[ Page 1855 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral questions

BCR-Alaska railroad connection. Mr. Lauk — 1855

Student summer employment. Mr. Wallace — 1856

Administering secrecy oath to David Brown. Mr. King — 1857

Energy commission report on petroleum industry. Mr. D'Arcy — 1858

B.C. Ferries layoffs. Mr. Wallace — 1858

Preservation of Emily Carr house. Hon. Mrs. McCarthy answers — 1858

Appointment of John Arnett. Hon. Mrs. McCarthy answers— 1859

Administering of oath to David Brown. Hon. Mrs. McCarthy answers — 1859

Committee of Supply: Department of Environment estimates.

On vote 48. Hon. Mr. Nielsen — 1885

Mr. Gibson — 1859 On vote 52.

Mr. Wallace — 1859 Mr. Wallace — 1886

Hon. Mr. Nielsen — 1862 Hon. Mr. Nielsen — 1886

Mr. Skelly — 1862 Mr. Macdonald — 1886

Mr. Mussallem — 1864 Mr. Gibson — 1886

Hon. Mr. Nielsen — 1865 Hon. Mr. Nielsen — 1886

Mr. Skelly — 1866 On vote 53.

Ms. Sanford — 1866 Ms. Sanford — 1886

Hon. Mr. Nielsen 1867 Hon. Mr. Nielsen 1887

Mr. Lloyd — 1867 On vote 54.

Mr. Stupich — 1869 Mr. Wallace — 1887

Hon. Mr. Nielsen — 1870 Hon. Mr. Nielsen — 1887

Mr. Stupich — 1871 Mr. Nicolson — 1887

Mr. Strongman — 1872 Hon. Mr. Nielsen — 1887

Hon. Mr. Nielsen — 1872 Mr. Gibson — 1888

Mr. Skelly — 1873 Hon. Mr. Nielsen — 1888

Hon. Mr. Nielsen — 1874 On vote 5 6.

Mr. Barber — 1875 Mrs. Dailly — 1888

Hon. Mr. Nielsen — 1877 Hon. Mr. Nielsen — 1888

Mr. Wallace — 1877 On vote 57.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen — 1878 Mr. Gibson — 1888

Mrs. Wallace — 1879 Hon. Mr. Nielsen — 1888

Hon. Mr. Nielsen — 1879 Mr. Wallace — 1889

Mr. King — 1880 Hon. Mr. Nielsen — 1889

Hon. Mr. Nielsen — 1881 On vote 59.

Mr. King — 1883 Mr. D'Arcy — 1889

Mr. D'Arcy — 1883 Hon. Mr. Nielsen — 1889

Mr. Lockstead — 1884 Mr. Gibson — 1889

Hon. Mr. Nielsen — 1885 Hon. Mr. Nielsen — 1890

Mr. D'Arcy — 1885 On vote 60.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen — 1885 Mr. Nicolson — 1890

On vote 50. Hon. Mr. Nielsen — 1890

Ms. Sanford — 1885 Mr. Gibson — 1890

WEDNESDAY, MAY 19, 1976

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, I would be very pleased if all members of the House would join with me in welcoming two members of my family in the gallery. I very seldom have an opportunity to introduce members of my family. I am very happy that my mother, Mrs. Winterbottom, and my aunt, Mrs. Ward, are both in the gallery today.

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer Services): Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today from the great city of Kamloops visiting the precincts are Mayor Al Thompson, Alderman Bregoliss, Alderman Chapman, the administrator, Mr. McMunn, and the city engineer, Mr. Nyberg. I would ask the House to welcome them.

MR. SPEAKER: I believe the hon. minister has another introduction.

HON. MR. MAIR: Yes, I have. This afternoon at just after 2 o'clock the House will be visited by 24 grade 7 students from Allan Matthews Elementary School in the city of Kamloops, accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Art Roode. I would ask the House to make them welcome also.

MR. F.A. CALDER (Atlin): Mr. Speaker, in the member's gallery centre aisle this afternoon are Mr. Tokuji Hosono, who is a journalist from Tokyo, Japan, and Mrs. Noriko Olive, a Japanese-English interpreter. Mr. Hosono is here on the invitation of the external affairs branch and is on tour of Canada and the far north. He is also here to cover Habitat. I would ask the members to join me in welcoming the two visitors.

MR. C.M. SHELFORD (Skeena): Mr. Speaker, I would like the members to welcome Fred Stewart, chairman of the board of Skeenaview Lodge up at Terrace, and Bill Harvey, administrator.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, there is a group of students from Kitsilano Senior Secondary School in the gallery with their teacher, Mr. Ippen. I would like the House to join me in bidding them welcome.

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): Mr. Speaker, later this afternoon there will be a group of students from Seaview Junior Secondary School at Port Alice visiting in the gallery accompanied by their teachers, Dianne Kellas and Ray Hornby. I would ask the House to make them welcome now.

HON. J. DAVIS (Minister of Transport and Communications): Mr. Speaker, in response to the oral question asked by the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) on May 11 relating to the proposed Pacific Western Airlines headquarters move to Calgary, I herewith table the province's reply filed before the May 3 deadline.

Oral questions.

BCR-ALASKA RAILROAD CONNECTION

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Center): Mr. Speaker, a question to the hon. Premier. Under the NDP administration, discussions were begun with the Yukon and Alaska governments with regard to the possibility of connecting the Alaska railroad with the British Columbia Railway. Have the Premier or any of his ministers or staff discussed this matter with the Alaska government? If so, has any progress in pursuing the discussions started last year been made?

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, all projects that were initiated by governments prior to this government have been and are under review, and those projects which were not taken seriously have not been continued.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, there were communications received from the Governor of Alaska and the Commissioner of the Yukon to the previous administration. These were for preliminary discussions only. Is the Premier suggesting that his government will not take either of these two gentlemen seriously?

HON. MR. BENNETT: As you know, I've already met with the Governor of Alaska, and a proposed meeting is being discussed with officials in the Yukon, which will take place in the very near future.

MR. LAUK: Would the Premier indicate whether or not he's taking seriously a proposal for the connection of the Alaska Railway with the BCR?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, all proposals have been taken seriously by this government. Any proposals that are not available to us...we would be pleased if such files as are not here are returned to the House.

MR. LAUK: I can indicate to the Premier that the two documents in question are in his files; perhaps he could get his chauffeur to find them for him.

[ Page 1856 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. That is not a question.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member did not ask a question, Hon. Premier. It was not a question, Hon. Premier.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I just wanted to tell him that there were no files when I moved in.

HOSPITALS STRIKE

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): I have a question for the Minister of Labour. I'd ask the minister if he plans any statement or announcement today with respect to the hospital strike.

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): I can't say that I plan any announcement today. But as soon as I hear from the representatives of the unions and the employers with regard to the proposals that were discussed with them yesterday, I'll be happy to advise the House of the position taken by the parties with respect to those proposals. If those proposals are rejected I will also advise the House.

MR. GIBSON: On a supplementary to that, Mr. Speaker, in view of the uncertainty of the situation, I gather that the minister said to a member of the press yesterday that he wished the Speaker could have found it possible to allow the debate that was requested. If the proposals he has most recently made do not work out when he advises the House, would he encourage his colleagues to give unanimous leave for such a debate at that time?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. That's a hypothetical question, Hon. Member, at this particular time, as you well know.

STUDENT SUMMER EMPLOYMENT

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Provincial Secretary a question with regard to the government's student employment programme and the minister's telegram of May 6 to the B.C. Government Employees Union agreeing to pay union rates of pay for summer relief employment. Could I ask the minister: out of the 4,600 jobs which were expected to be available, is this number still accurate, and if so, how many have been employed as of the present date?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, in response to the hon. member, first I would say that I don't have the figure — in answer to his second question. In answer to the first question, I would think that 4,600 would be unrealistic. I would suggest to you that I cannot answer that, but I will get the answers for you when the information is available.

MR. WALLACE: Supplemental. The 4,600 figure being the figure which was quoted by the Minister of Labour in a press release...and I'm not arguing that it may not be proven attainable; I agree with the minister on her point. But regardless of the specific figure, there obviously is a serious unemployment problem among students this summer, and since the government is the largest single employer in the province, has the minister made any recommendations to the cabinet to consider at this late date expansion of the programme which was originally introduced?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, I would just draw to the attention of the hon. member for Oak Bay that it's irregular to inquire whether statements made in the newspaper are accurate, true or correct. To base a question on that premise is not in keeping with the House. However, part of your question was in order.

MR. WALLACE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I'm not quoting from any newspaper at all. I'm quoting from a press release of the Minister of Labour.

MR. SPEAKER: You referred to a press release.

Interjections.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, since taking on the responsibility of government, this government has been very, very concerned about the problem of student employment.

That concern is still within the cabinet and is being studied every single day. As far as we are able to do within the moneys that we have available, we are attempting to put as many students to work as possible and every day that is being addressed by members of our cabinet.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, if I might ask a further supplementary in view of the Minister's answer: is she then telling the House that while the matter is under review, a decision has been made that there shall be no further funding provided and that only jobs will be provided within the original financial decisions made by the government?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, we have not as yet been able to find the pot of gold that the opposition members seem to think is around to put more funds into every worthwhile programme. That

[ Page 1857 ]

is the amount of money we have to work with and we are putting as many students to work as possible with those funds.

MR. WALLACE: Another supplementary, Mr. Speaker. With the greatest of respect, the member didn't answer my question. We all know there is no pot of gold, but I am asking a simple question. A certain amount of money was put into the budget by the government; I'm simply asking: if, in the light of the serious problem, is not the famous second look being taken to consider whether it might be reasonable to put more money into the fund, or into the funding, so that in fact we can reduce the number of students who are seeking employment?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, the hon. member has just repeated a question which he just addressed to the hon. Provincial Secretary.

MR. WALLACE: Which she didn't answer.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member may not like the answer he received, or disagree with the answer he received; nevertheless, the hon. minister answered the question.

ADMINISTERING SECRECY
OATH TO DAVID BROWN

MR. W.S. KING (Leader of the Opposition): A question again to the Provincial Secretary: on April 12, 13 and 14, and again on May 6, I asked questions relating to the appointment of one Dave Brown and why he had not taken the public service oaths. By order-in-council 1465, his appointment has now been extended another 30 days.

On April 14, the minister took as notice two questions: which minister is responsible for ensuring the oaths are administered in compliance with the law, and on what grounds has Dave Brown been exempted from this law?

On May 6, the minister said she would get these answers. That was 12 days ago. I wonder if the Provincial Secretary is prepared to give the answers now, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: To the Leader of the Opposition: yes, I do have the answer to the question. First of all, your question was: which minister is responsible for ensuring that public service oaths are taken? Provision for oaths for public service employees is contained in the Public Service Act. The Provincial Secretary was charged with the administration of the Public Service Act by order-in-council 4333, approved and ordered December 20, 1975.

MR. LAUK: You just discovered that?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: No, but I don't keep the dates and the numbers of the orders-in-council catalogued in my head, and I don't think any members on that side of the House did it either when they served as government.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Hon. Provincial Secretary has the floor on a reply to a question.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: The hon. Leader of the Opposition did ask in reference to Mr. David Brown. I would like to inform the Leader of the Opposition that Mr. David Brown has taken the oath.

MR. KING: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the Provincial Secretary would then explain to the House why Dave Brown was involved in compiling and preparing the budget of British Columbia before he had been sworn and taken the oath which is required by law. It's true by the Premier's own admission, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I never said that Mr. David Brown had anything to do with the compilation of the budget. I ask the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, that matter was canvassed and it was certainly stated by the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) that Mr....

Interjection.

MR. KING: Just a moment. The Minister of Finance specifically stated that Dave Brown assisted in compiling the budget. The Premier defended that in previous debates in this House, and certainly never denied it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. It's not a matter of getting into a debate on the budget, which we debated very thoroughly at a number of previous sittings of the Legislature.

AN HON. MEMBER: Cover-up!

MR. KING: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I would like to know from the Provincial Secretary on what date Dave Brown was finally sworn in. And a further question: was there any specific reason for keeping the fact that Mr. Brown was a party to the budget without taking the oath a matter of secrecy?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The first part of your question may be in order, asking for the date

[ Page 1858 ]

that the person named was sworn in.

HON. MR. BENNETT: It's absolutely shocking. You should be ashamed of yourself!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

HON. MR. BENNETT: That's a withdrawal already.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I will have to get the date that the....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Through you, Mr. Speaker, to the members opposite, if I were to be expected to keep every single date and every number of every order-in-council in my head in order to answer detailed questions, I really think that I would be a computer. I think that there isn't anybody on that side of the House who was ever able to give that. I'm just now going to say that I will take it as notice and give you the answer. The answer, as you well know, is available from the Clerk's office to the Leader of the Opposition; he can have it if he is that concerned.

MR. KING: On a final supplementary, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Provincial Secretary's cooperation and good grace in not requiring the opposition to wait another month for that simple answer.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. That is not a question.

ENERGY COMMISSION REPORT
ON PETROLEUM INDUSTRY

MR. C. D'ARCY (Rossland-Trail): My question is directed to the Minister of Transport and Communications.

As the government is well aware, there are a number of problems in the petroleum retailing industry in British Columbia. I gather that because of this, some time ago the government asked the B.C. Energy Commission for a report on certain anomalies and other things in that industry, one of them being, for instance, that in my riding the same company will be retailing gasoline at differences of 20 cents a gallon in towns just 15 miles apart.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would you please state your question?

MR. D'ARCY: I'm asking if the Energy Commission has reported to the government and to the minister. If they have, when will that information and those findings and recommendations be made available to this House?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, the report in question has been prepared and submitted to the government. It's now at the printers and will be released next week.

B.C. FERRIES LAYOFFS

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the Minister of Transport and Communications a question with specific regard to employees in the ferry system, previously occupied in the dining rooms, who will be losing their jobs and who have more than two years of service with the ferry system. Can the minister tell the House how many have been re-employed elsewhere and if each of these employees involved is accepting a job at a lesser rate of pay?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, I can't answer the details of that question. I do understand, however, that no one with more than two years of service is being laid off. Every effort is being made to re-employ those who will be displaced from the dining room service after June 1, and also the usual increased summer demand resulting from all vessels being in operation will, to some extent, alleviate the pressure on employees to leave the service.

PRESERVATION OF
EMILY CARR HOUSE

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I would ask leave to answer questions that were given to me in the oral question period yesterday.

Leave granted.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: The second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) posed a question in two parts.

The first was whether I was able to confirm a report that the Emily Carr art centre is to be evicted from the Emily Carr house located at 207 Government Street. The answer to that question, through you, Mr. Speaker, to the member, is that there is no eviction notice given to the Emily Carr art centre that now occupies the building. There has been no decision reached on that art centre.

The second part of that question had reference to a report that the government intends to remove the murals that were painted on the roof of the Emily Carr studio and the House of All Sorts. I want to share with the House the information that on November 22, 1973, this roof and the paintings

[ Page 1859 ]

thereon were declared an historic site under the archaeological and historic sites legislation. It is impossible to destroy, deface, move or alter that area, and under this ministry it will certainly not be defaced or destroyed. It will be safe for all time under that Act.

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): Will it be moved?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: No. We have absolutely no plans in that regard.

APPOINTMENT OF JOHN ARNETT

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I also could take just a few seconds of the time of the House to reply to yet another question so as not to take it up in question period another day.

The hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) asked about order-in-council 1175, 1976. His question was: has anyone been appointed to the position of programme manager 2 under that order-in-council? The answer to that is, yes. John Arnett was appointed press secretary to the executive council and the classification of programme manager 2 at the monthly rate of $2405.

ADMINISTRATION OF OATH
TO DAVID BROWN

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Finally I would like to answer a question that was given to me a few minutes ago. The information comes, Mr. Speaker, from the Clerk's office and was readily available to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. King) within this same few minutes. To satisfy his question, the oath of office was administered to Mr. David Brown on May 6, 1976.

Presenting reports.

Hon. Mr. Gardom presents the report of the Law Reform Commission on extra-judicial use of sworn statements.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT

(continued)

On vote 48: minister's office, $114,053 — continued.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Chairman, I just have one short question of the minister which I hope he will answer in an equally brief way — because that will be good news if he can.

Hon. members of this House have, for many years, expressed concern about the fate of the Skagit Valley, starting, I think, with my predecessor in North Vancouver-Capilano, Mr. Brousson. This fight has gone on in this House. It's gone on as well in the federal House when the hon. Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis) was there. He was involved in this fight and concerned with it, and I believe he wants to save the Skagit Valley and make sure that there's no flooding.

There are discussions, we understand, planned between the Government of the Province of the British Columbia and Seattle City Light. We know from reports that British Columbia Hydro has been involved. I appreciate that there is a very complex situation going on here. But all I want from the minister is not a description of any of the negotiating technicalities that he doesn't feel he can reveal, but a simple undertaking to this House that is is his policy, as Minister of Environment, in this very important piece of the environment, that under no circumstances will he allow the Skagit Valley to be flooded.

HON. J.A. NIELSEN (Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, I would like very much to be able to say that under no circumstances will the Skagit Valley be flooded. As you know, the jurisdictions extend beyond that of the province of British Columbia. Certainly to the point where British Columbia has control over this I would suggest, yes, every effort will be made to prevent the flooding of the Skagit Valley.

Just by way of background information, there are active discussions underway with representatives from Washington state and the city of Seattle and Seattle City Light. We have representatives of various government departments, along with people in B.C. Hydro, who have been conducting some technical discussions.

You mentioned Mr. Brousson, a former member of the House. Mr. Brousson is also working with us in a very limited capacity, but in a volunteer capacity. Mr. Brousson has acted as a liaison person between ourselves and such people as the Ross committee and some of the lawyers who have been very active on the Skagit Valley and the appeals associated with it.

Every effort is being made on behalf of the government to prevent the flooding of the Skagit, and we are working toward that end. We certainly expect to have considerable discussion regarding the Skagit in a very short time when members of the Governor of Washington's staff are due to be in Victoria.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Chairman, last night I just started asking the minister about the

[ Page 1860 ]

Revelstoke Dam, and interestingly enough I notice in the newspaper today that the report of the study has been released. Now I say, Mr. Chairman, that is is very interesting that while this House is in session so often studies of great importance are released to the press and there is great difficulty for members of the opposition to obtain a copy of these studies. I realize that some of them are substantial volumes and may be difficult to provide in large number initially, but I really do question the fair play in the situation. We're supposed to be debating the minister's estimates and a report of this significance is released yesterday to the press, and as late as this afternoon I'm having great difficulty in coming anywhere close to getting a copy of that report.

I just think that that's another insult, or maybe an oversight. I withdraw the word "insult." I think it is an oversight. Ministers and departments, particularly during the session of the Legislature, might try and give the opposition members at least the same access to important reports as is given to the members of the media.

In this regard there is a tremendously contentious issue of the environmental impact of the proposed Revelstoke Dam, and this is not.... I've no wish to have a very protracted debate on all the aspects of it, but there are some very important general principles involved, and it seems to me.... As an onlooker not privy to much of the internal discussion, I get the impression that there is a very serious lack of co-ordination between the Department of Environment and other departments of government, particularly B.C. Hydro.

Now this may be either inaccurate media reporting or partial reporting, but one often gets the idea that B.C. Hydro makes its decisions — and in this case it looks very obvious, very obvious indeed, that regardless of the hearings and data and opinions that are expressed about the environment.... I would certainly, cautious as I am with my personal finances, willingly bet any member of the Legislature right now, 10 bucks....

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: That's part of the 10 per cent that I lost in my income since I came in here.

But the Revelstoke Dam will be built. The reason I feel so sure that the Revelstoke Dam will be built is that we have this kind of statement from Hydro at this stage in the game that, on an economical basis, the Revelstoke Dam is the cheapest way to meet the increased power that will be required in the early 1980s. The statement by Hydro — or at least the press release from Hydro.... I'm sorry that Mr. Speaker's out of the House because apparently press releases are just the same as reports in the press, according to the rules of the House, and I am sure that ministers will be very disturbed to hear that interpretation which I was given in question period.

But at any rate, although Hydro said in a press release that the statement of policy is intended to be a basis for continuing discussion between Hydro and other individuals concerned "about possible impacts from the development, " it seems to me that the economic and financial factors outlined in the latest statement by Hydro clearly show that Hydro has decided that that is the next development that has to go ahead. It says as much in some of the remarks that were issued.

For example, Mr. Chairman, I am quoting from the Vancouver Province of today: "Hydro says that additional power will be needed in 1981, but the Revelstoke project is scheduled to come into operation in September, 1982, the earliest possible date if permits are granted and construction is stated in 1977." We're halfway through 1976, and Hydro is saying that construction will have to start in 1977 — on a $1 billion project, with all the kind of structural and environmental and social and just about every other kind of ramification that one can imagine.

I wonder if the minister could give us some inside information as to how involved his department has been with Hydro since he took office, for the simple reason that if the construction of a dam of this project is to begin within a year from now and we're still carrying out preliminary studies, it's very obvious that Hydro at least has decided that, indeed, the dam will be built. The people of British Columbia are going to witness the most blatant form of window-dressing in the next several months with public hearings that really will change nothing.

Now when the first publicity on this dam was announced on or around March 17, there were statements made by people with environmental concerns. Mr. Jim Walker, co-ordinator of the habitat protection service of the fish and wildlife branch, was of the opinion that Hydro was indeed rushing the project. He said that Hydro appears to be acting in good faith but concluded that it could only be a token gesture. The reason it could only be a token gesture was that tenders were to be called in December of this year — we're already into May — and that construction would begin in 1977. Again, I won't take a lot of time of the House, but various other persons with environmental concerns expressed the same point of view. As I say, I'm not in a position to go into some of the specifics of the report that was released yesterday, because I can't get my hands on it. There are no reports available — no copies of the report available for the MLAs. If I may, Mr. Chairman, use press reporters' interpretations of the report that they were given, I think....

AN HON. MEMBER: That's fair, Scotty.

[ Page 1861 ]

MR. WALLACE: Oh, I'm just trying to be precise and fair. With my deep consideration for the staff in Hansard, I'm trying to make it very plain from which I quote. I'm quoting from today's Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Just give us the reference.

MR. WALLACE: But in relation to the point that I'm trying, despite interruptions.... I'm trying to find out to what degree the new Minister of Environment and the new Department of Environment were consulted at the earliest possible moment after assuming office regarding the plans for the Revelstoke Dam. Or has the minister, as a kind of a fellowship almost, just been told by his cabinet colleagues after the event, or past the point at which substantial decisions can be reversed?

There is this very substantial difference of opinion between Hydro and the B.C. Energy Commission as to the rate at which demand for electricity will increase in the next few years. B.C. Hydro has forecast, and again I'm quoting from the newspaper's interpretation of the report of Wednesday, May 19:

"B.C. Hydro has a forecast of 9.2 per cent annually for the next 11 years, whereas the B.C. Energy Commission, in a study last year, predicted a 7 per cent growth rate, and later on the provincial Department of Economic Development reviewed these forecasts and concluded that the growth rate would be 7 per cent."

The minister, presumably, was the Minister of Economic Development, but it states here, and I wish to be complete and fair: "The government department subsequently qualified its findings by saying that some additional allowance might be required to reflect the uncertainty in the forecasts."

While on the surface the difference between 7 per cent and 9.2 per cent may not seem very much when we're dealing with kilowatts of energy and millions and billions of dollars and the time factor, it's quite obvious that if the lower growth rate is accurate, then the necessity of having the Revelstoke Dam functioning by 1982 could be delayed further down the road. When we're dealing with a combination of enormous amounts of capital, much or all of which presumably will be borrowed at substantial interest rates....

AN HON. MEMBER: All of it.

MR. WALLACE: "All of it, " the minister states. I appreciate your comment, Mr. Minister. I need all the help I can get over here because I have, as you know, no other members in the party; so if you'd like to help me get through these comments, I'm most appreciative.

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): You're better than all the rest, Scotty.

MR. WALLACE: Really, there's getting to be a bit too much levity here, because this is really a serious issue and public reaction is asking whether the Department of Environment is just some kind of figurehead department that kind of gets dragged along by the heels after the other departments make their decisions. With these sums of money and such a massive project and some uncertainty about electricity requirements, I think it's fair to ask exactly what role the minister and his department are playing in this one particular project which is of such a massive dimension. The comptroller of water rights, I believe Mr. DeBeck, has said that he'll be holding hearings and that anyone who is concerned will have an input.

I just have to keep coming back to the fact that if tenders are to be called this year there must have been a great deal of planning already gone into reaching this point of almost getting to the point of calling for tenders. If construction is to begin next year, people would have to be very gullible and naive to assume that with all this preliminary work and expense and planning, anybody protesting at a hearing in Revelstoke will ever change anything. If that's the case, I think it seriously puts in question the credibility of this minister's department. The only saving grace might be the fact this his department was already created after the basic decisions had been made. Even if that is the case, as far as the minister is concerned, it certainly doesn't do this government any credit to try and fool the public that it is seeking input and that it is interested in listening to environmental concerns when, in point of fact, the basic decision has already been made that the dam will be built and it will start in 1977.

Perhaps the minister would care to answer that one and we can go on to one or two other points. I'm also very interested if the minister can tell us what discussions, if any, have taken place with neighbouring governments, particularly the United States, as to the sale of water. We all spend a great deal of time talking about copper and coal, and rightly so since they're very important resources from which we hope to derive revenue.

What about the very basic matter of water itself? From my reading I'm told that one-third of Canada's water run-off is in British Columbia. Someone recalled for me the other day the fact that the very eminent British Columbian, Dr. Gordon Shrum, said that if we sold water to the Americans at 7 cents a ton, we would get $70,000 for every man, woman and child in Canada every year. There has not been much recent discussion about the whole question of water and the fact that in the United States scientists and ecologists are expressing some real concern that

[ Page 1862 ]

there will be inadequate supplies of water in some very highly populated areas of the United States.

I wonder if the minister, or any of his department, or any member of the cabinet, has had any discussions or has been approached or requested to have discussions with the United States in regard to the possible sale of water by British Columbia.

The minister wasn't in the House at the time, some years ago, but I certainly know that the former Social Credit Premier was most aware of the immense value of that basic commodity, and it was certainly never the policy of the former Social Credit government to consider the sale of water south of the border.

There have been all kinds of recent studies, even by the CIA, talking about climatic changes and the minimal diminution by 1 per cent of the surface temperature of the earth, causing droughts and famine and widespread disasters. And for as much trouble as the CIA has been in recent years, I think this happens to be one of the studies that makes a great deal more sense, or at least justifying the study makes some sense.

I wonder if, when we're talking about damming of rivers and the best possible use of water, the minister could also give us some information as to whether the sale of water has ever been discussed.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, I'm most pleased to answer the member for Oak Bay's question.

Regarding the proposed dam at Revelstoke, the Department of Environment has been active with Hydro through the Environment and Land Use Committee secretariat, basically through the secretariat. They have worked in conjunction with Hydro; they advised Hydro as to the types of studies which were necessary, and they set guidelines for the studies.

The report you referred to was released by B.C. Hydro yesterday, rather than the Department of Environment. I understand we received our copy yesterday, as well as the press — so we're not too far ahead of the press relative to that. We received it yesterday.

The public meeting is to be held June 21 at Revelstoke, under the authority of the comptroller of water rights, under the Water Act. In addition, he will be assisted at the hearings by a staff member from the secretariat who will be preparing a separate report to the Environment and Land Use Committee on the matter, particularly those relating to a socio-economic nature which are not covered by the Water Act.

The persons who will be present and who wish to offer their opinions will not be restricted by the Water Act, as perhaps the comptroller may find necessary, and the member from the Environment and Land Use Committee will act as an assistant, if you like, although it would not be assistance from a legal point of view, but he certainly will have a lot to do in that.

In addition to this, and it's not necessarily tied in precisely with the question, we have hired an internationally recognized civil engineer, Mr. Wendell Johnson, who is the former chief of civil works, United States Corps of Engineers. He was retained to advise the comptroller of water rights on technical matters relating to the safety of the construction of any proposed dam, particularly in the Downey slide area. And we have made particularly good use of the Environment and Land Use Committee people in co-ordinating some of these studies with Hydro. But we have not reached any agreements with Hydro, nor have we had any discussions with Hydro specifically on this Revelstoke project in advance of their report or in advance of the hearings.

The sale-of-water question: we have not been approached since coming to office by any American representatives for the sale of water. I understand that over the past couple of years some approaches were made from various people in the United States. They had asked for studies to be prepared about possible reservoirs in Canada, and this was rejected by the government of the province — the concept was rejected. There was a suggestion that it should go to the IJC for possible study, and that concept was rejected as well. One reason the concept was rejected...the idea of building massive dams for the storage of water was rejected out of hand, and the Department of Environment has not been approached by anyone about the sale of water, at least since we have come into office.

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): Mr. Chairman, last night the minister suggested that the question of Sturgeon Bank and the pollution of the lower Fraser area was a major topic of discussion between himself and the hon. Romeo LeBlanc, who visited Victoria last week, and that he was planning to meet with the property owners adjacent to Sturgeon Banks in the Fraser delta area.

One minister also indicated that the federal government is interested in sharing acquisition costs of important land adjacent to the Fraser estuary, although no commitment has been forthcoming yet from the federal government. Though there is a precedent for federal-provincial sharing of land acquisition costs to protect migrating salmon in the Adams River area where the federal and provincial government shared costs of adjacent land on the Adams River.

The minister also suggested at the close of his remarks that he intended to give the federal government some time to reflect and advise, and if they don't participate in land acquisition costs then he very well may have to proceed on his own. But I'd

[ Page 1863 ]

like to know, Mr. Chairman, just what plans the minister has in that area. Does he plan to impose an immediate moratorium on development in the Fraser estuary until the federal and provincial governments have had a chance to develop a plan of action to restore the water quality of the lower Fraser and to improve the viability of the estuary?

The minister does have the power to impose a moratorium on development in that area under, I believe, section 6 of the Environment and Land Use Act. Because of the incalculable value of the region, he should have no hesitation whatsoever in imposing a moratorium on that area regardless of the short-term delays that may be experienced in the industrial, transport and residential projects that have been proposed for the delta. After all, that estuary is one of the most important in the world in terms of the life it creates and sustains. I would like to quote some comments from the final report of the airport planning commission for Vancouver International Airport on the value of the Fraser River estuary. This is on page 46 of that report:

"The Fraser River estuary and delta represent an area unique not only to British Columbia but also to Canada. The land is rich and extremely valuable for agriculture. In terms of the factors affecting present-day food supply and demand, it may, indeed, be almost priceless. The saltmarsh and intertidal zone are important for feeding and rearing areas for juvenile salmon, herring and other commercially and recreationally valuable important fishes.

"Some idea of the inherent value of the estuary may be gathered from the fact that the annual adult salmon resource of the Fraser River is estimated to average about 10 million fish. Of this total, about 2.5 million spawners produce an annual commercial catch of about seven million fish, an annual sport catch of about 120,000, Indian food fishery of 170,000. The commercial catch is valued at $73 million, with a net value to the province of $37 million, 1973 prices. In addition, the Fraser River salmon have a total annual recreational value of about $200 million to this province. and the potential for the Fraser River resource has been estimated to be about 24.5 million fish.

"'The saltmarsh and intertidal zones of the estuary and delta also provide habitat highly utilized by waterfowl, shorebirds and mammals for feeding, rearing and resting, et cetera. The area supports the largest concentration of wintering waterfowl and shorebirds in Canada and as well, a number of migratory birds moving between Asia, North America and South America. The wildlife of the area represents a significant recreational and educational resource of a steadily increasing value."

And that was from the final report of the airport planning committee on Vancouver International Airport.

I know that the minister himself has lived for some time in the area. He's spent most of his life living in the Fraser delta, in the Richmond area, and so have four generations of the Skelly family. That area is extremely important to the minister, I know, and my family. The report says it's a priceless area and an area that we can't afford for much longer to leave to communities, to industry and to government...to destroy that area of the province by cutting down the area of the estuary, by poisoning it with toxic chemicals, biological contaminants and other things. I'd like to just quote some statements from the press recently, especially statements deriving from the Westwater lectures that concern the impact of development in this area of the Fraser valley — one from The Vancouver Sun of February 25, 1976, by a geologist writing in a federal government publication Geos, where he says: "The flows of the Fraser River have been so tampered with by humans that damage to the Fraser delta is probably irreversible."

Another — again tests by the Westwater institute at UBC — this from the Victoria Times dated January 31, 1976:

"Areas of the Fraser River are unfit for drinking, swimming, even boating or irrigation, because of high bacterial levels. Findings of a three-year study show concentrations of trace metals are approaching the threshold of harm for aquatic organisms in the Fraser River."

And again quoting the same article:

"The water at Hope is marginally drinkable, but by the time that the river reaches Mission it's even unfit for swimming. At the Pattullo Bridge in New Westminster the bacteria count had risen so the water was not safe for any use whatsoever. Improvements further downstream were sufficient so Annacis Island and Garry Point are listed as marginally acceptable for non-contact recreation and irrigation, but the counts shot up again below the Queensborough Bridge to the no-use level."

That's the situation with regard to the pollution of the lower Fraser valley.

And the Pollution Control Board, which comes under the jurisdiction of this minister's department, is the subject of special concern by the Westwater institute and is singled out for blame by the Westwater institute for the present condition of the Fraser River — and, again, I'm quoting now from the Urban Reader magazine, which is published, I believe, in Vancouver.

"The provincial government's pollution control branch is subject to some of the

[ Page 1864 ]

severest criticism."

Again, this is from the Westwater institute.

"Critics of the agency claim that the pollution control branch takes an engineering rather than a biological point of view when reviewing applications for effluent emission permits. This means, the critics argue, that the agent is merely concentrated with how much the river can dilute. If the quantity of pollutant, after an initial zone of dilution, is below the prescribed level for acute toxicity, the branch will issue a permit without taking into consideration the importance of the food chain's ability to reconcentrate those previously diluted toxic substances."

So the pollution control branch seems to be singled out especially for blame for the poisoning and the amount of toxic chemicals and biological contaminants in the lower Fraser River and the estuary area. My question to the minister, in view of the irreplaceable value of the lower Fraser and its estuary, and in view of the immediate danger to the estuary from industrial, residential and transport developments, is: will the minister take an initiative to protect this area from destruction by adopting the principal recommendations of the ecological subcommittee of the Vancouver International Airport Planning Committee? That recommendation is this, and again this is on page 5 of the ecological subcommittee's report:

"Effective immediately, construction of all major developments such as those presently proposed for situation on, or use of, the Fraser estuary or delta should be deferred for a period to be defined. Specifically included should be the expansion of Vancouver International Airport as presently proposed.

"Furthermore, during this moratorium and before any further major development is permitted to take place, a comprehensive policy should be prepared for both the management and the protection of the Fraser River estuary and delta as an ecological unit."

Does the minister intend, in view of the irreplaceable value of this estuary and the lower Fraser River, to take immediate steps to impose a moratorium on all development in that area until a comprehensive policy has been established?

MR. G. MUSSALLEM (Dewdney): Mr. Chairman, with all this talk about trouble that the Fraser River is facing, I'm sure the Fraser takes very little attention to it and rolls merrily along.

This is a great river. It is considered to be one of the cleanest rivers in the North American continent or Europe as of this day. All this information from obscure reports bothers me a great deal, because this is a great heritage of British Columbia. It is one of the finest of the great rivers of the world, and one of the cleanest as well.

It's polluted to some extent, yes, but not by industry and not always by man — sometimes by nature. But the river and its great ecosystem takes care of all these problems without blinking and, as I say, rolls merrily along.

I'd like to quote to the hon. member the statements by Dr. Fox of Westwater fame, when he says:

"The lower Fraser River indicates the estuary is relatively unpolluted, says Dr. Irvine Fox of Westwater Research Centre in the University of British Columbia. Fox said it shouldn't be assumed that industry is the major polluter. In fact, homes and agriculture are materials which can have pretty serious effects when they get into the water system."

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Read that again!

MR. MUSSALLEM: Shall I read it again? I think once is enough.

Mainly what is said is that we should use these things in context and in judgment. The river is but one thing. We talk about industry, but do we realize that the greatest polluters are just the individuals? If we could put a clothespin on our nose and stay right here and never move again and stop breathing, pollution would come to an end, I think, but nature would still pollute. It's part of the system of life.

Let's not get so excited and so vibrant just when someone says we're polluting. We refer to people as polluters — we are all polluters — but I think our system in British Columbia, our Pollution Control Board, started by this government in 1956 and continued on through various Acts, is the strongest of any state or any province in Canada.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Which other ones did you look at?

MR. MUSSALLEM: At several. For example, an inventor in British Columbia developed a system of purifying sewage by a certain type of coal — I'm not sure exactly about this, but you've all heard about it. Now that system is not acceptable to our Pollution Control Board, but it is acceptable to the pollution control board in Washington and is being used there with our coal.

I think we should use it here because it could serve a great purpose to homes and to condominiums, for sewage purposes, which could be developed for the use of our people. I think the Pollution Control Board should take notice of this. I think they should make it possible for people to use a system that we invented here in British Columbia. I think it is utterly

[ Page 1865 ]

disgraceful that we will not consider it. I think that the Pollution Control Board's too tough. I think they ought to be loosened up a little bit in this respect.

Our hon. friend from Alberni (Mr. Skelly) talks about the Fraser River salmon. Does he know that the Fraser River salmon was at the lowest ebb in 1931, and is at its highest productivity at the present time? How do you reconcile this with pollution? The fishing's getting better. The structure of the river is getting better. Let us use some judgment. Let us not always be yelling pollution unless we know what we're talking about. Listen to Dr. Fox, read the right story and understand. I have many times....

You hear these stories of pollution. I'll get back to my town, some school children will come to me and say: "Mr. Mussallem, we're told that the Fraser River smells and is filthy and polluted." Well, I take them down to the river. I take a glass of water out of the river. I sit it on the fender of the car on the wharf. Now look at the water and let that sit for 10 minutes. Let the solids settle.

Interjection.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Now you see they.... My friends.... Mr. Chairman, can you see the twisted, convoluted attitude of some people? They can't get their thinking above their waist, but I tell you I can.

The solids are the silt that comes down the river. Silt — you understand what that means? S-i-l-t. It comes down the river from the gravel bars up above Prince George on the way down and that's what it is. Let that settle and I'd drink the water anytime, and I don't know what we're talking about. The river is reasonably clean, as clean as it ever will be, because nature pollutes, not only man and the fishing is good. It never was better.

You talk about the estuaries. There is pollution in some areas. We've heard of some areas not fit to go swimming. Sure, I agree with that. Around New Westminster, I'm sure you wouldn't want to swim in that water with the sewage outfall there, but the river looks after all this. I only say that I do not encourage pollution, but I say you must use judgment, plain common judgment, in these matters. It is very important to understand that we are all polluters, but we're not going hog-wild. We're being sensible and this government's always been sensible in this regard.

Please, gentlemen and ladies, consider and be sensible when you make these statements because it upsets people who do not know. When you read things, do not read them out of context. Listen to people like Dr. Fox. Listen to people who understand. The Fraser River's a great river. It's a clean river. It's a beautiful river and we should be proud of it and not knock it. I think it's a great mistake.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: My very knowledgeable friend from upriver, thank you very much. Dr. Fox has been mentioned and Westwater, UBC. I suppose when you read a report of any kind, you can take out of the report what you want to put in a report. Quoting from the report, he said: "Generally speaking, the Fraser is in remarkably good shape considering the insults man has given it over the years." Certainly man is the culprit in this.

The Annacis Island treatment plant comes under considerable comment from many, many people. In 1971, the Pollution Control Board issued the Greater Vancouver Regional District a permit to discharge primary treatment effluent into the Fraser, and, after a public protest, the cabinet ordered this permit to be upgraded to meet secondary treatment standards. The Greater Vancouver Regional District appealed this order on the grounds that the Fraser could take care of it, could assimilate primary treatment sewage without any deterioration of the water quality.

The Environment and Land Use Committee secretariat has convened a group of experts from the federal, the provincial and regional levels of government and the University of B.C. The major pollution problem appears to be the release of toxic materials, and that task group is presently examining several alternatives for controlling the discharge of such materials, the controls at the source, the treatment and dispersal outside the Fraser estuary. We expect to receive a report from them within a couple of months.

The member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) mentioned comments made last night regarding a meeting. I said that I was meeting soon with the major landowner. In this case it's the Grauers, the major landowner in the Sturgeon Bank area. That meeting is to be held on the 29th. I can't predict what the outcome will be. We spoke with the hon. Minister of Fisheries, Romeo LeBlanc, in Victoria as I mentioned. As I said yesterday, we did spend a considerable amount of time discussing Sturgeon Bank particularly. I had previously discussed the wisdom of acquiring Sturgeon Bank with the Minister of Environment federally, Jean Marchand, when I accompanied Mr. Marchand to Kelowna one evening. Mr. Marchand at that time exhibited some interest in Sturgeon Bank. We have since communicated with him, advising him that we feel it is a top priority item and we'd like to get some cooperation.

The Adams River was one example we cited. The Adams River is being protected now. The federal government is sharing on, I believe, a 50-50 cost-sharing programme. We have suggested, perhaps somewhat boldly, to the federal government that Sturgeon Bank serves the country as well as the province and that we would be interested in perhaps an 80-20 per cent split if they would agree to that, but that hasn't been welcomed with the excitement

[ Page 1866 ]

we had anticipated. But we do expect to hear from them soon.

We have approached them directly, and the Hon. Mr. LeBlanc said that they certainly would offer it some consideration. In discussions with the minister we discussed the salmon-enhancement programme, and I suggested that while it may be very, very wise to spend public funds to improve the salmon resource by way of creating various artificial hatcheries and spawning grounds or whatever, we can't overlook that which is provided us by nature, particularly such areas as Sturgeon Bank. As I said, if we failed to get any positive response from the federal government relative to sharing in the cost of acquiring the property, certainly it will be incumbent upon the province to attempt to take the necessary action alone.

The desecration of the Sturgeon Bank area is not at this time occurring. There was an agreement — I suppose a gentlemen's agreement of some kind — between some of the landowners and the provincial government previously that no further filling would take place. I must say that some of the landowners are becoming a little bit impatient. They would like some very definite action and they would like to have their problems, as they see them, solved. I hope that the meeting on May 29 will be at least a step in that direction.

A possible moratorium on all major development is not contemplated at this time. I appreciate it's been recommended by several groups, but we would certainly oppose major developments if, in their impact studies, it appeared that indeed they would contribute to the deterioration of the estuary. We believe that we would have a fairly strong voice in that area, and we could let our position be known. We do have statutory powers, of course, under various Acts which could make it either very difficult for some people to develop areas, or impossible for them to develop areas. Of course, we must hesitate in using statutory powers improperly or indiscriminately.

The Fraser, of course, is a vital artery in the province of British Columbia. The salmon harvest, along with the other services the Fraser provides.... I would think that any government in the province of British Columbia, if it were at any time able to really clean up the Fraser — even more so than it is in its present condition — clean it up the way many people would want, would have indeed accomplished a very, very large contribution to the betterment of the province of British Columbia.

I agree with the member for Port Alberni (Mr. Skelly). His points, I believe, are quite well made, and I think the information he has presented is generally agreed on by many people who have studied it. We have looked at this. The secretariat people have studies underway relative to the Fraser in different specific areas. The Fraser River estuary is very much on the minds of the Department of the Environment. A presentation was made today on the Fraser by SPEC, which I had the opportunity to attend. We had a brief discussion on that and some information was presented.

Certainly the Fraser River estuary is very definitely a priority consideration of the Department of Environment.

MR. SKELLY: I hope that the Minister of Environment doesn't take the advice of the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem). It seems that he has been drinking too much water out of the Mission River system which is, according to the colleagues of Dr. Fox, undrinkable at that point.

HON. E.M. WOLFE (Minister of Finance): He looks pretty healthy.

MR. SKELLY: He looks pretty healthy, but his statements don't sound that healthy.

I think that the Fraser River is an area of grave concern, and authorities other than Dr. Fox, and authorities I think that Dr. Fox concurs with, have said that there are severe problems in particular areas of the Fraser River. I think that the member for Dewdney took some of my statements out of context. There are areas of the Fraser that are able to clean themselves. There are other areas that are severely contaminated and immediate action is needed, particularly in those areas. I'm not saying that industry is the main polluter; I named three polluters: residential developments — in other words, people — industry, and government. In fact, the British Columbia government and the federal government could be considered some of the main polluters in that area.

I think it's important, and I'm pleased to hear that the Minister of Environment is considering the lower Fraser and its estuary as an item of major importance for his department. I would like him to consider the idea of a comprehensive moratorium on that area, and a comprehensive policy for the development of the lower Fraser River and the Fraser estuary as a single ecological unit.

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of points that I would like to raise with respect to my own constituency, and one relates to Port Alice. The minister is probably aware that a model has now been built of the community, and studies are being done with respect to simulating weather conditions and how they would affect the mountainside behind the community of Port Alice.

I understand also, Mr. Minister, that the council of the community of Port Alice will be meeting this Friday with the people who have built the study and

[ Page 1867 ]

the models, and have done the work on the model itself. Presumably the council at that time will be informed as to what sort of actions should be taken in order to alleviate any further slides, or the possibility of further slides in that community.

I would just like to have the assurance from the minister at this time, Mr. Chairman, if the report indicates it is urgent that work be undertaken immediately so as to avoid future slides in that community, that work will be started this summer and this fall.

I would like to congratulate the people who have built the model itself. I think they have done this in very short order and apparently have been able to conduct all the necessary tests in short order as well. But what I am looking for now on behalf of the residents of Port Alice is some commitment from the government and from the minister that if it proves out that there is urgency with respect to possible future weather conditions there and the possibility of future slides, work will start immediately upon completion of the study that is now being carried out.

The second point I would like to raise relates to the situation at Alert Bay. Last year when the slides were happening at Port Alice, Alert Bay was also affected. As I pointed out at another point in the House, the same publicity was not given to the situation at Alert Bay at that time — all of it went to other areas in the province that were afflicted. But Alert Bay has a problem as well. They have been appealing time and time again to the Minister of Municipal Affairs as well as your department for assistance in making necessary ditch changes and alleviating the problems there.

The problem is that at Alert Bay they have no money. The Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Curtis) could tell you that when one mill raises less than $900, a council is not able to undertake massive works which would involve preventing further slides in that community. I know that there is great concern on council that unless some work is done, another slide could possibly happen there. During the last slide there were two or three houses that were literally removed from their moorings. I think you recognize, Mr. Minister, that there could be danger to life and limb there.

They have no way of funding the necessary work that has to be done. I know that your deputy minister is aware of the problems that exist there and is also aware that funding for his department is really very limited to undertake problems of that nature. I know that Alert Bay is not the only place, but it seems to me that in a community like Alert Bay where they just virtually have no access to funds through their council...they can't do away with other projects — $900 a mill is what they raised there. It seems to me that some method has to be found to give them some assistance so they can start on a project there as well. I would appreciate the minister's comments.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I thank the member for bringing Alert Bay to our attention once again. I am assured by representatives in my department that, indeed, they are aware of the situation. I can advise you that we will give it further consideration because of your comments today, and find out where it sits on the list of priorities of similar problems.

The model is complete and operating, as was indicated on the Port Alice situation. Once the report is released and the alternatives are presented as to what should happen at Port Alice, obviously we will have to make a decision as to what part in solving this problem the department may play. The problems of many communities situated in perilous circumstances, with slides threatening and the tremendous strength and power of slides diversionary tactics may be practical under some circumstances — diversion channels or whatever they may prepare. I think it might be a bit premature to suggest what we may do without receiving that report, but I certainly will advise the member as to what the decision is of the report and what the decision of the department may be.

I hope, at least, that many of the communities have received reasonably quick response from the department when it comes to such problems, because we do recognize that while bureaucracy does drag on, in such instances we are dealing with people who are suffering to some extent — not necessarily personal, physical suffering, but certainly suffering in a social sense where their home has been either damaged or destroyed and they have been displaced and they are caused considerable social suffering. So we try to operate relatively quickly in that manner, and we will continue to do so.

I can't really offer the member a definitive answer on what will happen at Port Alice. I look forward to seeing that report, as do the technical people in the department. Relative to Alert Bay, I will certainly see that Alert Bay is given a bit more preferential investigation, at least at this time, into what their problem may be. If you wish, I'll see that you are made aware of the thoughts of the department relative to Alert Bay.

MS. SANFORD: Will the report be made public?

MR. H.J. LLOYD (Fort George): Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to add to what the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) said about the Fraser River. I think it's very important to remember that the salmon fishing is increasing, if anything. This is in spite of a great number of industrial developments that have taken place on the Fraser River. I'm sure that all

[ Page 1868 ]

members on this side of the House share the concern of any group that's concerned with the preservation of the delta, or the downstream end of the Fraser, but I think at the same time it's about time we had a moratorium on moratoriums. It seemed to be a favourite stunt of the last government to keep putting it back in for another study.

As the member for Dewdney has indicated, the Fraser isn't in all that bad a condition. Actually it's survived rather well. We've got three pulp mills in our riding alone, at Prince George, and it doesn't seem to have slowed the salmon down in any respect — they're still coming by in increasing numbers every year.

One of the other points that the member for Dewdney made in one of his earlier speeches...he mentioned a time-bomb, the time-bomb that the lower mainland is sitting on. That very delta that all the groups are so concerned about preserving could be washed right out to sea — it's just a matter of time.

There's been some talk of B.C. Hydro moving on the damming of the McGregor watershed to provide more downstream water for the Peace dam, but also to provide a level of flood control for the lower mainland — and it's something that's overdue. We've had some pretty major floods on the Fraser in past years. I can recall the flood of 1948 — it practically washed the lower mainland away. But that's only an indication of what could come. It's only a matter of time. We're just sitting waiting, waiting, waiting. It could even be this year — we've got one of the biggest snow packs we've ever had in the interior, particularly on the Nechako watershed. They've been letting as much water as possible out of the dam, yet Vanderhoof has practically been under water; Prince George has already reached the flood stage. And this is some three weeks to a month early, and we haven't even hit the run-off of the snow pack on the bigger hills.

So I think when any of those pressure groups, or anybody concerned with moratoriums...they'd better just take into account that Mother Nature doesn't wait for moratoriums. I think it's about time we got some proper flood control instigated. Certainly the McGregor is one of the ones we can look at. I think maybe the Clearwater may have to be dammed as well. Some of the members of the Greenpeace group protested quite violently in Prince George when it was suggested that the McGregor might go ahead. I wonder if any of these protest groups look at the alternates.

Shortly after the election, a group of people from B.C. Wildlife were quite concerned about the Hat Creek coal. "For heaven's sake, whatever happens, don't let them develop that Hat Creek coal. It's going to damage the environment." There's a great deal of concern on nuclear power generation — the dangers of it. Certainly it's becoming quite popular back east, and I think at some certain date when it's proven itself, it's something we'll have to look at. But in the meantime you just can't say: "Let's put a moratorium on this; let's put a moratorium on that." We have to move along. Life moves along. I think it's about time they had a real good look at the alternates. It's quite easy to say: "Let's wait. Let's put a moratorium on it." But it's a lot more realistic to develop a proper programme and move ahead on it.

One of the other things, Mr. Chairman, I would like to say is on some of the remarks that started off' the discussion on vote 48. The member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) was quite concerned that there hadn't been a new department created. He couldn't see why these different branches were in the one department. I think that's a very logical creation, the way it's been set up at the present time: the Department of Lands, the water resources, pollution control, planning and development, the Environment and Land Use Committee secretariat, waste management, and the Land Commission, all under the Department of Environment.

They said they didn't see too much difference from the last government's setup. I can see quite a bit of difference. One thing I would expect to get this year...we should be able to get some decisions — not moratoriums or handing it from one department to another. We should be able to get some decisions.

Last year I came down with a group from the Fraser-Fort George regional district. We were trying to get a Department of Highways subdivision freeze lifted. We had a very productive meeting — if that's possible — with most of the departments, the ministers concerned, except for the Lands department. Most of them concurred with the suggested subdivision regulation that the Fraser-Fort George were proposing, until we got to the Minister of Lands (Mr. R.A. Williams) . He said: "That's just fine. Whatever you decide with those fellows, that's just fine, but count the Lands department out — we make our own qualifications. We'll move ahead on our own." So I'm saying that in the last government there was only one real minister. I think there's going to be quite a bit of difference in this new government, and I've been very pleased to attend at a meeting between the various ministers concerned — Highways, Municipal Affairs, Housing and Environment — when we considered the same land freeze.

In the spirit of cooperation that came out of that meeting it was turned back to the department heads to bring some suggestions up. I feel sure that all the members of the Fraser-Fort George district will be a lot happier now that they are going to be able to get some decisions. It won't be handed around to one superminister to decide what role the government is going to play. It will be co-ordinated, and I think

[ Page 1869 ]

that's very important.

MR. SKELLY: How do you feel about the Moran dam, Howard?

MR. LLOYD: We had the same thing thing on a very small development in the Bear Lake community. We've had two sawmills placed in the area since this townsite was established. They've been waiting for the last three years to get a small agreement between the Department of Highways and the Department of Lands.

The member for Skeena (Mr. Shelford) spoke of his qualifications. I wonder where he was when they were waiting for a decision between the Department of Highways and the Department of Lands. That thing has been stalled for three years. With two small meetings there and the blessings of the ministers concerned, we got that development back on the road again. I want to thank the ministers who are involved on it. I think that's the way the departments should work there. Cut out this bureaucracy and red tape.

MR. D.D. STUPICH (Nanaimo): Mr. Chairman, just a few comments about several items that really could be dealt in the vote separately but really have to be considered together.

I just can't help but comment very briefly on something the previous member had to say, and that is the importance of making decisions. I agree it is important to make decisions, but I think in dealing with the environment it's important that the decisions be the right decisions. While it may be tough sometimes to live with a situation where decisions seem to be delayed for too long, we are dealing with the environment. I think it is important that we do take time and make a decision that we are going to live with, because we are going to have to live with it for quite some time once the decision's been made. I can appreciate the concern and I've had the same concern expressed to me many times.

On the matter of the relationship among the Environment and Land Use Committee, the Land Commission and the secretariat, my particular concern, Mr. Chairman, is for preservation of agricultural land. That could be dealt with under the Land Commission, but the procedure under the previous administration — to the best of my knowledge it is still the same one — is that appeals to cabinet with respect to changes in the Agricultural Land Reserve are dealt with by the ELUC, a committee of cabinet, which in turn relies on information from the secretariat.

I wonder whether that same sort of review is given to appeals that come before cabinet, whether or not the Environment and Land Use Committee first look at them and make some kind of a recommendation to cabinet and cabinet then deals with the recommendation of the cabinet committee, and whether or not the Environment and Land Use Committee itself actually refers these appeals to the secretariat for advice before presuming to make a recommendation to cabinet. I would hope that that same procedure is still being followed.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to congratulate the minister on something that he hasn't done up to this point, and that is that he has not changed the members of the Land Commission. I would hope that that is not something he just hasn't got around to doing. I hope it will be his policy to keep the Land Commission as it is. The original members of the Land Commission are still serving in that capacity, with the one exception that the original chairman did resign his position and the person who was manager, Gary Runka, was then appointed chairman.

I think the acceptability of the Land Commission in the eyes of the public generally is largely due to the individuals who were picked and who were named to that commission. I think they've done a tremendous job of explaining something to the people of British Columbia — something that was not understood when it was first attempted.

Certainly if I were to look at the membership of the Environment and Land Use Committee I might have some real concern about the future of the commission and the future of agricultural land itself. I note that among the members of the Environment and Land Use Committee are four ministers — the Hon. Hugh Curtis, the Hon. Don Phillips, the Hon. A. Fraser and the Hon. R. McClelland — all of whom took part at great length in a debate the purpose of which was to kill the Land Commission bill when it was before this House.

As a matter of fact, one of those members, the Hon. Don Phillips, in second reading spoke for 34 hours in opposition to this bill. I think that was a measure to some extent of the concern that the whole community felt about the way in which agricultural land was being preserved. There was real concern about what was being done and how it was being accomplished.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I can't quite hear the remarks of the hon. member for Hawaii, and I'm not sure what he's adding to this debate right now.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please do not be distracted.

MR. STUPICH: I'll try not to be distracted and you try to keep him just a little bit quieter.

But there was this concern, Mr. Chairman, and I accepted that. As I'm saying, I think it was the type of people who served on the Land Commission from the beginning who won the acceptability for this

[ Page 1870 ]

whole procedure by their actions as members of that Land Commission — won it to the extent, Mr. Chairman, that even as recently as about one and a half years ago the present Premier of the province was campaigning around the province in anticipation of an election and saying that one of his actions as Premier of the province would be to get rid of the Land Commission and to get rid of the Land Commission Act.

Later on, as his campaign progressed, and as he realized that it wasn't being opposed to the extent that he originally felt it was being opposed, he backed off from that position, until finally by the time the Social Credit Party got around to printing their election programme, their position with respect to the Land Commission had changed dramatically.

The first point with respect to the Land Commission in their election leaflet was to make the Land Commission workable and responsive; secondly, to prohibit the non-agricultural use of farmland but make the B.C. Land Commission responsible to the recommendations of elected regional boards — certainly a tremendous change in their position in a relatively short period.

Mr. Chairman, there had been a number of appeals put before the Land Commission, and in each case that I'm thinking of the people making the appeal are going to the next step, and that is appealing to cabinet. There was an appeal in the Richmond area that was turned down by the Land Commission and that is now before the cabinet. There was an appeal in the area represented by the hon. member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) that was recommended against, or turned down, by the Land Commission and has gone to cabinet. There were others — one in the Sooke area, for example, again where the Land Commission recommended against it.

I think, Mr. Chairman, this shows that the minister has not in any way tried to interfere with the work of the Land Commission. Not only has he not changed the personnel of the commission, but there seems to be plenty of evidence that he is allowing the Land Commission to arrive at its own decisions. As I complimented him for not having changed the personnel of the Land Commission, I want to compliment him for the way in which he has allowed the Land Commission to operate in the way in which it was originally intended to operate, in the way that it did operate under the previous administration.

I would like to have some assurance from him that he perhaps has some personal awareness of the need to preserve agricultural land in this province, where we have so little of it.

Just this morning I read in the paper where a member of the staff in the Department of Agriculture is warning farmers of the need to produce more food, that the population of British Columbia is going to expand. B.C. farmers will have to produce 50 per cent more food within 10 years if they are to meet population and income increases, the B.C. Federation of Agriculture was told today by Mr. Maurie King, Associate Deputy Minister of Agriculture.

Of course, Mr. Chairman, to do that we are going to need agricultural land. We have precious little of it. I've said in this House previously that agricultural land, second only to the kind of land that they have in Holland, is the sort of land that we have in the Lower Fraser Valley, including the Chilliwack area. It is important, Mr. Chairman, to preserve this.

To summarize what I said earlier, then: I'm wondering whether the procedure is still the same, whether when appeals come to cabinet it is the policy of the Minister of Environment to refer these first to the Environment and Land Use Committee for recommendation, whether the secretariat is involved before they will go to cabinet, whether he.... I'd like to have something from him as to his personal attitudes towards the preservation of agricultural land in the province of British Columbia.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I'm not absolutely clear, Mr. Chairman, what the procedure may have been in the previous government, but to the best of my understanding there has been no change in procedure. In the appeals we've had before us relative to the secretariat, they haven't really made that many recommendations, but they have handled it. They've processed it and researched it and brought information to us.

Similarly with the Land Commission itself — they very often make a recommendation rather than a decision in the proper use of that, and their recommendations, of course, are considered. The information they supply us.... I would say there have been no alterations in the make-up of the Land Commission, but I would say that no commissioners should consider their appointment to be permanent — not lifetime tenure. They're not schoolteachers. They are people who are engaged in other activities of society.

Interjection.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Well, depending on your interpretation of the phrase "not permanent."

Interjection.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Well, perhaps if you were standing you might be in proper order to ask such a question. I'll give you the opportunity in a moment. I'm missing most of what you're saying.

Interjection.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Deliberately. I'll give you

[ Page 1871 ]

an opportunity to ask a question....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I'd like to commend, at this time, the work of Garry Runka. He's been most cooperative and I think has worked very, very hard on behalf of the department and on behalf of the Land Commission. I think he deserves that plug.

The procedure has not changed, as we said. There are certain aspects of the Land Commission procedures, including some of the appeal procedures, which I believe require review. I think there is some red tape that may be cut, and I have been in communication with people who are working with the Land Commission. They've made some recommendations to me as well to try and speed up some procedures and to make appeal procedures a bit more easy for some of the appellants of the day so they are not necessarily totally frustrated by the bureaucratic system.

Agricultural land, of course, is vital. The concern, I believe, is shared by the majority of people within the province.

With reference to the ministers — Curtis, Phillips, Fraser, McClelland — I might say they have been invaluable in the committee and have offered excellent comments and recommendations when it comes to the appeals which have been before us, as have the other members of the committee. It's a vitally important committee, as has been pointed out by members on the other side of the House, the Environment and Land Use Committee. The decisions which are asked of the committee are not easy decisions, and I may say that the decisions which are made are not made on the spur of the moment. Very often, unfortunately, this adds to the frustration of those persons who want the decision, but very often decisions are out of necessity put over to a later date because further studies are wished to be made and understood.

The Land Commission has presented us with a tremendous number of appeals in the past few months. Some of the appeals had been around for a long time. It does take time, I appreciate, to get all the information together and then go through the procedures of municipalities or regional districts. Sometimes the persons who own the properties are not able to be contacted immediately and it takes a long time. Certainly we are criticized for not coming up with the decisions immediately. Very often it is procedural problems that we have really no control over. We're not going to interfere with the Land Commission's procedures. I don't really believe the Land Commission, under the chairmanship of Mr. Runka, deliberately make it difficult for anyone who wishes to appeal.

The Act itself is understandably confusing to a lay person because it is a complicated document; in fact, it is confusing to professionals as well. Some lawyers I have had offer me advice on the Land Commission, some within the civil service, have admitted that in their professional opinion it is a bit of a dog's breakfast in some aspects. They have made some suggestions, too, to streamline it to try and come up with a better understanding.

I think perhaps a lot of the problems which have been faced by the committee regarding the Land Commission and the Land Commission Act stem from the fact that very often the persons who are appealing, or making an appeal application, don't fully understand the Act and are going about it the wrong way. This adds to further complications as well. Add to that the reluctance of some regional districts and some municipalities in cooperating with persons who are appealing for exemption from the Land Commission; this adds further to the problem. We have communicated with some municipalities and some regional districts. We have asked them if they would please take a greater interest in such applications so that our decisions, when made, would be made with better information provided us. I don't know why some of the regional districts or municipalities are reluctant to cooperate. Perhaps they lack staff, perhaps they lack expertise — I am not quite sure. We have certainly advised them that we would very much appreciate more cooperation so the appeals need not be held up needlessly, and also that the decision made by more appropriate to the facts on hand.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, just briefly, again the member is following, I believe, the words of the member for Fort George (Mr. Lloyd) in saying that some of the appeals have been held up for quite some time. I know some of the appeals are held up for quite some time. I know some of the appeals are held up and take a long time to be dealt with, but I would just like to say once again that I think the important thing, Mr. Chairman, is not that they be dealt with quickly but that they be dealt with properly. If, for example, we are looking at an application from Chilliwack to take 1,000 acres out of the Land Commission reserve, well, it may be that that decision will be made positively. I certainly hope not in that particular instance, but I think the important thing in that particular case and in any case, large or small, in the province of British Columbia, is that we make a decision that we are prepared to live with for all time rather than a decision that is made in a hurry. I just can't emphasize that enough. I think the Land Commission and the Environment and Land Use Committee would be far more subject to criticism if they made wrong decisions.

I am not surprised, Mr. Chairman, that the legislation is hard to understand, that lawyers find it

[ Page 1872 ]

difficult to read, because, after all, it was drafted by lawyers and, of course, it is their job to confuse other lawyers. If we had had somebody else draft it, then it wouldn't be quite so difficult.

I am a little concerned about what the....

AN HON. MEMBER: He's attacking the Clerk. (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. STUPICH: There was another lawyer involved in that. The lawyer who was the original chairman of the Land Commission had some hand in drafting it as well. In any case....

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: Yes. Mr. Chairman, I'm a little concerned about what the minister said — that none of the members of the Land Commission should consider themselves permanent appointees. Of course, none of us can consider ourselves permanent in any sense at all, but it makes me wonder why he thought it necessary to say that at this point in time — whether he considers any changes.

There was one person added to the Land Commission when we...that is, when we had to find a replacement. We did add another member. We went about it by consulting the existing members of the Land Commission to see how they felt about a list of possible appointees. The point I want to make, Mr. Chairman, is that we really did our best to make sure that in naming the members of the Land Commission we would find people who would be acceptable to the general community.

We wanted the Land Commission to work; we wanted it to be accepted. We wanted it to make decisions, but we wanted it to make right decisions and decisions that people would understand. Perhaps if I look at all the other commissions that the government of that day appointed, I think the most acceptable one in the eyes of the community was the Land Commission.

[Mr. Macdonald in the chair.]

While members may be changed, and there may be good reason for changing some of them — I am not suggesting they should all be there permanently or anything like that — I just want the minister, if he is considering making changes, to be very careful about making these changes, to be looking at the kind of work that the commission is doing, and to consult with the members of the Land Commission before changes are made, in the hope that this commission will continue to do the kind of work that it is doing on behalf of the province of British Columbia.

MR. W.G. STRONGMAN (Vancouver South): Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak very briefly, through you to the hon. minister, with regard to a very mundane, boring topic but one that should be raised in the House and one that I have spoken with him about briefly an a number of times. That is the growing problem of disposing of industrial waste in the lower mainland of British Columbia.

Before going into that particular point, though, I would like to preface my remarks today by referring to my speech in reply to the Speech from the Throne, just after this House opened, in which I outlined at some length my concern on the fact that the economy of this province is basically resource-oriented in all of its aspects in that we have been almost totally unable to attract a solid base of secondary industry.

It seems to me that if B.C. is to continue to mature and to grow, we are going to have to have secondary industry in the lower mainland of British Columbia and in other areas. It's becoming increasingly more difficult, especially in the lower mainland, to get rid of industrial waste, not only in solid form but in liquid form. I would ask the minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, to consider the funding or the construction by the government of an industrial liquid waste disposal plant. I feel that it is absolutely necessary. It's becoming very, very difficult for people in converting industries, chemical industries and food-processing industries to get rid of waste that's 99 per cent water, non-toxic and yet still requires some treatment before it can be put into regular disposal areas.

I believe there are processes available — I think the minister is aware of them — that are economically feasible. I would urge that he consider this programme as a priority item if we are going to attract secondary industry into this area, and I think that we all realize the need for such a move.

Mr. Chairman, I will end my remarks by asking the minister if he has any future plans in this regard, and if so, would he be willing to share his opinion and his ideas with the House today? Thank you.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: To the member for Vancouver South: certainly I concur that the need for such a waste treatment plant is uppermost and certainly should be regarded as a priority. We have been approached by several persons who believe they have the technical knowledge and available equipment to develop such a project. They all seem to have the same problem. Their problem is money — at least that's what they tell us. They have a problem gathering the money. I understand the economics of the situation are a little bit difficult. There is an inability on the part of those persons putting together such a project to find out which comes first. They say they can attract customers to purchase some of the

[ Page 1873 ]

recycled contaminants, and they can do very well financially in that way. But they can't make any agreement until they have the plant, and they can't get the plant until they get the money for it.

I've discussed this project with the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips). I intend to bring it to his attention once again. As I said, we've received at least two, I believe, approaches from separate companies that would like to get going on this, but they seem to be constantly in trouble with the money end.

One company asked us if we would, through the Department of Environment, fund at least a percentage of such a project. We felt that if the Department of Environment were involved in the funding, we might be in a bit of a problem in that we would have to issue control permits for the plant, the treatment. It might be better if the Department of Economic Development were the vehicle through which some of the funding became available.

The Fraser River, which we discussed before, certainly suffers in large degree by contaminants which are placed in that water in various ways, contaminants which do not break up in the water and continue to cause considerable damage, contaminants which would and could be treated through such a plant and perhaps recycled in some way and used again.

I appreciate that a large number of industries, those which are involved with a great deal of solvents and such, have a major problem in trying to dispose of that. They have used landfills for disposal of some of these liquid wastes, and now we are seeing the leaching process taking place and we're seeing other problems being developed because of this disposal in that manner in years gone by. Certainly I would concur with the member for Vancouver South (Mr. Strongman) that all that can be done should be done to see that we do establish such a plant to process these waters. Not only would it be attractive from an environmental point of view, but it probably would attract industry and give us a shot in the arm of the economy.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to congratulate you on your elevation to that office. Although you came in second in election to Speaker, I'm pleased to see you are now chairman of this committee.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There's no voting on the sub-deputy in committee.

MR. SKELLY: But in view of the statements of the member for Fort George (Mr. Lloyd) and the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem), I'm particularly concerned, Mr. Chairman, about the role that the Minister of Environment is going to play as environmental advocate in this government, and particularly concerned about his role as devil's advocate to protect the air, the land, the water, the wildlife of this province from contamination by those departments and those people who would wish to minimize their economic impact by being allowed to pollute the air, land and waters of this province. I'm particularly concerned about that in view of the statements by the member for Fort George and the member for Dewdney that the Fraser River is in pretty good shape, which it isn't. It's in pretty bad shape right now.

In fact, some of the problems associated with the river, as I pointed out from experts from Westwater institute, are approaching the point where they're irreversible.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: Well, I think you should probably listen to it again. It's interesting.

There's an article in the metropolitan newspapers about the Lower Mainland Regional Health Unit where the chief health office for that board of health issued instructions to people in the Lower Fraser area not to put sand or materials dredged from the Fraser River on their gardens or in their children's sandboxes because that material was hazardous to their health. That came from the health officers of the Lower Mainland Regional Health Unit. If the Fraser River's in good shape, what's the reason for an instruction like that from one of the directors of a health unit in the lower mainland?

Also another thing that concerns me is that the Minister of Environment said that he would deal with developments on the estuary as they were presented to him rather than going the moratorium route. Rather than doing a detailed, comprehensive study of the estuary in the Lower Fraser as an ecological unit, he would deal with developments as they arose. It's this type of piecing-off of the environment, piecing-off of the estuary, that has created the problems that we're facing today. Each time a development arises it's considered strictly on the isolated merits of its case, and each time more and more of the estuary is removed, and, as a result, something like 70 per cent of the productive value of the Fraser estuary has been removed at the present time.

Sometimes people from the galleries who are sitting watching the proceedings here, sitting on the edge of their seats watching the proceedings, suggest that we ask questions to the minister. This one is directed, through the Chairman, of course, to the Minister of Environment. It's a member of his own constituency, somebody who has come down and watched the proceedings. They've asked me to ask the member if he allows his own children to swim in

[ Page 1874 ]

the Fraser, which runs by close to his home. Perhaps the minister would answer that question when he rises again.

I have only one further question to ask on this vote, Mr. Chairman, and it concerns the development of coal fields in the northeast sector of the province. Also it relates to the indecent haste of the government to proceed with the development, with those coal mining developments. And I can understand their indecent haste in view of the fact that those developments are close to the home riding of the Minister of Economic Development.

The fact is that many environmentalists are concerned about the fact that an impossible timetable has been imposed on the government agencies responsible for protection of the environment and responsible for the production of the environmental impact studies related to the coal developments in the northwest sector.

In fact, I understand that a deadline has been imposed upon those agencies of November 1, that they must come up with their environmental impact statements for the northeast coal sector, and, as far as I know, for the southwest sector as well. That deadline is much too close to assess the impact of the mining developments on animals overwintering in the area, to assess the impact on the environment through the winter months. There are climatological problems that are associated with mining. Also, it's far too soon to assess the total environmental impact, what's going to happen not simply on the mine site, not simply where the coal is dug out of the ground, but the fact that the coal that's mined in the northeast sector is transported over the provincial railway systems.

What's going to happen if you require double-tracking? What's going to happen where you require offloading for export or end use within the province? What's going to happen to environmental impacts in those areas? Are they going to have time to fully consider those before the November 1 deadline for environmental impact studies? In fact, it appears that the Minister of Economic Development — who is, according to the newspapers, the power behind the throne in this province — has forced the environmental protection agencies to do little more than what's called an eco-autopsy on mining in the northeast sector.

I'm asking the minister responsible for protection of the environment in this province, in his role as devil's advocate for the air, the land, the water, the living things in British Columbia: has a deadline been imposed on environmental impact studies for coal development in the northeast sector or in the Kootenays, and if so, what is the deadline? Will the minister insist that adequate time be given for a full and detailed study on the effect on the environment of this province of those coal developments, even if it means delaying for a few short months the bringing onstream of those coal developments? Will the minister insist that adequate environmental studies be done? Will the minister tell me if, in fact, the November 1 deadline — or a deadline — has been placed on environmental impact studies for those coal mining projects?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The member for Alberni, the deadline issue: the people who are engaged in the environmental studies are working toward a time goal, if you like. We have hired a great number of people in recent days by way of contracts — specific biologists, agrologists and other persons involved in different aspects — and they are working over a period of time which they and members of the secretariat determined would be a reasonable period of time for their specific study. Some of them are employed for periods of six or seven months, others for shorter periods of time relative to their own particular study, whether it's water, animal life, vegetation, or whatever their specific specialty is.

The November 1 deadline? I would not suggest there has been a November 1 deadline in those hard terms. They are working toward a time frame of some kind.

AN HON. MEMBER: Before the winter?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I would have to go over the contracts and see when some of them expire. Certainly there were studies to be undertaken relative to winter conditions, along with most other seasons, and winter will occur in that area very quickly. I reject the suggestion that any unnecessary haste is occurring because of the proximity of the Minister of Economic Development's (Hon. Mr. Phillips') home riding. However, that's a matter of opinion. We have had a tremendous number of persons, as I mentioned, hired in recent weeks and months to work through the secretariat for the northeast coal development. That will be quite a compilation of reports once it's in.

Would I let my kids swim in the Fraser River? I've been in the Fraser River many times. It may have had some harm; I don't know. I wouldn't recommend that anyone swim in that area. One of our members here did and he lost most of his hair, I understand, swimming in the Fraser.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): You got it all greasy.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Well, I guess it's the oil slicks that are in the river.

I wouldn't recommend it for anyone — not around the Richmond area, anyway. Of course, very often you can't get to the water.

I hope I answered those questions.

[ Page 1875 ]

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): I rise to speak in the environment estimates and wish to do so, well aware that the former second member for Victoria set a fine example to this whole House regarding concern over environmental issues. David Anderson was a first-rate and first-class spokesman on those issues, and as his successor in the second seat in Victoria I hope very much to be able to follow, to some small extent, the model that he set.

The coalition government has given us, Mr. Chairman, a Department of Environment with old functions and a new name. Many people in this province are concerned about the competence of the Minister of Environment, whose background is that of a radio hotliner. This is not ordinarily the background or profession that one would expect to see such a sensitive position fall to. My own background is in community organizing and community development, working for 10 years in Victoria, and the success of that is evident by my presence here.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We're on vote 48.

MR. BARBER: One of the very real tests of competence is that of leadership in a number of areas of sensitivity and some concern. I wish to put briefly, Mr. Chairman, to the Minister of Environment three questions. I wish to put to him three concerns about policy. I want to find out to what extent he's willing to exercise leadership and to what extent he's willing to exercise his influence as a member of cabinet, in determining the course of his coalition government in dealing with the problems of the environment as expressed in the work of the agencies of his own government. I want to find out what kind of leadership he is willing, himself, to undertake and what kinds of programmes he's willing to persuade others to undertake. One of the tests of competence is leadership. Those are the tests that we will be applying to this minister.

The first part of your policy that I wish to inquire about is whether or not the Minister of Environment is concerned about providing alternatives to the private automobile. In the great cities of the western world the private automobile downtown is doomed. It has no future — none at all. I want to know whether or not the Minister of Environment is willing to exercise leadership in his coalition government to persuade other responsible ministers to provide alternatives to the use of the private automobile. I wish to suggest again today — as I have done on previous occasions — one of them.

In every civilized nation in Europe, and increasingly in civilized provinces and states in North America, the private automobile downtown is being replaced by a system of recreational and commuter bicycle paths — recreational and commuter bikeways.

I would like to ask the Minister of Environment whether or not he has a policy and whether or not he supports alternatives to the private automobile in the great cities...

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Yes.

MR. BARBER: ...and whether or not, as a member of his cabinet, he is willing to attempt to persuade both the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) and the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Curtis) on their parts, in their jurisdictions, to commit that government to the expenditures of money for the construction of recreational and commuter bicycle paths throughout British Columbia, as an alternative to the increasingly destructive use of the private automobile. Will he say yes to that also?

[Mr. Schroeder in the chair.]

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: You have something else in mind. One of the things that many nations have in mind, having discovered that the bicycle is cheap, healthy, safe and efficient, is that that is a very worthwhile investment. I very much hope that the Minister of Environment, acting as a leader on environmental issues, will take the time and the trouble to find out that that is the case, and having taken the time and the trouble will make the case to his own colleagues.

Secondly, I wish to ask the Minister of Environment whether or not he's willing to take any leadership or exercise any initiative at all in the organized and systematic development of recycling facilities throughout British Columbia.

You may recall, Mr. Chairman, that it took us three weeks to get a commitment of money to the Greater Victoria Recycling Depot. After three weeks the minister agreed to come up with $10,000 for it. I congratulated him for it then; I congratulate him again now. What I want to make sure is that his initiative, or our pleasure, is not restricted just to one recycling depot in Victoria that happened to make a good case. I want to find out from the minister whether or not he is willing to exercise the same leadership throughout British Columbia and whether or not in particular he is willing to exercise that leadership regarding the waste products of the parliamentary precincts themselves.

The Minister of Environment has a moral as well as a political responsibility to raise these questions. He has a moral responsibility to lead the people into an understanding and to a concern about recycling of waste materials in all of British Columbia. The government itself has a moral responsibility to provide an example, and that's where the minister

[ Page 1876 ]

comes in. I want to find out from him what kind of example he's willing to provide. I want to know what kind of commitments he's willing to make, and I want him to know that if he provides neither example nor commitments he will not have been doing the job that the Minister of Environment is supposed to be doing. There is a question of leadership at stake. It is one of the tests of competence. We want to know what his policy is and what his position will be, and we are looking for results.

For two years running a private member in this Legislature attempted to persuade this Legislature, as I hope personally — and I hope others will join me — to persuade the Legislature to consider the establishment of a recycling corporation. This corporation would, under the aegis of the government, provide some of that leadership, provide some of those funds and set some of that example. I want to know from the Minister of Environment whether or not he's aware of the proposals for a recycling corporation and whether or not he's willing to undertake, as a leader in concern for environmental issues, any action on that proposal.

My third concern, and this is the final one that I wish to present today, Mr. Chairman, regards municipal waste composting. The member for Vancouver South (Mr. Rogers) made a very important suggestion on industrial waste disposal and recycling. Mine concerns municipal waste. I want to know whether or not the Minister of Environment is willing to go to the members of Treasury Board and to the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Curtis) and make a case and argument and win his case and argument.

An investment in the future is found every time we spend a nickel on recycling. This is a planet with limited and finite resources, and everyone knows it. This is a planet with limited and finite resources which is requiring us day by day to use more and more often those few resources left to us.

There is successful precedent for municipal waste composting in some 20 nations in the world, Mr. Chairman. In Kuwait, France, Spain, the United Kingdom, Holland, Israel, India, the United States, the Soviet Union, Rhodesia, Czechoslovakia, West Germany, Uruguay, South Africa, Japan, Greece, Norway, Puerto Rico, Thailand and Iran they are already investing in the future. They are already using municipal wastes. They are already using again what we were given once.

Those 20 nations have set an example. Those 20 nations have set a precedent. I want to know, Mr. Chairman, from the Minister of Environment whether or not he's willing to learn from that example and act on that precedent.

In Victoria, the riding I represent, we pump into the sea some 20 million gallons of raw sewage every day. We throw it away. Those nutrients can be used and used again. They can be used to replenish the soils of the Saanich Peninsula. They can be sold to the farmers to add to the humus that creates the food with which we feed ourselves.

In Europe that sewage is used and re-used. In Europe it is composted with organic waste from household garbage. In Europe it is sold at a profit. In Europe that profit is used to pay for the capitalization and the operating costs of these plants.

There is successful precedent, Mr. Chairman. I want to tell you about three of these precedents. In Wanlip, Leicestershire, in the United Kingdom, in a population of 280,000, in 1973 and 1974 the sale of compost and salvage material brought in £13,500, and in the next year £20,000. That municipal composting plant turned a profit, Mr. Chairman. Surely this is of some appeal to a private-enterprise government. It turned a profit and it turned those nutrients back into the soil. In Victoria we pump it into the sea — 20 million gallons a day.

In Worthing borough in the United Kingdom in a population of 90,000 the annual income from their sale of compost and salvage material amounted to £80,000. In Dumfries County Council, with a population of 28,000 two plants managed to turn a profit of £4,000. If the moral arguments don't have any weight, Mr. Chairman, if the ethical concerns about the future of the planet have no gravity with this coalition government, surely money does. They turn a profit. They make money on compost and sewage. They use the results to replenish the soil itself. They use the money to pay for the capital and the operating costs.

There is successful precedent, Mr. Chairman, in 20 nations in the world. In Canada so far there is nothing. Zero. We have zero results.

I want to ask the Minister of Environment whether or not he's willing to look at the record, to examine the facts. To send a team to those nations in Europe that have at present successfully underway composting plants that work and that turn a profit. Is the minister willing to even inquire? Is he willing to commission a study? Is he willing to look at the records and the documents? Is he willing to tell this House that he is prepared to invest in the future?

It is a waste, a scandalous waste that 20 million gallons a day of raw sewage go into this water. We could use it again and again. We could use it again; we could use it and make a profit. Again, surely that must appeal, if nothing else does, to the minds of the coalition government.

Let me conclude, Mr. Chairman, by making my point. We need three policy statements from the Minister of the Environment: we need to know whether or not he is willing to exercise leadership in providing alternatives to the private automobile; whether or not he is willing to exercise leadership in providing recycling programmes through British

[ Page 1877 ]

Columbia; and finally, whether or not he is willing to provide leadership to allow municipalities throughout the province to use again and again, as creative and civilized nations are doing now throughout the world, the waste products which so easily we give away at the moment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Yes, yes and yes, and with some consideration to the bicycles. Some of the rapid transit schemes are excellent, I think, as well, and could supply an answer to the problems.

There are two reports available on municipal waste treatment. I don't know whether you have them; if you haven't, I'd be glad to send them to you, specifically on municipal waste treatment.

I agree with some of your comments when you stayed on the aspect of environment. Your facetious remarks about coalitions and such, I think, perhaps took away slightly — but yes, yes and yes, generally.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, we've talked a great deal about the crucial importance of oil in our society. Yesterday the Premier talked of the meeting he had with other American governors. The most crucial aspects of making oil and its products available is the conflict between the economic need for the oil and the important goal of making sure that we don't get the oil at any cost, and that we don't ruin the environment in the process.

I notice that the Premier and some of his ministers are in caucus right now, but I'm glad that the Minister of Environment is listening, because I would like to just quickly ask a specific question regarding discussions that have taken place on the proposal by Trans Mountain Pipe Line to develop a superport at Prince Rupert and to develop a pipeline between Prince Rupert and Edmonton.

From the reports that are available, such a proposal has the support of Andrew Thompson, the chairman of the B.C. Energy Commission. The reports from Trans Mountain Pipe Line, particularly from the president, Mr. Hall, have said that an expanded pipeline could reduce the tanker traffic for Alaskan crude oil down the B.C. coast by 50 per cent.

Now I'd be very interested to know, first of all, from the minister if that's an accurate outline of the facts and figures by the president of Trans Mountain Pipe Line. The second question I would like to ask is.... The president himself has said that the only obstacle...in fact his exact words, as quoted on April 7 this year are: "The only obstacles are environmental, said Trans Mountain Pipe Line president Mr. Hall." In other words, he's put together, I understand, a group of companies which are prepared to embark upon the construction of a pipeline. The money can be put up and the technology is available; the statement he has made is that the only obstacle is environmental.

If providing such a pipeline will reduce the tanker traffic with Alaskan crude down our shores by 50 per cent, it would seem to me that's a tremendously exciting possibility...since we've all talked many times in the House. The present second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) has quite rightly reminded the House of the efforts of David Anderson in trying to bring to public attention the real dangers of large oil spills once these tankers come down the coast.

I wonder if the minister has given it any thought, since one of the fears expressed in the Prince Rupert area is, of course, that there are narrow waterways in the Prince Rupert area and Dickson Entrance. Environmentalists, or those who want to protect the environment, have said that tanker traffic, even in and around Prince Rupert, would be a danger to fish and to the water itself, which they are not prepared to accept.

But I wonder if the minister has given any consideration to a review of standards for Canadian inland waters so perhaps the conflict that I mentioned a moment ago could be resolved and we could indeed use Prince Rupert and a new pipeline to Edmonton as a means of reducing tanker traffic by 50 per cent and, at the same time, implementing these measures without damaging the environment in respect to the water and to the fish and to the other....

I understand that a representative from SPEC has said...and I'm quoting him from The Vancouver Sun on April 7 of this year. Gary Gallon said: "The waters along Dixon Entrance, through which the tankers would pass, and the Skeena River, on which Prince Rupert sits, are still relatively pristine and productive with fish and wildlife. We do not want them ruined by a massive oil spill."

Mr. Chairman, whether it's a question of highly developed technology to prevent oil spills, or whether it's a question of developing new techniques in the transportation of oil, the fact is that all these various factors come into the total appraisal of the situation. I wonder if the minister could tell us just what discussions his department has had with Trans Mountain Pipe Line. Does he accept the figures regarding the 50 per cent reduction in tanker use? Has he made any proposals to study the Canadian inland waters with a view to setting standards which would protect these waters from oil contamination?

The last point I just want to make is, I wonder if the Minister of the Environment could bring us up to date on the whole question of dealing with oil spills. We quite rightly spend a lot of time trying to find ways in which their incidence can be minimized or prevented, but they still occur. Sometimes they even occur in the most unusual circumstances right in the harbour of Vancouver on a bright moonlit night.

But anyway, when I talked earlier this afternoon, I mentioned about the overlapping responsibilities of

[ Page 1878 ]

different departments which presumably are somewhat intended to be co-ordinated by the Minister of Environment. I wonder if the minister could bring us up-to-date information on who pays for the cleanup when we do have an oil spill. There seem to be some incredibly complicated regulations. I understand, for example, the cleanup action, first of all, has to be authorized by the federal cabinet. It's not even capable of authorizing through one of the federal ministers. I give credit to this government, that it has attempted to persuade the federal policy to be changed. But there's an obstacle right there, and when there's an oil spill, people on the local scene are not very keen to incur considerable expense when they have subsequently to indulge in a series of bureaucratic procedures to try and get senior levels of government to pay up. I wonder if this government's had any success in persuading the federal government to relax the very rigid regulations in regard to the authorizing of expenditure to clean up oil spills.

Oil must be discharged from a ship, and we all know that there are many mystery oil spills where it's very difficult to determine where the oil came from. But all we know is that as far as municipalities in Mill Bay and Oak Bay are concerned, when the oil finishes up on our shoreline, we get stuck with the bill.

There's the foolish regulation that the ship from which the oil was discharged must be carrying more than 1,000 tons of oil. This regulation appears to be specifically directed obviously towards tankers, but all ships, whether they're tankers or ore carriers or lumber carriers, certainly carry oil as well.

The collision in the Vancouver harbour is an excellent example of how ships can cause oil spills, though they themselves are not essentially tankers. I'm referring to the "Sun Diamond" when it collided with the "Erawan" in 1973. The cost of that cleanup was $600,000 and 204 tons of oil were spilled, which is considerably less than the 1,000 tons which the federal government says the ship has to be carrying before it can be covered under their regulations to pay the costs.

Now I realize that the minister can't change federal regulations. I'm not suggesting that, but I would like to know what discussions or meetings the minister's department has had with the federal government to try and make the federal-provincial-municipal agreements more flexible, more realistic, in relation to the financial burden that the various levels can carry in trying to clean up oil spills, because it's quite obvious that such spills will continue, and it's unlikely in the light of human error and other reasons that they will ever become non-existent.

But I certainly want to recall for the House that municipalities can finish up with oil on the shoreline. They can't wait to get some distant decision from Ottawa days or weeks later. They go ahead and start cleaning up the mess and then months or even years later they're still trying to get some financial help in meeting that sometimes considerable expense. I wonder if we could hear what progress is being made in reaching better agreements on the cost of cleanup.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Some quick replies to the member for Oak Bay.

With the last question in mind, I agree with you that the jurisdictions are somewhat overlapping and the conditions for action seem to be needlessly awkward. We do have an organization provincially, the provincial emergency programme, which I believe needs to be improved somewhat and perhaps even tied in with the Department of Environment. There is unnecessary delay, I agree, particularly because of the restriction imposed by the federal government with minimum amounts of oil spills and so on.

The Department of Transport and Communications has been the main department relating to the Trans Mountain Pipe Lines where they have been discussing this. We are attempting to establish guidelines for such facilities as the ports and pipeline associated with such a project, and to review and evaluate the relative environmental prospects relating between the ports and the pipeline and/or tankers.

There are a few other technological developments regarding the transportation of oil in these tankers and the unloading. There is grave concern about travelling through narrow channels or our straits. There have been some major advancements in the technical world with offshore systems whereby the oil is taken from offshore through a pipeline, eliminating at least one danger, and that is going through a narrow strait near populations. I understand it is working very successfully in many areas of the world.

MR. WALLACE: Would this pipeline reduce the tankers by 50 per cent? Is that accurate?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I think you're looking fairly close, relative to our coastline at least. There is good reason to suggest that the companies may very much like to go the pipeline route. The pipeline apparently is not functioning at full capacity. It would be directed to where they need the oil in the mid-western United States around Chicago. It may relieve the problem for the people on the lower coast, but it may create a problem for the people on the northern coast or near Prince Rupert. But certainly it is a recommendation which has received a certain amount of reaction from within departments of government. Much of that reaction has been positive. Certainly the Environment and Land Use Committee secretariat is putting together information relative to the environmental aspects either of the port-pipeline

[ Page 1879 ]

and/or tankers, and a comparison of the two.

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): Mr. Chairman, first I would just like to take the minister briefly back to Revelstoke. The matter of the Revelstoke Dam was raised by the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace). I am very concerned about the tone that seems to be implied in the report that has just been released by B.C. Hydro. Reading from the press report, it reads in part: "As a result, detailed studies on Revelstoke have been underway for a number of years. No other project is sufficiently advanced that it could be brought into service by 1982; that is, there is no real alternative source to Revelstoke."

Mr. Chairman, I suggest that the whole tone of the actions of the B.C. Hydro is indicating that it is a foregone conclusion that this dam is going to be built. I would point out to the minister that the people who live behind the area that will be affected by this dam have been approached by representatives of B.C. Hydro regarding moving arrangements for taking them out of that area, not if the dam is built but when the dam is built. This is the approach that is being taken by Hydro.

I would urge the Minister of Environment to exercise his powers as a minister charged with the one most important factor that affects all of us and all departments and review the statistics the B.C. Energy Commission has brought in. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the difference in those statistics should be very carefully reviewed by the Minister of Environment — the difference in the statistics of the B.C. Energy Commission and B.C. Hydro. He must exert pressure to assure that we do not embark on some project that is going to have, or could have, a very detrimental effect on not only the area immediately surrounding the dam, but on the whole province. I would urge upon the minister to give some serious consideration to reviewing that situation and dealing with the minister in charge of B.C. Hydro in exerting a full study and inquiry into that situation.

My real purpose in rising today, Mr. Chairman, is to deal with the situation relative to the harbours of this province, and particularly the harbours on Vancouver Island. I think that we are perhaps all very much aware of the situation in these harbours. We have only to look right out here into the Esquimalt-Victoria harbour to see the situation that is being created. The major polluter is the logging industry — the bark from the logs that are sorted within those harbours. I would urge that the minister use his influence and use his very best efforts to move the logging industry in the direction of dry-land sorting where, in a very small area, comparatively, those logs can be sorted, because this is a very serious threat to the environment of this province and in the harbours where logging is being practised.

We have only to look at the report that was done by the Cowichan Estuary task force, and the recommendations they brought in. I think that is a very living example of the kind of thing that can be accomplished in a joint-use harbour where with strict controls you can put together the wildlife, the recreational and the industrial. But it has to be controlled, Mr. Chairman, and it's the duty and responsibility of the Minister of Environment to see that those overall functions are controlled.

Moving up, I want to go to a matter which I have raised to the Minister before, and that is the Ladysmith Harbour report. This is a very extensive report. The last time I spoke to the minister in oral question period he checked and did bring me some answers on this — that, in effect, nothing had been done.

I would refer the minister to this report, a very extensive study of the problems that face the Ladysmith Harbour. This harbour has been declared as a multiple-use harbour. Four major uses: logging, oyster-growing, marinas and the upland residential and recreational needs. The study has been acclaimed by local residents as being comprehensive. The recommendations have been discussed with the local authorities, the commission and the local association. It is waiting now for some action. It is waiting for the local harbour authority to be appointed and for some funding to be established, as has been recommended by the report.

It's been waiting for a long time. It took a long time to prepare this report; it's been going on for years. It was supposed to come down in September of 1975; it finally came in in the early part of 1976 and it was released. It's been discussed and there's still no action. The logs, according to the local press.... They've taken pictures of knee-deep logs in the recreational areas — the provincial parksite there, knee-deep with logs. The bark situation — the bark deposits from the logs that are being sorted there — is getting to the point of no return, Mr. Chairman. There is a need for urgency. I would request of the minister to give me some response as to when he is going to act, how soon this things is going to be initiated and how soon we can expect the harbour authority to be set up so we can get some action on this harbour.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The final report has not yet been released. My understanding is that the draft is still being prepared and it's expected to be released very soon. That's the report from our co-ordinator of environmental services, that the editing of the final draft is continuing at this time. Certainly as soon as that final report is made I can assure you that Ladysmith Harbour will receive priority position in resolving the issues that the report identifies.

[ Page 1880 ]

MRS. WALLACE: Can you give me any timing, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, on the release of that final report?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: We will release the report very soon after we receive it. I'm sorry, I can't tell you when it's expected to be received. He advises me they're editing the final draft at this time.

MR. W.S. KING (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Chairman, I wanted to raise a number of matters pertaining to the proposed Revelstoke Canyon dam. I'm sure the minister and the government would expect me to do so since I live on the threshold of that proposed project. I have quite a wide variety of concerns in respect to the construction of the Revelstoke Canyon dam. Some of them would be more properly discussed under the Department of Transport and Communications, I believe, as the minister of that department holds responsibility for B.C. Hydro as well. So I'll confine myself to the areas of interest that I believe are properly under the purview of the Minister of Environment.

First of all, Mr. Chairman, I would like to make an appeal to the Minister of Environment, a very serious appeal and certainly widely supported by virtually every organization in the Revelstoke area and the Nakusp area, and certainly, I believe, by the majority of citizens in that area. That appeal is that the date for the hearings currently set for application for the water licence which B.C. Hydro is seeking be set back so that more time can be provided for local citizens to familiarize themselves with the impact studies that have recently been released, and so that interested community organizations and individuals can adequately prepare themselves to study the impact report just released a few days ago by the B.C. Hydro and Power Authority, and consequently be in a position to make intelligent representation at those water hearings in Revelstoke.

I might point out that the notice of hearings indicates that the specific date set aside for that hearing is June 21 in the city of Revelstoke. I would point out to the Minister of Environment that this is the whole key to the project, that once the water licence is granted then the project, in effect, is a reality — the permission to dam that river is granted. Any initiatives on behalf of the fisheries, on behalf of the environment in general, on behalf of the local population in terms of the impact on educational requirements, on health-care needs and so on, are issues that are then to be dealt with after the fact.

I suggest that both from the Minister of Environment's viewpoint and his responsibility, and certainly from the interest of the communities involved, there should be no granting of an application until the impact on the communities involved and the necessity for any remedial action has been satisfied. Otherwise we are arguing from a weak position after the fact and with very little assurance that even the magnitude of the effects can be appreciated, much less dealt with in an intelligent manner to offset the adverse implication.

I want to point out to the minister, Mr. Chairman, that I have in my hands a report related to the Columbia River dam at Revelstoke. Involved in these documents, compiled in these reports is one undertaken by Howard Paish and Associates, environmental and resource management consultants, in July, 1974. That's a fairly cursory report dealing in a fairly superficial way with the anticipated implications on the project.

There has been some opportunity, both for myself as the local MLA for that district and other community organizations, to study that report and to draw some conclusions. But the latest two volumes of the Revelstoke Project Environmental Impact Statement, volumes 1 and 2, were received in my office in the buildings under date of May 17. I again draw to the minister's attention the heavy volumes and the dearth of material involved in these two reports. I ask him very seriously and very sincerely: is it reasonable, is it rational, is it realistic to expect citizens of the province, of those local towns and communities in particular — the wildlife groups, the city councils, the local school boards and hospital boards — is it reasonable to ask them to absorb and understand all of the very technical and very difficult material contained in these reports in an adequate fashion which would enable them to digest this material, to draw their own conclusions and to make sound recommendations to a water licence hearing which is being held in Revelstoke on June 21, just one month away?

I say that, realistically, the minister must agree with me that that is absolutely unreasonable. I am sure that the minister's staff is at the same disadvantage I find myself and my community organizations find themselves in terms of adequate time to study and digest this material and then compile submissions covering the matters and the commitment we feel they must have from the B.C. Hydro and Power Authority, from the wildlife branch, from all affected departments of governments as well as the Crown Agency, before we want to see some irrevocable commitment to this project.

I'm sure that the minister's staff, technicians and his people in the field support the need for a delay in that hearing so that adequate time can be afforded not only to his own field staff and departmental personnel but to that community and those community organizations that certainly require more time to make intelligent submissions to the water licence hearing on June 21 in Revelstoke.

I therefore request that the minister discuss with his cabinet colleagues the need and the wisdom for

[ Page 1881 ]

seeking a delay of at least three months in the water licence hearings so that we have time to fully understand, to fully peruse the technical date which B.C. Hydro has just released, in order to grant an adequate opportunity for intelligent representation to be made.

The B.C. Hydro and Power Authority, Mr. Chairman, has gone to quite great lengths to convince and to satisfy the local population that they are indeed interested in and anxious to involve the community in the decision-making on this project. Their public relations firm has held public meetings in Revelstoke. They have given assurance that they will be sensitive to the increased demands on local facilities which a vastly and significantly increased work force will impose on the city. They have indicated to us that they are going to be very sensitive to the need for expanded recreational opportunities to accommodate this large population influx. They have given an indication and assurance that they are sensitive to the threat of the fisheries that will undoubtedly flow from the development of the Revelstoke Canyon dam.

I want to say, Mr. Chairman, that if they are indeed sincere in asserting that interest and that sensitivity to our local population's needs, then the best demonstration would be in granting a delay in this hearing so adequate time is made available for local people to fully digest the reports that have finally been released, to develop their own submissions and participate in an effective and intelligent way in one of the key hearings surrounding the proposed development of the Little Dalles dam at Revelstoke.

I have just underlined a few paragraphs in this report which I have only had a brief opportunity to peruse. I wanted to just draw some of the statements contained in the report to the attention of the minister. If I can find my underlining here, I'll be in business. There is certainly reason to have grave, grave concern when we look at some of the statements contained in the report itself. If I can just find the articles I underlined here, I want to draw them to the minister's attention. Perhaps....

Interjection.

MR. KING: Pardon?

Interjection.

MR. KING: I have just had a brief opportunity to study the report. On the basis of the fishery alone, I find suggestions that large numbers — large percentages — of the fish population both upstream from the dam and downstream will be lost as the result of the higher elevation of the reservoir, as a result of the fluctuation in the temperature of the reservoir waters, as well as a variety of other things. I wonder if the minister himself or his staff have had a chance to study this material and to come up with any conclusions of what their caveats should be — what compensating moves the Department of Environment should impose on Hydro before any water licence is granted. I'm just going to take my seat and ask the minister to make some comments on this while I find the particular passages I was interested in drawing to the House's attention.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Just a very brief answer. I take into consideration remarks from the Leader of the Opposition. I will certainly consult with my senior staff in the department and get their opinion as to the period of time required to digest that information. The controller of water rights, of course, under the Act is the person who sets the date for the hearings. We will consider that, and if a very strong opinion comes from the senior staff I will certainly pass it on to the cabinet.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I think on the basis of what I have already said, the Minister of Environment should have an interest in ensuring that these matters are adequately dealt with. I just want to draw to his attention some of the factors contained in the report that just arrived in my office on the 17th of this month. On page 11-3 of volume 2 of the report, discussing the numbers of fish — I quote from that paragraph: "The numbers of both migratory and, resident fishes that could be lost with the proposed Revelstoke 1880 development" — that is the High Revelstoke Dam — "cannot be determined quantitatively from the presently available data." I would think the minister would have concern over that conclusion. "This is the major date gap now outstanding in the determination of the project's impact on fish." The report is saying, in other words, Mr. Chairman, that even this available date leaves a void in the kind of knowledge that is necessary in order to estimate and anticipate the real impact of the dam and to take any remedial action at the outset.

The report goes on: "However, the continuing studies by the B.C. fish and wildlife branch can be expected to provide the required date for certain of the sport fishes in time to mitigate and compensate for losses before the diversion occurs."

Mr. Chairman, if we're going to be faced with a fait accompli and the Department of Environment is simply going to make the best of that before the dam becomes a reality, then we are saying to the residents of the area — the local fish and wildlife clubs, the city of Revelstoke, and the environmentalists throughout this province: "Look, any participation or input from you people is simply a sham, because it's a fait accompli and the dam is a matter of policy and a

[ Page 1882 ]

matter of fact. We'll do the best we can with the disadvantages generated from its construction, but in the meantime you have no meaningful input because all of our knowledge is not yet even complete."

Preliminary estimates of expected fish losses have been provided by other workers. The 1974 Paish report estimated that 20 to 30 per cent of the Upper Arrow Lakes reservoir kokanee spawning population would be lost with the development. Twenty to 30 per cent of the fish population of the Arrow Lakes would be lost. The report termed this number "a significant proportion, in view of the estimated previous 20 per cent loss of spawning habitat as a result of the Arrow reservoir flooding."

I hope that the minister's paying attention to this, Mr. Chairman. He is the protector of the environment. He is the minister charged with the responsibility for certainly weighing the human need, as against the environmental need, but so far I've received no indication that there's even any interest in striking the best balance. I don't suggest for one moment that the proposed dam construction there is the only alternative in terms of human needs which this government could address itself to.

I quote again, at the bottom of page 11-3:

"Preliminary estimates of losses to mountain whitefish, rainbow trout (particularly the trophy strain of rainbow in the Arrow Lake reservoir system), white sturgeon and other fishes in the watershed to be affected are not available at the present time."

Without this important date in terms of even anticipating the losses and hence being in a position to mitigate against those losses, I ask the minister how this can possibly be allowed to go on, with a water licence hearing facing us on June 21 — just barely a month away — and a lack of information even to his technical staff, in terms of the total impact of this development on the fishery of the Columbia River chain.

Now this is serious business. We're being confronted here by their own report, which indicates there's not adequate knowledge yet. Without adequate surveys, investigations and reports, they are asking this House and the public of British Columbia to grant a water licence. I say this starts to look like another ruse, because we know what happened with the former Columbia River development, where a great amount of our fishery and choice land was lost. I start to be suspicious when B.C. Hydro and the government tell us that they want to handle it differently this time — that they want to be sensitive to the environment and human needs.

It goes on, Mr. Chairman:

"Additional fish losses from the project related to activities other than the dam itself can also be anticipated. These potential losses will be smaller than those from the dam, and can be mitigated or compensated for to some extent. However, they could be important locally, and should be avoided as much as possible. One such source of fish losses will be the nitrogen supersaturation of downstream waters with the operation of the spillway."

I want to ask the minister if he is satisfied that his department can adequately come to grips with assurances from B.C. Hydro and the comptroller of water rights, whether he is satisfied that he can impose the necessary mitigating action on the part of B.C. Hydro, and, indeed, on behalf of his cabinet colleagues, to come to grips and offset the very ominous implications and consequences of the development of the Revelstoke Canyon dam contained in a superficial way in the report that's just been released. I want to know if he can assure me, Mr. Chairman, that he is sensitive to these problems and that his position is going to be very strong and very tenacious, in terms of demanding that no water licence be granted until adequate intelligence and information is gained on precisely what the impact is going to be and what the effect is going to be, and precisely what B.C. Hydro and the government intend to do to offset those adverse effects.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, the questions raised by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. King) are very, very large matters. He referred to receiving the report on the 17th, which I believe is the same date we received the report as well. That report is being reviewed now by officials within the Department of Environment. I certainly can assure you that the department is very sensitive to these problems.

As you know, the comptroller of water rights may grant a licence or refuse a licence or issue a licence with conditions. In the event that conditions are attached to the granting of any such licence, in the event that such a licence is granted at all, the comptroller may attach certain conditions which would help alleviate some of the problems you pointed out. An example: Hydro, perhaps could be required, if they were given permission to proceed, to build a hatchery to help offset some of the losses of the fish habitat. There are many other suggestions which no doubt will be forthcoming.

As I mentioned previously, we will have a member of the ELUC secretariat acting as an adviser and as an assistant to the comptroller of water rights, and we expect that he will present us with an important report with very strong suggestions relative to some of the socio-economic problems and some of the environmental aspects of this. We have confidence that we will receive a proper report from this person.

As I mentioned to you before, I'll certainly discuss it with senior officials to see if they feel that June 21 is a reasonable date, and if the report is negative from

[ Page 1883 ]

these officials I'll communicate that information to cabinet.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, very briefly, I would hope that the minister would be prepared to take an independent position on this. I don't think it is necessary for him to ask his senior officials. I think it is pretty self-evident that there is not adequate time to digest the material here. I suggest that the technical people in his own department are going to find it difficult to peruse and adequately digest the material, much less the lay people in the communities affected who have been invited to participate in the decision-making on this project. It's a pretty clear-cut matter, and I think the Minister of Environment should be relied upon, as the custodian and the guardian of environmental matters, to take a strong, independent position on this. It is pretty self-evident.

The other point I just wanted to make, Mr. Chairman, is that I have very little faith in promises. B.C. Hydro promised the West Kootenay area and the Revelstoke area great things in the past when the Keenleyside Dam and the Duncan Dam were being constructed. They promised that we'd have a beautiful recreational reservoir. They promised that we'd have boat-launching ramps. They promised that we'd have lovely beaches. I spoke in this House previously, Mr. Chairman, on the nightmares that those promises turned into, where we had mudflats with stumps protruding from them, where we have dust storms when the elevation of the reservoir is drawn down at the behest of American needs, and we are still trying to develop the boat-launching ramps which were promised to the area by B.C. Hydro.

So I say, Mr. Chairman, there is only one effective way to assure that the needs of the community will be adequately dealt with, and that is to deal with them before the fact with firm commitments from Hydro and the government. It's impossible to gain conditional approval of a water licence when by the report's own terminology it doesn't even know and can't even anticipate at this point, because of the inadequate studies, what all of the problems are going to be and what the magnitude of the fish losses is going to be. How can we impose the correct conditions on a licence application when we don't even know that kind of information?

MR. C.A. D'ARCY (Rossland-Trail): I would like to follow up on some of the points made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. King) on the question of the hearings which are coming up before the comptroller of water rights on June 21 in the city of Revelstoke.

We do know a few things already that don't require a detailed study. We know that we're going to lose 80 miles of mainstream river. We know that we're also going to lose 100 miles of accessible tributaries. I would suggest to you, Mr. Minister, that there are not 100 miles of tributaries below the dam which can be developed in mitigation of a substitution for these streams which will be lost upstream of the Revelstoke Canyon dam.

I'm accepting for a minute here that this dam will be built. I'm not anticipating a decision of the comptroller, but let's assume that the dam does go ahead. I think there are things that we can be much more careful about than we have been. As my colleague for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) has pointed out, it's far easier to deal with these things before the fact than to try and deal with them later.

I would note that there are three main sport fisheries on this river system: Kokanee, rainbows and Dollies. The most important one, as far as dam construction goes, is the Dolly Varden. The reason they are important as far as this particular project goes is not only because they are one of the three main species, but because they almost completely spawn in the area to be flooded. The other two species do not, and therefore there would not be a total loss, but with these three there would be. We even know the names of the creeks that they spawn in: Downie, Goldstream, Bigmouth, Carnes, Mars, Scrip Creek. They're well known in the area.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: A lot of people in here don't know Bigmouth. (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. D'ARCY: I think some of the members are getting restless, Mr. Chairman.

The point I'm making is that we who live in the area are aware of these things, and not only that but the consultants whom British Columbia Hydro hired — the environmental research consultants — are aware of them too, and they put some of these concerns in their report.

It's interesting that while the Society for Pollution and Environment Control has asked for a three-month hold to let them study documents, I note that the B.C. Wildlife Federation has asked for a two-year hold. I think that may be a bit extreme. But one of the concerns that has been raised by other members is that these studies are not complete yet.

I would like to note, Mr. Chairman, to put it into the record here, that one of the things the consultants say is: "The contingency plans should be prepared to deal with spills of fuels and toxic chemicals when they occur." Now they're asking that other plans be prepared, right in their own report, when we have a little more than four weeks — four weeks and three days, as a matter of fact — before the hearing takes place. They go on to say: "These will apply to

[ Page 1884 ]

highways as well as to storage sites for those chemicals, and should include both the construction and operation phases of the project's life."

Then we get even more interesting, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, regarding the fisheries question. The environmental research consultants say: "Detailed biological studies should also be carried out to determine the feasibility on a site-specific basis of mitigation and compensation measures proposed for fishes." So on the one hand we are being told that these have been done and can be considered and there should be time for local people and others to consider them, but their own consultant is now suggesting that these should also be carried out.

I submit, Mr. Chairman, that these detailed biological studies, by their own words, have not even been started yet when there's a recommendation from the consultant that they be carried out. As I said a few minutes ago, we're less than five weeks away from the hearing. Mr. Chairman, there is no point in spending $750,000 or $1 million, simply writing a cheque and saying, "we're going to mitigate for this problem," if we don't know exactly what we're doing and if we don't know exactly that what is being done, or being suggested, is going to be of some value.

I noted earlier, Mr. Chairman, during the debate on second reading of the British Columbia Hydro borrowing bill that the power authority had yet, 10 years after the fact, to spend a penny on fisheries mitigation due to losses on the High Arrow Dam. I also said that I didn't think this was entirely the fault of the authority. I think there had been a lack of detailed plans given to the authority by the various departments of government.

But I am concerned. I am concerned that we're going to bull ahead with the High Revelstoke project — the Revelstoke 1880. We're going to bull ahead with that when we haven't done a thing about the problems created by the dam 150 miles downstream which had its reservoir filled for the first time in 1972. We're going into a second project when we haven't done a thing for an earlier one.

I'm quite sure that the authority, being business people, are no doubt going to say to the comptroller and they're going to say at the hearings that any mitigation they do will be for the one project. I am concerned, Mr. Minister, that they be separate projects. I would like to see proper mitigation for the Arrow project as a separate matter — a separate matter from anything which is done in the Revelstoke Canyon project. I take nothing away from any efforts that members of this House will make, or members of the Water Resources Ministry will make, regarding the Revelstoke project.

That's about all I have to say, Mr. Chairman, but I would like to follow one thing up and that is that recently we did pass the bill enabling British Columbia Hydro to borrow $500 million. This money presumably is for Site I on the Peace. It's to complete the Seven-Mile on the Pend-d'Oreille and to complete Mica and to possibly complete the canal project — the Kootenay Canal project — and to make a start on Revelstoke Canyon.

When we talk about even $1 million worth of mitigation, we are talking about 0.2 per cent of that borrowing bill. We are talking about a very small amount of money relative to that total borrowing. We are talking about a very small amount of money relative to all of these projects. I would note that there are taxpayers in this province who live in the area, who have lived in the area, and who will continue to live in the area, and they have lost a great deal with these projects. As my colleague from Revelstoke (Mr. King) has pointed out, they have received very little benefit. What we're talking about is a very small amount of money when we look at all of the projects on the Columbia River system, on the Kootenay, on the Columbia, on the Pend-d'Oreille; they're all projects on the Columbia River basin.

When this river system is completely developed in Canada, I think it's safe to say that we may be very close to somewhere around $10 billion in expenditures, so we're not talking about a great deal of money when we say $1 million, and the Authority has yet to spend a penny on the Columbia River itself. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): I thought the minister might answer questions regarding the dam because I'm going to change the subject slightly to a couple of local problems.

Mr. Minister, on April 28 of this year I did write to you regarding a serious potential flooding problem in the Bella Coola Valley, and that's in regard to a creek called Snooka Creek. I think your deputy is familiar with this problem, as the department did carry out a study last February on this area and did make certain recommendations.

Mr. Chairman, the problem is that there is a slight flooding problem there last year. Luckily it wasn't severe. This year, because of the slow thawing in the mountains, it's suspected that there will be a severe flash flood, as usually happens in that area in the many side valleys surrounding the Bella Coola River. What will happen in this particular area if this job is not done, Mr. Minister, is that a possible 14 homes and about two miles of highway will be annihilated. There's no question about that as there has been severe erosion in that area since the last flood approximately a year ago.

You were good enough to reply to my correspondence of April 28 and you did say that the job would be done, and is a priority item, if the funds are approved by Treasury Board. What I would like to

[ Page 1885 ]

know, Mr. Minister, is: have you approached the Treasury Board? Are the funds approved? Mr. Minister, if that flood occurs — those 14 homes and families wiped out and that highway annihilated — it is sure going to cost you a heck of a lot more than the department has estimated the job will cost, and it will certainly be on your head.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Please address the chair.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Through you, Mr. Chairman.

Secondly, Mr. Chairman, another very potentially serious problem: well over a year ago 360 tons of liquid chlorine and four tank cars were lost in the Strait of Georgia. The federal government did initiate a search for those missing chlorine tanks, but they were never located. Once again, I wrote you on this matter some time ago, after you took office, and I did receive a reply. But what I would like to know from you at this time is: have you or your department been pressing the federal government to continue that search? Because, to quote people in the area, these four chlorine tanks are potential time-bombs. We don't know where they are; we don't know what depth of water they're in. If one of those tanks should rupture or rust through, and with the prevailing winds in that area, it could easily wipe out a whole community in either direction — down the Sunshine Coast or up the Powell River area; you know, somewhere in that area — because we don't know exactly where the tanks are.

So I'm asking you now, Mr. Minister, to urge the federal government to continue the search for those chlorine tanks. Really, it's not a small issue, Mr. Minister. I don't know how I can impress upon you the seriousness of this matter, because I don't have to tell you what the effects of chlorine would be on human beings. I would like to know if you've been doing anything in this regard.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Yes, we have communicated with the federal government recently. We have asked them for a status report and have encouraged them to continue searching for those tanks. And the money has been authorized for Snooka Creek.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Chairman, very briefly on another matter: a little more than a year ago the water investigation branch commenced a comprehensive study of water sources and water supplies in the West Kootenay area, and they are doing very good work, too. As part of this they are monitoring not only water and industrial discharges in the Trail area but also atmospheric fallout and the level of pollutants in the air. This applies to the Castlegar area as well, with the Canadian Cellulose pulp mill. But certainly any pollutants in the air in the Trail area, as a result of the Cominco Ltd. operations, have been very carefully monitored. The results, I might say, Mr. Chairman, have been very good.

Can the minister give me some commitment that this study will go ahead to its reasonable completion, and that the results will be made available to the pollution control branch and to the public? I think it's something that we're all very concerned with in the area.

I would note that there are five monitoring stations right in the Trail area alone, three operated by Cominco Ltd., two by the water resources service, and the information from these has been a matter of public record. We in the area have been very appreciative of the service that water investigations has been giving us in that regard.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The answer is yes, they've released three of the 12 issues so far. It's going along at its scheduled pace.

Vote 48 approved.

Vote 49: general administration, $3,064,489 — approved.

On vote 50: land management branch, $4,993,166.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure whether my question comes under this specific vote or not, but I would like to ask the minister what is happening with respect to the Tsitika-Schoen area. The minister is probably aware that there was a large area set aside for study some years ago in the Tsitika-Schoen area. Since then part of that moratorium was lifted and the remaining section was to receive further study. I'm just wondering if there are any new developments as far as the Tsitika-Schoen is concerned.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: There is a report which is under review now by the Environment and Land Use Committee secretariat and by the Environment and Land Use Committee, but there have been no further developments. We've been in communication with people from the area and they tell us by communications that they've been waiting a couple of years, they claim, for a decision, and we hope to be able to comply with them very soon.

Vote 50 approved.

Vote 51: surveys and mapping, $4,773,413 — approved.

[ Page 1886 ]

On vote 52: University Endowment Lands Administration Act, $10.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I just wonder if the minister has any up-to-date statement he can give us about the University Endowment Lands. There has been a great deal of controversy under the former government, on the question of housing developments of whatever kind of density, and so on, and there's a great feeling still in the community, I believe. Although I'm not as close to it as the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) or the members from the lower mainland, I think there's still a lot of interest in the University Endowment Lands. Could we have the plans of the government at this stage?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Plans of the government at this stage, relative to the University Endowment Lands, are certainly far from complete. There have been a number of very interested persons who have presented information to the department. We've had people doing studies on our behalf.

I don't like to throw everything on the shoulders of the secretariat, but we've discussed the possibility of an overall study of University Endowment Lands by the secretariat. But perhaps more to the point, very recently — I'm not sure of the precise date; a couple of weeks ago or maybe a month back — we asked a number of interested persons in the University Endowment Lands if they would wish to serve on an advisory committee to the Minister of Environment, the minister responsible for the UEL. We were pleased to get a positive response from a number of persons. I'd like to mention them because there are many people who have a particular interest in the UEL: Mr. Russell Twining is chairman of the University Endowment Lands Ratepayers Association; Dr. William Gibson is a former city alderman and member of the Vancouver Parks Board and has a life-long association with the University Endowment Lands; Mrs. Jane Corcoran is chairman of the University Endowment Lands Tenants Society; Miss Iva Mann is the GVRD representative; Dr. R. Donegani, University Endowment Lands resident; and Mr. Murdoch is manager of the lands.

This committee has been working together to correlate information, to look at the problems of the people who are associated in using the UEL and to see if they could come up with some suggestions. Because the UEL doesn't have a municipal council as such, we feel these people are very valuable, but no long-term plans have yet been made that will be imposed upon the University Endowment Lands at this time.

MR. WALLACE: Could I just follow up with this one specific question, Mr. Chairman? Has the minister's department been asked to approve or disapprove of any specific housing development — to the point of decision, that is? You mention that there have been various tentative considerations as to how the overall area might be developed. Are there any plans close to approval in any government department which you have been consulted about regarding housing?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: We have had a very large proposal put to us as a courtesy, I suppose, more than anything, because they certainly didn't seek permission at that time. They put their proposal before us with their architectural sketches and the rest of it, but the advisory committee I just mentioned is scheduling a meeting with these people, as are the tenants and the ratepayers.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): As one who keeps clothes in the vicinity of the UEL, I'd like to say that your committee is too locally located of people that live in that area. Whether there is parkland there, whether there is light industry in connection with the B.C. Research Council, the extent of the housing is a matter of concern to the whole of not only the city of Vancouver including east Vancouver but possibly the lower mainland region. So I hope, from what you've said with this advisory committee, that you are not proceeding on the basis that just the people of that particular area should give you the advice on the disposition of those University Endowment Lands, because they are of concern at least to the whole of the city.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I am glad to hear the way the minister is going about this and that he has an advisory committee. There is one other procedural question I would like to ask him about as plans for the University Endowment Lands evolve, plans which I trust would see the majority of the remaining lands being kept as park. Will the minister undertake that before final decisions and policies are taken on these things — even with the advice of his committee — public hearings will be held?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I do not hesitate to say that we will certainly make arrangements for a very large amount of public input before irreversible decisions are made, yes.

Vote 52 approved.

On vote 53: University Endowment Lands golf course, $265,522.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, I am intrigued by an addition under this vote which calls for travel expenses. I am wondering if you could inform the

[ Page 1887 ]

House how these travel expenses that were not there before suddenly appear — $1,200 for travel expenses.

AN HON. MEMBER: Golf carts!

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I think you have caught me by surprise. I was wondering who was travelling. Apparently it is for the management of the university golf course itself, who are permitted an allowance for their own vehicles which they use, believe it or not, to travel around the golf course to do whatever managers of golf courses must do.

Vote 53 approved.

On vote 54: water resource administration, $2,351,840.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, just briefly, I want to follow up on an issue raised earlier this afternoon about the Revelstoke Dam and the B.C. Hydro report which was released yesterday. All the party leaders have received a letter today from the Revelstoke committee of the B.C. Wildlife Federation pointing out the very complicated nature of the B.C. Hydro report and the hearings which were to be scheduled on June 21 don't leave adequate time for the various groups who are concerned, first of all to study the B.C. Hydro report and then carry out their own work to try and take an intelligent part in the hearings.

A resolution was passed by the B.C. Wildlife Federation asking that the hearings be postponed until September. Again, I just want to make the point that since Hydro appears to have been racing ahead and making a lot of plans and then really putting the pressure on the public hearing participants to come up with their position all of a sudden.... We have heard from other speakers on this side of the House today that B.C. Hydro has been working on this project for several years. They produce the final report and then expect public groups to come up with their position within a matter of four weeks.

Since there is some reasonable doubt, I would submit, that this project has to start in 1977.... I don't want to be too repetitive...but just to mention again that there is a diversity of opinion as to the percentage increase in Hydro demand and electricity demand per year. Therefore it would seem that this projected date to start the project in 1977 is not going to be the beginning or the end of the future of British Columbia. Since the ramifications of the project certainly will last for 50 or 100 years, surely a few more weeks or months will ensure that everybody who wants to be heard can not only be heard but can be given time to develop their case. It would seem to me that to delay the hearings by two or three months is not unreasonable.

Has the minister been in discussion with the B.C. Wildlife Federation and with his water controller? Can he make any comment as to whether the hearings will be delayed?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I certainly recognize the serious concern that has been brought forward by yourself and other members today. As I mentioned, we received the report yesterday as well from Hydro. I reiterate that I will certainly discuss this with my senior officials in the department and pass along their attitude toward cabinet.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Mr. Chairman, I don't want to go into great detail, but there has been a report prepared on Salmo River flood and erosion control. I would like to stress to the minister that you are charged with the Land Commission Act and to preserve agricultural land. In many parts of the province I think we maybe lose about as much agricultural land to erosion and uncontrolled rivers as to development.

This report has been prepared, and I would like to know what plans there are to implement some of the recommendations which will cost some money. Last year a certain amount of money was spent — I don't know, something in the order of $20,000, maybe $40,000 — and I would like to know if the work is going to continue this year, because while in hindsight we might say that it was unwise that residential dwellings and farm buildings and such were located on flood plains — and I'm glad to see that the department is taking a strong action in preventing this from happening in the future — we certainly do have to assist people who have been subjected to this type of thing.

I'd also point out the Duhamel Creek in my area and the fact that there are many other creeks — Crawford Creek, the Goat River and the Slocan River — which cause serious flooding problems and should be studied in the same thorough manner in which this one has been studied, and remedial action should be taken. So I would like to know what provisions there are in general for further studies — not just in my riding but throughout the province — of some of the smaller creeks and rivers which cause very serious local flooding problems, and mindful of the fact that a lot of these problems have arisen as the result of the loss of watersheds, the impact on environment which can be caused through excessive amounts of clear-cut logging as opposed to some of the more enlightened modern practices. I would be very appreciative of some specific answers on the Salmo River flooding erosion programme.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: To the member, I can't give you a precise answer on the Salmo report. I was looking for our list of expenditures and did find one

[ Page 1888 ]

of the rivers mentioned, the Duhamel Creek. All I can say at the moment is that it's under consideration. The estimated cost is $114,000 for creek improvements to reduce the flood and erosion threat to the 170-acre residential development in the fan.

I understand we handle about 50 studies, 50 projects, a year. Perhaps that could be stepped up or that may be considered adequate. I agree with your comments that while we're trying to save farmland by one Act we could, indeed, be saving a great deal more by proper maintenance of uncontrollable waters — an excellent point.

MR. GIBSON: We're under the Water Act in this vote — the minister administering this Act — and I often wish, you know, Mr. Chairman, that I was a lawyer because I come across puzzling things, and perhaps the minister could explain this to me. I want to be sure that he's operating under proper authority in the action that he takes under this vote. In the Water Act, as he may know, the minister is very specifically defined as the Minister of Lands and Forests. So I thought to myself, well, perhaps the Interpretation Act could shed light on this and I went to the Interpretation Act. Sure enough, there the minister is defined as the member of the executive council appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to be charged with the administration of the Act.

Well, that solves it, but then I looked earlier on in the Interpretation Act and it says: "Every provision in this Act extends and applies to every enactment whether enacted before or after the commencement of this Act, unless a contrary intention appears in the Act or in the enactment." It appears that a contrary intention clearly appears in the Water Act.

I wonder if the minister could just somehow assure me that in all of the important orders and so on he's making under this Act he has proper authority.

MR. WALLACE: You're an illegitimate minister.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The authority was covered by order-in-council — if that covers it. This was the advice of our legislative advisers, our solicitors. The specific reference was by way of an order-in-council. Now if that's inadequate, we'll find out immediately and I'll reply to you. We'll do some research on it. I thought you were a lawyer.

MR. GIBSON: Sorry.

Vote 54 approved.

On vote 55: dikes maintenance, $70,792.

Vote 55 approved.

On vote 56: planning and development, $18.6 million.

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): To the hon. minister, under this vote there is the environmental preservation section which includes the air and water planning studies. In the riding which I represent of Burnaby North, the minister knows we have a proliferation of major oil refineries which, I believe very strongly, are very detrimental to the environment and to the health of the citizens, not only of Burnaby North but even in the north shore and further up the inlet.

The pollution from the refineries — although we do know a certain amount of expenditure has been made on anti-pollution devices — is still there. I simply want to say to the minister that I go on record as being against the presence of these refineries in Burnaby North, and I hope that the minister....

I know some studies have been done on the effects of air pollution from oil refineries, and I simply want to ask the minister if the study of the effects on the health of the citizens from oil refineries is being continued under this vote, and if the minister could perhaps give his own opinion on the placement of oil refineries in areas such as Burnaby North which have dense populations and geographically are basically unsuited, because of their dense populations and because of the increase year by year of the urbanization of the area. Are studies going to continue on the effect of pollution from oil refineries on the health of our citizens?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The studies are continuing or are about to be continued or are in the process. We have initiated an attempt to get the GVRD, the federal government, the provincial government and the companies together to develop an air-shed study. The companies have responded favourably. We, of course, are in favour of this and we expect that there will be a joint study. It will be to study the actual air content, what is causing it, and what you can do about it, rather than being related specifically to the health of the people. This study would be more on the air itself rather than that result, but presumably they would have a reason for studying the air. Yes, it's being continued.

Vote 56 approved.

On vote 57: waste management, $4,433,024.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister how the SAM project is doing.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: It's doing quite well. We've made some recent improvements, I hope — not in the project, but in giving us a few more options in

[ Page 1889 ]

disposing of some of the car bodies where it's more economically viable. It's doing very well. The steel is being recycled. The plant is operating very well in Richmond and there are not too many complaints from too many people.

MR. GIBSON: Good stuff!

MR. WALLACE: I just want a further specific, Mr. Chairman, on that point of the SAM project. There is less money going into it this year than last year. There are so few items in budgets these days that are less than they were last year. Could you tell us if that means fewer staff or fewer vehicles processed? How are you managing to cut it down by $22,000?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The reason for that reduction is that equipment expenditures are not required this year. The equipment had been purchased and does not need to be replaced, so we've been able to cut it down by that amount.

Vote 57 approved.

Vote 58: environmental laboratory, $1,546,770 — approved.

On vote 59: Environment and Land Use Committee secretariat, $4,768,020.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Chairman, there have been continuously a number of statements and questions in this House regarding the availability of Crown land for housing and other purposes. I would assume that the major decisions on what land and how much and where it would be made available would be through the secretariat.

I'm particularly concerned once again with parts of land adjacent to the Arrow Lakes where there are a number of old subdivisions which are still registered, still exist and have roads. They are within the legal requirements of the Land Commission, of the regional district zoning and of the Department of Health. I see no reason, from a planning point of view, why these can't be put on the market in very short order. However, I'm sure that there might be departments of the Crown which would have objections to this, and I'm thinking particularly of the Forest Service and of the fish and wildlife branch.

I would like to ask the minister if he would like to proceed with this or how he intends to deal with it. The reason I raise this is because I don't think we need a great deal of planning; we don't need a great deal of surveying. These are subdivisions which already exist. The main problems would be overcoming objections not from local authorities or from the Land Commission, but rather from departments of government who have what they feel to be better and greater priority resource uses for these lands.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: If the member would like to provide me with some details on that specific area, we'll certainly move into it very quickly. The secretariat is not really involved in this project as directly as the departments of Lands and Housing will be involved. We have a committee established at the moment of people from Lands and Housing to tackle this problem head-on — the matter of Crown land and housing. If you would like to give me that information I will get some, information back very quickly.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Chairman, just briefly, I appreciate what the minister has said, but the fact remains that if there are objections to a particular development from departments of the Crown, be it the Department of Highways or whatever it is, sooner or later it's bound to be referred to the secretariat.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Oh, I'm sorry. Just a clarification. You mean the Environment and Land Use Committee, rather than the secretariat. I'm sorry, I was confused for a moment.

MR. GIBSON: I have two short questions for the minister. The first one really arises out of the estimates for last year. I asked the then Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Mr. R.A. Williams) who was in charge of the Environment and Land Use Committee, if some of the exceedingly useful studies produced by this committee might be published from time to time. He expressed the hope that they might be, and I must confess I can't recall a single one that has been since then. It may have escaped my attention, but there was a coal study one by the Economic Policy Analysis Institute. Is that the one you mean?

AN HON. MEMBER: No, this, is another one.

MR. GIBSON: In any event, I would ask the minister if, in general, he would do his best to provide for the publication of some of the studies performed by this committee. That's question No. 1.

Question No. 2 relates to the.... If that member over there who's saying "aye" will stop saying "aye" we'll get through this more quickly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: Question No. 2 relates to the airport which, of course, is in the minister's own riding, so he may well have views on this. I asked a

[ Page 1890 ]

question in the House two or three weeks ago of the hon. Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis) as to whether the Government of the Province of British Columbia would be conveying any opinion to the Government of Canada and the Ministry of Transport of Canada about what ought to be done on the question of the airport runway extension. I presume that such, if it is to be done, would fall under the general ambit of the Environment and Land Use Committee, and I would ask if that group is working on this question and if some advice is going to be forwarded to the Government of Canada as to the stand of the Government of British Columbia on this rather controversial question.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The secretariat itself was not involved in the compilation of the reports other than combining the reports which were provided them. They are then combining the reports and reporting back on the airport. There are innumerable studies on the airport and I suppose most of them have been made available. One perhaps improvement from an environmental point of view is the concentration that appears now of a runway within the dike. This, if nothing else, would be a major accomplishment to retain the runway within the dike.

I was speaking with some people from the airport planning committee the other day when we took part in opening that bridge that goes nowhere at the airport, the one that misses Richmond.... You know the one; you were there. (Laughter.) They assured me, although it's not official, that they had no plans whatever of moving the runway beyond the boundaries of the dike at any time. I suggested we'd like to see that in very firm writing, but that is an improvement. The secretariat, as I said, is compiling the reports they've received and we expect to have a very proper study available very soon.

Releasing reports: some reports, I think, would be very beneficial to be released to the general public, yes.

MR. GIBSON: Just following up a minute on the airport question, do I assume from what the minister said that the Government of British Columbia has not yet formulated its policy on the question of a third runway.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: We have not yet.

Vote 59 approved.

On vote 60: provincial Land Commission, $608,580.

MR. NICOLSON: Just a brief little thing, Mr. Chairman. The Land Commission is going to be visiting the regional district of Central Kootenay the first week in June, I believe, and I welcome that. What I would welcome even more is now that we're making Crown agencies more accessible to the public, such as B.C. Hydro, and we've talked a lot about the Revelstoke Dam today, I would like to see the Land Commission actually hold some public meetings out in places such as Slocan Park in my area. It's an urban residential area. It is agricultural land, and yet I think that if there is a chance for some dialogue, ways and means will be found in which that agricultural land, which is presently not being used to its potential, might see more agricultural use and yet see some use which is compatible with the local character of the area. It is a Doukhobor area. These people can be very prolific farmers, and what I would request is that you have the Land Commission start going out meeting the public in a public way and getting right to the subject areas so that it can be discussed in a two way dialogue.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Expenses are up this year for that very purpose, so they will be permitted to move around more and to different places.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, based on past history, I just want to ask the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) if he hasn't got a thing to say on this estimate. (Laughter.)

Vote 60 approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported resolution, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:59 p.m.