[ Page 1259 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Funding of VGH child-abuse programme. Ms. Brown –– 1259

Hydro service charge. Mr. Wallace –– 1260

Ferry fares. Mr. Lockstead –– 1260

Discrimination against native Indians. Mr. Skelly –– 1260

BCR settlement with MEL Paving. Mr. Macdonald –– 1261

Funding for learning disabilities association. Mr. Wallace –– 1261

Broadbent retirement allowance. Hon. Mrs. McCarthy answers –– 1261

Higgins appointment. Hon. Mrs. McCarthy answers –– 1261

Committee of Supply: Ministry of the Environment estimates.

On vote 84.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 1263

Mr. Skelly –– 1266

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 1270

Mr. Wallace –– 1278

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 1281

Ms. Brown –– 1284

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 1284

Mrs. Wallace –– 1285

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 1288

Mr. Skelly –– 1289

Mr. Lloyd –– 1291

Presenting reports

Protection of Privacy Act supplementary reports. Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 1292

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): We have with us in the gallery this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, two very good friends of mine from Pender Harbour: Mr. and Mrs. John Daly. I ask the House to join me in welcoming them.

HON. R.S. BAWLF (Minister of Recreation and Conservation): Seated in the gallery today are 20 Victoria citizens from the James Bay New Horizons Centre. I would ask the House to bid them welcome.

HON. H.A. CURTIS (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): Students attending in the gallery today are from Parkland Senior Secondary School in the beautiful constituency of Saanich and the Islands. They are accompanied by Mr. Puritch, their teacher.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: It is a beautiful constituency, Mr. Member. This is their first visit to the gallery, I understand. Would the House welcome them?

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Economic Development): It is my honour and pleasure today to introduce some visiting businessmen from Japan. Seated in the members' gallery is: Mr. Mitsuru Toyokura, the executive general manager of the overseas development department of NKK Coal; Mr. Akida Hasegawa, the manager of the overseas development department of NKK Coal; Mr. Toko Nagasawa, manager of the overseas technical corporation department of NKK; Mr. Yuzuru Koide, general manager of NKK from Vancouver; and Noriyuki Okumoto, the assistant general manager of NKK in Vancouver. Domo arigato. (Laughter.)

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): And after you it's Sayonara. (Laughter.)

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Speaker, I have special guests in the gallery today -students of the art of politics from New Westminster. I'd like to introduce Mark Needy and Michael Yewen.

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): This is perhaps the last introduction, but I hope not the least. Mr. Speaker, there is a group of students in the galleries today from the University Hill Secondary School. Among the distinguished guests is radio personality Shirley Stocker, who is not sitting in the press gallery today.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the House to welcome a woman who has been involved in civic matters in the great constituency of Dewdney for a number of years, Mrs. Sandy Jones, who is accompanied to the Legislature today by Mrs. Shirley Barrett.

Oral questions.

FUNDING OF VGH

CHILD-ABUSE PROGRAMME

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Human Resources. Mr. Minister, as you know, the child-abuse programme, which is headquartered at Vancouver General Hospital, is in severe financial straits. They have appealed to you for assistance. Will you tell the House whether you are going to answer their appeal in the affirmative or in the negative, please?

HON. W.N. VANDER ZALM (Minister of Human Resources): Mr. Speaker, in answer to the hon. member, the delegation appeared in my office a week ago and requested that we pick up the funding which had previously been provided through a private agency for the continuation of the child-abuse team in the Vancouver General Hospital. I assured the delegation that I would speak to the staff in charge at VGH, as well as any other parties that might have had any involvement, to check on all things and give them an answer in the very near future. However, I assured them also - and apparently they met with staff after - that the programme would continue and that if there was any danger of the social worker who was involved with that particular programme leaving because of uncertainty, we would assure her employment with the Vancouver Resources Board for two months, if it took that long to review the situation.

It appeared, when the delegation left, as if all had been handled satisfactorily. 1, like many others, was quite surprised when yesterday the publicity broke and seemed to indicate that we had reneged on something which we were still dealing with.

MS. BROWN: I do not believe that the minister is going to renege. All I'm asking is whether we can have assurance from him that the programme will not be permitted to die. Two months' funding is not quite enough, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, just for further clarification to the hon. member and the House then, I can assure the House right now that the programme of providing this service in the hospital will not be discontinued. But I cannot assure the

[ Page 1260 ]

member that, in fact, we would give the money to the doctor involved or to whomever is head of the programme now. It may be that we would provide the, service in another way which could be better. I'm not sure of that, and this is what we're now considering.

HYDRO SERVICE CHARGE

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): To the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications: in view of the widespread concern and the frequent letters and inquiries by consumers at the proposed introduction by B.C. Hydro of a $3 service charge, could the minister tell the House exactly what the service charge is meant to represent and how the figure of $3 was arrived at?

HON. J. DAVIS (Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications): The $3 charge is not the whole cost but it signified the cost of connecting each customer up, the basic cost per customer which is incurred by B.C. Hydro whether or not they use any power whatsoever. That's the nature~ of the charge. It's a type of charge which is levied in virtually all electrical and gas systems on this continent.

MR. WALLACE: In the light of the minister's answer, can the consumer in British Columbia then expect that the $3 service charge is subject to the regular escalation in the same manner that Hydro bills have been escalating upwards in the last two years? Will this kind of charge be subject to the same periodic escalation?

HON. MR. DAVIS: No, Mr. Speaker. You can't reach that conclusion or make that assumption.

MR. WALLACE: Since this is producing a great deal of correspondence it really helps for the minister to answer in the way he has done. But could he tell us whether he has held discussions with B.C. Hydro or if he will be holding discussions with the management of Hydro to explore this specific area of a service charge, as it appears to be confusing the public considerably as to this new measure of cost being introduced by B.C. Hydro?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Yes, discussions will be held with B.C. Hydro. I also expect that this matter, particularly the nature of our rate structure, will be reviewed by the B.C. Energy Commission when it begins its energy outlook hearings later this year. I might add that this new structure was brought about in part by various submissions made at the Revelstoke hearing to the effect that rate structures in this province encourage greater consumption of electricity than should, in fact, be the case. B.C. Hydro is moving towards a new rate structure which, in fact, discourages excessive consumption of electricity among other forms of energy, and this basic charge is part of that structure.

FERRY FARES

MR. LOCKSTEAD: A question to the same minister. I would like to know if the minister and the government are finally now willing to submit to my continuing demands for significant reductions in fares on B.C. Ferries?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, this matter has been dealt with at both meetings of the directors of the new B.C. Ferry Corporation. The manager of B.C. Ferries will be making a statement tomorrow, but I would urge hon. members not to expect too much.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Could the minister tell this House now if he is considering reductions for foot passengers only, passengers and vehicles, or vehicles only? What is the minister considering? We would really like to know.

HON. MR. DAVIS: All those matters have been considered. The recommendation of the board of directors will be announced tomorrow.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Could the minister let this House know on what routes he is considering a reduction in fares?

Interjections.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Again, all routes have been considered and the specific routes will be announced tomorrow.

MR. BARRETT: Good for you, Don Lockstead! You're a winner! (Laughter.)

DISCRIMINATION AGAINST NATIVE INDIANS

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): My question is to the Attorney-General. On February 1,1977, the vice-president of the United Native Nations wrote to the Attorney-General giving evidence of discrimination against native Indians by provincial court officials, the RCMP and other provincial government employees in the Lower Post area. Has the Attorney-General taken any action to investigate these complaints?

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): I believe that problem has been attended to but I would like to check it. So I would not like to give you an affirmative answer today.

[ Page 1261 ]

MR. SKELLY: Again to the Attorney-General on a supplementary.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Which was the letter you referred to?

MR. SKELLY: It was a letter from the United Native Nations' vice-president, Ron George, on February 1. There were also allegations in the letter specifically against the trial of Arnold Campbell versus Newton Carlick. I am wondering if the Attorney-General will also look specifically into the irregularities in that trial that were alleged to have taken place.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Thanks very much for mentioning the letter in question. Perhaps you did at the initiation of your first question, but if you did I am afraid I missed it. I have requested a report concerning the material concerned in that correspondence. I have also informed the people who wrote the letter and certainly the member for Atlin (Mr. Calder) as well.

BCR SETTLEMENT WITH MEL PAVING

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): This is to the Minister of Economic Development about the MEL Paving settlement, the case that died. We have the cost to Russel Du Moulin as $288,000. Would the minister advise the House what the real total legal cost of that case was, including the government's lawyers, witnesses, experts and consultants? What was the real cost?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'll take that question as notice.

FUNDING FOR

LEARNING DISABILITIES ASSOCIATION

MR. WALLACE: My question is to the Minister of Education with regard to the service being provided to the children with learning disabilities in Vancouver. In view of the fact that it stated that 10 to 25 per cent of our school population is affected by learning disabilities and that lack of early treatment can result in delinquency, can the minister tell the House if the Vancouver Association for Children With Learning Disabilities will be , receiving funding despite their applications to four government departments without success?

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: I assure the minister that question period is still on.

HON. MR. McGEER: What's your pleasure, Mr. Speaker? Mr. Speaker, I can't give an answer to that question. I'll have to take it as notice.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary and Minister of Travel Industry): Mr. Speaker, prior to answering oral questions in the House that are outstanding from prior question periods, I would just like to ask the House to welcome Mr. Jack Timeous and Sir Michael Holden who are in the gallery, and I'm sorry that I missed that introduction earlier.

BROADBENT RETIREMENT ALLOWANCE

Mr. Speaker, in a question from the hon. member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) and the hon. member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) who asked certain questions relative to the retirement allowance authorized to be paid to Mr. J.S. Broadbent, answers to these questions, in the order they were asked, are as follows:

Question with respect to order-in-council No. 3720: "is it government policy to award gratuities similar to those granted under section 49 of the Public Service Act to all persons serving under section 2 of that Act?" Answer: no.

Question: "on what basis was this gratuity allotted and on what basis was it computed?"

The answer, Mr. Speaker: Mr. Broadbent's case was unusual. He had given 29 years service to the people of British Columbia, both as an employee of the public service of this province and as general manager of a Crown corporation. In the public service he held the position of deputy minister before serving in the Crown corporation. Had he remained with the public service during the interval when he was with the Pacific Great Eastern Railway, he would have received his retirement allowance automatically. The basis of computation is the same as under section 49 (2) of the Public Service Act, namely 2-4/5 months pay, the retirement allowance which is normally paid for 29 years of employment in the public service.

Question: "why the I 1-month delay in the payment since Mr. Broadbent retired in January of 1976?"

The answer to that, Mr. Speaker: there appears to be no particular urgency in this case. I have made inquiries, Mr. Speaker, and I can find no connection whatsoever between the time of the order-in-council granting Mr. Broadbent a superannuation allowance for his 29 years in the employ of the British Columbia government and the MEL Paving case.

HIGGINS APPOINTMENT

Mr. Speaker, in response to the hon. member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) , who asked a question

[ Page 1262 ]

yesterday regarding Mr. Higgins' appointment to a committee of one to review the recommendations of the Higgins report filed in December, 1972, Mr. Higgins was selected to do this inquiry on January 20 of this year and was appointed by letter. His terms of reference were to inquire into the effectiveness of the legislation enacted, and to report the need or desirability of amendment to such legislation. Mr. Higgins is on pre-retirement leave and is appointed on a fee-for-service basis at the rate of $50 per hour plus expenses. Mr. Higgins' report, initiated on January 20, will be presented shortly.

The member for Oak Bay asked if there was a conflict with the policy of endeavouring to discourage double-funding to consultants in this regard. I would answer the member by saying that this is an unusual case in which the government had the opportunity of using the knowledge of the chairman of the committee that submitted the report known as the Higgins report in 1973 to appraise the effectiveness of the legislation proclaimed in 1973.

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): On a point of order. I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that the Provincial Secretary table with the House the documents from which she quoted. Also, Mr. Speaker, I would ask you, sir, to review the rules surrounding question period to the extent that the Provincial Secretary, particularly, fails to answer questions in oral question period when they are put to her, and then on occasion, many weeks later, comes before the House with reams of written answers and destroys and erodes all of the time that is set aside for opposition members to question cabinet. I think, Mr. Speaker, that that is an abuse.

Interjections.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, will you please call the unruly government to order so I can make my point of order?

MR. SPEAKER: I'm listening, hon. member.

MR. BARRETT: Shame on you!

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that you review the rules surrounding oral question period and direct the cabinet ministers....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. KING: If the government wishes to filibuster, Mr. Speaker, I'm a very patient man. I would ask that you look at the rules and admonish the cabinet members to stop their abuse of the oral question period ...

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order!

MR. KING: ... which is intended to provide opposition members with 15 minutes daily to ask oral questions and elicit responses from the cabinet members. 1 think it is an abuse when one cabinet minister takes up all the time of question period.'

HON. MR. CURTIS: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, perhaps you would consider reviewing question period, particularly those questions on the part of opposition members which repeatedly express an opinion or a statement rather than asking a question. 1 think that matter should be looked at most carefully by you, sir.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, 1 think the matter of question period and the way we handle and conduct it in this House is one that is certainly due for review. I've been concerned for some time about not only the questions that are not questions but the position of supplementals and how many we should allow when the supplementals introduce new evidence and new material which is not relevant to the main question. There are a number of areas - the area of replies to questions that have been asked, taken as notice and then come back to the House.

I agree with the hon. members that the rules of our House for the conducting of a 15-min. oral question period are skimpy. You know, it was on a trial basis. Perhaps now it's time, after having had the benefit of the use of the question period for some time, that we define more precisely the rules of question period and how it will be conducted. I'd be happy to do so.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, there were two points of order. Perhaps in the ensuing debate the first point of order was missed, and that is the request for the Provincial Secretary to table the documents from which she read.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Leader of the Opposition, I presume that that's in order, but she read the question and the answer. It will certainly appear in Hansard, but the request is there. Would the lion. Provincial Secretary care to table those documents.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, 1 see no reason why 1 should withhold the duplicate of what will be in Hansard by this evening. I'd be very pleased to do so if the Leader of the Opposition thinks that's important to him.

Leave granted.

[ Page 1263 ]

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY

OF THE ENVIRONMENT

On vote 84: minister's office, $124,088.

HON. J.A. NIELSEN (Minister of the Environment): Mr. Chairman, by way of introduction to the House and members, I'd like to offer some information regarding a recent reorganization of the Ministry of the Environment by advising you that the ministry is now organized into four basic units.

Under land and water management, we now bring together the resource allocation functions of the land management branch and the water rights branch, together with the administration of the University Endowment Lands and also legal surveys.

Many of the administrative functions of land and water management are similar. In the head office operation, for instance, we hope to make joint use of certain facilities and also to apply computer programme techniques to both branches to improve the service to the public. In our regional operations we have at present six main regional land offices and six water rights offices. We have over 20 district or sub-offices covering both branches. By having both of these branches now operating under a single unit we hope to make some joint use of facilities and through this we hope to improve our service to the public.

Another advantage that we think can be gained by this reassignment is, for instance, in the matter of the environmental aspects of adjudication of water licences and land permits. We would hope that we can now place a biologist in the field covering both branches. It's been difficult to justify in the past assigning a biologist to each branch in a regional operation. However, we're able to justify a biologist if they're serving both branches. This is one example of what we hope will be the utilization of putting the units into four main organizations.

Environmental and engineering services combine all resource-base date collection and surveys, all environmental studies and assessments and major engineering functions under one unit. This group will provide the service function to other units of the ministry as well as carrying out its own programmes. Here again we hope we can see some major advantages in the joint use of facilities and equipment by survey groups working under the present surveys and mapping branch, water investigations branch and the resources analysis branch.

Environmental protection has responsibility for administration of the Pollution Control Act, the Litter Act and waste management programmes, including the SAM project. Also included in this new unit is the pesticides branch, scheduled for transfer from the Ministry of Agriculture. This will include the pesticide laboratory. This lab will form part of the environmental laboratory, which is located on the UBC campus. We believe the combination of these two labs will be a major advantage in the collection and testing of various samples of materials throughout the province. We should have some efficiencies.

The Environment and Land Use Committee secretariat will continue to address itself to major resource conflicts and will carry out assignments for the Environment and Land Use Committee. I feel very confident the restructuring of the ministry will provide an improved level of service to'the people of the province of B.C. and the protection of the environment.

Under the Pollution Control Act in the past, while the final set of objectives - that is, the objectives for municipal discharges - was completed, it's our policy that the objectives established for the various major categories of industrial discharges within B.C. be reviewed from time to time. We have established a programme of reviewing these objectives on a five-year basis. There are five sets of objectives. This will involve a major inquiry each year into a particular grouping of industries and an updating of the objectives based on past experience, changes in technology and changes in public attitudes.

The inquiry into the forest industry is now nearing completion and I would hope that the new objectives for the forest industry will be produced during this coming year.

Last May I announced the adoption of environmental impact assessment guidelines for the coal industry. These objectives mean the companies proposing the development of coal mines and associated industrial transportation and community development within the province must prepare detailed assessment reports on the impact of these developments in order to obtain approvals and various permits. These reports will contain information enabling all government agencies to determine the effect of public proposals and the resultant advice to the companies to deal with critical concerns. These guidelines are now being used in connection with major development proposals, particularly in the northeast part of the province.

I'd also like to mention that in connection with environmental assessments of projects being undertaken by the federal government, I've appointed members to federal environmental assessment panels at the request of the federal minister as I believe it's important that the province's viewpoint be strongly presented in connection with such developments.

We're also concerned about the implementation of environmental assessments. In this connection we've

[ Page 1264 ]

brought the matter to the attention of the Canadian Council of Resource and Environment Ministers to determine the procedures used in the various provinces and by the federal government in the implementation of environmental assessment procedures.

British Columbia has undertaken to bring together all the information provided by other provinces in order to prepare a background paper for consideration by all governments in Canada on how to deal with this very important topic. I will be discussing this issue again with the other ministers -Environment and Resource ministers from the other provinces - at a meeting in June of this year to be held in Saskatoon.

During the year, also on the matter of flood control, I was authorized to enter into an amendment agreement to increase the federal and provincial funding under the Fraser River flood control programme. The total funding involved in this programme is somewhere in the order of $120

million. Signing the amendment agreement brought to the attention of the federal authorities our concern over the reluctance of the federal government to proceed with the drainage projects under the programme. The problem of internal drainage remains a very high priority for many areas, throughout the lower Fraser Valley in particular. .1 intend to continue to press the federal government for implementation of this part of the programme.

I had the opportunity of bringing this to the attention of the federal minister when he visited our capital a week or so back. I think, perhaps, the Hon. Mr. LeBlanc is somewhat more aware of the great difficulties we have in our lower mainland area relative to the internal-drainage problems.

In December of 1975, there was a serious flooding situation in the Chilliwack-Yarrow area. I bring that to your attention, Mr. Chairman. Members will recall that a railway embankment that was acting as a dike broke and serious flooding occurred, particularly around Yarrow. Damages were extensive and emergency works were designed involving the removal of gravel and the construction of works along the Vedder River between Vedder Crossing and the B.C. Electric Railway crossing.

There was great concern over these works because of the possible effect on fisheries. This was of concern to the ministry and to other agencies of both federal and provincial governments. After a considerable amount of discussion, including a public hearing, the programme was put forward, agreed to by the senior governments, and implemented during the spring and summer of last year.

This proved to be very fortunate because on January 17 and 18 of this year, flows approximately double the capacity of the old channel did occur. Had the system not been in place, severe flooding and property damage would have occurred, causing damages of the same order of that of December, 1975.

Another most satisfying area of activity - at least at this time, and we hope for a long period of time -is relative to the village of Port Alice where a serious mudslide damage threat is present. Members will recall that in October, 1973, and in November, 1975, the village of Port Alice suffered considerable damage, and many residents were evacuated as a, result of slides.

I am most pleased to report to the House that this problem has been greatly reduced by the construction of a system of dikes and diversion channels designed to help contain any future debris flows within underdeveloped areas at the townsite. The project was designed by a group of specialized consultants who used a model of the slide area to simulate the site for evaluation. The reports to us now indicate that it appears to be working. We hope that it will continue to do this.

In September, cabinet approved a series of steps toward implementing secondary treatment for the new sewage treatment plant at Annacis Island. The steps to be taken are based on recommendations of a steering committee chaired by the Environment and Land Use Committee secretariat. That information was released.

Previously discussed in the House were the problems of Eurasian water milfoil in the Okanagan Lake system. I recently issued the report by the advisory committee studying this problem. It was actually an interim report. That first report dealt mainly with mechanical devices for the control of weeds. I am expecting a second report within the next few weeks. I understand that this will deal in more detail with the possibility of chemical control for the weed problem. I shall be issuing this report as soon as it's available.

I can assure you that we shall be proceeding with most of the recommendations contained in the first interim report. Some of them may not be physically possible, but most can be handled.

The Ladysmith harbour report was recently released. This will provide valuable background material on the development of a management plan for that harbour area to improve it for the mutual benefit of all concerned. An advisory committee involving the regional land manager and local representatives is to be established shortly to assist us in the development of a viable plan that may ultimately alter the current pattern of use.

The future use of the University Endowment Lands is a current issue of great concern to the Ministry of the Environment. A task force was established to produce a long-range plan for use of the University Endowment Lands. This involved a major public involvement programme, with a

[ Page 1265 ]

storefront office operating on the grounds in the UBC area - on the University Endowment Lands - to facilitate citizens and interested groups who wanted to bring their ideas for future use of the land to the attention of the task force. That study is now nearing completion. It should be available in a matter of a week or perhaps a couple of weeks.

In September of last year the Babine Mountains were designated as an integrated management unit by the provincial government to ensure preservation of the area's scenic high country, while enabling the compatible use of other resources. The integrated management unit is somewhat of a new approach for lands where preservation is seen to be the dominant consideration, where complex or other multiple values exist as well. The integrated management unit status will safeguard values such as recreation, watersheds and vegetation, although it will also enable compatible extraction of other resources.

This concept demands a very intensive approach to planning and management. The specifics of the approach will be refined and elaborated upon by the planning team comprising a staff of provincial resource agencies. This approach, because of the intensity of staff effort required, is intended to be used selectively as a tool of resource planning in a sensitive, multiple-resource area.

We continue to have problems within the ministry in the processing of applications by citizens under the Land Act and under the Water Act, in particular. We're hopeful that the reorganization I referred to earlier will assist in providing a better service in these areas, and I certainly sympathize with the public who have to experience what they consider to be unnecessarily long delays as we work our way through a very complicated assessment procedure which has had a backlog now for a number of years.

We're very much concerned with developing the appropriate response to environmental emergency programmes. As you know, we discussed the other evening some changes to the Pollution Control Act. We're very concerned this year over the very light snowpack on most of our mountains. While this certainly has a great advantage from the point of view of lessening the risk of damaging floods, it does create other problems in water-short areas of the province. We'll continue to issue snow bulletins and we would hope that the situation would improve. However, it's generally believed that if the snowpack is light at the beginning of February, the chances of marked improvement over the next few months are very remote.

We're of course providing all this information that we have to the many agencies who are responsible for the operation of reservoirs, including the major reservoirs of B.C. Hydro, the irrigation reservoirs in many parts of the province, particularly in the drybelt, and we're hopeful that local officials will be taking note of the situation and taking whatever action, in their judgment, is required. We are, of course, always prepared to advise local authorities and individuals how best to deal with these problems, and we have already begun receiving correspondence.

I was pleased to enter into an agreement with the federal government, through the Hon. Romeo LeBlanc, Minister of Fisheries and the Environment, for a joint-management plan of the Fraser River and estuary. This plan will be geared mainly towards water quality, foreshore management, fishery, recreation use of foreshore lands and industrial development problems in the Fraser estuary area, and will have as its objective better management of these critical areas in the Fraser estuary and lower Fraser River.

In this connection, mention was made also in the throne speech of new greenbelt legislation, and I'll be discussing this in more detail when the appropriate legislation is placed before the House. However, the concern here is that certain lands - Crown lands and private lands - should be set aside for environmental and ecological reasons. I think this is important -indeed, it's essential in certain areas - and I'm pleased that I shall be able to bring this before the House for consideration.

Shoreline management is an important subject, both to the Ministry of the Environment and the Ministry of Recreation and Conservation. I've discussed this subject as well with the Canadian Council of Resource and Environment Ministers and it's hoped that the council will again discuss this topic in June. Following that, we're hopeful that we shall be able to arrange for a major conference in British Columbia, bringing experts from all across the country to focus on this very important topic. In B.C. both the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Bawlf) will be making major input into this conference. We hope to learn from others and we hope to share our experiences with them, along with the information and expertise of our senior people in the departments.

I mentioned earlier that the coal development guidelines are now being used by those who wish to develop the coal resources within the province to ensure that it's done in a sound environmental and ecological way. We're now preparing similar guidelines for linear-type developments. This would include roads, pipelines and transmission lines, and I hope to place these new guidelines before my colleagues for their consideration in the near future. If accepted, they'll provide a sound basis for environmental management as part of the process of development along linear corridors.

I mentioned earlier environmental emergency problems. One of these problems, of course, relates to oil spills. As the members of this House are aware, we

[ Page 1266 ]

sent staff members to observe oil spills in other parts of the world, particularly Spain and the Delaware River, because we believe that the experience they can gain under actual spill conditions will be of immense value to us in developing an environmental emergency programme.

We recently had some discussions with the state of Washington, trying at least to determine their attitude towards the movement of tankers along the west coast and the possibility of the development of port facilities within the state of Washington. Unfortunately we were unable to report any positive position taken by the state of Washington. Unfortunately our discussions took place before the Governor's speech. The Governor, as you know, by way of her speech indicated that Cherry Point doesn't look too bad and the big tankers look pretty good, as a matter of fact. We were unable to get a firm opinion from the director of ecology and some other staff members at that time. It may be that they were reluctant to make any statements before their Governor made an official statement. However, we perhaps anticipated the decision the Governor was to make and we were very strong in our opinions at our informal gathering to make them very much aware of our concerns about the movement of tankers into the inner waters and the Strait of Juan de Fuca towards Cherry Point.

We're also involved in studies in connection with the movement of oil tankers along the coastline. We work very closely with the Ministry of Energy, Transport and Communications, which is the lead agency in preparing B.C.'s position with respect to this situation.

I was most encouraged to learn from the federal Minister of the Environment that the federal government intends to hold public hearings in connection with the Kitimat pipeline proposal. We look forward to developing information from that federal minister as to what these public hearings actually will involve, where they'll be held, and the types of presentations which will be made available to them.

It's an exceedingly complex issue involving economics and environmental problems. I can assure you that the Ministry of the Environment is deeply involved in the environmental aspects of any movement of tankers to Kitimat or elsewhere along the coast. We recognize that we have limited jurisdiction in these areas, and that's why we look forward to receiving further information on how the federal government, with the Ministry of Transport and the Ministry of Fisheries and the Environment, intends to approach the problem, particularly on how they intend to obtain public input through public hearings.

We're also very much convinced within the Ministry of the Environment that a public awareness of environmental issues is essential, and that much of the controversy over environmental issues is very often due to a lack of information being available. I believe we should have more information available on environmental problems; I believe that we should be moving in this direction.

To this end we are arranging for a series of public information meetings. The first such meeting has been announced for Kamloops on March 25 and 26, and at this meeting it is intended to discuss the implications of the federal-provincial task force report on the Thompson River. We'll be asking a number of people from industry and government to make representations at the public meeting, and we would encourage the public to attend and join in the discussion that will follow the presentation of these statements.

If the Kamloops experience is successful it's our desire to hold public meetings of a similar type in other parts of the province where a major environmental issue could be presented, and all sides could be given a chance to put their points of view forward and present the facts of the case as they see them. Hopefully, by this process there will be a greater public understanding and awareness of the issues involved and perhaps a more co-operative approach to solving the many problems we do indeed have through the province.

I shall be most pleased to answer any of your questions.

MR. SKELLY: We on this side of the House welcome the minister's detailed statement of the chronology and the activities of his department over the past year. It appears that as time goes on the minister is learning a little more about the operation of his department and developing some sensitivity to the environment, which we didn't feel he had evidenced in the past.

The suggestion that hearings were to be held in Kamloops over problems with the Thomson River is also welcomed by this side of the House. Hopefully those hearings will be listened to by the Minister of the Environment, and the suggestions made by citizens who are concerned about the water quality in the Thomson River and in the Fraser River system will be listened to by the minister.

It's strange that while he had decided to hold Public hearings at Kamloops on the situation on the Thompson.... Possibly there was some pressure from the federal government - after all, this is a joint project between the two governments - to hold public hearings. We're concerned that he hasn't kept the promise of the previous government to hold hearings on the Stein River Valley. When the moratorium was originally imposed on the Stein Valley, Mr. Chairman, one of the promises of the previous government in advance of declaring that

[ Page 1267 ]

moratorium was that whatever the outcome of the studies was, public hearings would be held and the studies would be made public. Whether the reports suggested the valley be logged or, be preserved for recreation, the public would have some input in that they would have an opportunity to make a critique of the report. Unfortunately, the report was not released for almost a year after it was initially received by the minister, and the minister has already stated that there will be no public hearings in the Stein situation.

The Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) , when attending a meeting at Lytton, I believe, a short time ago, which was attended by 200 people - to give you an example, Mr. Chairman, of how concerned people are about the Stein River Valley -he stated at that time that there would be I 10 jobs lost over a 30-year period if we didn't log the Stein Valley. Later on, when more facts were presented by citizens to that minister, he revised that figure down to 55 jobs lost. Perhaps if the people had an opportunity to study that Stein Valley report we would get even more informed input and perhaps we would find that in fact no jobs would be lost. So while we do welcome the minister's new approach to public hearings and public information, we are concerned that it is not the general policy of the department. We would like to see a little more openness on the part of the government.

You know, during the election campaign - and I think you recall that election campaign very well, Mr. Chairman - the present government, then in opposition, went around the province saying that they wanted more open government. They were demanding more open government. Yet we're getting very, very little information out of this government, particularly on environmental issues, particularly with this minister.

One of the things the minister did not go into in great detail was the Kitimat pipeline proposal. It came as quite a surprise to me, in spite of the fact of the detailed opening statement he gave on the activities of his department, that he went over the Kitimat pipeline issue in a very cursory fashion. I believe that this is part of an attempt on the part of the government to imply that they are not primarily responsible or that they have no jurisdiction whatsoever over the problems surrounding the Kitimat pipeline. In fact, that is not the case.

The minister is obviously aware of the problems which surround the Kitimat pipeline. He sent some of his staff to La Coruna in Spain to take a look at the oil spill there, and we congratulate the minister for doing that. It's unfortunate in this province and in this country that there hasn't been enough information on techniques available for oil spill cleanup and on the actual costs of oil spill cleanup. I think the fact that the minister did send some of his staff to La Coruna and to the Delaware River is laudable. We need that information, and we need mote detailed information on the costs of oil spill disasters, on the effects of oil spill disasters and on the cost of cleanup.

The minister did table those reports in the House shortly after he received them. It's interesting that in the introduction to the Olympic Games oil spill report it suggests that a major oil spill is a distinct possibility on this coast sooner or later. So the department realizes that a major oil spill disaster is something that we are going to have to deal with on this coast. Therefore it's laudable that his department has gone to the effort and the expense of sending people around the world to Spain and to the United States to look into the techniques, the expenses and the lines of communication and authority that must be established to clean up those oil spills.

I think we've discussed before under a previous bill - and this is recognized by Environment Canada -that the problem is that oil spills cannot be cleaned up. Once a major oil spill disaster takes place - and I believe the first member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) has pointed this out - then it's impossible to clean up. It's impossible to do away with the effects and the impact of that disaster. The major way to solve that problem is prevention - to reduce the risk of oil spill on the coast of British Columbia.

This government and this minister have not adopted a position strongly in opposition to oil tanker traffic on this coast or strongly in opposition in particular to the Kitimat oil port. I'd like to outline for the benefit of the House some of the details surrounding the Kitimat oil proposal and the problems which we will face should that proposal go ahead. There have been some conflicting and some confusing reports on the part of this minister and on the part of the government as a whole surrounding the Kitimat problem.

The Kitimat pipeline results from the fact that way back in 1968 Atlantic Richfield Co. discovered oil on the North Slope of Alaska that was equal to a quarter of all the known reserves of oil in the United States. Atlantic Richfield at that time had no concern about how to get the oil out of Alaska. All they wanted to do was to get that oil to a port on the coast of Alaska and then leave the problem of distribution up to someone else. Once they had taken the oil out of the ground and piped it to an ice-free port, that was the end of their concern. That was their profit imperative. Once that had happened they were going to leave that problem up to Canadians or to the people in the lower 48 to solve themselves.

So when the Alaska pipeline was built, we were faced with the problem of how to accept between 600,000 and 1.2 million barrels of oil a day, how to transport that oil down the west coast of British Columbia and the United States and how to

[ Page 1268 ]

distribute it to the markets that actually required it. Atlantic Richfield was clearly aware that there was no demand for that oil on the west coast of the United States and there was no demand for that oil on the west coast of British Columbia. In fact, the United States Secretary of the Interior had stated in 1970 that there would be a glut of oil on west coast markets by the time that Alaska pipeline had come into operation.

Now, almost 10 years later, we're faced with the problem of accepting initially something like 600,000 barrels of crude oil a day. The previous NDP government attempted to deal with the problem to get that oil overland, rather than transport it by sea, to get it into the markets where it was really in demand - that is, the midwest and the east coast of the United States. They were laughed out of Ottawa. They were laughed out of Washington, D.C., even though the railway proposal has been seriously considered in the United States and, in fact, the railway proposal is now in operation in the United States.

But, Mr. Chairman, the oil that's coming from Alaska will be of no benefit whatsoever to the people in British Columbia. Until the year 1989 all of that oil is committed to oil refineries - seven specific refineries who are members of the consortium building this pipeline. The oil is committed to those refineries up until, and beyond, the year 1989, so we're not dealing with oil that will provide any benefit to British Columbians. We're dealing simply with oil that is bound for a United States destination to solve the energy problems in the United States.

What we're dealing with, Mr. Chairman, as a result of the fact that this government has not made any concrete policy statement on the Kitimat pipeline, is that we are making a trade-off of the environment of our north coast to solve an energy problem that does not affect us. It affects the United States exclusively. They talk about jobs. Some of the back-bench members in the Social Credit caucus talk about the jobs that this pipeline will bring to the northern area of the province - to Omineca, to Skeena, and to areas in the northern part of the province. It has been indicated by Mr. Hall of Trans Mountain Pipeline that most of those jobs will be imported jobs, and we know the policy of the government now on imported jobs. They've brought in Alberta construction crews to build highways in the Peace River area.

Mr. Hall says that most of the people who will be building the Kitimat-to-Edmonton pipeline will be brought in from the Prairies as well, from points in Canada where unemployment is in the 3 and 4 per cent range, particularly in Saskatchewan which has the lowest unemployment rate in Canada because they have an NDP government there and business is great.

AN HON. MEMBER: Unlike B.C.

MR. SKELLY: Business is great. We'll be bringing in people from the Prairie provinces to build a pipeline in British Columbia. There will be no actual employment benefit to people in B.C. as a result of the construction of that pipeline.

I see you're taking a look at the vote, Mr. Chairman.

I am concerned that we are trading off the possibility of environmental disaster on the coact in exchange for solving a problem which is basically a United States problem. Again, we are dealing with the spectre we were discussing yesterday under the B.C. Hydro borrowing bill of the government becoming involved in a continental energy policy in which the environment of British Columbia will be sacrificed and the resources of British Columbia will be sacrificed to solve the problems of a country that refuses to deal in any concrete way with their own resources and energy problems. This minister, who should be acting the role of devil's advocate for the environment, as I have said before, is in actual fact working on a trade-off - to trade off the environment of the north coast of British Columbia to solve those energy problems in the United States.

The minister did have a meeting on February 15, 1 understand, with Washington state officials down at the Department of Ecology in Olympia, Washington. He met with the new director, Mr. Heller; with a representative of the Governor's office; with the energy consultant in the Governor's office; with Mr. Kiuchi, their public relations person; and with our Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis) , to discuss a number of issues relating to Washington state and British Columbia. I believe the Eurasian milfoil problem was discussed at that meeting as well. I understand that a transcript was taken at that meeting and a press release was issued to the American press, and there was some confusion surrounding the press release. Perhaps the minister would be willing to table the transcripts of the meeting between himself, the Minister of Energy, and the Department of Ecology. He said that he would like to keep the public fully informed as to what is happening on this Kitimat pipeline proposal, on the Eurasian milfoil problem, and on problems between the United States - specifically Washington state - and British Columbia. Possibly he would be willing to table the transcript of that meeting so that we can be brought up to date on exactly what discussions are taking place and what is going to be traded off in exchange for the Kitimat pipeline proposal.

It is kind of disturbing to watch what is going on between Canada and the United States. British Columbia is only a small part, we realize, of these international negotiations between Canada and the

[ Page 1269 ]

United States. We read in the paper that Carter has pulled back the funding of the Garrison Diversion project, and we read in the Washington papers that Dixie Lee Ray is now advocating Cherry Point as an oil port in Washington state and completion of the northern tier pipeline. We also have the Skagit Valley that is still in limbo, and we are wondering what's going on there. Exactly what issues are being used as cards? What is being laid on the table in exchange for this trade-off on the Kitimat oil port?

We get some leaks from the minister's department. I wish he would make all the information he has available public, because we get leaks from the Energy Commission, we get leaks from the Environment and Land Use Committee secretariat and it's very difficult to put together the policy of the minister on the Kitimat pipeline.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: Leaks from the secretariat, apparently, that appear in The Vancouver Sun, about trade-offs being considered - Kitimat in exchange for no tankers going into Cherry Point. Leaks from the Energy Commission - perhaps this came from Washington state, I don't know - suggest that the government should hold back its position on the Kitimat pipeline approval until they can get more concessions from the United States or, perhaps, from the Canadian government and more concessions or assurances that we will get Alberta crude for some time into the future. In exchange for assurances about Alberta crude and the elimination of tanker traffic into Cherry Point, it's said that we should sacrifice Kitimat and the whole northern coast of British Columbia in exchange for those assurances.

And one of the problems we face with this minister is the fact that we cannot get a policy statement from the minister on the Kitimat pipeline. Now he comes out and he says: "Well, I have no jurisdiction. It's a federal problem. We don't have any jurisdiction here." He mentioned that the federal government is holding hearings. He mentioned that the National Energy Board will be holding hearings, although the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications tells us that he'll be intervening in favour if environmental reports show that the Kitimat.... This is a statement from the Financial Times of Canada, attributed to the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications:

" It appears that this government is attempting to hold off an announcement on the Kitimat pipeline project in order to gain concessions on assurances of Alberta crude and some concessions on tanker traffic into Cherry Point, and then they're going to come out strongly in favour of the Kitimat oil port proposal."

We would like a concrete statement from that minister, outlining his position on Kitimat. Are you for it or are you against it? And, Mr. Minister, you do have jurisdiction. You have control over the land over which the Kitimat pipeline will pass from the Kitimat oil port to Edmonton. A statement from this minister saying that British Columbia's land will not be used to transport American oil to American refineries to satisfy the profit imperatives of American oil companies and the wasteful energy demands of another country - if the minister would take a statement that British Columbia will not be used for this purpose, then the Kitimat pipeline will be a dead issue.

And to say that there is a possibility of a trade-off and that Kitimat could be used as an oil port to eliminate traffic into Puget Sound is not an accurate statement of the facts. Kitimat at the most....

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Who made the statement?

MR. SKELLY: To say that Kitimat is a valid trade-off and that we can use that as a trade-off to prevent oil tanker traffic increasing into Puget Sound is not a valid statement to make. Because oil tanker traffic, even if the Kitimat port is built, will increase into Puget Sound and will increase into the western ports of the United States, because the maximum flow the Kitimat pipeline can take is something like 600,000 barrels per day - and that's way up in 1984. Oil will be flowing into Puget Sound whether the Kitimat port is built or not. So we will simply be doubling the risk to the coast of British Columbia if that port is built in Kitimat.

Something like 60 per cent of the flow of oil into Kitimat will not be coming from Alaska because the refinery demands in those seven northern tier refineries are for a different quality of crude than the Alaska North Slope oil field can provide. It's such a sour crude that it must be mixed with Middle East crude at a 60-40 rate, so we can expect increased Persian Gulf tanker traffic into that north coast to satisfy the refinery demands in the midwestern United States. So tanker traffic will increase both in Puget Sound and in Kitimat if the Minister does not take a strong stand against the Kitimat oil port.

One of the questions we would like the minister to answer - and he has welcomed questions.... I hope that he will come up with some of the answers to those questions with the same alacrity. I hope that he will answer in the affirmative that he will not permit the construction of the oil port in Kitimat. He has control over the foreshore of British Columbia. He has control over the lands over which the pipeline is designed to travel. All this minister has to say - and we'd like to hear it today in response to this question - is that we will not permit the lands of British Columbia to be used to transport that oil.

[ Page 1270 ]

So that's my first question to that member: will he state, categorically, that he will not allow B.C. lands to be used for the transport by pipeline of Alaska oil to the midwestern refineries?

He's announced that federal hearings will take place. It's unfortunate that the provincial government did not simultaneously announce that they would be involved in these public hearings, that it would be a joint project similar to the Thompson River one, and that they would be seeking advice all over the province from citizens of British Columbia who are extremely concerned about the possible damage of the Kitimat pipeline. It's unfortunate that he didn't see it as part of his jurisdiction to hold those public hearings right away to solicit the opinions of British Columbians on the pipeline application.

I'm willing to wager, Mr. Chairman, that by far the majority of people in this province are opposed to the construction of that pipeline and are opposed to increased tanker traffic down the coast. There are no jobs coming to us from that pipeline. There's no economic benefit coming from that pipeline. There's no real possibility that Alaska oil can be used to provide feedstocks for new refineries in British Columbia. There is no benefit whatsoever to us from that pipeline. All the benefit is to Atlantic Richfield and to the refineries in the midwestern United States who have first call on that oil for at least the next 12 years.

When Mr. Hinton did a study of the possible port facilities on the northwest coast that could receive Alaskan oil, he was again looking at....

HON. MR. GARDOM: Who's he?

MR. SKELLY: Hinton and Associates? He's a environmental consultant who worked for the original Kitimat pipeline consortium before Trans Mountain pulled out. I believe he did the study for Trans Mountain Pipeline. His job was fairly well defined - he was to find the least unacceptable port for oil on the north coast, and he determined in his report that Kitimat is the least unacceptable. If we're looking for the least worst, Kitimat is the least worst. He stated in his report that the problems associated with any port on the north coast are frightening.

I used to live on the Queen Charlotte Islands, Mr. Chairman, and I know whereof I speak. We used to have winds regularly in that area up to I 10 miles per hour. I was working in a mining town at the time, Jedway Iron Ore Limited - one of those mines that went out of business under the beneficial regime of the previous Social Credit government - and we used to get bulk carriers into Jedway that are minuscule in comparison to the size of tankers that will be coming into Kitimat. I remember one night we had a 120-mile-an-hour wind come down through Harriet Harbour. I used to teach school up there, and we'd tape up the windows to prevent the wind from shattering the glass and blowing all over the students. A lot of people are just not familiar with the type of weather conditions we have on the northwest coast.

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: Yes, we had to use our glass-proof jackets.

Most people aren't aware of the type of weather conditions we did have up there, but one night we had a 120-mile-an-hour wind come down through Jedway. It blew a small bulk carrier out of the harbour, and it was under its own control. It dragged six 5,000-lb. anchor buoys out into the harbour with it and dropped it over the side. We're talking about ships coming in that are 10 or 12 times the size of that bulk iron ore carrier navigating the tortuous channels between Dixon Entrance, Hecate Strait and Douglas Channel up to Kitimat, in an extremely dangerous area of the province for navigation. Really, with that information on hand, the minister should have come out immediately and made a statement: "There will be no oil port on the north coast of British Columbia."

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: The bulk carrier was partly loaded.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I must remind you that there's less than three minutes left.

MR. SKELLY: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

What I'm asking for is a statement from the minister. Will he table the transcripts of the meeting between himself and Washington state officials at the Department of Ecology at St. Martin's College in Washington on February 15, in which he discussed, among other matters, the problem of oil transportation into the west coast? Will he make public all studies and critiques of studies done by the Environment and Land Use Committee secretariat on the problems of oil transportation?

Will the minister come out strongly today in opposition to an oil port at Kitimat and to the oil pipeline across from Kitimat to Edmonton? Will the minister tell us whether Kitimat Pipeline Ltd. has made application to run their pipeline across Crown lands to use British Columbia foreshore? If an application has been made, or if an application is made, will the minister reject that application and tell Kitimat Pipeline Ltd. that we do not want to put our environment at risk to satisfy the needs of American oil companies?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Member, I appreciate

[ Page 1271 ]

your comments and your information regarding the coastal problems - the Kitimat proposal and so on -and your interest in the meetings between myself and other members of the government along with senior officials down in Washington state. I must say that it was a good meeting. The representatives from Washington state wanted to record the meeting for their use. I simply do not have a copy of the transcript.

To the best of my knowledge, in conferring with my deputy, I do not recall trade-off discussions, as you refer to them. Certainly we discussed the dangers, the problems and our concerns about Cherry Point, Port Angeles, Kitimat and others, and just the general traffic down the west coast.

I might say that I was somewhat distressed the day after to hear the very, very strong statement of the Governor of Washington state about Cherry Point. I understand that the Governor, being a scientist and marine biologist, feels very strongly that science can handle many, many problems and that perhaps the most efficient way to deliver oil is to bring it as far inland as possible by ship - the bigger the better -and discharge it in that way. We advised them in no uncertain words that we were very concerned about the possibility of a Cherry Point spill, taking into consideration our proximity and also the currents. We are still of the position that Cherry Point would represent a very, very difficult environmental problem to us.

The Kitimat Pipeline Co. has not made application for any provincial permits that I'm aware of, either overland or foreshore. I regret that I cannot tell you that we will prejudge the applications by denying the applications before they come to us. Certainly if the applications are made to our government, we will offer the consideration we offer all persons who make such applications. I can certainly assure you and other members of the House that the environmental concerns will be placed at a very high level and a very high profile and will be stressed.

The information which has been provided to government - not the provincial government but the federal government - by way of copy from the pipeline company to the National Energy Board, in our opinion, is grossly deficient in its environmental studies. I believe we will be advising them at our request of where we believe these deficiencies lie. The information is highly unsatisfactory at this time. We've made that point with the federal minister. We're made that point publicly, I believe, to the point where certainly the company must be aware of our concern.

I appreciate hearing some of your personal history, Mr. Member. Could I just add to that? You mentioned my home province of Saskatchewan, and I was surprised to hear you say the unemployment rate is so low because of the fine NDP government in

Saskatchewan. The story I get from my relatives back there is that they're leaving because of the NDP government. That's why there are so few people unemployed. But it could be something in between, I don't know.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the hon. minister please direct his debate through the Chair?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

MR. SKELLY: There may be another reason why they're out of work.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, I know that you agree with me that the people in our prairie provinces are very fine people regardless of the government, whichever it may be.

Mr. Chairman, through you to the member, I asked you across the floor when you mentioned reports were leaked from the secretariat. The reason I asked you that is because these charges have been made by some people but I feel that the charges are unfounded. I believe what you were referring to were reports which in some way involved the secretariat, but I feel quite confident that the secretariat is not leaking reports. Copies are made to other departments and other persons. Perhaps someone is leaking reports, but I believe that our secretariat is recognizing the public service oath and is keeping confidential information confidential.

The member would know that the National Energy Board is required to hear submissions made to it by the Kitimat Pipeline Co. They are obliged to hear that; they are obliged to have hearings. The term pole hearings are also to be held regarding the port facility and so on. The federal Minister of Environment, Mr. LeBlanc, assured us that his ministry and the Ministry of Transport would conduct hearings in British Columbia, hopefully chaired by a British Columbian. They could be in several locations, offering the public an opportunity of making their views heard. We'll certainly be very much involved in observing those hearings and perhaps placing some information before them.

We do intend to intervene at the NEB hearings. I was surprised to hear the member say that we intend to intervene in favour. I have not heard that statement. I spoke with the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis) and he assures me that to the best of his knowledge he hasn't made that statement.

We are very concerned with the environmental risks associated with the transportation of oil by water, particularly along the coast of British Columbia. We are very concerned if there is no Kitimat pipeline, if there is no development at Cherry Point beyond what is there now that just the traffic

[ Page 1272 ]

at sea could cause great problems for British Columbia, although we have absolutely no jurisdiction over the traffic at sea. We would be the recipient, perhaps, of some of the oil problems that could find their way to our coastline.

We encouraged people in Washington state that we felt Port Angeles sounded like not a bad idea. We have discussed with mariners the advantages and disadvantages of certain locations, and they seem to think Port Angeles falls within the jurisdiction of the state of Washington. The people of Port Angeles have said, "No thank you. We don't want it." The former Governor of Washington, Governor Evans, was in favour of the Port Angeles project. The present Governor does not seem to be as much in favour as her predecessor.

I can assure the member that the government is vitally concerned about the environmental impact and environmental risks of tanker traffic. We believe that we must be prepared for certain spills occurring in our waters, wherever that location may be. We are very, very concerned about the possibility of oil contamination finding its way to our beaches and our rivers, coming from such spots as Cherry Point. We have witnessed relatively minor spills in the past, but it didn't take long for that oil to find its way to Boundary Bay or Semiahmoo Bay or other areas of our adjoining waters. We intend, to the best of the ability of technology and manpower, to be prepared to fight oil spills when they may occur, recognizing the enormity of attempting to contain and clean up a vast oil spill - as many jurisdictions in the world have found how difficult that is.

We have learned a great deal about oil spills by observing those, as we mentioned, in Spain and down on the Delaware River. We need to know a great deal more. By our observations, those persons who combated those oil spills need to know a great deal more. Two of our people from the pollution control branch went to Spain. To their dismay, they found that several days went by before the situation was even organized. There was confusion over jurisdiction, equipment, methods of attacking the oil, improper equipment, equipment that simply would not function and had no relation to depth of waters and so on. In the Delaware River spill, they were prepared for it. Circumstances were somewhat different from open sea to a relatively closed river, but within 15 minutes they had a patrol boat in the water, and within six hours they felt the major slick contained.

Both reports indicated to us that the most important element in combatting an oil spill is speed. We would like to develop a programme where we can respond quickly to the dangers of oil spills, whether that oil comes to us by way of open sea, from Cherry Point, or from anywhere else. We are vitally concerned.

I might mention, Mr. Chairman, that we are most pleased with the response from many organizations in the past few months who have come to the Ministry of the Environment and our pollution control people to discuss with us their ideas and their concepts about how we can combat oil spills and clean up. We had a number of companies meeting with officials today: Clean Seas Canada, Hatfield Consulting - Peter Hatfield, Morrow Engineering, H. Lesley Smith, Western Canada Hydraulic Labs. There have been a number of others who have shown great interest.

They claim they have equipment; they claim they have techniques, they claim they have materials. We intend to bring these people together. We intend to analyse what they can tell us, what they think they can do, and we intend, whenever possible, to make use of such technology, equipment and knowledge in this field.

Mr. Chairman, whether the Kitimat pipeline goes ahead or whether it does not, whether Cherry Point is expanded or whether it is not, whether Port Angeles goes ahead or whether it does not, we are still endangered by oil spills because tankers will be plying the waters off our coast, out to sea. We could still see oil spills coming our way, or we could see other accidental spills down at Cherry Point moving north to our waters. We hope to be prepared. We have no illusions about being able to mop up hundreds of millions of gallons of oil, but we hope that we can fight in the best way that technology will permit at this time.

The inter-ministerial committees are meeting, are discussing, are accepting proposals, comments, alternatives. They are reporting their information and their findings to the responsible departments. We are attempting to find out all the information we can about all of these situations. The lack of information is alarming. It is simply not available.

It would be improper, I believe, to make a judgment before an application is made - as much as perhaps this may be desired by some persons. The position of the province will be made clear. I think it is presumptuous for anyone to anticipate what that position is. I might personally add that what I have seen so far by way of application for the Kitimat pipeline proposal certainly hasn't impressed me.

MR. WALLACE: It hasn't impressed the Premier.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I believe that the company has failed to supply an adequate source of information relative to environment. It is distressingly disappointing.

You mentioned the Skagit River, and I would like to respond to you. The Skagit River problem, which I suppose this year is celebrating its 40th anniversary, is in a state of discussion, if that is a legitimate term. I might mention to the House meetings which have

[ Page 1273 ]

taken place since December, 1974, between representatives of the province of British Columbia -various ministers or other officials - and those associated with Seattle City Light.

A meeting took place June 30,1975, in Seattle. Since that time there have been meetings in Victoria in March of 1976, August of 1976, October of 1976, December of 1976, January of 1977, and one is scheduled for March of this year.

We'd like very much to be able to say the problem is solved, but the problem is not solved. The problem, I think, has not worsened, and we look forward to successful negotiations with Seattle City Light.

We also discussed this with our people in Washington State. I believe that they very, very much appreciate our concern and our position, and I may be making a statement in the very near future on the latest information on Skagit. I am reluctant to do so now because it involves other jurisdictions and I'm awaiting responses from them.

The Stein River was mentioned. Our position on the Stein River, I believe, was made relatively clear by news announcements some months back now - I think many months ago. The Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) has held a meeting in Lytton, the one you referred to. The minister believes that the removal of certain timbers would be beneficial to the economy of the province and would not be detrimental to the valley. The extraction, if indeed extraction ever takes place in there, would not be detrimental. Certain guidelines are expected to be followed. The position was made clear. If I'm not mistaken, Mr. Chairman, the report the member mentioned was released, I'm not quite sure who requested it, but someone requested it and it was released.

We've had correspondence from people on Stein pro and con. The Minister of Forests has responded to many of these, as well as myself. The situation on the Stein Valley is as it has been. Certainly we're prepared to listen to the arguments. The Minister of Forests attended that meeting and offered his explanation. The stand on the Stein stands as it is now until such time as the government chooses to alter that policy, should the government do so. I see no reason at this moment why that policy will be reversed. Perhaps when the Minister of Forests is before the House he may be able to offer you his side of that same story.

MR. SKELLY: It appears that we've got more of a concrete statement on the Kitimat pipeline today than at any previous time in the past. We welcome that.

On the Stein Valley, though, before I get back to Kitimat, I'm wondering if the minister has considered something along the lines of the proposal which is now being followed in the East Kootenays of regional resource management committees where rangeland and forest lands in that area are being managed by all persons concerned with the resource - for- example, recreationists, snowmobilers, ranchers and the timber-harvesting companies. It appears to be a management proposal that's gone through a very difficult birth procedure, but now the problems are starting to be ironed out where there were conflicts in the past between people with various interests in resources. I believe one of the recommendations of the Stein Valley report is that a resource management committee be established that will provide input from forest companies interested in the area, from recreationists interested in the area, and from the various government agencies. Is the minister considering setting up such an advisory committee?

Out on the west coast at Tofino, the minister is probably aware of the situation as well where the lands branch has map reserves for the benefit of fish and wildlife over a large area between Grice Bay and Matilda Inlet near Ahousat. Those are simply map reserves and there's discussion now to turn those over by order-in-council to the management of the fish and wildlife branch, and to set up advisory committees consisting of fishermen, consisting of Indian bands who have aboriginal claims to that area, consisting of municipalities and people involved in the tourist industry who are concerned about upland developments. Getting such an advisory committee together to manage that area, will the minister consider such an advisory committee for the Stein Valley?

Back to the Kitimat pipeline. As I said before, we've got more concrete information out of the Minister of the Environment today than at any time in the past, and I see that the Chairman agrees with this.

We really weren't aware of your stand, particularly on the quality of environmental statements that were submitted by Kitimat Pipeline Co., even though in the reports themselves they state that they could only be considered preliminary estimates of the environmental impact and the fact was that the time allotted to Slaney and Company and Envirocon was so short that they could not justify the term "environmental impact statements." They gave that opinion themselves in their own reports. The minister is aware that the reports stand about three feet high. We have them in our office down there. There's not really too much of value in those reports - anything that could be considered an adequate environmental impact study.

Slaney and Company note themselves that they commenced the impact study on August 20,1976. The field programme was initiated August 30 and completed October 4,1976. Compilation and assessment of data were completed November 1. This means that the total marine impact study for that pipeline and tanker route took 43 days, if they

[ Page 1274 ]

worked seven days a week. We all know how consultants work, especially when they're paid $3,750 a month on a stipend. I'm not saying that Slaney and Company didn't work seven days a week; they probably did. In the time allotted they probably did the best job they could. But they emphasized themselves that far more time was required to do the .impact studies on that tanker route, on the marine impacts and on the terrestrial impacts than was given. In fact Hinton in his report, which I don't believe has been made public yet but which is available, has stated that it would take far more than a year.

The problem we're dealing with is that Kitimat Pipeline Co. wants to get under construction in July or August, 1977, in order that the throughput of oil can begin by April 2,1979. As I said before, they haven't given the time of day when they would wish to begin, but they want to start putting oil through that pipeline in April, 1979.

Now if the minister is not satisfied with the quality of environmental studies, if he knows that far more detailed environmental impact assessments -terrestrial and marine impact assessments - are required, is he demanding further studies? Is his department or the Environment and Land Use Committee secretariat doing further studies so that we can be assured that all environmental problems and all eventualities have been covered before any approval takes place on this Kitimat pipeline?

The first thing that the Minister of the Environment should do, after making a statement that he's not satisfied with the environmental impact assessments, is to approach the National Energy Board and ask them to delay the hearings for at least a year until full and adequate environmental impact studies can be done. It's not enough simply to call public hearings when we don't have the adequate information available. I'm told - and, in fact, it's in the reports themselves - that some of the shellfish data in the marine impact study is something like 16 years old. It's so old that it's useless information.

The minister should compel or ask the federal government to compel the companies involved to take a whole year or more than a year - because some lifecycles of salmon in the area take as much as four years. I don't know what the lifecycles of shellfish and other animals involve - halibut, herring - but we should be dealing with environmental impact assessments that cover those eventualities over a four-year period. We should be asking now for a delay in National Energy Board hearings until suitable environmental impact studies have been completed. The minister has admitted that the ones they have now are much less than satisfactory. Will the minister approach the National Energy Board and ask them to delay hearings for at least a year until we can come up with environmental impact statements that are acceptable to the Ministry of the Environment? So that's the first question on that.

Certainly I think that most people feel that the least worst alternative, as it's been called, is Port Angeles. Rather than Kitimat, rather than Cherry Point, it's the least damaging alternative. If we must accept oil on the west coast at all - oil that's destined for midwestern and eastern markets - and if we must accept tanker traffic to bring that oil in, Port Angeles is the least unacceptable alternative.

We have a vessel traffic management system that Canada Coast Guard and the Ministry of Transport are installing on the south coast that should be operational between this summer and the summer of 1978, costing tens of millions of dollars, which includes radar facilities at Ucluelet and Port Eliza, which can control tanker traffic on a positive basis -something like 60 miles out to sea.

The member for Vancouver South (Mr. Rogers) , when he got up in the House a few days ago, stated that he had some concerns about tankers coming into Kitimat. This is a gentleman who knows whereof he speaks. Being the pilot of a large passenger aircraft, he knows the requirements for both land-based electronic equipment and electronic equipment aboard ship to bring those aircraft safely into an airport with the maximum safe separation possible.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair. ]

We have those facilities coining on stream now, according to Canada Coast Guard, in the southern area of the province, whereas I understand that the only facilities that will be available on the north coast will be shore-based VHF facilities in Prince Rupert to be completed by 1981. So regardless of how sophisticated the navigational equipment is -whether it's gyro compasses, direction finders, distance measuring equipment, you name it -whatever they have on that tanker, if there are no shore facilities for the tanker to receive the signals of that electronic equipment on the tanker, the tanker might as well not have the facilities at all.

I recall when the Vanlene came into Barkley Sound - actually, it was looking for Gray's Harbour, Washington - and ran against....

HON. MR. NIELSEN: A very small map.

MR. SKELLY: They had a small map and a magnetic compass that hadn't been swung for years. In spite of the fact that Canada Coast Guard says that they inspect all ships coming into Canadian waters, here was a ship coming from Taiwan, I believe it was, that had one magnetic compass and charts that would not be acceptable for navigation on this coast.

MR. C.S. ROGERS (Vancouver South): He had a wristwatch.

[ Page 1275 ]

MR. SKELLY: A wristwatch that he bought at a cut rate in Hong Kong!

What I am saying is that Port Angeles is probably the best of the three alternatives from our point of view. Unfortunately, as you say, it is a decision of Washington state citizens as to whether that port is to be used and what port is to be used. But here's a case where a decision is being forced to us to solve the problems of an energy shortage in the midwest of the United States.

I think that the minister kind of turned my question around when I said: "Is the minister going to come out today with a strong statement contrary to the Kitimat pipeline?" He then turned it around and started talking about the work he has done investigating rapid reaction times and the availability of equipment for cleanup. We would rather not talk about cleanup; we would rather talk about the elimination as much as possible of the possibility of an oil spill.

As I said before, the U.S. Coast Guard has estimated, based on American ships and the standard of equipment required on American ships, that there will be one major oil spill disaster every four years. We know that 60 per cent of the ships coming into Kitimat will be foreign bottoms and have flags of convenience. They won't have that type of sophisticated equipment nor will there be the land-based equipment, even if the equipment was available on the ships. So the magnitude of the danger would be increased to at least double and possibly ten-fold.

We would be expecting far more than one major oil spill disaster every four years in that area. The government of Canada - Environment Canada - has said that it is impossible, that there is no possibility of reacting quickly to an oil spill in that area or of adequately cleaning up a spill in that area. Your studies done by the pollution control branch - again, I say it's a credit to your administration that you had those studies done - have shown that most of the equipment now available - marine, barge-operated slick-lickers, Bennett booms....

MR. KING: Bennett buggies.

MR. SKELLY: We don't want any more Bennett booms in this province.

MR. COCKE: A Bennett boom is a Bennett bust!

MR. SKELLY: Oil spill booms don't operate adequately in the high winds. The maximum wind that those slick-lickers operated in at La Coruna was something like 40 miles an hour, and after that they were totally ineffective. The only effective way of cleaning up the oil was to get out with shovels - and possibly the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) can assist you there - and clean it up. The spill in the Sea of Japan was a perfect example of where they were required to hire something like 232,000 people to clean up a spill of that magnitude. We can expect a spill of that magnitude in British Columbia should we go ahead with an oil port at Kitimat.

So I would like the minister to come out with a statement saying he is absolutely opposed to the Kitimat pipeline, that he does have jurisdiction over the land over which the pipeline will pass and that he will not be willing to accept an application to build a pipeline that puts the whole north coast of this province in peril from an oil spill. That's all we need from this minister, and the Kitimat pipeline issue is dead.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 84 pass? I'm sorry.

MR. SKELLY: Oh, I was just getting to the second part of an 18-part speech.

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: There was some intervening business.

The second thing I am concerned about again is the McGregor Valley. The minister tabled a report in the House: the Fraser River Upstream Storage Review Report.

This report gives our party and our group some concern as well, especially in its description of the ecological impacts. It's unfortunate that although the Environment Canada report on the fisheries impact is available in the library - I realize that it's about 1,000 pages long - the ecological summary report was not tabled in the House to give the press access to that material, because it's pretty important in the way that that material conflicts with the material that's been presented in this report.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Which reports?

MR. SKELLY: Okay, I'll give you the names of the reports: "Fisheries and Marine Service, Environment Canada. An assessment of the Effects of the System E Flood Control Proposal on the Salmon Resources of the Fraser River Systems; two volumes; Vancouver; January, 1974." It's been available for three years now. Also: "The Fraser River Ecology Committee Summary Report on the Ecological Consequences of the Proposed System E Development on the Fraser River Basin; Victoria; November, 1976."

You have made those reports available through various libraries throughout the province and through your agencies, but they haven't been tabled here in the House. I think that it's important because those

[ Page 1276 ]

documents contain some conflicting statements on the effects of the McGregor River Dam on the fisheries resource in the province.

It's been estimated in this report that the loss of anadromous fish in the Fraser River will be something of the magnitude of 7 per cent, although it says on page 124: "Consensus was not reached by the ecology committee with respect to several factors basic to evaluation of the ecological consequences of the project development.

There is some difficulty in assessing the ecological impacts. I wonder just what the minister plans to do on the McGregor River. Last year I asked a question of - at that time - the Minister of Mines and Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) who was doing a study of how to remove something like 50,000 acres of timber or 54,000 cunits of the best timber available in the Prince George forest district from the McGregor River Valley. The Forest Service was attempting to determine how they could remove that timber over a five-year period in order to clear the basin for the McGregor River development. I also took a trip up to the McGregor River area and did a boat tour over the whole area that would be flooded by something like 406 feet of water. It would be tragic, Mr. Chairman, to lose that valley and its resources to the people of this province. But even more tragic will be the impact that that development will have on the salmon fishery resource in the province of British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: They don't care about that.

MR. SKELLY: The member for Fort George (Mr. Lloyd) has accused the McGregor Action Group of being an NDP front organization.

MR. BARRETT: Blacklisting.

MR. SKELLY: McGregor Action Group. He has accused that group up there of being an NDP front organization, and yet it represents citizens of all political stripes, of all races, creeds, religions and whatever. There are McGregor Action Groups being established all over the province. The real impact of the McGregor River will be felt between Hope and the Fraser River estuary. We have some real serious reservations about the construction of any dam on the McGregor River. When I picked up this report initially the person who gave it to me said: "Isn't it funny that when they want to build a dam they put a picture of a flood on the cover of the report?"

That's an interesting comment from a person who wasn't involved in any way whatsoever with the environment, with McGregor Action Group. He said: "Isn't it funny that when they want to build a dam they put a picture of a flood on the cover of the report?"

As I understand the report, it says that we have to build this McGregor River Dam because there's a 20 per cent chance over 60 years that we can expect a flood of the magnitude that's never been experienced in the history of this province.

Based on that prediction, the report recommends that we build the McGregor River Dam. Coincidentally, they want Hydro to build the dam to run the water over James Creek, down the Parsnip River and through the W.A.C. Bennett Dam, where generating facilities or capabilities have already been built into the dam years ago. They were planning to do this years ago anyway and I believe they just put this report out to justify Hydro's construction of that dam and to instill fear into the people in the lower Fraser Valley so that the dam could be built without any opposition from the people in that area, particularly in the Minister of Environment's riding.

Many of the people who will be displaced from employment - hundreds and thousands of people who are involved in the fishing industry, who are involved in the canning, processing, exporting and outfitting in the fishing industry - will be thrown out of work as a result of the construction of the McGregor Dam.

The McGregor drainage provides something like 25 per cent of the volume of the flow of the Fraser at Prince George. It's cold water that makes that river perfect spawning habitat for salmon and it's responsible for about 15 per cent of the flow in the Fraser at high water at Hope. If that flow is held back and diverted over through the Peace River system:

(1) It will delay the entrance of spawners into the Fraser system, and again we're going to have higher salmon mortality,

(2) It will increase the water temperature, and it takes just a very few degrees of increase in temperature before we have less spawning success.

(3) It's well known that predator fish survive in water of higher temperature than salmon, and we'll have more predation on the salmon fry and on the salmon spawners. So we're going to run into problems there.

The estimates in the appendix reports are that damage to the salmon resource will run from something like 10 per cent up to 50 per cent. But no assessment whatsoever has been done on the possibility of parasites and diseases being introduced from the Peace River system into the Fraser River system. I'd like to read that section of the report on P. 125:

"The diversion route offers possible access for parasite-carrying arctic pike to the Fraser

River system. Infestation of Fraser River salmon from this source could have a serious impact on the marketability of these salmon and, consequently, on the British Columbia salmon industry as a whole. Direct losses of undetermined magnitude to Fraser salmon

[ Page 1277 ]

stocks also would be occasioned by predation and interspecies competition for food." On the same page:

"No assessment has been made of the effects of possible transfer of Pacific drainage disease organisms and parasites to the Arctic drainage."

Despite that statement, they go on to say that 7 per cent of the total fishery resource will be wiped out, with not detailed or complete studies of parasitic transfer, predator transfer or disease transfer from the Peace River system.

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: Just before the 1972 election, the Social Credit government of the day was proposing to build the Moran Dam on the Fraser River.

Mr. Chairman, would you call that unruly group to order?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The hon. member for Alberni has the floor.

MR. SKELLY: Just before the 1972 election, the Social Credit government had proposed to build the Moran Dam on the mainstern of the Fraser River, and the outcry from the people of the province, later expressed in the vote during the 1972 election, indicated that the people of British Columbia are opposed to the construction of any dams on the Fraser River. They made that perfectly clear during the 1972 election.

After the 1972 election, with the New Democratic Party government in power, dams on the Fraser River were a dead issue. Now we have come up with the McGregor River proposal - study after study being released on a drip-by-drip basis ...

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't call the minister that.

MR. SKELLY: I'm not calling the minister that,

... which appears to be leading up to an approval by this government for the construction of the McGregor River Dam. Once the McGregor River Dam has been built, once the fish resource of the Fraser River has been depleted, and once that river, through the construction of the McGregor Canyon Dam, has been turned into nothing more than an open ditch, we're going to end up with a further proposal to build the Moran Dam on the Fraser River. This is just No. I in a series of steps to build the Moran Dam on the Fraser River. In this case, they're using as an excuse flood control, to protect the people of British Columbia from a flood of a magnitude which has never existed in the history of this province, and there is only a 20 per cent chance over a 60-year period that it's ever likely to occur, if it ever occurs.

So I'm asking the minister a second question: will the minister take a strong stand against the construction of dams on the Fraser River or tributaries of the Fraser River? That river is the living artery of this province. It should be protected from any destruction by the construction of dams, by the destruction of the estuary, by developments which would destroy that river as the living artery of this province. I would ask the minister, is he willing to take a strong stand on that issue?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I'm recognizing the member for Oak Bay in a moment; I just wanted some quick responses perhaps to some of the questions regarding the Stein Valley. The method you suggest, if I understand it correctly, is similar to what we've done with the Babine, the Bonaparte-Tranquille and so on. I'll be pleased to discuss that with the Environment and Land Use Committee.

The McGregor: I can certainly assure you that I am greatly concerned about the preservation of the salmon fishery, particularly in the Fraser River. I had hoped that the federal minister and myself, at our joint news conference last week or the week previous, made it clear that we felt there were some very complex issues that require a great deal of consideration before any decisions can be made.

It may be of some value to note that the study suggested the possibility of eight storage sites - what is commonly known as the E proposal, the upper Fraser. The federal-provincial joint committee rejected seven of those sites and suggested that the McGregor could be used to reduce the flood hazard.

With all respect, I think a 20 per cent chance of a flood is fairly high risk - 20 per cent over 60 years.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: Over 60 years.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Member, a 20 per cent risk is a high risk.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The hon. minister has the floor.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Twenty per cent is generally regarded as a fairly high risk in anything, but to the member, through you, Mr. Chairman....

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: How come you're not in the cabinet?

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): How come nobody voted for you in the last election.

[ Page 1278 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The hon. minister has the floor.

Interjections.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I can certainly say that we are very concerned about the salmon resource in the Fraser, as is the Hon. Romeo LeBlanc.

It may be of some interest to other members of the House who were following your discussion on the diversion route offering possible access for parasite-carrying arctic pike to the Fraser River system. You quoted down until you stopped after "Competition for Food." Certainly this is part of the consideration of the report, but so that we are not entirely negative and perhaps alarmist, they do add: "The prevention of pike transfer might be achieved, " - and they offer various possibilities - "by construction of a barrier on the Parsnip River near Anzac; construction of the Arctic-Pacific divide; or permanent, complete closure, " and so on. They do make some recommendations, so it is not completely negative. I hope everyone recognizes that.

Interjection.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Yes.

To the member, at the proper time I would be very pleased to table some reports, if the members of the House will accept the tabling of the reports in a carton rather than one at a time, because there are so many it would take some time. I made those reports available to the libraries, and if it is of some specific benefit to be tabled in the House I would be most pleased to do so. I have had them brought down.

MR. WALLACE: I would like to just ask the minister briefly one or two questions regarding the administration of his office rather than some of these bigger issues which I'd like to touch on later.

In particular, I'm concerned to know the final action taken by the minister regarding Mr. Ohlemann. The minister did make a statement that he had had a meeting in his office with Mr. Ohlemann. I can't recall the exact date. The minister mentioned that Mr. Ohlemann was quite distressed at the action that he had taken and the ramifications of that action in providing a list of employees with a political label attached. I think that the House should know what action has been taken. Was Mr. Ohlemann disciplined and, if so, what measure of discipline?

MR. KING: Was Ben Marr on that Political list?

MR. WALLACE: Anyway, Mr. Chairman, this issue is a very important one, and not just for this ministry. I would expect that whatever action was taken by this minister in his office would reflect government policy for the future - or it certainly should reflect government policy for the future -inasmuch as the image of a government employee sending such lists which finish up in a minister's office, affecting other employees, is really a most unattractive one in a democratic society. I hope that we can have some firm statement from the minister as to how he dealt with this particular case, and some assurance by the government that it would not go on a witch hunt based on this kind of information.

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: I wonder if we can be assured, Mr. Chairman, that the minister has subsequently destroyed the communication. There is no reason for that documentation to persist in his office. I would like to know if that communication has since been destroyed and whether he's communicated with Intergovernmental Relations to the effect that perhaps the original copy of the document should also be destroyed.

The third question on the same theme is that I recall watching a television interview on "Capital Comment" a few weeks ago when the minister mentioned that he was unhappy that there appeared to have been leaks from his office and that he would be conducting inquiries, restricted, I understand, to his own immediate office. I wonder if he could give us some report as to what that investigation has revealed and if he's able to assure the House that whatever leaks existed have been plugged.

I think we should commend the minister for his introductory comments in introducing the debate on his vote. Mr. Chairman, I have been one of the ones who has complained consistently in years gone by that ministers seem to regard the debate on their vote as being one where the minister should say as little as possible and hope that somehow or other, by keeping silent, he can escape the questions of the opposition. The very reverse is the case.

In this instance, the minister did give us some introductory comments. He touched on policy and took a much more constructive approach to this debate. I appreciate that, and I think he should be commended.

In these comments, Mr. Chairman, the minister quite correctly explained that much of the controversy in the field of environmental affairs is based on public ignorance, or unfortunately on the fact that a lot of the information that would help us to reach a decision is not available. I acknowledge that, but I would like to ask the minister if he doesn't feel that there are many groups which are deeply concerned about environmental affairs and which make a very substantial contribution to public dialogue on environmental affairs. I'm talking about groups such as SPEC, who spend a great deal of

[ Page 1279 ]

volunteer time and effort investigating some of the issues and contributing something to the amount of public information that becomes available. To me, that seems to be a very essential part of the participatory democracy that we hear a great deal about.

On that basis, I wonder if the minister would tell us if there was some specific reason why the grant to SPEC was cut back so dramatically this year. The information that has been released publicly shows that the grant has been cut back to $5,000 and represents a very substantial reduction. The minister has responded and was quoted in The Province of February 12 of this year on what amounted to an 80 per cent cut in the provincial government grant to the Scientific Pollution and Environmental Control organization. The minister has said that he felt this was a reasonable response to the application. I personally don't know all the details or the operating budget which SPEC submitted, presumably with their request and the relevant details, but I think the dramatic reduction from $25,000 to $5,000 in regard to an organization which is furthering the very solutions that the minister mentioned of providing the public with more information.... It would seem to me maybe they could be given greater financing.

The other area of great concern that the member for Alberni has already touched upon - and I will try not to repeat his specific points - is the question of oil tankers off our shores. We had a statement just the other day by the Minister of Energy (Hon. Mr. Davis) when he spoke to the annual meeting of the North Vancouver Chamber of Commerce, where he made it plain that tankers will be passing off our shores. The Premier, being equally forthright the other day, answered one of my questions in debate on his estimates by saying that this whole debate over the transportation of oil boils down to which one of three unacceptable options will this province try to bring about. If that isn't the most sobering, frightening realization that the people of British Columbia have to come to, I don't know what is. We have three options. If we had our "druthers, " we'd "druther" have something else or nothing at all.

The first member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) had already quoted from Supership, emphasizing some of the elements in this problem. I still don't think the people of British Columbia or the people of Canada really realize the enormous immensity of this problem. For example, Mr. Chairman, the size of the tankers has reached such a scope now that as a unit on the surface of the globe, they are actually influenced by the global spin, what some French scientist described as Coriolis force. This apparently has such a dramatic effect on navigation that many of the basic elements in the teaching of seamanship may have to be substantially revised in regard to those men who sail these enormous ships.

They used to be called VLCCs - very large crude carriers - but that was when they were up to 200,000 tons. Now they've got another name - ultra large crude carriers, up to 400,000 tons. Some of the practical, immediate ramifications of this size of tanker, I still think hasn't really got through our heads.

One of the interesting things they point out on another page in this same book is that the ships are so long that at night there have been examples of where somebody's tried to steer between the lights at the bow of the ship and the stern of the ship.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Take that from the top.

MR. WALLACE: Well, I'll repeat it. I'll quote from the author. He says:

"The riding lights prescribed by regulations to identify a vessel in its course at night have caused confusion. Instances have been reported of smaller ships trying to steer between the forward and aft lights of a supertanker, on the understandable assumption that the great distance between them indicated two different ships."

HON. MR. GARDOM: Did they make it?

AN HON. MEMBER: I did that with a Cadillac.

MR. WALLACE: Again, there is a multiplicity of staggering evidence in this book. It points out that some of these large ships are now sailing with a clearance of as little as two or three feet. The-ship division of the National Physical Laboratory has stated that when these large ships are under these circumstances, they are virtually unsteerable.

It goes on and points out many other very frightening facets of what we are faced with in British Columbia with these enormous ships sailing under less than well-controlled circumstances. Since the only hope we have of minimizing the spills relates to co-operation with our national government and co-operation with the federal government of the United States, I wonder where we are really at in attempts to formulate a co-ordinated policy.

I was very interested, Mr. Chairman, to read a clipping from The Globe and Mail of February 10 this year which actually represented part of question-and-answer period in the House of Commons. This related to the fact that on the east coast of Canada they have just made mandatory the system that they call ECAREG, which is a highly complicated system of communication similar to the system used to guide aircraft into airports. The shipping is controlled in that way, and vessels are required to report to the Canadian Coast Guard, which in turn feeds the information to the ECAREG

[ Page 1280 ]

computer in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia.

This system, Mr. Chairman, gives the name and initials of the master of the ship, the name and registry of the ship, the Canadian agent, the cargo, the destination, the estimated time of arrival, position, speed, last port of call, and any defects in hull or navigational equipment. Apparently this enables the shore authorities to pinpoint not only the location of the ship and the predicted course, but information regarding the previous history of that ship and the previous history of the master of that ship, and whether they have previously been involved in accidents in other parts of the world.

I won't go through all that either. There is a lot of detail involved. But it sounds as though it is the most hopeful kind of technique that could be followed to minimize the risk of these large ships either having collisions or grounding because of inadequate clearage. Again, it is a little bit, Mr. Chairman, like asking why the ferries get subsidies on the east coast but not on the west coast. How come it always seems to be the east coast that gets the greatest federal government attention? We have got this highly sophisticated system installed on the east coast, and I am all for that. Let there be no mistake. But we should have the same system on the east and west coast.

The headline, interestingly enough, in The Globe and Mail reads: "Safeguarding of Canadian Territorial Waters is the Aim of Comprehensive Traffic Control System." It sure is, and it seems to me that it holds a real hope that it can reduce the number of oil spills. It is particularly interesting that we should emphasize that because there was another report issued in January by the Tanker Advisory Centre in New York. It just mentioned that oil tanker losses and the amount of oil spilled into the ocean in the first nine months of 1976 was the greatest in any year of shipping records. That was before the wreck of the Argo Merchant.

In the first nine months of 1976, the number of tankers lost and the number of tons of oil spilled was the greatest of any year ever. Thirteen tankers were declared a total loss in the first nine months, and the ships had a dead-weight capacity of 940,000 dead-weight tons. And that was in nine months of 1976 that they broke the pre-existing record - if we can call it a record - of 1975 for the whole year, which was 815,000 dead-weight tons.

What the report described as "another unfortunate record" was set by the spilling of 198,277 tons of oil into the world's waters in the same nine-month period, excluding the Argo Merchant's spill.

So the record is very clear that, while shipping and maritime nations appear to be trying, albeit rather inadequately, to provide the safety measures, and while again I commend the minister for trying to learn from accidents elsewhere and trying to boost our capacity to respond to oil spills, I just have to say, regrettably, that I think that is a very small part of the total problem. The total problem seems to be to keep the tankers, as far as humanly possible -commercially possible I guess would be a more appropriate phrase - from shorelines. Period. I don't want to repeat all the arguments that the member for Alberni raised about the Kitimat terminal. I would just voice my strong agreements with concern about the environmental dangers of trying to navigate large tankers in Douglas Channel.

But we keep coming back to what the Minister of Energy said and what the Premier said. The tankers are going to sail along our shores. And nothing that anybody in this House says is going to stop that. So, what we have to try and solve or minimize is the dangers. And I wonder if the minister could tell us where we're at in relation to practices and techniques and other parts of the world where they set up monobuoy systems some distance from the actual shoreline. I'm told - and again, I'm certainly not any expert on the matter - that engineering techniques have been considerably improved, which make it possible for some of the technical difficulties that originally existed to be overcome.

I understand also that the minister has been given material dealing with information on monobuoys in the past. And I'm just wondering if the minister could bring us up to date. Is it a real option? Is it too expensive? Is it too difficult mechanically? Is it a possible option that we should be pressing? And if it is, what are we doing in talking to the Americans in this regard? And what discussions are we having with our own federal Canadian government about cost-sharing if monobuoys, or that general technique, seems to be a reasonable option? Or has the minister considered it and abandoned it?

I don't know. It seems that the record of oil spills around the world should be enough to put further considerations on an emergency basis, as far as trying to work in co-operation with our federal government and the United States authorities in a concerted way to prevent oil spills rather than hopefully having enough manpower and resources and time to deal with an oil spill when it occurs.

The minister expressed his concern at the Governor Dixie Lee Ray's very strong statement. I'm anxious that I should go on record as saying I think t hat strong statement by that Governor of Washington somewhat contradicts the kind of happy harmony which apparently Prime Minister Trudeau thinks exists between America and Canada. This is no forum to get into the doings or sayings of Prime Minister Trudeau. But that statement by the Governor of Washington was a statement of self-interest which clearly demonstrated the determination that the state of Washington will ensure the access of oil tankers to Cherry Point, and to hell

[ Page 1281 ]

with what the British Columbians might think about the dangers off the coastline from the tankers. And I'm not the least bit amused by that kind of unilateral statement of a policy which has very substantial ramifications on their next-door neighbours, namely British Columbia. I think that if the minister feels that he had a good meeting with the authorities recently in Washington, he acknowledges that he did not meet the Governor, and that the Governor's statement was made shortly after his meeting.

I would like to know what future meetings are planned. I hope the minister would be frank with this House and tell us whether he feels that these meetings are just a sort of diplomatic face-saving gesture for both sides of the border. There's really little point in going to these meetings where you're discussing something as absolutely desperate as these enormous tankers sailing off our shores if, in fact, it's meant to give British Columbians some sense of assurance that preventive plans are underway when, in point of fact, the Americans have already decided that, come hell or high water, these tankers are going into Cherry Point regardless of what the effects may be on British Columbia's coastline. Unfortunately, that's the clear impression that I get from reading press reports of the way in which the Governor took such a strong stand.

There seems to be a real danger that because unquestionably the oil is needed for the midwest states and it has to get access somewhere, whether from Edmonton by pipeline or from Cherry Point, because that's such an important need - and we know it is an important need - the feeling seems to be that all other considerations are very much secondary. I'm sure this House is unanimous in feeling that we have every right to protect our own shoreline, our fish and marine life, and all the other ecological factors that would be seriously damaged by a spill.

There was a picture. in The Vancouver Sun on January 6 - it's almost worth tabling with the House - which shows the size of the spill from the Argo Merchant in relation to the B.C. coast, had it happened off the B.C. coast. The top end of the patch of oil - if you could call it a patch - starts just above Douglas Channel, and the lowest end reaches to the northern tip of Vancouver Island. The member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) can perhaps speak better on this than I can, and he's already mentioned this subject. The hundreds of square miles of oil dissemination that represents the kind of area that would have been involved if the Argo Merchant had spilled its oil off the B.C. coast is really quite frightening - 7.6 million gallons of oil was the spill from the Argo Merchant.

MR. SKELLY: And that was a small tanker.

MR. WALLACE: As the member for Alberni interjects, that's a small tanker - using the word "small" relatively. The oil tankers that are proposed for Kitimat will be up to 323,000 dead-weight tons and the spill would be about 10 times larger than the Argo Merchant.

So again I just say, Mr. Chairman, the dimension of this problem and the enormity of the damage that can be caused, I think are not really fully realized by British Columbians yet. I'm sure it's realized by this government. Maybe one reason the government is not making as much publicity out of it is it's a little bit like the way politicians handle the nuclear arms race. They're just so scared themselves, they feel if they come clean with the public and tell all the facts, there may be such public alarm that there might be serious international incidents. Now that's quite a supposition, but I think there's more than just a kernel of truth in that.

I wonder if the minister would tell us to what degree he really feels we're getting this problem of minimizing oil spills under control, or are we still pretty well confined to the idea of having enough resources and money and personnel to deal with it once it happens? This kind of map which shows the typical kind of Argo Merchant spill, had it happened off the B.C. coast, is just so overwhelming. There's no way that even if all the two million people in B.C. got to work they could mop up that mess.

Of course, I'm particularly concerned at the apparent lack of real understanding between us and the Americans, because they can't even look after their own backyard. I quoted earlier this session in the House from the study that was carried out ...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, it's my duty to inform you that you have three minutes left.

MR. WALLACE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

. . . by the Americans in Alaska. I haven't time to go into the details, but the fact is that the ships are inadequate and the navigational system is inadequate. They did a computer study of 130 simulated voyages of 165,000-ton tankers through Valdez Narrows, which is the approach to the pipeline. They found that in approximately half of these simulated voyages there would be some measure of accident, some measure of oil spill. So how hopeful, or otherwise, can British Columbians be when one of the states of the United States can't get its own federal government to recognize the enormous potential for oil spills and the damage not only to the shoreline but to the ecology in the widest sense of the word?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, in response to the member for Oak Bay, I hope I cover most of the points. If I fail to I would appreciate a reminder. Your most recent topic relative to this international shipping of oil by way of these giant tankers.... I certainly agree that the people of B.C. and the people

[ Page 1282 ]

of Canada do not fully appreciate the ~incumbent dangers; in fact, the people of the world do not. The international law, or international courts, or international organizations don't seem to fully appreciate that. If they do appreciate it, they seem to ignore it.

I am very confident that the technology exists to construct giant tankers that are almost completely safe in transporting oil. 1 have discussed this with many marine architects, mariners and others involved in the sea, and they are of the single attitude that the technology is available to produce a tanker of almost any size that would offer very minimum effect upon the environment by way of oil spills. There are a number of engineering ideas that could minimize spills; there are a number of transportation methods that could eliminate much of the danger. They all advise me from a technical point of view that this is possible; they all advise me from an economic point of view that it's unthinkable, according to them.

It's always economics - the cost of the tankers and the rest of it. If you emphasize to them - and you're probably speaking to the wrong people when you're talking to a marine architect - that the net cost is what is important, including the cost of the damages, then, of course, it swings it around and it might be very economical indeed to build a proper tanker.

1 mentioned on that programme you referred to that 1 was alarmed at the size of tankers going around the world with single hulls, minimum navigational equipment, inexperienced crews and very often sadly underpowered. These craft are very often sadly underpowered. You are quite right. My deputy offered me the technical word describing this problem with the length of them, and this is a problem.

The traditional seaman probably would find himself sadly out of place on one of these supertankers. It's a ship of some kind, yes, but it certainly isn't what you might call a traditional shipping vessel. It's a giant computer full of oil, a big bathtub without proper power, without proper braking systems and very often with inadequate navigational equipment.

1 support very, very strongly the monobuoy concept. 1 brought this to the attention of various people; I brought it to the attention of federal officials. 1 think it would work. 1 think a monobuoy established some miles off the coast somewhere -and 1 wouldn't suggest precisely where - to receive the oil by way of underwater pipeline and to take it to the refineries would be a very intelligent approach. I understand from some people in the federal government that they have looked at it, that it works in certain areas of the world, particularly the Mediterranean, and, 1 believe, the area off Iran. But we're told our seas are too rough for a monobuoy to function. I can't fully accept that because again, I've talked to marine architects and engineers who tell me that the North Sea can handle this type of thing.

The monobuoy, I think, is a highly intelligent alternative to tankers coming into port. From an economic point of view, it would be beneficial to the shipping companies because their turn-around time would be very, very quick and they wouldn't have to enter port as such. The pipeline accepting the oil through a monobuoy could be reversed to bring supplies to the vessel, such as water supplies and others. You might have to flush it out but apparently this can be done. So I appreciate your comments on the monobuoy and I support them.

I have tried many times to interest other persons in this, particularly the federal government. I must admit that we did not discuss monobuoys with the Washington state officials. It was the f first opportunity I had to meet the new Director of Ecology, but I wish to bring it to his attention.

I think, perhaps, we have to realize that those persons who are involved in the technical aspects of constructing these supertankers consider monobuoys very likely as a rival, and they themselves might not offer too much support for the monobuoy system. I've been told, but I can't confirm it, that we could build these monobuoys in Vancouver, that the engineering capacity is here and they could be done. They're expensive but they are well worth your while.

There's an organization known as the Sea Use Council on which B.C. is represented. It includes Alaska, Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, B.C., United States Coast Guard, the U.S. Navy and Canada. We have suggested to the federal Minister of the Environment that we make greater use of this council. It might be an excellent organization to bring up some of the points you've mentioned.

If international pressure were applied to the oil tankers for proper standards, if receiving countries refused to accept oil from substandard equipment, if they refused to accept oil from tankers that did not have certain specifications, if all these receiving countries refused to accept it, then the tankers would have to be improved and upgraded. They'd have to meet the standards of the receiving countries. That is simply not the case at this time.

We can cajole and we can protest and we can attempt to convince, but it would be better if we had the direct jurisdiction over the receiving in such ports.

You asked a number of questions relating to the ministry's office.

Interjection.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Oh, yes. We were told when Mr. LeBlanc was visiting B.C. that it was regretted that so little attention had been placed on the west

[ Page 1283 ]

coast in many ways, including proper environmental impact studies on what may happen in the event of an oil spill. Mr. LeBlanc, in discussion, advised us of the system they have in the east coast and he felt it very regrettable that we were not as up to date. He did suggest that it would be a very positive endeavour to implement this programme on the west coast.

Perhaps there is some legitimacy in considering that the east coast has been receiving oil in huge quantities for many, many years and perhaps they felt B.C. would be supplied forever by Alberta. As you may remember, not too many years back we thought we had more oil than we could ever possibly use, which is simply not correct.

MR. SKELLY: Did he say how long it would take?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: He didn't offer a timetable. He just suggested it would be most pleasing if we had such a thing, and we certainly concur.

Interjection.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Member, through the Chairman to you, I'm afraid I just don't have those details. I'll be more than pleased to pursue this with the minister, because I agree with him. I didn't want to come on too heavy that day because we agreed, and I have found Mr. LeBlanc to be quite a reasonable man.

You mentioned SPEC and the contributions of various organizations to this distribution of information. We very recently have had a new member of our ministry join us, a young lady who is our public information officer, and one of her duties will be to put material together based on factual information relating to specific environmental concerns.

[Mr. Schroeder in the chair.]

Part of her job will be to relate this information to those who are interested by way of news publications or perhaps our own publication. It would not necessarily be the policy of government or the policy of the department. A lot of it might be simply placing as much information as we have before the people on specific issues to try and see what the attitude of the average person is, and relate concerns of groups and scientists and offer what we consider to be the facts of the matter.

The SPEC organization has sought a $25,000 contribution from the provincial government to match a previous contribution the year before. The SPEC organization asked for $25,000, 1 believe in July of last year, through the ministry of the Provincial Secretary's office, which is where the money had previously been forthcoming. It was denied by that ministry. The money was denied, and it was suggested that a submission perhaps be made to the Ministry of the Environment.

The dates aren't specific but I think it was in the general area of July, 1976. We received an application from the organization in August, 1976, asking for $25,000 for a very specific programme, known as Our Community, Our Environment: Phase 2. We had previously been advised by this organization of what they had developed through their first grant on Our Community, Our Environment, Phase 1, which was the preparation of a sound-slide presentation on the Fraser River estuary, basically, and other parts of the Fraser. It was shown to us, and they offered us a suggestion that a similar grant of $25,000 should be given to their organization to show this presentation. I discussed the costs with one of the representatives from SPEC, and I suggested that the amount of money he advised me had been paid for the presentation. I suggested it was not wisely spent. -not that amount. The end product was quite well done, but I thought the amount he told me was paid for it was far in excess.

In October we were advised as well that the federal government had turned down their application for Our Community, Our Environment, that the Vancouver Foundation had turned down their application for Our Community, Our Environment -this is Phase 2. My opinion was $25,000.... Subject to correction, I believe their total budget was about $61,000 to show this, of which they requested $25,000 from the provincial government and $25,000 from the federal and, I think, $10,000 from the Vancouver Foundation.

I advised SPEC, in general terms, that I did not believe $25,000 should be forthcoming from the Ministry of the Environment for Phase 2 of this programme, for several reasons, including the one that we had not made any provision whatever in our budget for such a grant. As you know, we do have money for grants, and these are prepared in advance of the estimates and presented to the House. We had not made any provision for it because the Ministry of the Environment had not funded SPEC previously. But even if we had made provisions I would still have questioned the application for $25,000 as a portion of the moneys required for the second phase of the presentation.

Many pieces of correspondence took place, and in October I received a letter from SPEC again and they had reduced the request to $16,000. After speaking with and advising one of their representatives basically that we would be interested in looking at some type of matching contributions, whether it be from a junior level of government, or from members, or from the public, information was supplied me and it was my decision that $5,000 was a reasonable matching contribution. If was offered to them on

[ Page 1284 ]

February 1 this year. As you know our fiscal year ends the end of March.

I must say that this organization has not made an application for the 1977-1978 fiscal year, and our estimates are before the House again. I've advised all organizations which had sought - either successfully or unsuccessfully - grants from the Ministry of the Environment to keep in mind that estimates are prepared in advance and that if they would like to be considered to please give us some time to look at their requests.

I also might mention that I don't have the letter before me but I received a letter of appreciation from SPEC for that contribution. I know there have been arguments about it since.

Mr. Chairman, the member for Oak Bay asked about leaks from my office. I might say that when we're discussing my office it's the minister's personal office rather than the suite of offices. I am of the belief that there are no leaks in my office at this moment. Certain precautions have been taken. Perhaps certain precautions should have been taken from the first day, but I believe at the moment the situation is well in hand.

I have not received a report from the Attorney-General's department as to any conclusions they may have so far. We have been in communication with the Attorney-General's department by their request, but I have not been advised yet what the results of their investigation may be.

On the rather sad case of Mr. Ohlemann, I did meet with him - unfortunately a day after he requested a meeting. I simply wasn't available on the original day of request. He came to my office first thing next morning and we spent an hour speaking about the situation. After our conversation, Mr. Ohlemann asked my advice on a number of matters, some of which were legal opinions of which I had no opportunity to offer any suggestions, and I suggested that he seek counsel if he wanted advice on that. Following the meeting, I requested my deputy minister to make inquiries on my behalf regarding the propriety of the actions alleged to have been taken by Mr. Ohlemann - and I say "alleged" because at that time it was an allegation. I had not had confirmation. As you know, since that time Mr. Ohlemann has admitted writing a letter, but at that time it was - as far as I was concerned - an allegation.

Through my deputy minister we have contacted the Public Service Commission, and I have requested an opinion from the Public Service Commission as to the propriety of any member of the public service communicating such information to anyone, but, more particularly, to a politician or to the press or to any other person. I have not received a conclusive answer from the Public Service Commission on this matter.

Senior officials of the Ministry of the Environment, in the lands department, are themselves looking into the situation as it relates to the feasibility of this gentleman working in his present position. I received a communication from many of those persons named, and I believe that - if you like - the shock is gone and most of them consider it to be not as serious as perhaps it was originally, or they thought it was originally. But we intend to follow through completely on this and we intend to pay attention to any recommendations, should they come forward from the Public Service Commission.

I hope that's covered your questions, Mr. Member.

MS. BROWN: I have a very brief question to the minister on the question of SPEC, the headquarters of which, you know, is in my riding. I appreciate the comments you have made. Is it too late? I know that they are in the process of preparing their budget, and I have advised them that they are late getting it in because your estimates are now being discussed. But is there any funding in your estimates so that you would be willing to accept a late application from them? As you know, they are doing a very valuable job. I am not discussing just the Phase 2 project, but all of the other things that they do. Would you still be willing to accept an application from them? They are going to ask for $25,000 again - to cover everything, not just their Phase 2.

The other thing you mentioned was that you had now hired someone in your department who would be responsible for getting information out to these groups. I wonder if you would give us her name and her exact title because I think SPEC would be very interested in knowing how to communicate with her. Is it your intention that she should replace the kind of work being done by the environmental groups or that she should complement it?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, I am most pleased to answer the questions of the member for Burrard. The lady's name is Linda Gauthier, who is our public information officer.

No, her position would not be to replace these organizations. Not at all. Part of her duties would be that which is common to a public information officer. But, in addition, we intend to make an attempt at publishing information, or at least providing information. A very minor example would be for an environmental laboratory.

We have been working on some information at our environmental laboratory, for school students particularly. But we hope to be able to raise the level of communication, not quite to the technical level but to a more sophisticated level for publication in periodical magazines - perhaps those who are associated with ecology or perhaps wildlife - and to provide material to them which they may or may not

[ Page 1285 ]

choose to print.

As I mentioned, it isn't our intent to place our opinion of a matter. Our intent would be to provide the information as we know it, and include the observations or opinions or concerns of other people. I suppose the end result of that would be, you know. . . . We are not reaching a conclusion, we are simply saying: "This is what we know to be the facts of the matter. Look at it, read it, and if you would like to reach a conclusion, so be it."

It is never too late for SPEC to make an application. The moneys we have before the House are generally allocated; they are not firmly allocated. That is not a contradiction, but, yes, we would accept a request. I certainly cannot guarantee any organization that they are going to get what they're asking for.

MS. BROWN: No.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: We want accountability. We want to be convinced that it is wise spending of the taxpayers' money. We have had some excellent discussions with many of these organizations, and I told them all that we want to know from these organizations that they have some type of community response to what they are doing.

We don't want to feel that they are obliged to us, as their only benefactor - if you wish to call it a benefactor. We would rather not match federal grants in many instances. We have, as you perhaps know, matched local grants in our recycling programmes. And the money is provided to the local municipality or regional d district to distribute to these organizations. It has worked out very well. But yes, we will certainly accept an application from SPEC and review it, and respond to it.

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): This has been a very interesting afternoon. It has been a very factual afternoon. I think we have all gained a lot of information. We have heard the minister tell us that he is involved in a series of panels and committees and reviews, guidelines, background papers - all relative to the environment.

One of the studies that he mentioned was an every-fifth-year study of the various facets involved. He indicated that the forestry study was one that was just now being completed. I am wondering if the intent of his remarks indicate that we have had a study on the forestry industry, and five years from now we will have another one.

What I fail to see or to hear - unless I am not listening properly - is anything about implementation. What concrete steps are going to be taken? In speaking of forestry specifically, there have been a couple of items in the press over the last year. We've heard a lot about oil, but there are other forms of pollution.

In the Sun back in February of this year, there was a headline: "Non-lethal Pollution Seen as the Greatest Danger to Salmon." This was a study that was undertaken by a University of B.C. Professor Dr. Tom Northcote. He said that while a lethal spell could kill thousands of salmon at any time of the year, just as terrifying was the prospect that smaller concentrations of pollutants could cause greater harm. He went on to explain how young salmon were stunned by toxins in rivers and might not be able to avoid predators waiting at the river mouth. He talked about adult salmon swimming upstream to reproduce and not being able to reach their spawning grounds. He went into a great deal of length on the hazards as a result of pollution, in the main, contaminants from sources other than oil spills.

Certainly forestry is one of these. Later on in the year - in November - there was a further article -this was in the Province - where there was a study made by the University of Victoria - a Dr. Derek Ellis. He talked about the pollution of the coastal seaboard as a result of log and bark chips. He said that in some cases these have smothered the entire shellfish beds. He was doing an experiment where he collected thousands of sea worms, and from a study of these worms he was going to be able to tell the degree of pollution.

I suggest that if we just make studies and go on polluting it's really not going to do very much for the environment, except perhaps pollute it a little more with all the paper from the studies. It's going to take some action, Mr. Minister. You know, we haven't really heard anything about the action that minister is proposing to take. We've heard a very great deal about the studies but nothing in particular about the action.

He spoke at some length about the work he is doing on secondary sewage treatment plants. That's fine. I congratulate him for that. It's very commendable, but we also need tertiary. Another question that concerns me very greatly, Mr. Chairman, is alternate methods of sewage use, not sewage disposal. Are we just going to be content with the same old status quo of dumping our sewage into the sea, be it in large pieces, small pieces or some kind of treated pieces, or are we going to take a look at this very great amount of potential energy that we are spending money to dispose of? Are we going to take a look at that to see whether or not there are ways that it can be utilized? Now I didn't hear the minister say anything about those kinds of positive steps. He talked about secondary sewage treatment but he didn't say anything, Mr. Chairman, about what his ministry is proposing to do in some positive way to look at alternative methods of sewage disposal. There are many examples in Europe ;where this is being undertaken. We don't even ; have to go as far as

[ Page 1286 ]

Europe; we can go right down into Washington state south of us. There are many experiments that are almost beyond the state of experimentation now -they are in the proven state. I'm really waiting for that minister to stand up and tell us just what he is going to do this year. The time has come when we must take some action - not just studies, not just committees, not just panels, not just reviews, not just guidelines, not just background papers. We want some action, Mr. Chairman. I'm waiting for the minister to get down to those concrete actions that he is intending to undertake this year. He spoke about the milfoil in the Okanagan Lakes and some of the things he is doing there. He said he tried mechanical things and he was considering chemical things. He had more reports, more background papers. I'm wondering, Mr. Chairman, whether or not he's ever got as far as Ontario in his reviews. It's a very interesting thing .they're doing in Ontario. They have milfoil in Ontario. I think it might be worth the time of the House if I just read this clipping, It's from the Free Press Farmer, a Winnipeg journal, December 8,1976, and it's datelined Toronto:

"The Ontario Ministry of the Environment is conducting an experimental project which may soon transform a recreation-killing lake weed into an important life-giving industry. The project is part of a crusade to revitalize tired old lakes in south-central Ontario. Milfoil, a despised weed that is choking the lakes, is being pulled from the water by giant weed-cutting machines and used as fertilizer and animal food."

Mr. Chairman, this is in Ontario.

"A research team that includes scientists from the University of Guelph is confident that the process can develop into a successful commercial operation. John Neil, an limnologist, someone who studies lakes, has a government contract for the weed harvesting through his firm, Limnos Limited Environmental Management. He also helps the ministry biologist who is running the programme. Three University of Guelph scientists convert the weed into food or silage for cattle."

"After two years of laboratory work the research has moved to a farm near Chemong Causeway, near Peterborough, where field experiments monitored by Mr. Neil are being done with 24 head of cattle. Mr. Neil says the cattle fed on the milfoil silage are thriving, but he hopes the production costs can be lowered. He estimates that one animal can feed for a year on two acres of lake harvest.

"Peterborough area farmers who have used the weed for fertilizers on their fields are happy with the results. The weeds are scattered on the field with a standard manure spreader and left to rot."

I'm wondering, Mr. Chairman, whether or not the minister has investigated what is going on in Ontario. It sounds like a very viable method of handling this very serious problem in Okanagan Lake. I would like the minister to say whether he has considered this, whether he finds it is not viable, or whether he is considering introducing such a method of control on a trial basis in the Okanagan. It seems to me it would be a very simple sort of operation to make some sort of an agreement with the Ontario government to have access to their experience there, and perhaps even access to some of their equipment and some of their personnel.

The minister, in his remarks, discussed at some length and at various times....

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: Thank you, Mr. Attorney General. Is that applause for me? (Laughter.)

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'm sorry. My apologies.

MRS. WALLACE: He discussed at some length the meetings he has had recently with the federal Minister of Fisheries and the Environment. It's very interesting to note the discussions he has held with that minister. He discussed particularly what he considered to be a very fruitful meeting in relation to the Fraser River and some of the things that were going on in the Fraser. But I wonder, Mr. Chairman, whether or not he discussed with the federal Minister of Fisheries and the Environment the proposed diversion of the McGregor River. I would be very interested to know what the federal Minister of Fisheries had to say in regard to that proposed diversion.

MRS. WALLACE: He discussed at some length the meetings he has had recently with the federal Minister of Fisheries and the Environment. It's very interesting to note the discussions he has held with that minister. He discussed particularly what he considered to be a very fruitful meeting in relation to the Fraser River and some of the things that were going on in the Fraser. But I wonder, Mr. Chairman, whether or not he discussed with the federal Minister of Fisheries and the Environment the proposed diversion of the McGregor River. I would be very interested to know what the federal Minister of Fisheries had to say in regard to that proposed diversion.

We certainly have had some very interesting information on the possibilities of that diversion and its effect, on the fishing industry in British Columbia. I have at hand here a report of last December, and it makes some estimates on what will happen to some of the fish population in the McGregor. It talks about

[ Page 1287 ]

the Chinook, which has declined dramatically from overfishing. However, according to a study of 1974, the tributaries of the McGregor can support a spawning capacity 30 times their current level, or a total of 18,352 Chinook spawners.

I think that certainly the aspect of what the McGregor diversion will do to the fish population in the Fraser River is one that is sufficiently questionable to cause that Minister of the Environment to really exert his authority as the Minister of the Environment to ensure that we are not faced with a diversion of the McGregor River until we know for sure what it's going to do to our fishing industry. Let us not get to a point of no return, because if that river is diverted then there is no way we're ever going to change that and bring the fish population back to the Fraser River and revitalize our fishing industry. If we destroy the fish in the Fraser, they're gone, they're destroyed, and there's no way that that can be reinstated. I'm wondering whether or not he did discuss that possibility with the federal Ministry of Fisheries and what the federal Ministry of Fisheries had to say in that regard.

Another point the minister raised was the fact that he was setting up guidelines, in an environmental way, in connection with roads and pipelines and power lines. I would be very interested to have a little more information on those guidelines, Mr. Chairman. We have seen some pretty hazardous things done as far as the environment goes. I'm particularly concerned about the proposed highway from Hope to Merritt. I'm sure you, Mr. Chairman, are familiar with that area. It is a very rugged and somewhat unspoiled area. It is an area that would be prone to all sorts of hazards - slides, all sorts of things. Now the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) has indicated that there will be an environmental study done there before that highway is undertaken, but I'm wondering just what the Minister of the Environment is going to do to ensure that that study is made, and that it is made in the fullest possible way to insure that we don't have a highway going in there and destroying the environmental aspects of that area.

I would also be interested to know just what his guidelines are that he's proposing to set up. I've been very interested in all the comments that have been made from both sides of the House on the proposed Kitimat pipeline. In my opinion, and from my reading of the feeling out there in the province, I'm sure that the majority of the citizens of British Columbia are concerned about that pipeline.

Now if the minister disagrees with that, there is an easy way he could find out. He could have hearings. The provincial government could hold hearings to find out what the people of B.C.... I think you're telling me, Mr. Chairman, this has already been mentioned. I'm sorry, I didn't realize that had been mentioned. Okay, let me move on from that then.

Certainly, in the United States, the minister has himself indicated that the reason there is not going to be a port for supertankers at Port Angeles is because the people of Washington don't want it. They have said so. Now I would suggest to that minister that it would be very simple for the people of British Columbia to say that they didn't want it at Kitimat. It would just be as simple as that., I would urge that minister, if he is not convinced of how the people of British Columbia feel, to have those public provincial hearings. If he is convinced that the people of British Columbia do not want that port there, then I would ask the minister whether he is prepared, as a representative of the province of British Columbia and the people of British Columbia, to make a presentation to the federal hearings on behalf of the people of British Columbia in opposition to that pipeline.

Moving on to another river at this time - not a pipeline - the Thompson River. The Minister in his remarks talked about a public meeting that he was going to have so that the people of the Thompson River area would understand about the Thompson River. He said that there would be government representatives. Now I suggest that that is a rather biased representation. Certainly the business representatives have their own specific interest in that area. I would suggest that if he's making specific opportunity for the business representation, then he should likewise make equal opportunity for the other groups who are perhaps more concerned about the environment - perhaps in which there is no conflict of interest - to present their side.

I suggest that this whole problem of environment and ecology and the control of pollution is one which we are going to have to come to grips with, not by and by, but now. Because if it goes much longer, we will have reached the point of no return. We'll have reached the point there, if we think it's expensive now to institute environmental controls or pollution control, the cost that will be involved in the kind of environmental and ecological measures that will be needed is just incomprehensible. We should have started long ago. Public opinion was not as much aware as it is now. At the time we should have been studying it, it would not have been a popular issue. But I suggest to that minister that environmental controls are a popular issue now and I would urge upon him to take some immediate action to ensure that, not only at the Thompson River public meetings, but also in all aspects of his ministry, he moves into concrete action to prevent further endangering of our environment.

I want to turn to a couple of local items before I complete my remarks, Mr. Chairman. The minister mentioned the Ladysmith harbour, and I must say that I'm very pleased that we now have a final report on the Ladysmith harbour. I might be critical of the

[ Page 1288 ]

time element. After all, the draft was down before that minister was even in his office, yet it took a good year to get the final report - that changed maybe half-a-dozen words from the draft. That seems to be a little strange time frame. However, it is down.

The minister spoke about advisory boards, 1 think he called them. But you know, Mr. Chairman, the people in Ladysmith are very concerned about their tight to local control, a local authority. Some of the things that they are asking are moves to ensure that there will be local autonomy in the control of that harbour. The government has indicated that they will allow and encourage local autonomy, and 1 understand that the Ladysmith town council has passed a motion to accept the alternatives in regard to harbour management. The regional district has passed a motion that they would apply for letters patent for the harbour's management function. That would cover Area H, which is part of the regional district in Ladysmith.

There is a precedent for this procedure, Mr. Chairman, where the provincial government has signed a contract with both Nanaimo and Port Alberni harbour commissions for management of Crown leases. I would ask the minister whether or not we can expect some rather prompt action - not a year from now, but prompt action - in assuring that this local harbour authority is established.

The other point I want to speak about is the Cowichan Bay situation in the Cowichan River estuary. This, like Ladysmith harbour, is a multiple-use harbour. There is industry, there's recreation, there's fishing. There are many, many uses and many, many segments and sector of federal and provincial and local governments involved.

We have had some rather hazardous going in the Cowichan Bay area during the past year. There has been a great deal of conflict of interest. There has been great involvement of many of the departments and sections of the Ministry of the Environment. There's involvement by the Ministry of Agriculture. There is local government involvement. We've had problems where there is certainly difference of opinion between the people that are using that harbour for the various uses. It seems to me that, once again, there seems to be a tendency on the part of the minister to hide behind reports and jurisdictional problems. In the meantime, it would seem that we are moving to a point where we are endangering that harbour.

I would really appreciate it if the minister today could stand in his , place and make a clearcut statement on just what he is proposing relative to the dumping of chips on property adjacent to that harbour and relative to the upholding of the contract signed between the mill operating there and the Environment and Land Use Committee. Is he proposing to legalize by some legislative authority the contracts which were signed there to make them legal and binding on the part of his ministry? I am really concerned about the overall future for Cowichan Bay.

It's a difficult thing when you have multiple-use in any harbour or in any area. It's the same kind of difficulty we come up against with the Land Commission and the agricultural land reserve -wherever you move the border, there's always going to be a border. It's a difficult situation, but I would really appreciate the minister's comments on the Cowichan Bay situation. There are so many things going on there, and I'm sure he's very aware of all those things. We've had a great deal of correspondence, in fact, on this. But I would like a clearcut statement on just what his policy is in that area. I think if the minister is prepared to answer, I would....

HON. MR. NIELSEN: To the member for Cowichan-Malahat, I'll try to cover most of the areas you mentioned and if I miss any, I would appreciate you reminding me.

You started, I believe, with part of the milfoil question. The method you suggested is quite well known to the ministry. I'm not sure what acreage they were discussing back there. We have in excess of 1,000 acres of milfoil in the Okanagan Lake chain. With all due respect, we don't want to grow the stuff; we want to get rid of the stuff. Certainly it has certain nutritional benefits, but we really don't want to get into harvesting it. We'd rather get rid of the problem rather than use it for that other purpose. Yes, there is another purpose and it is known.

We've had three commissioners spend a considerable amount of time back east and also at Chesapeake Bay and elsewhere; I think Alabama was one place they went to look at the milfoil problem. We expect their second report out.

I trust you recognize, of course, that you must investigate before you can act. You have to understand what the problem is and you have to develop programmes such as you mentioned - the Ladysmith harbour. We had to have a report before we could decide what is to be done. The Ladysmith harbour report itself - I believe I sent a copy to you a week after the final report was prepared. We intend, I believe, to meet with these people next week at their request. Some of them had asked if they could hold back a meeting until they had a chance to read the report properly. What the result of that meeting will be I don't know.

There are certain limitations as to assigning the administration of Crown lands. There are limitations as to the legalities of assigning administration of Crown lands. The minister and the ministry are responsible for that. There are some harbour authorities, of course, that are established, and they can lease property. Other harbour authorities, of

[ Page 1289 ]

course, are federal jurisdiction. There are federal harbours as well.

Tertiary treatment is not unlike motherhood. I suppose most people would prefer tertiary treatment. Again, the technical ability is there, but sometimes the spirit is a bit weak when it comes to the money necessary for it. I am led to believe by some engineers and biologists that tertiary treatment at some time is not necessary, even though it might be preferable from a public relations point of view. Yes, there are alternative methods of disposing of waste -absolutely. We have been engaged in conversations with a number of persons who offer technology relating to making use of hog fuel and other forms of wood waste by compressing it and using it as a fuel elsewhere. I believe it's the BCFP Crofton mill that is going to try and use some of their wood waste for heating up their boilers.

We have suggested that wood waste and other such waste should not be considered as a waste but should be considered as a fuel resource. One very serious problem is transportation and the costs of it. Vernon, as you know, is using a spray irrigation system, apparently quite successfully. Cranbrook is looking into a similar programme, and there are other jurisdictions that are looking toward alternate uses.

You can, of course, develop a problem sometimes in the treatment of wastes; you wind up with a problem of what to do with all the sludge and the rest of it. But most people, I think, would agree that alternate wastes would be a good way to make use of our waste material, whether it be solid or fluid.

You referred to my earlier comment on the forest industry guidelines. This is the second cycle of the five-year period. There are guidelines that are in effect now and, in effect, they become the policy of the Pollution Control Board in adjudicating the permits. So those guidelines, when accepted, in effect become the regulations. The new volumes that are being prepared are to replace the others, recognizing that in five years some improvements can be made. It's expected this will occur on a regular cycle of probably five years.

The linear development guidelines I simply couldn't provide for you now because they are not complete, but I can suggest to you that they will be similar in nature and in procedure to the coal guidelines. Naturally we're dealing with a different problem but similar in structure to the coal guidelines.

The issue of using Port Angeles as a port is not over. In speaking with the Washington state officials, they still consider Port Angeles to be a very viable alternative. It is not dead; there is a possibility it could go into Port Angeles even now.

The Thompson River meeting I referred to and you referred to: basically the meeting is set up to permit Weyerhaeuser and the city to be grilled by interested parties. It's not a meeting between government people and Weyerhaeuser and the city. Weyerhaeuser and the city will be represented; government people will also be represented. Basically they are a panel to be grilled by interested parties and groups. So any of those groups you mentioned would certainly be welcome.

Mr. Chairman, through you to the member, I'm sorry that I wasn't able to follow your last subject completely. Were you speaking of the difficulties with the proposed Island shake and shingle mill? Was that your reference?

MRS. WALLACE: That was part of it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We can't keep track of a debate like this through the Hansard people, so just continue to direct your debate through the Chair, please.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, as the member would be aware, the industrial areas, the CNR land, the argument over the Island Shake and Shingle and the Doman property, and so on, has been continuing for some time. I believe it was referred to the Environment and Land Use Committee a couple of years back. A proposal was accepted at that time which is now to be known as the status quo. We have been petitioned by North Cowichan to come up with certain statements. I believe we have advised them that we have not changed the status quo. The Environment and Land Use Committee has not altered that status quo. I understand - and it's only an understanding because I haven't received information directly - that they have had fourth reading and have zoned the property, I believe, estuarial or some such designation as that.

We have not considered ourselves to be in the lead role in this question until the local government provided us with a very firm opinion by way of zoning as to what they desired. We have certainly kept up to date on it. We have had one of our people keep us up to date by way of investigation, and I believe he's met with some of the people from Cowichan.

MR. SKELLY: The minister still hasn't answered some of the questions that we raised originally this afternoon, and while I understand there's no obligation on him to answer those questions; and before you instruct me to that effect, it's possibly just a slip of memory that he didn't.

He still hasn't really made any kind of a concrete statement on his opposition to such projects - or his position on such projects - as the Kitimat pipeline or McGregor River Dam. He did express some concern about the salmon industry. It's strange to hear the minister express concern about the industry and yet

[ Page 1290 ]

not take a strong position on these very serious projects that would deplete, if not totally wipe out, the industry on the Pacific coast of Canada.

When we're talking about that industry, it's wise to remember that we're dealing with the Canadian fishery which represents 2 per cent of the world's protein. And when you're talking about 2 per cent of the world's protein and depriving people of that protein, as I've said before, you're talking about depriving people of their lives. It's necessary stuff, that fish that we raise on this coast. If the minister is seriously concerned about the fishery resource, then you would certainly expect him to come out and make a strong statement on those projects which seriously threaten that resource. There are several ways in which that resource is now being threatened and in which the minister could put the minds of people in this province at ease, particularly those people in his own riding who live in places like Richmond and Steveston and who rely so much for their income on the fishing industry.

Now it's well known what the impact of the tanker traffic and tanker spill will be in the north coast area. It's estimated that a single major oil tanker spill will wipe out the fishing industry in that area for 10 years.

AN HON. MEMBER: Probably longer.

MR. SKELLY: That's for a whole generation. When we're anticipating - based on U.S. Coast Guard statistics - one every four years (probably even more frequently than that) we're talking about wiping it out for generation after generation after generation, in exchange for 150 jobs on a pipeline.

In the case of the McGregor, we're talking about destroying the salmon industry on the Fraser. The minister did correct me. He mentioned that there were some measures that could be taken, possibly -they're not too sure, but possibly - to ameliorate the problem of parasite transfer between the Peace and the Fraser systems, and that they might possibly be successful. In any case, the whole of the Fraser salmon resource is at risk, and again, those people in his riding rely strongly on the fishing industry for employment and for their bread and butter. That's the source of their employment in that area and has been for almost a century. In fact, that industry was the No. I industry in the province at the turn of the century in terms of revenue to the province and employment in the province. The minister has expressed concern, but not strongly enough, that he would come out unequivocally opposed to a dam on the Fraser River that would destroy at least 7 per cent of that salmon resource on the Fraser, possibly 100 per cent. I'm asking the minister if he will come out and state today that he is opposed to the Kitimat pipeline and that he is opposed to the McGregor River Dam.

The minister also brought up some interesting facts on marine technology relative to the transferring of oil between nations over the seas of this globe. But one section of technology that he seems to have omitted altogether is one that's been around for a long time. It seems that governments and politicians - and not just on that side of the House - develop mental blocks against certain things, such as certain lower forms of technology that have been with us a long time but perhaps would solve the problem in a lot more economically and environmentally sound way. An economist who used to be a consultant to the National Coal Board in Britain wrote a book called "Small is Beautiful." He said that sometimes we're astounded by these new developments in technology, by nuclear reactors, and by massive agribusiness. We forget that the best solution to our problem probably comes from a lowering of the level of technology. We use less energy, we use more manpower. It can solve a lot of problems.

The technology I'm talking about, in terms of transporting oil, is one that was proposed by the former Premier of the province back in 1973, and that's the rail proposal. At that time, the Social Credit opposition laughed at the rail proposal. They thought it was ridiculous and it was impossible to transport oil by rail. It was uneconomical. The Alaskans wouldn't want to join their railway to British Columbia anyway. But it is a proven technology for the transportation of oil right now.

The Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) , during his estimates, said that he was going to be in touch with people from Alaska and Washington state, and from the United States and the Canadian federal government, to discuss the possibility of an interconnect between Alaska state railways and the B.C. Rail. It has already been determined by the state of Alaska officials that rail transport and an interconnect between their railway and B.C. Rail is feasible. That comes from an article in the Vancouver Province on February 15. In an article in the Phoenk Gazette - and I am sure that newspaper crosses the minister's desk all the time -an editorial by John Chamberlain, dated January 26,1977, says this:

"Four railroads - the Southern Pacific, Santa Fe, Missouri Pacific and Burlington Northern - tell us that the problem of finding Pacific coast storage space for a 500,000-barrel daily glut is something we will never have to encounter. The railroads count on the specialized tank train, a concept that was developed by the General American Transportation Corp., a GATX subsidiary which happens to be the largest U.S. lessor of freight cars, with 52,000 tank cars in its fleet.

"The tank train, consisting of 90 separate

[ Page 1291 ]

cars, can be loaded or unloaded by a two-man crew in five hours where a conventional train would take 12 men 10 hours. The cost of loading and unloading a tank train comes to two cents a barrel, whereas for conventional tank cars the cost is 14 cents a barrel."

So technology has been developed, Mr. Chairman, to transport oil economically, efficiently, and in an environmentally sound way, by rail transport. The minister says he has been in touch with people who have talked about new developments and new technology in the transport of oil by sea, but there is the possibility of rail transport. I think I pointed out to the House before that Southern Pacific is already doing this.

After our leader, the member for Vancouver East, made the presentation to Washington and to Ottawa in March, 1973, Southern Pacific took up the idea and since 1974 have moved 690 million barrels of crude oil by rail. So that technology is available. I wonder if the minister has been in touch with people in the other states that he has mentioned, with people in other industries, concerning the transport of crude oil by rail. If so, is he seriously considering that method of transport as a possibility? It's less polluting. It's more efficient. It's economically sound. It creates jobs. Also, it is a common carrier.

Oil companies don't like dealing with common carriers. They'd rather ship their oil through their pipes to their refineries, through their gas stations to the customers. But railways are common carriers, and they are able to carry the crude oil efficiently, economically and in an environmentally sound way.

MR. KING: I'm for the railway.

MR. SKELLY: Our House Leader says he's for the railroad. I can understand that. But also, Mr. Chairman, it gives the railways an opportunity to develop tracks, to develop their grades which have been allowed to deteriorate over the years because of a lack of profitable freight. Southern Pacific officials tell me that wherever a pipeline runs parallel to a railway system, the railway system ends up suffering. In fact, usually the railway is abandoned because they don't have adequate freight to keep the railway operating economically.

To consider the pipeline running parallel to the CNR through the northern part of British Columbia would be just another step in eliminating the economic efficiency of that railroad. So I am asking the minister: has he considered the railway as an alternative? Has he been in touch with people who are concerned and who have been involved in new developments in that technology? If that is the case, then possibly we don't have to consider any of the three oil port alternatives that are under discussion now - the Kitimat, the Cherry Point or the Port

Angeles - that we can use existing oil terminal facilities and rail transportation in a more flexible and economically feasible way to deal with the problem of Alaska crude.

I also asked the minister earlier this afternoon: in view of the fact that he is unsatisfied with the environmental studies that were done by Slaney and Associates on the marine impact, and Envirocon on the terrestrial impacts, and in view of the fact that more detailed environment all-impact statements are necessary, is he willing to approach the National Energy Board and ask them to postpone their hearings for at least a year until adequate environmental impact studies can be done?

It doesn't make sense to carry on public hearings while the National Energy Board is approving construction of the pipeline. I would also like to ask the minister . . . and he hasn't really answered this question either. But now that his lands expert is here, perhaps he can answer the question: does he have jurisdiction over the right-of-way of the pipeline as it runs through the province?

Does the province approve the right-of-way of the pipeline running through the lands of British Columbia and does the minister have that jurisdiction? Now the government has attempted to shuffle off the jurisdiction for this pipeline on to the federal government. I've talked to the former Premier of the minister's home province, the Hon. T.C. Douglas. When they were building the Trans-Canada pipeline through his province when he was Premier, they had to get permission from the province of Saskatchewan before that pipeline was allowed to proceed there. In that case, permission was granted. Does the minister have that same jurisdiction? If so, then by simply stating that he will not grant lands for the construction of the pipeline, then he has control over whether we proceed with the Kitimat oil port or not.

So those three questions: Has he considered railway technology? Can he answer the question on jurisdiction? Re his concern about the salmon resource: is he willing to translate that concern into a hard and fast statement against those two major projects which threaten the salmon resource and the fisheries resource of this province? I'll await the minister's answers to those questions.

MR. H.J. LLOYD (Fort George): There are several problems I'd like to discuss with the Environment minister. The first is regarding the lands department there. I've had quite a few people up in my riding that are quite concerned about the problem of getting on to agricultural land for farming - young people aspiring to go farming. There's been a moratorium on there, a restriction that unless you already have cultivated land you can't apply for land. I think it is quite a handicap to young people or to other people

[ Page 1292 ]

moving in who are bona fide farmers that they can't get onto property. I really feel that it's an unfair policy. It also allows anyone in the real estate business that does have a farm under cultivation to go and apply for more land. So I'd like to know if we are addressing ourselves to that problem.

The other problem we have throughout the interior is a shortage of land inspectors. The last government put the freeze on the hiring of public servants after they'd overspent their budget. This has remained and it's caused a real hardship in the more remote areas of the province where the land inspectors have a terrific area to cover. I think that this is something we should address ourselves to in three or four different major centres in the north. Quite a backlog of inspections has accumulated that should be taken care of.

Another area of concern is the recreational lease lots - lakeshore and mountain lease lots. A lot of people are concerned with the rate increases that they've had over the past several years. I know these are only adjusted every five years, but the system of adjusting them by comparing their value to real estate values - private land that is sold - I don't feel is a really fair criterion. There isn't that much private lakeshore lot left any more so, of course, the price of that, I believe, goes unrealistically high.

This probably is a situation that would have to be looked at on a regional basis. If you're looking in the Vancouver area, talking of Cultus Lake or something, certainly you have quite a shortage of lakeshore lots. But in the Prince George area we have thousands of lots on lakes close to town where there is lots of public property left available for lease lots. I think all we're really doing is limiting who can stay on these lease lots. If they start bouncing them up too high then we're going to force a lot of people off who built small cabins and felt that they would be able to sustain the price of the lots. That's something I would like to have looked at.

I understand some of these policies are under review, and I'd like to have some comments if you have gone far enough on them. Just a very brief comment on the pipeline situation. I certainly share the concern of the other members of the House with the offshore oil tankers coming in. I think it is a real hazard. It's something we're going to have to address ourselves to. We can't isolate ourselves from our neighbours to the south. These energy resources are going to have to be shared as they were last winter during the gas crisis in the United States.

I think possibly the Alcan pipeline is beginning to gain more credibility lately. But even these overland pipelines do create pollution hazards. We had a break in the pipeline by Salmon Valley just north of Prince George. It caused quite a panic before it could be cleaned up. It's the sort of thing that you will be addressing yourself to when we pass Bill 5 - the bill that the opposition is filibustering - giving you the power to clean up and to move quickly in an area of cleanup. 1 would hope that we will be addressing ourselves to that.

The member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) mentions hauling oil by railway. Of course, the railway isn't even where the oil is right now, and they're the first ones to criticize the poor roadbed that exists in a lot of places, and all the derailments we're getting. If they're so concerned about pollution, I would think that certainly the derailments would really add to it there.

Since we're approaching the hour of 6, I'll save the rest of my comments until after.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Gardom presents the supplementary report under the Protection of Privacy Act: first, the one terminating December 31,1974; secondly, the one terminating December 31,1975; and the annual report for the period January 1,1976, to December 31,1976.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen files reports.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:57 p.m.