement that we made a while back. Again, that picks up on a process that was underway. Again, we were not planning to throw out the baby with the bath water. Again, I had some substantive differences with the previous government with regard to the general philosophy on that issue, and now we have an opportunity to ensure that the perspective we wanted to see, in having a protected areas strategy concomitant with Parks and Wilderness for the 90s, would happen.

I feel that Parks Plan 90, the protected areas strategy, CORE, the Round Table on the Environment and other

[ Page 1956 ]

processes that are taking place in this province are an indication of a government that is getting down to business. I would much rather be criticized for the initiatives that I am taking than for dragging my feet; and we are taking initiatives, because it's very timely at this point in this province.

J. Tyabji: I'm sure the minister is aware that the critic portfolios of Environment, Lands and Parks have been split so that the official opposition has given Lands and Parks to the portfolio of the critic for forestry. I would point out to the hon. minister that, in my opinion, we are not straying from the categories that I have provided to him or the staff, because we are under earth, land use and forestry, and that is all tied in with the parks plan, CORE initiatives and the whole idea of process.

[3:30]

Having said that, I think we can quite easily move on. Since we are in the area of forestry, I'd like to know if the minister has any plans to deal with the fact that cedar shakes are currently being made with old-growth timber. I'd like to know if the minister thinks that old-growth timber is justifiably cut to make cedar shakes and whether the minister thinks there are alternatives.

Hon. J. Cashore: If I understand the question, it's if cedar should not be used to make shakes, and there might be other alternatives.

J. Tyabji: Old-growth forests.

Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Chair, I'm going to sit down again and listen very carefully while this member rephrases the question.

J. Tyabji: I think there's a general lack of understanding in the House currently that this is the Minister of Environment, and therefore it is his responsibility to oversee the protection of old-growth forests, in conjunction with the Minister of Forests. So having said that, I would like to canvass the minister with regard to old-growth forests and whether he believes that they would be better off preserved or whether we should continue to be using them for the production of cedar shakes.

Hon. J. Cashore: I have a great deal of concern for old-growth forests; I also have concern for cedar shakes. I have cedar shakes on the roof of my cabin, as a matter of fact, and they do a good job. With regard to the question on the sustainability of cedar shakes in the context of current logging practices, I do not purport to be an expert on that. I am continuing to keep the counsel of those who are working with us in reviewing these issues so that, in the context of sustainability, we can come up with appropriate measures.

All of the instruments that we have referred to are very helpful in this process and within the Ministry of Environment, where we have placed 25 wildlife biologists in Ministry of Forests offices, which is a tremendous boon and a long overdue and creative concept that is one of the ways in which we are addressing the issue of the stewardship of the forest vis-�-vis sustainability.

If the hon. member wants me to come up with some sort of analytic definition of the role of cedar shakes, I simply don't have that analysis on the top of my head. But it is an issue that I do believe is very important. I continue to be in close consultation with the excellent people we have working with us as we deal with these sustainability issues. The hon. member has identified an important sustainability issue in the province.

J. Tyabji: As this minister is no doubt aware, there are plans -- there have been in the past; this is an annual program in the Revelstoke area -- for aerial spraying of Vision. To my knowledge, there has not yet been a cancellation of those plans. The people there are very concerned. This minister has expressed his commitment to alternatives numerous times. He obviously has to work with the Minister of Forests in this initiative. I have also approached the Minister of Forests on this issue.

I would like to know if the minister believes that aerial spraying of pesticides is an acceptable way of managing the environment and if he would support aerial spraying of Vision in the Nelson-Revelstoke area. I would also like to make a note to the minister that there are five watersheds being affected by this particular spraying.

Hon. J. Cashore: We have a Pesticide Control Committee, which consists of people with expertise in this area. They give us advice on this. I'm subject to that advice. It is true that I have some personal concerns with regard to the efficacy of aerial spraying. That is something that we're constantly looking at. I encourage the hon. member to advise her contacts to remember that we do have an Environmental Appeal Board process in the province that they may wish to look at.

With regard to an earlier question, the fact is that the protection of old growth is an important component of the protected area strategy.

J. Tyabji: If the minister is suggesting that the Environmental Appeal Board would be the avenue for residents who don't like the idea of aerial spraying of Vision in their watersheds, could this minister tell me how often the Environmental Appeal Board has ruled in favour of those who are making the appeal?

[M. Lord in the chair.]

Hon. J. Cashore: Last fiscal year, about 10 percent. We don't have the numbers for this year. I'll just leave it at that.

J. Tyabji: We're assuming that 90 percent of the appeals, based on precedents, would not be successful. I would ask the minister if his advisory group with regard to pesticides has more decision-making authority in this area than he does. If not, would he be prepared to withdraw the aerial spraying of Vision?

Hon. J. Cashore: That's an interesting question -- interesting because I've never heard the likes of it in

[ Page 1957 ]

my five years in the Legislature. A minister of the Crown has a responsibility to administer the laws that are on the books. We also have a role in legislative renewal and change. Sometimes emerging and appropriate values are, hopefully, reflected in that change. In the meantime, the appropriate functioning of the province continues.

The hon. member knows that the forestry critic is sitting right behind her. I wish I could be a fly on the wall and listen to some of the discussions that must take place within that caucus. It would be interesting to know if the forestry critic for the official opposition takes the same position that she takes on this issue.

Of course I have authority, but I am a prudent person in carrying out my activity. I'm proactive but prudent, and I would not begin to take over the role of technical decision-making with regard to the array of responsibilities I have as the Minister of Environment. Were I to do that, or were that hon. member to do that, if she could stand in this position for a day, she would soon learn that the public would suddenly become extremely disaffected and disappointed and outright worried at such administration.

J. Tyabji: I would suggest to the minister that there are alternatives, as he well knows, to the spraying of Vision in watersheds. I would also suggest to the minister, if he is calling himself proactive and prudent, that prudence would suggest erring on the side of caution. In this instance, where you have numerous people writing complaints with regard to aerial spraying in their watersheds, this minister at the very least should allow some kind of stay of the spraying until he himself can make a ruling.

I would like to know if this minister feels that he can rely on the decisions of the previous administration with regard to aerial spraying of pesticides. If not, is he prepared to make these decisions himself, to allow some kind of stay at least for the residents, and to hear their appeals? He has said that he is very interested in listening to people and in having discussions with people. Based on that, would he at least be willing to hear what they have to say before going ahead with the aerial spraying?

Hon. J. Cashore: The Pesticide Control Committee advises the pesticide administrator, and that individual makes the decisions. That's within the act. With regard to an earlier question, does the minister have that authority, the answer is no, the minister does not have that direct authority. The authority that the minister does have is with regard to addressing questions of legislation review, etc. That should be part of a timely process.

I should point out that areas sprayed with Roundup are being reduced significantly in the province. That is something that needs to be stated for the record. Aerial spraying is also being reduced significantly within the province.

I would like to suggest that at the present time the minister does not have that authority under the Pesticide Control Act, and, I would argue, nor should the minister have that authority. That should be an authority existing on the basis of persons who are empowered, who have the expertise and who have the advice in order to make those decisions within the context of the present legislative regime. In the meantime, I'm most interested in reviewing this whole matter with regard to legislative reform.

S. O'Neill: I would like to commend the minister on the establishment of small park areas on Shuswap Lake. Over the past number of years we've had increasing friction between houseboaters and permanent residents, and I'm hoping that these small parks will go a long way to reducing that friction.

I have a concern about the erosion on the Eagle River, the Salmon River and Chase Creek. This not only affects the farmers, as they're losing a great deal of profitable farmland, but it also impacts on fisheries. The Eagle River and the Salmon River used to have significant salmon runs that are no longer there, and of course Chase Creek could impact on the big Adams River run. Not only that, it silts up the bay and the channel, and about every eight to ten years the federal government then spends millions of dollars dredging the Sicamous channel or Salmon Arm bay. Would it not be more cost-effective to prevent the erosion, perhaps through a joint provincial-federal program. Is that possible?

Hon. J. Cashore: Off the top of my head it makes sense to me. What we're going to have to do is take that specific area that the hon. member for Shuswap is referring to, review it and take a look at the federal-provincial responsibility towards that and get back to the hon. member either during estimates or in a timely way if it is not possible during estimates.

W. Hurd: A question about pollution offences in the province of British Columbia. The opposition was encouraged to hear the minister announce in his

preamble that he intended to get tough with polluters, and that the bell will toll for people who pollute the environment either knowingly or unwittingly. Is it the intention of his ministry to treat the pollution offences by municipal governments in the same fashion as he would corporate polluters'?

[3:45]

Hon. J. Cashore: Yes, hon. Chair.

W. Hurd: Has the minister identified the difficulties facing municipal governments, particularly those with aging infrastructures, who, of course, are dependent on taxpayers' dollars to undertake capital improvements, unlike corporations, which may have access to bank loans or be able to finance their improvements out of earnings or profits? Is he concerned at all about the difference between municipal governments and corporations in their ability to undertake, in some cases, some fairly major capital expenditures on their sewage and infrastructure?

Is he prepared to allow a greater latitude to municipalities to deal with serious issues, particularly in light of the economic downturn we're in and the problems that

[ Page 1958 ]

municipalities have with their ongoing budgets? Is he prepared to accept the fact that municipalities occupy a somewhat more vulnerable position in terms of addressing their pollution problems than do corporations?

Hon. J. Cashore: Just last Monday I met with the GVRD on that very issue. I think the hon. member makes a good point. To govern wisely it's very important that we be cognizant of the kinds of unique problems that are faced by various municipalities and regional districts throughout the province. The point is well taken. We're in very close consultation; we're listening.

At the same time, I believe that the municipalities know that they want to be part of the solution, but there is no question that given the infrastructure in some sewerage and drainage districts that goes back more than 50 years.... We saw it on TV the other night. There are some enormous costs there. The role for government is to help enable the making of steady progress, while recognizing the very real problems of financial resources.

W. Hurd: Regarding enforcement of corporate polluters in the province of British Columbia, we now have on the books, as the minister well knows, a policy of the polluter reporting the nature of the spill or emission. The polluter reports when he is in violation of his waste management permit. In light of the fact that the fines and assessment costs are apparently scheduled to increase astronomically, has he committed any additional inspection officers through the waste management branch to ensure that the same high level of reporting that goes on in the corporate community in British Columbia is maintained?

Is he at all concerned about the impact that the massive increases in fines might have on the principle of the polluter reporting the nature of the problem at the plant? Does he see any need for any increase in the amount of inspections or manpower through the waste management branch?

Hon. J. Cashore: The answer is yes. An additional 11 conservation officers have been deployed around the province to deal with such issues. They will have concomitant responsibilities in the area of fish and wildlife. But the fact is that we have dramatically enhanced the ability to follow through on that monitoring process.

W. Hurd: My questions relate primarily to the waste management branch, those individuals responsible for monitoring air quality, effluent discharge and water quality. The opposition notes that there has been a significant reduction in the budget for environmental protection. Would that reduction in any way impair the ability of the waste management branch to conduct investigations and to do its job in monitoring air and water quality in the province?

Hon. J. Cashore: We're just getting the information on the enhancement to the environmental protection resource.

I'll take this opportunity, though, to just inform the House of our initiative on the conservation officers' service. The budget provided an allocation of $2 million and 20 new full-time enforcement employees to bolster the service. These resources include a special investigation unit to identify those pollution offenders who secretly dump hazardous waste into our waters and onto our land with impunity. Similarly it will address highly organized commercial poaching of fish and wildlife in B.C.

Hon. members may be interested to hear these figures with regard to where these conservation officers have been deployed: the Vancouver Island region will have three conservation officers; the lower mainland region two; southern interior region one; the Kootenay region two; the northern interior region one; and the Skeena region two. In enforcement headquarters here in Victoria there will be two special investigators. The bioassay lab in Vancouver will have one laboratory technician, and throughout the regions for CO offices there will be an administrative support staff of six.

I think this is a very clear indication of the government's willingness to recognize the importance of the environmental resources in deploying financial resources.

With regard to pollution prevention, for enforcement of the bioassay lab -- to reinstate some of the funds that we had thought we were going to lose but didn't -- and toxic waste reduction, there was a total of $2.71 million and 18 full-time employees going, in general terms, into the field of environment protection in addition to the existing staff.

W. Hurd: Just in furthering a discussion on the issue of pollution assessments and offences, this may be a matter of upcoming legislation, so perhaps the minister can clarify it. It's the understanding of the opposition that the fees that would be required by the ministry for environmental assessments and studies are scheduled to rise quite substantially. Just to assist us with discussion, is that in the area of legislation to come forward, or has that been built into the estimates for revenues in the current fiscal year?

Hon. J. Cashore: The power to have an OIC to address that exists under existing legislation. Given the direction that the hon. member might be heading, I would be interested in hearing -- from the perspective of a bill of rights from the official opposition -- what their philosophy is with regard to the polluter-pay principle. As I said before, there would be a virtual bill of rights in the opening portion of our environmental impact assessment legislation. I'm not trying to get off the topic, but if we are going to have a polluter-pay principle, and if all parties in the House support that principle, then we can't merely pay lip-service to it.

W. Hurd: Would the minister not be concerned that massive across-the-board increases in the fees for environmental monitoring would have the effect of penalizing companies that are environmentally responsible? Is there any suggestion that the fee

schedule might in some way be adjusted for corporations, factories or plants that have made significant strides

[ Page 1959 ]

and that will be facing dramatically higher costs for routine environmental inspections which may be not be warranted given their past performance in the province? Is there going to be any recognition that there needs to be a performance evaluation in terms of these across-the-board increases, rather than risk the possibility of penalizing environmentally responsible companies and acting as a disincentive to investment in the province?

Hon. J. Cashore: Precisely, I couldn't agree more. The initiatives that we are taking deal with the quality and quantity of the effluent discharge; those who are not diligent will pay more and those who are diligent and improving their act will pay less. The polluter-pay principle is alive and well. From what the hon. member is saying, I would understand that we're on the same wavelength.

W. Hurd: I assume, then, that the polluter-pay principle and these rather dramatic increases in environmental assessment charges would also accrue to other levels of government -- municipalities and regional districts. Are they facing the same kinds of dramatic increases in pollution monitoring if they are required to use the services of the ministry to assess hospital incinerators, for example; existing secondary sewage treatment plants; or the effects, for example, of any outdoor burning that the municipality may be involved in?

Has the ministry announced or adopted a communications program to let the municipalities know of the rather dramatic increases they might be facing from his ministry in connection with routine environmental assessments in the future?

Hon. J. Cashore: The hon. member was dealing in some of his questions with sewage effluent, and then shifted into other kinds of polluting. With regard to the sewage effluent, again, we're on the same wavelength. Of the 4,000 permittees in the province, the majority of those will be paying less. Those who will be paying more are those who pollute more, but the majority of the 4,000 will actually be paying less under that system.

I'm trying to understand a note that I've written to myself with regard to the hon. member's last question. I think the answer is yes, but I can't figure out my notes, so I'll have to ask the hon. member to ask that question again.

W. Hurd: I think my question pertained to municipalities and regional districts that may have a serious pollution problem that they're certainly aware of, and may be requiring environmental assessments from the ministry. My question, I guess, was are they to assume that their costs are going to rise rather dramatically, and have these levels of government been advised of the kind of financial impacts they're going to be facing, particularly in light of the rather serious budget situation that many municipalities in the province are currently facing?

Hon. J. Cashore: I should correct an answer I gave a moment ago. It's not that the majority of the 4,000 permittees will be paying less. I should have said that the majority of the municipalities will be paying less.

With regard to the issue of those who will be paying more, again it relates to the philosophy of the polluter-pay principle. Obviously we're cognizant of those issues with regard to every municipality, but we also need to be coming forward with the type of regulation that is going to work.

W. Hurd: Further on the issue of the assessment costs for environmental inspections, is there any intention by the ministry to recognize the work that individual corporations might be doing in preparing a capital expenditure budget for a major environmental improvement, and would it not be appropriate to recognize that work in some form of....? Or reflect that willingness by the company to meet its obligations in some sort of adjustment to the kind of permit inspections that might be required by the ministry?

Or is it the intention of the ministry to continue to charge these increases even to companies that are in the midst of rather significant capital improvements with an environmental perspective?

[4:00]

Hon. J. Cashore: The fees will be based on the performance. If a corporate citizen is moving diligently towards improving performance, that will be reflected in the fees. A lot of the details of the material we're canvassing right now are still before cabinet and are not public, but they will become public shortly.

I now remember what the question was that the hon. member asked me: will there be a communications strategy with regard to this? The answer is yes.

W. Hurd: Again on the issue of effluent from pulp mills: it's the understanding that the minister has attached a deadline for pulp mills using chlorine to announce their capital spending plans as to how they're going to reach the targeted levels by 1995. Can the minister advise the committee of the progress, and whether or not the deadline we're dealing with is July 1, 1992?

Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Chair, it's my recollection that the hon. member asked that question on Friday, and I answered it on Friday. It's in Hansard , perhaps the Blues. The answer is yes. The plans are coming in by June 30.

W. Hurd: Is the minister confident that all the mills in the province, including those in Port Alberni and Powell River, will have their plans in the hands of the ministry by June 30? Will those plans be available for scrutiny by the environmental movement in the province?

Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Chair, yes and yes.

J. Tyabji: I'd like to get back to the outline that we were going with in regard to estimates. Because we hadn't set aside a specific category for wilderness or for

[ Page 1960 ]

wildlife, I assume that would go under forestry, if that's agreeable to the minister.

Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Chair, I realize that there is overlap. We tried to set up these three categories that dealt with the three main branches of the ministry: environment, lands and parks. With regard to forestry, we have not signified a portion of debate focusing in on forestry issues. It could come up under environment, dealing with fish and wildlife and multiple uses of the forest, it could come up under parks or it could come up under lands. So whenever you wish to ask those questions is okay.

J. Tyabji: I don't want the minister making any comments that I'm not being cooperative.

I would like to ask the minister about a certain East Kootenay wildlife division employee named Ray Demarchi. I'm sure the minister is aware of him. I'd like to quote some of the things he's been saying very recently with regard to the management of wildlife, and I'd like to get the minister's input.

I will read to you from an

article in the Calgary Herald on April 23, 1992. The headline is: "Experts' Solution to Urban Elk -- Shoot

'Em." The

article reads:

"If park officials are really serious about controlling aggressive elk in the townsite, they should start shooting them, suggests a leading wildlife biologist.

'That's right; go out there and shoot them,' says Ray Demarchi, head of the nearby East Kootenay wildlife division in British Columbia.

'You get a couple of dead animals and the elk will get the message. And the parks service will get the message too. There won't be any more problem elk.' Demarchi doesn't condone hunting in Banff's back alleys, where many garbage-feeding elk roam. But he suggests chasing the animals to the edge of town where they can be dispatched more safely and more aesthetically'."

I'd like to ask the minister if he has had any discussions with Ray Demarchi since these comments have come out. And if he has, what was the nature of the discussions? Does the minister have any general concerns with regard to this particular employee's activities? I have a number of other things here: allegations that have been made with regard to some of his conduct while doing his job. I'm hoping the minister is aware of the allegations I'm referring to. I'd rather not bring them up in the House, but I will if he is not.

Hon. J. Cashore: First of all, with regard to the member's comment that she wouldn't want me to say that she hasn't been cooperative, I would never say such a thing. I find that this hon. member is extremely cooperative in the House. I think that in this House all of us have milk and honey flowing in our veins -- all of us. We're simply here to try to enhance the well-being of the province.

With regard to Ray Demarchi, I would want to begin any comment that I made about any public servant with a statement of my philosophy about commenting on public servants. First of all, I would recognize that it behooves us to be extremely careful, given that these are people who work within the ministry -- they're public servants. They're often caught between a rock and a hard place of political expectation on the one hand and public demand on the other. Very often they work in very difficult circumstances where the expectations are enormous.

I prefer to see a society that recognizes public servants as partners in the process of seeking to achieve those goals that we all want to achieve. Therefore, in commenting on this comment -- which is taken somewhat out of context -- I think that in some ways it's unfair to an individual, because he or she doesn't really have an opportunity to come into this House and participate in this forum; therefore things can be said where an individual could have no recourse, given the immunity that we enjoy in this forum.

Having said that as background, no, I haven't talked to Mr. Demarchi within the last couple of weeks. I think the last time I talked to him was about three weeks ago. I do know that he's a valued public servant. Again, I think it would be very important to have a thorough understanding of the context of the issue with regard to the elk in that particular location. Obviously it's an issue that has a great deal of complexity to it.

J. Tyabji: As the minister is no doubt aware, following the

article in the Calgary Herald of April 23, some reporters contacted Ray Demarchi to determine if he was serious and if he would maintain his position with a different newspaper. He was contacted then by the Cranbrook Townsmen for an April 29 article. The headline is: "Wildlife Head Recommends Shooting Elk to Clear Town." It starts off in the same way as the Calgary Herald article.

"The town of Banff is having another year of problems with its urban elk population, and the head of the East Kootenay wildlife division says the best thing park officials can do is chase the elk to the edge of town and shoot them."

And I'll quote -- there's some interesting language here, hon. Chair:

"'When one elk sees something like another elk being shot, they learn from it,' Ray Demarchi said.

'They'll learn to get the hell out of there.' In 1974, Demarchi said, the town of Robson had a similar problem with elk, so wildlife officials opened season on elk in Robson and it solved the problem."

No doubt it did.

I would like to know if the minister supports this approach to wildlife management in an urban centre, and I would again like to ask the minister if he is aware of the other allegations that some local residents have made with regard to some of the conduct of Ray Demarchi.

Hon. J. Cashore: In my role I receive several phone calls, letters and faxes every day making all sorts of allegations. I also have received phone calls, letters and faxes saying very positive things. So I'm not going to comment on that with regard to one individual within the ministry who's not here to defend himself.

The fact is that you could move some of the elk out of an area, but you can't move them all. I realize that the process here is that the minister is the one who is asked the questions, but it would help me, in terms of responding to the member, if she would be willing to share with the House what her position is on this and

[ Page 1961 ]

the form of management that she would prefer, given the problem that exists. The fact is that we do give permits now in British Columbia to remove problem elk in extreme situations. So if the question is whether we endorse that management format, we do under the existing legislation and under the existing application of that legislation. If the member has some information that would cause us to look at that in a different way, we'd be interested in hearing about it. I'm sure she appreciates that it is a very difficult problem, as we saw on the news the other night. Where we recognize it's a problem, we give a permit to be able to act.

J. Tyabji: Since the minister is canvassing my opinion, my opinion is that the reason the elk are there is because there is an easily available food source, and that's the root of the problem. That's the approach that you should take. Obviously you can trap and move them in the short term.

However, I would like to ask this minister if he would commit to following up on some of the allegations, which I know have been passed to him in writing on at least one occasion, with regard to some of the conduct of Ray Demarchi. Rather than reading this out in the House and making it public knowledge, I will pass a copy to the minister so that he can act within the confines of his office. I think these are very serious allegations and that the minister should look at them. It is with regard to the same person.

I would also recommend to the minister in any discussion with a public servant, if he feels their position is going to be controversial, that at the very least they should be slightly less forthcoming with their own opinion as to the most suitable solution.

I don't know if the minister heard my remarks. I will pass you a copy of what I have here with regard to the allegations on the conduct of Ray Demarchi, and then you can review them. I would urge you to follow up with the appropriate action, and then I would monitor that -- if that's suitable to the minister.

The minister is probably aware that we have a problem in the Kelowna area as well with regard to deer encroachment on the outlying orchards. This will be coming up in his portfolio again this year. Last year the deer were coming down from the wilderness areas into the orchards. It has been costing the orchardists a lot of money. There are obviously several ministries involved here. The overriding one is Environment, and there is Agriculture and Forests as well as the regional district.

Last year the Ministry of Environment issued hunting licences, and there was a very serious problem with individuals trekking through private property to shoot deer in people's back yards, which was causing a lot of anxiety to the people who lived there. I think there were as many as 300 hunters on one weekend, and it's a very small area. I'd like to know what approach the minister is going to take this year with regard to wildlife management. I know that some of the local residents have advocated a very high fence. I know that there are alternate methods of repelling deer, and I would like to canvass the minister's thoughts on that issue.

Hon. J. Cashore: With regard to a food source for the elk, let's remember that we're dealing with an Alberta problem here. I'm willing to deal with Alberta during my estimates. I don't know if we're going to annex Banff or all of Alberta, or just how that's going to come out during the constitutional talks. I understand that there is one thought of having regions, so maybe at some point we would have some wider influence on what happens in Alberta. With regard to the issue of the food source, does the hon. member mean that we're going to remove the trees, the flowers and the shrubs that exist in...?

[4:15]

Interjection.

Hon. J. Cashore: Oh, the garbage. The hon. member is telling me that there are elk eating garbage. I see. In the news broadcast that I saw, the elk were eating trees, plants and shrubs. I didn't know that elk were garbage eaters, but you learn something new every day. That's fascinating. I thought that there were some problem bears that ate garbage. You could actually have adventure tours where people would go to the dumps to watch the elk. That's interesting.

With regard to the situation outside Kelowna -- a very serious and difficult problem -- that has to do with the interface between a growing residential population and the fact that it is territory that has been occupied by those ungulates. It's a difficult issue. When the problem that the member cited arose several months ago, we acted very quickly to shut down the season. How are we going to deal with it this year? We have our staff working closely with the agricultural community and with other people in the area. It is being addressed.

I may be able to give a more definitive response than that when I receive further information. At this time, I do know that our staff are working on it with the community.

L. Fox: I'm going to leave the global issues with respect to the environment to our environment critic, who has immensely more knowledge on the subject than I do. I wanted to ask some specific questions. Since we are on the wildlife area of it, one of the concerns in my neck of the woods has been the fact that the conservation officer's time has been used substantially on environmental issues rather than on game management issues. There is a lot of concern in the northern parts of the province.

We don't have enough game wardens or game management people; their time allotment is primarily used inspecting dump sites, measuring water quality and those kinds of important issues. Through this process and evolution the actual game management side has suffered dramatically. I noticed just a few moments ago that you gave us some numbers. I believe it was 22 increased personnel in terms of conservation officers. I wanted to find out how much of that emphasis is going into game management, and how much is going into environmental measurements and inspecting spills and that kind of thing.

Perhaps I could ask the minister to address that.

[ Page 1962 ]

Hon. J. Cashore: The answer would be determined by the priorities in the area. I believe that we put one additional conservation officer into the region that the hon. member represents. I think, though, that when we're talking about wildlife and game management, we're talking about different ways in which the ministry responds. We don't have game rangers, but we have conservation officers. We have fish and wildlife biologists, some of whom are specialists in ungulates and other wildlife.

We have those different components within the ministry to be aware of those issues and to work on effective management in that regard. Hence we have the fish and wildlife part of our ministry headed by Mr. Jim Walker. In general terms, we do address that issue. I would be interested in the member's comments with regard to where he sees problems area or concerns.

Before we do that, I see the hon. member for Okanagan East is not in the House. I had some further comments with regard to the concern she raised about the elk. I'll wait until she's back in the House before I answer that question.

L. Fox: I would like to give the minister more background on some of the concerns in my area in particular -- at least those that I am more familiar with. The Nechako region is large in terms of a management area. We have thousands of square miles of territory, and much of it is pristine wilderness. At this time we have two conservation officers to cover hundreds of roads, a lot of which connect with other regions in the back country.

To bring this problem into perspective, I have to tell the minister that there is a lot of poaching. I know that you took action earlier within your ministry to try to get a handle on that situation. Poaching has increased substantially in the last couple of years. Perhaps that's reflective of the economic times. I'm not sure. I'm told that some of it is actually taken out of the area and sold. It is a big concern to those in my region who put an extremely high value on wildlife and want to make sure that it's managed in a sustainable way; hence the question about more emphasis being placed on the wildlife management part of your ministry. Perhaps that will help you.

Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. member, in your opening remarks you said that you were aware of the special investigation unit. The hon. member is also aware of the increasing problem with regard to poaching. One of the responsibilities that we have in this context is to try to ascertain just to what extent that problem exists. We know that it's there, but we need more information as to how intense it is. We're certainly hearing a lot of reports about poaching. We think that the fact that we do have a special investigation unit is going to play a major

part in addressing that.

I would also mention that given the fact that we have placed, I believe, 25 wildlife biologists in Ministry of Forests' offices throughout the province to assess logging plans, that means that they're also involved in the loop of looking at the entire way in which we manage the wildlife component in our province. I would add to that, too, that given the 40 full-time employees and the $10 million to enable us to catch up on our inventory requirements.... That's not only dealing with wood fibre; it's also dealing with fish and wildlife values.

Therefore the baseline data that will come out of that will be very important in order to achieve the kind of scientific information we need to be able to do effective wildlife management work.

L. Fox: I appreciate the answers and look forward to monitoring the success of the program. I have a couple of other areas of concern. I had difficulty with the budget numbers here in pulling out the exact amounts. Perhaps they're not specifically in your budget. I'm sure that the minister is aware that I had the privilege of sitting on the Round Table on the Environment and the Economy in the first year for a few months of its development. Once I had made my political intentions clear, I had to resign that seat.

But during those few months I gained a great appreciation for the process and the kind of discussions that were happening around that table. It was a bit awkward in the early stages, to say the least, with 31 people, each having their own turf and their own concerns. However, under its very able chairmanship, it became a very good process. Indeed, it has had some achievements. I want to know specifically what amount of dollars are in this year's budget for the Round Table on the Environment and the Economy -- if it's in your budget. How does that equate to last year? Was there an increase or a decrease?

Hon. J. Cashore: Perhaps the hon. member wasn't in the House earlier this afternoon; I did give that information. But I will give that answer again. The budget for the Round Table on the Environment and the Economy this year is $1.8 million. Last year it was $2 million.

I'd like to take this opportunity to thank the hon. member for the work he did on the Round Table. I agree that under the chairmanship of Mr. Chuck Connaghan, we've had some very effective work done and some outstanding volunteer work by a number of our citizens.

L. Fox: Just to follow on that -- you may have answered this as well. I was getting myself prepared for these estimates, so perhaps the question has been asked. I know there's going to be some overlap. Is there a liaison mechanism between CORE and the Round Table, other than the minister or the ministry, to bring these two groups together so they're not working independently?

Hon. J. Cashore: There's an ongoing discussion between CORE and the Round Table. There's regular contact and interaction. We're also aware of that at the level of the Cabinet Committee on Sustainable Development, where that process is facilitated as well.

I said twice in the House now that the Round Table budget last year was $2 million. I stand corrected; it was $2.4 million last year. It's $1.8 million this year.

[ Page 1963 ]

L. Fox: Perhaps I might ask what area of the Round Table is being cut. Earlier it didn't seem to be that significant, but now we're talking about $600,000. Can you expand on exactly what that means in terms of the Round Table?

Hon. J. Cashore: I met with one of the committees of the Round Table this morning -- actually with Graham Lea, who's on the committee that's working on paper and the economy. The fact is that the Round Table is being very cooperative in looking at those areas that are more oriented to their advisory role, even though their mandate has grown to some extent. They have been involved in some public education work. They have addressed the issue of financial resources, recognizing that the province is dealing with a very serious deficit problem. They are cooperating by identifying and addressing those issues that are most urgent.

L. Fox: I'll leave that at this time. I want to talk just a little bit about Kemano 2. The minister has made it clear to me in private discussions and to the House that his and the government's position is imminent with respect to the review process. I don't want to talk about that. I'll wait until we have that before us.

[4:30]

I know the minister has received a letter from the Steelhead Society in Prince George with respect to the sport fisheries in the Nechako. It's my recollection that in 1987, prior to the province reaching an agreement with Alcan and the federal government, there was some assurance by the Ministry of Environment of the day that the stocks of the sport fishery would be enhanced in the upper Nechako as part of that agreement. But has there been any discussion and is there any ongoing discussion about enhancing the sport fishery in the lower Nechako?

Hon. J. Cashore: There has been some discussion, but to date there has not been any actual project undertaken.

L. Fox: Can I just ask then if the minister and his ministry are committed to enhancing the sport fishery in both the lower and the upper Nechako?

Hon. J. Cashore: Yes, within the context of the settlement agreement, the province is committed.

L. Fox: Earlier this year the ministry announced that there would a catch-and-release program in the Bulkley River with respect to steelhead fishing. I believe this comes under your ministry; I hope I'm right in this. It is generally respected and honoured by all fishermen and sportsmen along the Bulkley River that there should be catch-and-release, but what bothers a lot of the people along the river is that while the sport fishery does that, there appear to be a lot of the steelhead lost at the Morice town gates, for instance, where they get caught up in the netting.

If you go along there when the fish are running, you'll see that the native Indians net the entrance of the ladders with scoop nets. Given the fact that there is an extreme shortage of steelhead and a lessening of those stocks, has there been any consideration given to trying to stop those kinds of things from happening?

Hon. J. Cashore: An agreement has just been signed by all parties, including the native people, dealing with that in the Skeena area. That would include the Morice town area. As a matter of fact, I had occasion, when I was in Aiyansh a few weeks ago to dedicate the Nisga'a Memorial Lava Bed Provincial Park, to drive with one of our officials to the site you're referring to. I can recall, when I was there back in the 1960s, actually seeing the traditional fishing, which was quite a tourist attraction at the time. He told me that this process was emerging into a totally different approach. I'm pleased to say that I understand that the agreement has now been signed.

L. Fox: I'm sure that will be good news for everybody who is extremely concerned about the steelhead in the Bulkley and Skeena rivers.

There's a similar concern with respect to the Tachie River, which hooks Stuart Lake up into Trembleur Lake. You have closed Tachie River this year to sports fishing. This is endorsed by virtually everyone in the area, but it is still being netted. There is an extremely large concern over the decrease in rainbow stocks and so on. Perhaps a similar agreement could be approached with respect to the netting of the Tachie River. Would that be something that you might consider?

Hon. J. Cashore: This is a question I'll take on notice. We're going to get some information on that and bring it back. We'll have to do a little research.

L. Fox: Well, those are some of my favourite fishing areas. I'm prepared to release them, and I know others are, but we'd certainly like to see the enhancement have an opportunity.

I want to talk just a little bit about the fines and the increased fines with respect to environment polluters. I concur with the principle of polluter-pay, but I did have some concerns. The one question I have to ask is: where does the revenue go that's collected from these fines?

Hon. J. Cashore: I could hear the former Minister of Environment, the member for Okanagan West, saying the sustainable environment fund. That is correct.

L. Fox: As you may be aware, because he answered that, we haven't had a chance to have dialogue on that particular issue.

One of the concerns that I'm well aware of -- particularly with respect to municipal waste -- is the limitations of the funding formula for the improving of infrastructure. The funding formula -- I'm sure the minister is aware, but just so it is stated -- is that 75 percent of the capital cost is on the municipalities; 25 percent is paid by the province. Given that we're going to accept the principle of polluter-pay, could we not also suggest that part of these dollars which go into sustainable development could go toward lowering the

[ Page 1964 ]

amount that has to be raised by municipalities to something that would be more palatable and more achievable in terms of improving their infrastructure networks? Perhaps we could look at something like some of these dollars going in and helping to achieve a 50:50 split, or something along these lines. That would make it more affordable for municipalities facing these kinds of concerns.

Hon. J. Cashore: I'm not sure. The money comes out of revenue-sharing funds, which are under the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, and if I understand correctly what the hon. member is saying about 75:25, I think that's wrong. If I understand the question correctly, if he's referring to the revenue-sharing for municipal sewage, municipal infrastructure, I'm not sure how to distinguish municipal infrastucture from municipal sewage. When we're talking about sewers, we're talking 50:50.

L. Fox: Perhaps there is the odd exception where it can be up to 50:50; but the rule of thumb is, in fact, 75 percent municipal contribution and 25 percent provincial contribution. There has been very little variance from that in the last five years, hon. minister.

Hon. J. Cashore: When there's a high environmental risk, it's 50:50. When there's not a high environmental risk, it's 75:25.

L. Fox: All of these are high environmental risks with respect to the quality of the effluent going into our rivers and streams. I'm sure the minister will concur that we want to get the least possible pollution from municipal services into the river. I understand that the actual funding is under Municipal Affairs. But given the fact that this minister and his ministry deal with environmental concerns, could some of these sustainable dollars go into improving the quality of effluent going from municipal sewer services into the watersheds?

Hon. J. Cashore: The short answer is no. Even though there may be some merit in the suggestion, the fact is that there is more demand on the money in SEF than there is money in SEF. There is simply not the financial resource going into that pot to enable what may be a good idea to be carried out. So the answer is no, because the dollars aren't there. The dollars are already being used in other environmentally appropriate ways.

J. Tyabji: I was listening to the minister's discussion just a few minutes ago referring to the Round Table on the Environment and the Economy and some of the questions I brought up earlier. That brought to mind a question I had been meaning to ask the minister with regard to this. Is the minister commissioning any polls in his ministry specifically with regard to the functioning of the Round Table on the Environment and the Economy?

Hon. J. Cashore: The answer is no. To my knowledge, we don't do polling in the Ministry of Environment.

I would like to come back to the deer issue that the hon. member raised. It's a very significant issue. The present modus operandi within the ministry is that if safety is not a concern, we have a hunting season. If safety is a problem, we encourage fencing by the farmers. So that's the present standard. There aren't a lot of options when this problem exists, but methods of repelling deer don't always work and there's a poor record of repellents being effective.

I don't want to get into a "you're right, you're wrong" type of argument with you. But I have to say that I have consulted with some of the most eminent wildlife biologists in British Columbia, and elk don't eat garbage. I think we're talking about tulips and shrubs and about people's gardens attracting elk right down into downtown Banff, but I don't think we're talking about garbage. You may have confused a garbage-bear story with an elk-in-Banff story, but according to the best information I have, elk don't eat garbage. Maybe you can come up with some photographs.

J. Tyabji: The minister will be very interested to learn that it was his own staff person in the East Kootenay wildlife division who said that he doesn't condone hunting in Banff's back alleys, where many garbage-feeding elk roam. Your staff person is the reliable source I was counting on, because I have not been in Banff for a few years. I have not been there with a video camera, hunting down the back alleys to see if the elk are eating garbage. I would suggest to the minister that if they are eating garbage, there's a very easy solution to the problem: don't make it accessible. That was the point I was making.

Obviously access is a great consideration with regard to wildlife. If there is nothing there to attract them, then they won't come.

With regard to the deer, if the minister is suggesting that the solution to the problem of orchards encroaching into deer habitat is for the orchardists to put up fences, then I would put to the minister that we should keep in mind that it can be proven to a large extent that one of the reasons the ungulates are proliferating in that area is because of forestry practices. To that extent it then becomes the responsibility of the provincial government, specifically his ministry, to monitor the wildlife that are proliferating as a result of greater access to food. That is why wildlife proliferate.

It is not enough to tell the orchardists to put up fences, because they don't have the money. They're losing money because of a problem they have not created. At some point somebody is going to have to help them out, or they will just close up shop. That is what we're seeing with a lot of orchardists. That is not an acceptable solution, and neither is hunting in that kind of area.

There are definitely solutions with regard to whether or not we should allow forestry practices that encourage ungulates that close to an urban area. These are things that should be discussed now to prevent future problems. In the short term this should be addressed with a government initiative, because it is

[ Page 1965 ]

these practices of the government that are causing the problems in the first place.

[4:45]

Hon. J. Cashore: The options are being discussed now. The ministry is actively working on it. They're meeting with the people in the area. They're coming forward with the best possible methods available to deal with it. Unless the hon. member is able to put forward her wildlife management plan and show how that will work better than the procedures that are presently being used -- there is obviously an interface between the abundance of deer on the one hand and the human factor on the other hand -- it's not too productive a discussion.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment has a few comments to make. This will give me an opportunity to leave the chamber very briefly.

D. Lovick: There's an honourable tradition in this chamber that perhaps members are not familiar with: namely, it is not considered to be in the public interest to keep any one minister standing in her or his place for some four hours without reprieve and respite. It is therefore a well-known tradition that others will fill in, albeit briefly. I'm happy to note that members on the other side have also been absenting themselves from these chambers for very short periods of time, however interesting the debate may be.

I want to emphasize, however, that I have no intention to simply filibuster, or talk for the sake of talking. Rather, I want to contribute something to the debate, essentially under the heading and apropos of what we refer to as the public consultation process.

This government, you will recall, said a great deal about its commitment to open and consultative models of government. I would argue the case that it has done a rather good job of demonstrating that that is more than simply a rhetorical commitment, that it is indeed living up to the promise made.

I noted in the introductory comments to the estimates from my colleague the Minister o