[ Page 4697 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Companies Amendment Act, 1977 (Bill 49) Committee stage.

On section 35.

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 4697

Report stage –– 4697

Pesticide Control Act (Bill 46) Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 4697

Mr. Skelly –– 4698

Mr. Gibson –– 4699

Mr. Cocke –– 4702

Mrs. Jordan –– 4704

Mr. Barber –– 4705

Mr. King –– 4708

Mr. Lloyd –– 4709

Mr. Nicolson –– 4710

Mr. Lockstead –– 4712

Mr. Levi –– 4713

Mr. Wallace –– 4716

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 4720

Division on second reading –– 4722

The House met at 8 p.m.

MR. L.B. KAHL (Esquimalt): Mr. Speaker, seated in the gallery this evening are two friends of mine from the constituency of Oak Bay, Bert and Wanda Abbott. With them are two guests I would like the House to bid a warm welcome, Mrs. Margaret Bishop and Mrs. Joan Naylor from Poulton-Le-FyIde, Lancashire, England.

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): Mr. Speaker, I'd like the House to welcome two guests from the fair city of Revelstoke in the gallery this evening, Alderman John Opra, his wife Lil and their children.

Orders of the day.

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): Mr. Speaker, committee on Bill 49.

COMPANIES AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 49; Mr. Veitch in the chair.

On section 35.

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): Mr. Chairman, just in the event that anybody feels lively and full of fun tonight, let me immediately dampen their enthusiasm by giving the explanation for this section which I received over the dinner hour.

In 1976, Mr. Chairman, amendments to the Companies Act came into force which allow a B.C. company to change its situs of incorporation from British Columbia to any other jurisdiction that has reciprocal enabling legislation. Mainly we deal with the provinces of Alberta and Ontario as well as the Canada Corporations Act. Usually advantage is taken of this section to facilitate a reorganization of a company or a merger.

The problem became apparent that it is possible, once a company ceases to exist as a B.C. company, that the mortgages and other securities it may have given may be invalid. If this section that we're talking about, Mr. Chairman, is not put in to clarify this, companies that have moved may have found that they are in a state of legal uncertainty that is potentially very troublesome and litigious. It is therefore important that we anti-date this section back to the date when we started to allow this transfer of jurisdictions so that this potential legal problem is cured.

That is the explanation for the August, 1976, date, Mr. Chairman.

Section 35 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

Bill 49, Companies Amendment Act, 1977, reported complete with amendment to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 46, Mr. Speaker.

PESTICIDE CONTROL ACT

HON. J.A. NIELSEN (Minister of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, the proper use of pesticides is a very important and very controversial public issue in this province, as it is in other jurisdictions. Because of great differences of opinion, the provincial royal commission pesticides and herbicides was appointed in 1973. The commission held hearings for nearly two years and finally submitted its report in 1975.

The royal commission recommended that pesticide control in British Columbia be vested in a department of environmental protection. Steps have been taken by most provinces in Canada and many states of the United States during the past 15 years to regulate the sale and use of pesticides within their jurisdictions.

British Columbia was among the first to implement legislation on the retail sale and custom application of pesticides through the Pharmacy Act, as a result of a number of relatively large-scale instances of pesticides misuse in the past in the province.

Existing provincial legislation was examined. It was noted that the Pharmacy Act defined poisons and contained provisions for controlling sale and distribution of poisons in British Columbia. It should be noted that the Pharmaceutical Association has tended to disregard the sale of agricultural poisons in the administration and enforcement of their Act,

The Pharmacy Act was amended in 1964 to provide tile government with the authority to regulate the sale and the use of pesticides in British Columbia. The rationale for including pesticides in the Pharmacy Act at that time was to expedite matters to avoid a potential conflict in legislation.

The new Pesticide Control Act will work towards resolving some of the problems and some of tile conflicts, including the inclusion and continuation of

[ Page 4698 ]

pesticide legislation in the Act of a profession that is totally removed from the discipline of pest control, as the Pharmacy Act and participation in environmental or resource protection decisions is one of the more important factors justifying the need for a new Act separate from the Pharmacy Act.

A number of shortcomings noted in the legislation which is enforced at this time in the province will be rectified in the Pesticide Control Act. To cite an example, application of the "safe and proper use" aspects of the legislation will be to all handlers and users of pesticides. Current legislation is directed only to the retail sale of pesticides and the application of pesticides on a fee-for-service basis. The Pesticide Control Act, which we are considering now, will apply to all public and private handlers and users of pesticides in the province. Some persons may be exempted from some aspects of the legislation, but no person will be exempted from all aspects of the legislation.

There will be provision for the appointment of an appeal board to hear appeals from persons aggrieved by actions of those who are responsible for administering the new Act; provision for users of pesticides to possess adequate public liability and property damage insurance or bonding requirements, if deemed necessary; provision for the development of positive guidelines for the disposal of pesticide containers and unwanted pesticides; provision for the government to restrict the sale and use of any pesticide; provision that any person who, through the misuse of pesticides, creates an unreasonable, adverse effect to man or the environment is subject to prosecution.

Pesticide use and abuse is an emotional thing with many people. We recognize that; it's an emotional issue. This proposed tightening-up and appeal procedure should satisfy most or many of the complaints.

There probably always will be a number of persons who want nothing short of banning pesticides altogether. Other departments of government, of course, such as Recreation and Conservation, Agriculture, Health and Forests, have substantial interests in the administration of the Act. The royal commission recommended that a Department of the Environment be established to administer the Act, along with the Pollution Control Act.

Mr. Speaker, the intent of the bill is to ensure that pesticides are used in a proper and knowledgeable manner that is compatible with public health and environmental concerns. One of the most important aspects of the bill is to minimize the imposition of unreasonable, adverse effects from pesticides on the environment.

With those words, Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): I can only construe from the minister's introductory remarks that the people who wrote his remarks weren't the same people who wrote the legislation, or vice versa. Pesticide and its applications are a very controversial issue in this province, and an emotional issue, as the minister has pointed out. It's generally the government or the agencies responsible for application of the pesticides who create the emotion surrounding the issue. Just to cite an example, there is the Okanagan Lake situation in which the minister and his department has a vested interest, I might point out, in the application of pesticides, as witness the example of the use of 2, 4-D in that lake.

Another example is the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) , who will be represented on the pesticide committee established under this Act. His department also has a vested interest in the application of pesticides, and was also responsible for generating some of the emotion around pesticides, as evidenced in the aborted spruce budworm spraying programme in the Fraser Valley.

This party is extremely concerned about the qualify of legislation which the minister has brought down in the House, Mr. Chairman, and this minister doesn't really deserve the title of Minister of Environment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order!

MR. SKELLY: This bill is a further indication that he really doesn't deserve the title. As he pointed out, the pesticide royal commission did state that a Department of Environmental Protection should be established - not a Ministry of the Environment, as the minister has worded it, but a ministry that's responsible for the protection of the environment. The Pesticide Control Act and pesticide control administration would reside within that ministry, Mr. Speaker. This minister is not a Minister of Environmental Protection and his ministry obviously has little concern about protection of the environment. That was a recommendation made by the royal commission into herbicides and pesticide in this province.

One of the major things we are concerned about in this bill, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that any regulation of pesticide users in this province that existed under the Pharmacy Act, and other Acts, now goes beside the board with this legislation. This is the most insidious type of legislation that has been presented to this House to date, with the exception of the Greenbelt Act, Mr. Speaker, which was also presented by this minister. One of the things which the royal commission specified, and one of the things which they noted was lacking in pollution control or pesticide control legislation in the past, was citizen involvement. This lack of citizen

[ Page 4699 ]

involvement resulted in emotional issues developing around the use and application of pesticides in the province of British Columbia. This bill does nothing - in fact, it restricts - to eliminate the problem around citizen involvement. In fact, Mr. Chairman, it restricts citizen involvement in the whole pesticide application field.

We in this party feel, Mr. Chairman, that because this Act puts citizens at such a disadvantage with regard to the use of pesticides in British Columbia, it should at least be withdrawn, rewritten and presented to another session of the House. Possibly we will make that amendment during debate on second reading.

Let me give you an example, Mr. Speaker, to point out the major deficiency in this Act. I would like to use as an example the spruce budworm spraying programme in the Fraser Canyon. In that case, citizens of the province had a right of at least political appeal to cabinet. Even though the minister refused to listen to the citizens of his own riding, and even though he refused to listen to a significant body of scientific evidence which opposed the use of pesticides in the spruce budworm spraying programme, at least the citizens of the province had an opportunity - a political opportunity - to approach other members of cabinet, to approach the press, and to state their case to those other members of cabinet and the press, and to make the point which resulted in that programme being suspended for a year. In that way, at least the minister has an opportunity to think the programme over, although I don't think he plans to do that. He is still as committed as ever, in spite of the doubts cast by his consultants on the programme and also by a body of scientific evidence, which I say is significant, against the proposal.

In the case of this legislation, the rights of citizens to appeal on a political basis, and on any other basis they may choose, are limited. The right of appeal, the probable results of the appeal, and the appeal procedure are stacked against the concerned citizens of this province to the point where they will not be able to oppose and cause the termination of a pesticide application programme. Just let me go step by step through the appeal procedure - the so-called appeal procedure - established under this Act to verify the statement I just made that the procedure is stacked against concerned citizens of this province and in favour of those departments - mainly departments of government - which have a vested interest in perpetuating the use of pesticides in this province.

Now in the case that a citizen of British Columbia hears that a licence or permit is going to be granted to a government agency or to a private concern to use pesticides or herbicides - pesticides is the definition used in this Act - and there's no provision in the Act to provide information to the public that a permit will be granted.... If a citizen should hear about it and decide to appeal, then again the procedure is stacked against him.

The burden of proof in this case is not on tile user of pesticides, Mr. Speaker, but on the citizen. There is no provision in this Act which states that a pesticide user must provide a body of scientific evidence or documented field experience when he is asking for a licence to show that that the use of the pesticide is not going to damage man or the environment and is not going to cause health and environmental problems. The applicant doesn't have to demonstrate that, Mr. Speaker, but concerned citizens who wish to appeal the granting of a permit under this Act have to show a substantial body of scientific evidence or documented field experience in order to gain a favourable judgement from the appeal board. The onus is placed not upon the government....

MR. J.J. KEMPF: (Omineca): Read the Act.

MR. SKELLY: The member who hasn't read the Act says we should read the Act. I suggest that you should read the Act and the minister should read the Act because the minister's opening statement obviously indicates that he hasn't read or studied the implications of this Act, Mr. Speaker.

The onus is placed on the citizens of British Columbia to appeal against a permit and to provide evidence that the permit is going to cause human or environmental damage. It's not on the people who obtain the permit in the first place; it's not on the Crown agencies with all their reserves of money, with all their batteries of scientists and technicians. The onus will be placed on the citizens of British Columbia who are concerned about the environment and the health of their neighbours.

Okay. Say a citizen does obtain information that a permit will be granted - and again, Mr. Speaker, there is no provision for that in this Act - and say he does decide to appeal the case and say he does have the money as a private citizen to go around to other citizens and get the money to establish the evidence that indicates that the programme will have adverse effects. Then he must go before an appeal board which is established by the minister. Again, let me point out that this minister and his department have a vested interest in the application of pesticides as evidenced in the Okanagan Lake situation.

This citizen can take the chance of appealing to a pesticide control board, Mr. Speaker, which is set up by the minister in. this case. Now when the citizen goes before the pesticide control appeal board with the burden of proof, the pesticide control appeal board is not obligated to stay the programme until the appeal has been heard. They don't have to hold off spraying until citizens have an opportunity to

[ Page 4700 ]

present evidence to the board showing that the spraying will be harmful. So while this concerned citizen is appealing before the board established by the minister, the B.C. government could be out spraying 600,000 acres of the province for spruce budworm or dumping tons of 2, 4-D on Okanagan Lake or doing whatever they please, in spite of the fact that his appeal is being heard before the pesticide control appeal board. So a citizen really has no opportunity to stop a programme by launching an appeal even though he is backed by some fairly solid scientific evidence.

Also, there is no indication in this Act as to who is qualified to launch an appeal before the pesticide control appeal board. It doesn't say "any citizen of the province." It simply says an appeal may be launched and that's a paraphrase. So while this citizen is appealing to the pesticide control appeal board, the programmes that he is attempting to stop because of his concern for the environment in this province and because of his concern for the health of his neighbours may be going on regardless, and he has no power to stop them by launching an appeal. Even if he gets a favourable decision from the pesticide control appeal board, there is a section in this Act which allows the administrator who will be constituted under this Act to issue a permit regardless. A permit can be issued regardless, in spite of the fact that the application of a particular pesticide in a particular area is demonstrated to have a harmful impact on the environment or on the health of human beings.

So in spite of the fact that an appeal board shows this, the minister or his administrator can approve a permit anyway and allow the pesticide to be applied -in spite of the fact that it will have deleterious effects on the environment and human beings in this province. The burden of proof is on the citizen. The appeal procedure is a farce. There is no greater protection for citizens under this Act than there was under any previous Act, or under the lack of legislation. At least citizens in the past had the power to appeal to the balance of cabinet when one minister was foolish enough to apply a programme to his own constituents that was damaging to the environment and threatened the health of his own constituents in that area.

So this legislation makes a farce of citizen participation in pesticide application decisions. It is an insult to people who are concerned about the environment of this province. It's an insult to people who are concerned about the fairness in the quasi-judicial procedures established by the government, ostensibly to protect citizens and to protect the environment of this province. Some of the environmental groups in the province who are opposed to this bill include the West Coast Environmental Law Association, who have done an analysis of the bill and pointed out its inadequacies, I believe, to the minister. At least they will be making public statements. They made public statements this morning. I believe that what he precipitated the calling of this bill in the House tonight. Get the bill through before any opposition materializes to the bill in the public - that's the procedure the minister has taken in the past.

This bill is a farce. The citizen-participation provisions are a farce and an insult to the people in this province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you for it or against it?

MR. SKELLY: I'll get to that later.

The minister states that it's an emotional issue. He says that certain classes of people in certain areas of the province can be included from part of the provisions of this Act, but not all. Again, obviously the minister hasn't read the bill, because the bill doesn't state that. The bill says that the application of this Act can be relieved from any class of citizens in this province or from any area of the province. If you're reading the bill now, Mr. Minister, it's section 21.

The minister also made a point in stating that Crown corporations would be covered by this Act. The specific reference, I suppose, is to B.C. Hydro. If the minister wishes to establish some control over the B.C. Hydro and Power Authority, this government should amend the B.C. Hydro and Power Authority Act to eliminate section 53, which is one of the few Acts left in this province which exempts a corporation from the general application of provincial statutes. It should not continue on a section-by-section, statute-by-statute basis. If you're serious about taking any control over B.C. Hydro, if you're serious about pesticide control, you should lift section 53 altogether from the B.C. Hydro and Power Authority Act and put that corporation under the control of the government of the people of this province.

MR. G.H. KERSTER (Coquitlam): You've got 20-20 hindsight.

MR. SKELLY: There's the representative for Surrey Dodge speaking.

This party intends to go into more detail on this bill section by section. We intend to propose amendments almost to every section because it's such a poorly drafted, inadequately conceived bill. It's designed not to control pesticides in the province of British Columbia, but to make it easier for government departments and friends of the government to apply pesticides while thwarting public opinion and thwarting any public access to an appeal procedure against the use of pesticides.

[ Page 4701 ]

I think what the government learned from the abortive spruce budworm spraying programme by that abortive minister over there is that they must have some procedure which can thwart the use of public opinion to cancel such a programme. This is the mechanism and the vehicle which the government intends to use to clear the way to use any pesticide application programme which they see fit to use, regardless of its impact on the environment and the health of citizens in this province. Our party intends to oppose this bill.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): I certainly can't find it in my heart to support this bill. As a matter of fact, L oppose it quite strongly. The minister in his opening remarks said that there are some people in this province who would like to see pesticides banned entirely-I don't think anyone in this Legislature suggests that, Mr. Speaker. They're valuable and necessary parts of our world, whether we like it or not. Lacking them, much of the world might starve tomorrow, It's a problem that we have that has to be lived with.

The question is simply one of proper public information, proper public hearing and proper control of these particular vexatious, but sometimes valuable and dangerous chemicals. This Act does not adequately provide for that. It does, as the hon. member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) says, place the onus on those who would oppose any particular pesticide use. It speaks of an "adverse effect" - this is one of the operative phrases of the bill. The adverse effect must be scientifically or by documented field evidence be demonstrated to be an adverse effect.

The proper approach, I would have thought, following the doctrine of caution and this sort of thing, would be the requirement that an adverse effect means a predictable damage to the environment that cannot be refuted by scientific field evidence. In other words, put the onus on those who would apply the pesticide to prove that they are safe rather than put the onus on those who would prevent the application to prove that its unsafe. It seems to me that that is an elementary principle that should be embedded in this bill, which is not. As a matter of fact, quite the reverse is in the bill. You might say that the burden of proof is not on the poisoner, , it's on the poisonee in this particular case. There are a lot of people around the province who are uncomfortable about that kind of thing.

Next there's the question of who this bill applies to. Mr. Speaker, it says that no person should do such and such. I looked for a definition of "person" in the bill and find that there is none there. Then I looked for it in the Interpretation Act and found that "person" includes a corporation, partnership or party, and the person or other legal representatives of a person to whom the context can apply according to law. "Person" does not, as I see it, refer to government or any agency of the government. I question whether in law this bill controls the government or its agencies in any way whatsoever. If that is the fact, then there is a barn door in this bill through which the government can drive anything it chooses.

The next principle of the bill states that in effect, no person can apply a chemical in a way that would , , cause an unreasonable adverse affect" unless he has a permit. In other words, you can apply a chemical in a way that causes "an unreasonable effect, " to use the language of the bill, if you do have a permit. That's all you need. That's all you need to cause an unreasonable adverse effect to a portion of this province - a permit from the minister or from his appointee, this person called the administrator.

Mr. Speaker, I can't endorse a bill whose principle is that permits can be issued for pesticide applications that will have an unreasonable adverse affect. That on the face of it is something that this House can't possibly endorse, I would think. But it's written there in section 4 of the bill and it's the central principle of the bill.

Moving on to the next important portion of the bill, that relating to appeals, there is no specification here that any person in the province can take an appeal against any particular application. The suggesting of the wording of the appeal section is that appeals may be filed only by the person who has sought the permit to apply the particular chemical and has been denied the right to apply it. That's the suggestion in that section. There's no clear authority in that section that any person can take an appeal and there's some reason to think in law that only those who have sought to apply the chemical can take an appeal against an adverse decision.

If the minister has some different interpretation of the appeal intention, then I hope he will clarify it in closing second reading debate. But more than that, I hope he will clarify it at committee stage by an amendment, because the appeal procedure that's specified here is entirely unsatisfactory. It does not, for example, require the appeal board, if it finds that the use of a chemical is having, to use the words of the bill, "an unreasonable adverse affect, " to proscribe the use of the chemical and say it cannot be continued,

The board has complete authority to authorize any unhealthy use of any pesticide as long as that's the way it feels. That's not good enough. Some direction should be given to this appeal board. Moreover, the appeal process requires a deposit which could mean that impecunious persons who are being affected by pesticides in their locality and just don't have the money for high-priced lawyers and deposits are denied this right of appeal. The right of appeal that costs you too much money is no right of appeal

[ Page 4702 ]

at all for people who don't have the funds to back it up. An appeal process when it relates to something as fundamental as pure air or pure water in your own community is something for which you should not have to pay. It should be there as a matter of right, and this principle of deposit in this bill is completely wrong.

The next principle of this bill to which I object is the one that relates to confidentiality and which, in essence, suggests that the penchant of this government for a denial of freedom of information in this province is continuing yet again in this area of pesticide control. The confidentiality section allows the minister, and indeed requires public servants, to not release to the public the necessary data which is required for proper public information, public hearing and public objection or approval of pesticide application. That to me, again, is absolutely wrong, Mr. Speaker.

And then finally we come to one of the most disgraceful portions of all of the bill ...

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Twenty-one.

MR. GIBSON: ... section 2 1, as you say - but more than a section - a principle. The bill purports to set up a mechanism for the regulation of the dispersal of pesticides in the province of British Columbia. And then, in this villainous section 2 1, it gives the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council - which is to say, the cabinet - the power, at the stroke of a pen, to decide for any person or any area of the province that the bill shall not apply in that area.

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): Shame!

MR. GIBSON: Well, I ask you, what kind of law is that, Mr. Speaker? How often is this Legislature asked to pass a law which applies to those people in this province whom the cabinet says it will apply to and doesn't apply to the people whom it doesn't think it should apply to? I say that is an absolute disgrace.

MR. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): Selective lawmaking.

MR. GIBSON: It is selective lawmaking, Mr. Member. It is "trust us" legislation of the worst kind. I will say to those freedom fighters over there, that had it been brought in by the previous government, it would have resulted in cries of "Communism, " "The end of democracy" and "Our water is being poisoned in this province". That's the talk we would have heard from the party that's now in government had the previous government brought in this bill. I would have opposed it had the previous government brought it in; I oppose it when this government brings it in. It is wrong, whoever brings it in.

This is absolutely the wrong kind of approach to the essential, informed, reasonable control of one of the most frightening products of our technological society. We have, in the development of pesticides and herbicides and what they do to the food chain and the environmental chain, unlocked Pandora's box. There's nothing we can do about that now, but we can benefit from it greatly if these chemicals are properly controlled.

But proper control requires proper public information and proper public hearing, and it requires proper ground rules for the control authority to operate under. This bill, which would make it necessary for people to prove that they're being poisoned, rather than those who would inject the chemical having to prove that they were not being poisoned, is so much the wrong approach that I marvel if that's the right word; it sounds too positive I'm appalled that this government could bring it forward. I simply must oppose it very strongly, Mr. Speaker.

MR. COCKE: Well, Mr. Speaker, what should be one of the most important bills facing this Legislature has come down with the minister's one or two comments indicating that there is some reason why we should be expected to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, the minister has been a Minister of the Environment in name, but he's been a minister of environmental slaughter in fact. And if this bill is enacted the way it appears before us in the Legislature, that process will continue.

Mr. Speaker, the minister indicated ...

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Absolute nonsense!

MR. COCKE: "Absolute nonsense, " the member for North Okanagan said. Yet she could not, tonight or any other time, stand up and indicate anything to the contrary.

Mr. Speaker, the minister has played havoc with the Okanagan Valley; he plays havoc with everything that he touches. He indicated at the outset of his career as minister that he knew nothing about it, and he's learned even less since he's been a part of that cabinet.

Mr. Speaker, I think it's a shocking situation that all of the work of that pesticide committee, which we did set up in 1973.... Yes, as a matter of fact, I appointed that group.

AN HON. MEMBER: How about that! That figures!

MR. COCKE: Yes, it figures, and it's a group that has given an excellent input. But look at this Act and

[ Page 4703 ]

tell me that input has been taken seriously by this cabinet. I say, nonsense. Mr. Speaker, this is a stacked-deck bill. And if you want to see how stacked it is, just look at the appeal section.

The right of appeal is what the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) has been talking about. As a matter of fact, he used it as an excuse or the reason for the delay for his pet project up in the Yale area -the budworm spray. Mr. Speaker, he said that the cabinet wanted him to wait. He didn't want to allow appeals either.

MR. KERSTER: That's a switch; you never even allowed appeals.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, the minister indicated seriously that the rest of the cabinet said, "Let's wait for the appeal section to come in." Well now we find the appeal section. Ordinary people cannot appeal, and ordinary people certainly cannot appeal a government decision. They could no more afford to do that than fly to the moon, Mr. Speaker. Let me tell you what the government could do, and let me tell you what the Minister of Forests would do, if there were an appeal. He would fly in his experts from Europe. He would fly in experts from China. He would fly in experts from the United States of America who would support his position, and do you know who would pay for it? Let me tell you who would pay for it. All you have to do is read subsection (3) of the appeal procedure and you will find that the person making the appeal is going to get stuck with the bill.

MR. KEMPF: Shame!

MR. COCKE: Now you tell me if there's any kind of an appeal procedure here, or any kind of a parity for the ordinary person, to protect himself? Even the former Attorney-General, with all his wealth, couldn't afford to go this route, with all his legal expertise and experience.

Mr. Speaker, this is a bill that provides the cabinet with the vehicle to do anything they like. Let's hearken back into our not-too-distant past. Let's remember the old Socreds who set up this Pollution Control Act.

What did that do for pollution control in this province? Very ruddy little. A licence to pollute, and this is going to be a licence to poison, and that's about the size of it. That minister was the freedom fighter for the Okanagan Valley who didn't want to use any other vehicle. He felt that the way to fight Eurasian milfoil was to quickly get in there and use pesticides. That's exactly what he fought for, Mr. Speaker, and that's exactly what I expect from him as a bill on pesticides - this Mickey Mouse piece of legislation we have before us.

MR. KERSTER: Can we spray your speech?

MR. COCKE: Imagine, all the work that went into developing a policy on pesticides in this province, and this is what comes out of it at the other end.

The member for Surrey Dodge and Coquitlam (Mr. Kerster) is becoming very nervous in the House, I notice, tonight. He's anticipating next Tuesday when he is going to be a witness before the committee.

MR. SPEAKER: The member of the House is not in possession of the floor. You are, hon. member, and you're speaking to bill 46, Pesticide Control Act.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I feel that the other sections of the Act, which are basically vague, are of great concern. I'm concerned with the confidentiality aspect. I say, Mr. Speaker, that the section that appeals to me even less than the appeal procedure is almost the last section, and that's section 2 1, and I tell you, Mr. Speaker, that's a bad joke section. Here, incredible as it might sound, there is one person over there who could make a worse Minister of the Environment than the one we have. That's the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) . Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, a person with his concern over the environment being given the option out that this section affords?

Mr. Speaker, this section permits areas of the province to be exempt, permits people in the province to be exempt, either groups, classes or individuals. Yes, yes. Mr. Member, I know you have been very busy whipping that group into line, but I would urge you to read this bill - I was going to say once more, but I think you should read it once. Mr. Speaker, let me suggest to you that is exactly what it says: any group, person or area in the province can be exempted. Now what are we doing here, bringing in legislation and immediately exempting, at the whim of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, these groups?

Mr. Speaker, one of the great concerns we had, and one of the reasons we set up that pesticide committee, was because of fantastic infighting within government circles. Department of Agriculture would have one idea, Department of Health would have another. I'm choking to death, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Must be polluted.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons we put together that group was to enable government to take a good, clear, objective look at what should be done with pesticides in our province. We continually got conflicting information, conflicting directions. Now we have here a bill before us that provides us with no solution to that problem at all. It provides for conflict, particularly when there's this kind of

[ Page 4704 ]

section that will just opt people out. Mr. Speaker, I can say nothing more than that there is no way we can possibly accept this Act as one we could support.

MRS. JORDAN: I hadn't intended to enter this debate and I don't intend to dispute the rather idle and ill-informed comments that are being made about the various sections and the intent of this bill.

I believe we have to realize that the circumspect and well-controlled use of pesticides is a reality that we have to live with in this province, as in any other jurisdiction. British Columbia has some of the tightest controls anywhere in the world - certainly in the free world - and I won't discuss the other parts of the world that other group is so closely allied with because they don't have any regulations. We have highway problems and we have range problems that add to the cost to the individual farmer that we have to deal with on a realistic basis. I support this bill because I think we have to separate the realities of life and the emotionalism of life.

What I want to address myself to are the comments made by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) . I couldn't help but sit here and feel disturbed that that member should look at the world through two sets of glasses. First he sits with a government that in essence washed its hands of the problems in the Okanagan Valley water basin.

MR. COCKE: Nonsense! You know better, baby!

MRS. JORDAN: When the former Social Credit government had set up a co-operative programme to analyse the problem and come up with solutions, he was part of a government that did everything it could to destroy the effects of that study.

This member talked about "let's hearken back." Indeed I'll hearken back and quote to that member the words that he was part of in terms of government policy, and that was that Okanagan Lake was a rich man's yacht basin. Mr. Speaker, the people of the Okanagan will never forget those immortal words, that the problem in Okanagan Lake ...

MR. COCKE: Who said that? You said it.

MRS. JORDAN: ... was created by the people living around that lake and in that valley. That was not true and it was proven to be not true. Yet that member for New Westminster continues to this day to align himself with that sort of attitude.

I would point out for your information that it was this government, through this minister who has been subjected to some of the most disgraceful, unwarranted attacks based on ignorance from that side of the House....

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): We're not responsible for what goes on in cabinet.

MRS. JORDAN: I'll stand with this minister forever and a day on the basis of his performance in the Okanagan Valley where he took....

Interjection.

MRS. JORDAN: Indeed I will, and so will the people of this province, Mr. Member, through you, Mr. Speaker.

This minister took the basic information and with his staff took the remnants of some committee that member mentioned that he set up that really hadn't done anything effective. The minister took the whole problem out of the political arena and put it into the hands of the scientists to analyse this problem of the milfoil weed around the world. They were to analyse the positive and negative aspects of various programmes, and to take their findings to the people - without political interference. Public hearings were announced by the committee and carried on by the water basin board without any interference on the part of any member of the political party on this side of the House.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: They had the same three commissioners.

MRS. JORDAN: Indeed! They had the same three commissioners whom that member for New Westminster praised five minutes ago and now refutes in terms of the recommendations they made.

That member doesn't know what time of day it is or which end is up. That was his problem when he was the Minister of Health. He was very popular because he could never make a decision. He could never come to grips with the problems he was faced with and he set up committee after committee after committee. Our government today is having to come to grips with those problems.

Mr. Member, through you, Mr. Speaker, this government and this minister undertook the responsibilities. They set up these public hearings; they involved the public in the problems, the solution, the options and the possible concerns that might be involved in those solutions.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on!

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, this government and this minister put up the majority of the money to carry out those solutions. They made no bones about the fact that they couldn't guarantee a cure, but their objective was to contain this very disastrous and destructive problem.

The people of the region made the decision because the government put up the money and then

[ Page 4705 ]

left the decision to each region in the valley. And I am pleased to report that every region and the majority of the people supported the decision of the region and the actions of this minister.

I feel this should be on the record because this minister, who is rare among environmental ministers, has won the confidence and the respect of responsible and thinking people in this province. Those who don't respect him are those who want to sell their newly-written books, those who want to use a serious situation as a political avenue and those who simply just don't want to face the realities and facts of life. With the greatest respect, Mr. Speaker, but in light of the previous statements by the member for New Westminster, I include that party - the opposition of this House - in that category.

MR. BARBER: It's always fun following the member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) . It reminds me of following a certain famous tourist wagon that one sees about the streets of the capital city occasionally. I won't mention the name of it, I just remember the phenomenon.

Imagine being a minister in this coalition supported by that member for North Okanagan! Imagine the most powerful arguments that you can possibly make in favour of your bill being presented by that member! Imagine having that kind of support from your own ranks! The minister must be rarely honoured, Mr. Speaker.

It's reasonable to ask, I think, who wrote this bill. It's reasonable to ask whether or not the commission alleged in the explanatory note, contrary to the remarks of the member for North Okanagan.... "The Act incorporates recommendations of the 1975 report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Use of Pesticides and Herbicides." She seemed to overlook that and indeed contradict it. Is it legitimately a representation of the commission itself? One doubts that. Indeed, to the best of my knowledge, Mr. Speaker, this Act, and most especially the appeal provisions within it, do not follow in any competent or sensible way the recommendations of that royal commission.

Accordingly, it is reasonable enough to ask who wrote the bill. Well, rummaging around in the files, we came across the name of one Keith Frew. So I decided to find out whether or not Keith Frew wrote the bill. I held it up to the light to see whether or not there were baseball scores written all over it. Sure enough, if you look closely enough, it says: "Mickey Mantle's home run average" - you get it from the years '53 to '57 - "and Roger Maris' pitching average." That's here on page 5. On page 8 you find out about Babe Ruth's pitching average.

Interjections.

MR. BARBER: Keith doesn't know about that either, does he? But it's in his handwriting, so I can only presume that the good Keith Frew, in between running errands for the Empress shoeshine stall, evidently had a hand in the writing of this bill. One can tell from the baseball scores.

Having read the bill, Mr. Speaker, I'm persuaded that this minister has misrepresented the case and the problem to this House. I believe that this minister has misrepresented the contents of this bill. I believe the crisis faced by the people of this province in trying to respond sensibly and sensitively to the environmental dangers posed by the foolish use of pesticides have been misrepresented by this minister and by his legislation.

The Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) has properly pointed out that in any reasonable community, the burden of proof should be on the person who wants to do the potential damage. The burden of proof in an appeal should be on the poisoner and not that person who might be about to be poisoned. The burden of proof should be on the people who wish to do the potentially damaging work. In the strange world of this Minister of the Environment, the burden of proof is on those people who are rich enough to make the deposit, well enough advised in law to withstand the criticism that the government itself would mount against them during an appeal, and successful enough on whatever technicality might guide them to actually make a firm appeal for seizure.

These so-called appeal procedures in this bill, Mr. Speaker, are totally prejudiced against the appellant. They are designed deliberately and cunningly to protect the rights, such as they are, of those who would do the poisoning and those who would do the damaging. In this bill the burden of proof is on the people who wish to be protected from those who would poison them and from those who would kill them.

This is a situation which has some parallels around the world, Mr. Speaker. In the United States of America, thanks particularly to Dr. Francis Perkins in the FDA, that particular nation was able to keep out the drug called thalidomide. In that particular case, the manufacturers of thalidomide were required to prove that their drug was safe for human consumption before it could be used. In that particular jurisdiction, we did not have to stand by and see the manufacturers of thalidomide poison mother after pregnant mother waiting for the miserable results some months and years later. To the contrary, the burden of proof was on the manufacturer. to demonstrate the safety of his product. If he could not do that the product was not permitted into the United States. Tragically, it was permitted into this country.

The burden of proof in New Brunswick should have been on the manufacturers of those chemicals

[ Page 4706 ]

which were used to spray from the air various of their forests. The burden Of Proof was not on the manufacturer. Sure enough, years later we have scientific evidence of children being crippled and indeed of deaths directly resulting from the gross misapplication of those pesticides. Once again, we see that the burden of proof in that jurisdiction was not on those who would propose the poisoning. It was on those who wished not to be poisoned. They had no recourse in law. They were poisoned and human beings have suffered and died.

Mr. Speaker, what would happen 10 years from now had that idiotic budworm spraying programme gone ahead and had we begun to see in the Fraser Valley the same symptoms of disease and distress and indeed the same records of death as the result of that spraying programme? Would we have people coming forward then and talking about Waterland syndrome? Would we have people coming forward then who said: "We weren't aware of how bad it was. You have an appeal procedure, but it didn't require the poisoner to state his case. It required that person who does not wish to be poisoned to make the case." Are we going to see people 10 years from now talking about the Waterland syndrome in the Fraser Valley because of the foolishness and the failure of this bill?

Mr. Speaker, we want an opportunity in this bill to see that the burden of proof of a poison in every instance shall be on the manufacturer and the proposed user. This bill has it absolutely backwards, and it's reasonable to ask why that should be the case. Whose interests are served by a hoax like this? Whose interests are served by fraud and misrepresentation of this order? The so-called appeal procedure in this bill....

AN HON. MEMBER: Order!

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please. The hon. member, as I listened to his speech, charged fraud.

MR. BARBER: That's right.

MR. SPEAKER: That is not a parliamentary term and must be withdrawn, hon. member.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Speaker, I attributed it to no individual member of this House. I attribute it to the bill and its intentions. I attribute it to the bill and I am informed that that's perfectly parliamentary.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, there are more ways to become involved in a breach of the rules than just to impugn a member of the House. For instance, if you make statements which may not be against any particular member or cabinet minister, but which are still unparliamentary, then they must be withdrawn. "Fraud" is not a parliamentary term in any sense that

1 can consider as Speaker. It is completely unparliamentary to use that term in debate. I would just ask the hon. member to withdraw that imputation.

MR. BARBER: On the basis of your advice, Mr. Speaker, I am happy to withdraw the term. What I will suggest instead is that every member of this House has been impugned by a bill of this nature. For any minister with a straight face to claim that this appeal procedure is a legitimate appeal is simply absurd. It's absolutely absurd and unbelievable. Let's talk some more about the essence of this appeal and whose interests are served by the way this so-called appeal is framed.

MR. KERSTER: Your whole bloody party is nothing but a bunch of guttersnipes.

MR. BARBER: I believe that this bill, perhaps without intending to do so, states more clearly than any other bill the minister has brought forward so far the true intentions of this coalition towards protection of the environment.

The bill requires that the appellant, and not the poisoner, make a deposit. This bill would see an individual who might live in the Fraser Canyon who wishes to be protected from the budworm spray required to make a deposit of cash before that appeal could go forward. The bill therefore requires that the costs of, shall we say, Chevron Chemical (Canada) Ltd. and its pesticides division shall be borne by the individual who makes the appeal. One wonders, Mr. Speaker, why this coalition finds it necessary to take that procedure. One could ask whether or not they think that all possible appellants are simply cranks and crackpots and have to be discouraged by financial leverage which would diminish their opportunity to participate in an appeal court. One might also ask whether or not they have any intention of ever allowing any appeals, especially against the foolish actions of their own ministries.

It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that this government has been burned by the budworm and this bill is the cosmetic remedy to cover up the sore spot. This government was burned by the maladministration of one agency of government and discovered, to its horror that they were not able to proceed with a controversial....

MR. KEMPF: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I rise on standing order 43. This member has been irrelevant for the last 15 minutes and there is no way this sort of debate can continue in this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, in speaking to

[ Page 4707 ]

your point of order I must point out for your information, as well as the information of other members, that you may not necessarily agree with what the member is saying, but that is part of the parliamentary process. I did not hear anything, other than a word that I asked the hon. member to withdraw, which would be considered by the Chair to be out of order with respect to the debate on this bill. It must be understood by all members of this House that there are strong feelings respecting this type of legislation. Those feelings can be expressed as long as they're done so in parliamentary terms.

MR. KERSTER: As long as he doesn't flaunt the truth. As long as he doesn't distort the facts.

MR. BARBER: I should like to repeat - tediously, it seems to you - that the appeal procedures in this bill are totally prejudiced against the appellant. They favour the government and they favour the business that would do the poisoning. They disfavour and disenfranchise those individuals and those groups who would protest the poison and halt the damage.

Mr. Speaker, if the government does not consider that all proposed appellants are cranks and idiots and crackpots, if the government believes that on occasion there may be legitimate grounds to appeal, is it not possible, Mr. Speaker, that the government could find some other way to disallow the crackpots from making tedious and absurd cases and encourage those who make legitimate cases to have them made, and made speedily? All this bill does, Mr. Speaker, is categorize in one great lump with the occasional crackpot, who would protest anything that anyone ever did, the far larger and more responsible group of environmentalists who are deeply and, it has often been proven, prophetically concerned about damage to the environment.

MR. KEMPF: We saw them in Hope.

MR. BARBER: This minister, Mr. Speaker, appears to be able to make no differentiation whatever.

The bill also makes it very clear that while an appeal is in process there is no provision whatever for a stay or a halt; there is no provision whatever for the minister or anyone else to instruct the poisoner to cease poisoning. To the contrary, the bill specifically says just the opposite, that no stay does exist unless after the appeal the administrator so orders upon the success of the appeal itself.

Why does this government find it necessary, Mr. Speaker, to refuse to institute stays or halts of proceeding while these so-called proceedings go forward? Is it because they can predict the outcome of the appeal and they don't need to bother with a halt, because they know the halt will never be ordered, or is it because the whole thing is cosmetic and because the whole thing is not a serious effort at a reasonable and scientifically based appeal at all?

They can't have it both ways. They can't tell us on the one hand that there is to be no stay and halt provision and on the other that the appeals are to be taken seriously. This bill would permit any poisoner to make any kind of midnight assault they want on the province anywhere in the province no matter what appeal may be in process. Any kind of midnight assault is possible because no stay would be permitted or granted by this bill.

Who in this province would trust the objectivity, the neutrality and the fairness of such an appeal procedure? In this province we are gifted with a Minister of the Environment who is more ridiculed and scorned by environmentalists than any other Environment minister in Canada.

MR. KEMPF: Point of order!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member for Omineca.

MR. KEMPF: I rise again, Mr. Speaker, on standing order 43. 1 bring it to your attention.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Standing order 43 refers to tedious and repetitious debate. It may be the opinion of some people or some hon. members of this House that the member is being tedious and repetitious.

MR. KEMPF: Irrelevant.

MR. SPEAKER: If I was to rule out, hon. member, everything that was said that was irrelevant on the floor of this House, then perhaps half of the debate that takes place could well be stricken from the record from all sides of the House. I have not heard anything that is unparliamentary or that in my opinion at the present time would tend me to invoke standing order 43.

Proceed hon. member.

MR. BARBER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the member opposite might stand up for four or five minutes and rant on and on about all of the points of order he wishes to raise in the next five or 10. Having done so, I may conclude the speech.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I would suggest that you now proceed to discuss the principle of the bill in second reading.

MR. BARBER: The principle of the bill which offends us most severely, Mr. Speaker, is that in this

[ Page 4708 ]

appeal procedure which, in my view and the view of our environment critic, cheapens and trivializes an appeal procedure that should be legitimate and respected.... What can you conclude about a government that would sponsor such a bill as this? What could you conclude about a minister who would have someone write it for him - both the speech and the bill? It seems to me proper and legitimate to conclude that there is no serious intention on the part of this government to govern itself.

It would seem that this is the bill that would permit the Minister of Forests to do anything he wants. This is the bill that will permit any minister in that government who wishes to spray and poison any area of the province to do precisely as he or she wishes. The appeal procedure is a farce and a joke. The bill is badly written; the bill is badly and improperly intended. We strongly urge the government to withdraw it and to bring back in its place something a little more forward, something a lot more effective, and something that speaks a lot more honourably and a lot more straightforwardly to the problems that exist right now. This bill does no such thing, and no member of this opposition has any intention of supporting it.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I'm going to be fairly brief on this bill because I think the points have been very well made by a number of my colleagues and certainly by the leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. Gibson) as well.

I was hoping, Mr. Speaker, that perhaps the member for Omineca would get up and make a contribution to this debate. He is apparently very interested in the bill and the presentations that have been made tonight. I trust that being from a rural riding, as I am, the implications of the bill are certainly serious to him.

MR. SPEAKER: Will the hon. member address his remarks to the principle of the bill and not to the member for Omineca?

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I think you're being somewhat hasty. I'm talking about members representing rural ridings perhaps having a special interest in the protection afforded through this bill. I would suggest that that is quite in order. We are afflicted in rural ridings particularly with spraying of rights of way for power lines, for highways, and railroads and so on to a far greater extent than the city ridings. This whole question of pesticides is extremely important because many of these transmission lines and corridors run through rural watersheds from which source large numbers of people draw their domestic water supply. We all have an obligation as members of this Legislature to make certain that we bring the greatest protection possible to the citizens of the province in terms of any foreign substance that might find its way into the domestic....

MR. KEMPF: Whichever way they vote?

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, the member for Omineca has a mind like a razor. It's sometimes sharp; it's sometimes dull; it's inevitably very narrow, though. I wish if he had a contribution to make to this debate he would rise and do so, rather than interfere with the opinions of other members.

Mr. Speaker, I'm concerned particularly about the appeal provisions. I'm concerned because I have certainly experienced problems in my own riding where groups of rural citizens - maybe farmers, maybe working people - perceive a danger to their water supply through spraying for power lines and so on by B.C. Hydro and other government agencies. They seek redress in terms of, first of all, learning what agents are in the pesticides that are being used and whether or not there's any significant threat to the health of the community.

Now under these circumstances, they're not an organized group. They are not a group of corporate citizens with large reserves of capital behind them. They have access to no professional staff, such as lawyers and soil experts and so on. Therefore they have to make their case themselves. I suggest to you that under the provisions of the appeal system contained in this bill, there is no appeal system available to citizens of the province in those circumstances - none whatsoever. Because if private citizens taking exception to proposed spraying programmes are obliged to post bond, as it were, and to make certain guarantees, there is simply no way they can afford it. The point has been well made by other members that the person or the corporation who is threatening the clean environment and atmosphere is the one who should be made to pay. They are the ones on whom the onus should be placed to ensure that the public interest is being protected.

We have the reverse - the very opposite - in this bill, Mr. Speaker. It's a very, very poor principle to find in any statute, an extremely poor principle. I suggest that this flies completely in the face of the principle of law found under our court system in this land. I suggest that this flies in the face of virtually every appeal mechanism that I know. I'm very concerned and alarmed that this kind of deterrent renders an appeal virtually unavailable to the average citizen of the province of British Columbia. That is the effect of the bill. There's no question about it.

Perhaps the most serious principle that alarms me, though, is the provision of this statute that grants to

[ Page 4709 ]

the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council - effectively to the minister - the authority to limit the applicability of this statute to individuals, to persons, and to areas of the province. We now have a politician charged with the responsibility of protecting the clean environment. We now have a politician with the authority to be selective in the standards that he sets in this province.

If he finds, perhaps, that a Crown corporation such as British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority is transgressing the standards that are applicable to the private sector, he has the authority under the statute to exempt the Crown corporation. He has the power to exempt other departments of government. This is selective law. This is the most dangerous principle that I have seen in a statute in this province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nonsense!

MR. KING: It certainly is. It's the most dangerous principle that I've seen in any statute. This statute holds that there is not one law for all citizens of the province of British Columbia. The law is selective and elastic; it can be applied in a political way at the whim of the minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: Just like their principles.

MR. KING: Well, you've found the principles, Mr. Member, so you judge them. I haven't been able to make that kind of analysis as yet.

Mr. Speaker, I think the remarks the Liberal leader made when he talked about the calibre of legislation that was introduced in this province, and certainly the calibre of legislation has been the subject of great debate.... Quite aside from the substance, the calibre, wording and legal principles of statutes in this province have been the subject of debate over the last five years.

When the New Democratic Party was in government in this province, every word and clause of statutes were hung on to determine whether or not some freedom of the citizens of the province was threatened. Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you that I never saw a provision in any bill, under the previous Social Credit government, under the NDP government or under any other jurisdiction, that held dangerous principles like the ones that I find in this statute tonight. It's absolutely appalling that we should find a law that, maybe by political whim, applies to one individual in the province and is forgiven to another. It's a principle that's alarming, that, as I said earlier, flies in the face of every legal principle on which our system is founded, and one which I think the people of the province would be extremely alarmed about if they were aware that it was contained in this statute.

So I certainly couldn't let it pass without registering my strong disapproval. I do hope that the serious-minded members of the government will have a look at the bill. It's not a matter of political opinion; it's a matter of fact. It's in the statutes. It can be read and clearly understood by anyone. It's not a matter of political debate in the traditional partisan sense. I think that any fair-minded high school student in British Columbia could understand that it's bad law when it's drafted in such a way that it's not universal and when it's drafted in such a way that it leaves the door open for selectivity according to the political whim of the minister. That's a dangerous precedent and a dangerous principle. It's one that's alien to our system of justice and it's one that's alien to good law and good legislation in the British Commonwealth.

I strongly recommend to the minister that he consider withdrawing this bill, tidying it up and removing those offensive provisions, and bringing in a statute that the members of the House can be assured will protect the environment of this province and the rights of citizens.

MR. H.J. LLOYD (Fort George): I'd like to rise to speak in support of Bill 46, the Pesticide Control Act. I think this is something that's been overdue for a long time in the province. I notice the official opposition - the NDP - are coming out with a "Mr. Clean" attitude again, the government that purchased the worst polluting pulp mills in the province. Instead of making private industry clean them up, let the public pay for it.

They're pretty proud of stopping the weed spray control programme on the highways to lay any guidelines for pollution control or to assign a specific ministry for environmental concerns. Yet they have the audacity to speak out against a "motherhood" bill like this one. It's something that's been overdue for a long time.

The member for Nanaimo mentioned that the pesticide user doesn't have to demonstrate the safety of the particular chemicals that he's using. Certainly! Why should he have to demonstrate them? They already have to be approved by the federal food and drug administration. If it was up to every applicator to decide what he should put on and what mix he should use, then there would be reason for real concern in the province. But it's laid out very specifically in the Act that it has to be applied in a certain mix and that there have to be certain chemicals for specific uses.

HON. W.N. VANDER ZALM (Minister of Human Resources): Right on!

MR. LLOYD: During a problem we had in our area, and the member for Nanaimo brought this up earlier....

[ Page 4710 ]

Interjection.

MR. LLOYD: I'm sorry. The member for Alberni and some of the others were trying to raise hysteria. Some of the farmers in the Robson Valley were quite concerned because an environmental group in that area was trying to have the highway weed control programme stalled or put off for another year. I attended several meetings up in that particular area and the ranchers were particularly concerned because of talk of a possible moratorium on the spruce bud control programme. They thought it could possibly also apply to them. They specifically said that it's not only the highways and the railways and the Hydro rights-of-way that have weeds. A lot of weeds exist on abandoned farms or where farmers don't do a proper job. In fact, the majority of the weeds are there. But if you don't control the ones along the highways or the Hydro rights-of-way, you create new seed beds, and any real form of control the farmers are attempting is rather meaningless at that time.

This was their big contention up there - that the environmental group had stated that they had concrete evidence from newspaper and magazine articles of the long-range dangers of some of these chemicals, as the second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) has tried to point out. Well, he's not talking about the chemicals that they're applying on the farms. These chemicals have been proven by the federal food and drug administration. Certainly they're not the type of chemicals which you're talking about.

But this is the type of hysteria that's used to try to stop these programmes. One of the criticisms that one of the members of the opposition mentioned is that any protest group couldn't stop a programme just by starting a protest - that it would have to be proven they had a case. I would certainly hope that would be the case. Otherwise, by the time the programme got underway again, the weeds would have gone to seed and it would be no use having that particular programme. I think that's a meaningful part of the legislation and a very necessary part.

MR. BARBER: What's the use of the appeal then?

MR. SKELLY: What's the point of an appeal?

MR. LLOYD: I think the very point of an appeal is that there should be something to the appeal. There should be some reason for an appeal. You shouldn't just be able to stop every programme that comes along just because you're a do-gooder. Some people are a little interested in the bread and butter of economics, not just little pressure groups all the time.

MR. KEMPF: Have you heard of development, Charlie?

MR. LLOYD: I think the farmers mentioned they wondered how many of these groups that were trying to stop the weed control programme realized the amount of pesticides that were used on animals. They said: "I suppose they wouldn't eat the meat there if we didn't apply these pesticides to control the parasites on the particular animals." I think it's this type of hysteria that's really dangerous.

Certainly the moratorium that was placed on the spraying of the spruce budworm I think was a very dangerous thing, but possibly necessary until the legislation was passed. Certainly we have a real crisis facing us in that particular area. All it would take at this time is several lightning strikes and the province would really be facing a crisis there - a forest fire of major proportions.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ask the loggers in the canyon. They'll tell you.

MR. LLOYD: Mr. Speaker, I think the bill clearly lays out the powers and the authorities. I certainly can't see the concern that has been raised by so many members of the opposition that no control has been put on it. It's very clearly laid out in different parts of the Act here.

MR. BARBER: Have you read section 2 P

MR. LLOYD: Yes, I have read the entire Act.

Interjection.

MR. LLOYD: Section 13 clearly lays out that the minister can stop it in the event of any unreasonable adverse effect and he can control the way that they are being applied. I think it clearly lays out penalties for offences against any part of the Act.

Section 19 (3) clearly lays out what happens to corporations which are guilty of offences. I think this responsibility has already been demonstrated in the McBride situation, for example. While the Highways ministry had licensed applicators who could go ahead, and were allowed to go ahead, the CNR was proposing several programmes in that particular area and they had no licensed applicators. The ministry, in its wisdom, wouldn't allow the programme to go ahead until they could find these. I think it's an instance of the concern that this government - and particularly this minister - has been showing for the environment. I'm certainly proud to be associated with it, and I'll certainly support it.

MR. NICOLSON: The previous speaker took great issue with the concept of a moratorium which, in fact, was the thing which was recommended by the royal commission that the minister says led to the introduction of this legislation. Mr. Speaker, this bill

[ Page 4711 ]

is, I think, very bad in certain details which really negates any possibility of it being considered a good bill.

I suppose one area in which the NDP government was perhaps remiss is that we didn't change the Pollution Control Act when we were government. It seems as it they've modelled on the old Pollution Control Act. This Act is really a licence to pollute. We're giving permits to spray but we're really not trying to control, to research, and to come up with some better attitudes on spraying.

The member previous, I suppose, was referring to knapweed. If knapweed is such a unique problem, then it should have been written into the bill as such. It certainly does present a great threat to farmers, but I'd like to point out some of the threats that are posed to farmers by sprays and pesticides, Mr. Speaker.

Back in the late 1950s and early 1960s, a potato chip company in Vancouver - I believe it was Nalley's - was finding that their product was not attractive. The chips were not browning properly. They retained Dr. Wert of the University of British Columbia to do a study. He studied the breakdown of carbohydrates in the manufacturing process and did a chemical analysis. His study came to the conclusion that this change in colour which was necessary to make an attractive and saleable product was not occurring because of the presence of residual and very small amounts - I think it was less than 6 ppm of 2, 4-D. These potatoes which were being raised for this very specific purpose of being put into potato chips were being affected by roadside spraying of which no one knew the consequences.

Now if we had a similar situation occurring today and if some grower felt that he didn't want this miniscule amount of drift from roadside spraying which was going on around the boundaries of his farm because he felt that it might have some effect, he might not be able to interfere with the Ministry of Highways, because the Ministry of Highways does not come under the definition of a person in the Interpretation Act, and there is no definition of person in here.

As other members have pointed out, it's a selective Act. What I really find repugnant in this Act is that even if a person does with the very obvious deterrent of possible financial penalties being imposed upon him, if for some reason it is felt that his appeal was.... Well, even if his appeal was lost, certainly a person would assume that he or she will be required to pay costs. But even if such a person, in spite of these deterrents, decides to proceed with an appeal, an appeal does not stay the proceedings unless the board directs otherwise. In other words, the mere fact that someone goes to an appeal does not mean that the Act is going to be held in abeyance. It certainly would prohibit any moratorium and any second thoughts. So the thing goes ahead. The Act is done, and then of course it is too late.

The point made by the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) and the leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. Gibson) was that the onus is in section 4. The onus in this bill is upon a person who objects. It's upon the objector to show that there is a harmful effect. It is not upon the person who's going to use the material to show that it is harmless. I think the very good example of thalidomide was used, and there are certainly others.

After WW 11, because of the success of the use of DDT in suppressing mosquitoes in malaria-infested areas, there was a huge rush. I can recall, Mr. Speaker, when permits were given to spray all areas around provincial campsites with DDT in order to keep down the mosquitoes just so people wouldn't be bothered with these pests. I myself probably thought at that time, well, how nice it is that science has been able to overcome the nuisance of mosquitoes being around us. We know now what happened in the case of DDT. It had a very serious accumulative effects in the food chain. It led almost to the extinction of certain species such as peregrine falcon because they were at the end of the food chain, as is man. As peregrine falcons, for instance, eat fish, and fish in turn consume other smaller species, there's an accumulation of these many types of poisons within the food chain.

Each time one larger group consumes another, this becomes embedded and some of these poisons are retained particularly within certain organs and sometimes retained particularly within certain organs and sometimes within the fat. We weren't aware of it at that time. It certainly wasn't proven beforehand that DDT had no harmful possible effects. It was proven subsequently that it certainly did, and now DDT is used very, very sparingly, if ever.

I've cited a bit of knowledge about 2, 4-D, which was discovered at the University of British Columbia by Dr. Wert, It involved a serious loss of product and had economic repercussions for someone in the agricultural industry. So it isn't always in the best interest of farmers to see that roadsides are sprayed.

I'm most concerned, and I know that a good number of people in my riding are concerned, about indiscriminate roadside spraying. When the Ministry of Highways resumed roadside spraying this spring, I got a deluge of letters. The Riondel Senior Citizens Association went on record as opposing it. I know the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) was inundated with letters.

Then the decision was made that spraying would be stopped where people objected to it, but they would go ahead with it where there was no objection. Now that's an absolutely.... I guess it certainly helps the people who object to it, but it shows really, Mr. Speaker, that that spraying probably isn't all that

[ Page 4712 ]

necessary. Indeed, we did without it in this province for a few years and I think that we would be much better off without it.

One of the things, in addition to all the other points that have been pointed out in this House, to which I take very strong exception is the fact that even if someone is willing to take the risk and.... There is a very implied threat in this appeal section. This appeal section, I think, is aimed at organizations like SPEC or the Sierra Club or any of the environmentally-conscious groups in this province.

I would like to say too, Mr. Speaker, that I think that they have been proven right on a great deal more occasions than they have been proven wrong. That's in spite of the fact that they don't have the great financial resources with which to do research, and it usually takes them some time to be proven right in the points that they make. But as time goes on, they usually are vindicated in the positions that they take. So there is certainly an implied threat in this appeal section - a veiled threat. Even if a group decides to take this on, it does not stay the action. It means that the spraying can go ahead unless the board directs otherwise.

Another thing which I'd like to comment upon here is the board. The board is elected at pleasure by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. In a lot of areas of legislation, Mr. Speaker, we specify that there shall be so many persons on the board and so many shall be appointed. In some cases, someone will be appointed from labour, someone from management or from the employers' council or some other group's representative. I don't see why there are not some guidelines in this appointment procedure. Had there been some dialogue, there might have been some way in which representatives of certain environmental groups in this province would be able to nominate a list of people from which the minister or the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council could choose one of ten. Similarly, perhaps the petrochemical industry, which has the greatest interest in pesticides, could nominate some person, so that there would be some kind of a balance.

But in the way in which this is spelled out, I can certainly see the minister.... If he chooses anyone who is associated with environment at all, he could be a little bit of a tame mouse, perhaps afraid to speak out too loudly. It would be much better if the nomination were to come from certain groups. Of course, the infamous section 2 1, that....

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I hope we are not going to discuss this section by section, just simply the principles. The section will be better described in committee.

MR. NICOLSON: I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker, that you haven't been in the House this evening, but this....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. NICOLSON: One would have to, in speaking to the principle of this bill, refer to the section, because this is a section.... We're not against the principle of controlling pesticides. What we are against, Mr. Speaker, is the arbitrary designation or the exclusions which can be granted. An Act that would pretend to control the use of pesticides certainly fails when it can, by regulation, exempt from the Act a person or class of persons or an area of the province.

That just means that if we pass this Act in this House, 55 elected members of the Legislature have said to the cabinet: "Okay, go do whatever you want; enforce the Act or don't enforce the Act. Include certain persons or don't include certain persons. Include certain areas of the province or don't include certain areas of the province."

If I vote for this bill in second reading, Mr. Speaker, I don't know if I'm voting for enforcement. I don't know if the Kootenays are going to be included; I don't know if they are going to be exempted as an area. I don't know if corporations, because.... By the way, there is no definition of person in this Act, Mr. Speaker, so a person can be a corporation and all kinds of different entities. One thing it can't be is government. So I don't know just what classes of persons as legal entities are going to be included under this Act and under these regulations.

So really, all that this Act does is say that the Legislature hereby gives up forever, or until there's a change of government, all right to make any decision about the manner in which legislation pertaining to pesticides will be administered. And that is without our even knowing the way in which the government intends to do this. This is so typical of other types of legislation brought in in this session. It tells the Legislature absolutely nothing about what the government is going to do. It doesn't tell us about what it will or will not do about 2, 4-D or knapweed or certain noxious weeds. It sets out a few definitions; it's a very frilly little thing. This bill is really an Act against parliament. It's asking to just allow the government to go and do whatever it likes. So it's really the giving up from the 55 members of this House to the smaller group - the subset of this assembly - the power to make all decisions now.

The only thing that's clear to me, and I don't like it, is that it's going to tell anybody.... There's going to be an appeal provision; that's the good news. But the bad news is: "If you ever dare appeal, we might just cost you an arm and a leg, it ain't going to do you any good anyhow, because we're going to go ahead and spray."

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): Mr. Speaker, I think that previous speakers have covered

[ Page 4713 ]

most of the major points of this bill, but I would like to bring to the minister's attention something which perhaps he's not aware of, but he should be. I'd like to start by reading to the minister a piece of correspondence - a letter - that was sent to me by that minister on June 15 of this year. The minister was replying to correspondence I had relayed to him - a copy of a petition and numerous letters regarding spraying on B.C. Hydro rights-of-way. And the minister responded to my correspondence at that time: "Thank you for your letter of May 30 with the attached petitions and correspondence from some of your constituents." It wasn't only from some of my constituents, because since that time I have received several hundred more names on petitions and about 50 or 60 more pieces of correspondence from residents of the Sunshine coast. "I appreciate your sending me this material and I have noted the contents of the package." What really disturbs me, Mr. Speaker, is that I don't think the minister did note the contents of the package. Obviously, the way this bill was drafted. ., . . If the minister had noted the contents of the package that I had sent to him, the bill would have been drafted much differently. In the Sunshine Coast area.... By the way, B.C. Hydro is spraying in the Powell River area, in the Courtenay-Comox area and in many other areas of the province - in Alberni - using chemicals like 2, 4-D, Tordon, 2, 4, 5-T and others. Every time you write the Minister of Energy or the Minister of Environment to protest, you get back a long two-page letter. I have copies of hundreds of these letters; it's the standard reply. Everybody gets the same letter which says, in effect: "There's nothing to worry about. People have examined the chemicals and we feel it is safe to use these types of chemicals for spraying." But I'd like to read into the record, Mr. Chairman, for a moment, just what the heading.... Here's a copy of the type of petition that the minister has received, as have the Minister of Energy and Mr. Bonner, head of B.C. Hydro. It says:

"To Whom It May Concern: We, the undersigned citizens of the Sechelt Peninsula and Mackenzie riding, protest the use of chemical sprays along the Hydro right-of-way. We feel that B.C. Hydro, instead of using this dangerous method of underbrush control, can use an alternate manner of control, such as burn-and-slash. This age-old, natural way is not only safer, but more practical, because it will help alleviate another problem, that of unemployment."

You might remember, Mr. Speaker, that we do have about 22 per cent employment in some parts of my constituency, and the majority of those people unemployed at this time are people between the ages of 18 and 26. Of course, the reason the minister gives why they can't use the burn-and-slash method and must use the chemicals, is that it's too expensive. It costs about four times as much. Well, that may be true. But I noticed earlier in this session we passed a bill to borrow $560 million for B.C. Hydro.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member ' it's not possible to refer to another bill other than in making a point.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Well, the point I wish to make, Mr. Speaker, is that part of that borrowing could have gone to pay the wages for some of these people who are unemployed in my area, in Mackenzie, and in other parts of the province, instead of using these dangerous chemicals.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: "Borrowing money to buy chemicals, " says the member from Alberni, (Mr. Skelly) and that's true.

I was going to read into the record, Mr. Chairman, some of the numerous pieces of correspondence I have received. I have received literally hundreds of letters from one area alone - an area that has a population of about 14,000 people in total. I have received 200 pieces of correspondence and literally almost 1,000 names of petitions objecting to the use of these defoliants, but the government doesn't take any notice at all.

This bill is the type of bill that should have guarded against this type of thing, Mr. Speaker. The fact is, what this bill really does, in my view, is give the cabinet and that minister the power to do whatever they wish, use whatever kind of chemicals they wish, and it gives the ordinary citizen no recourse at all. I'm going to be forced to vote against this bill, Mr. Speaker.

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, I just want to deal with one area of the bill. For about two and a half years in this province there was a royal commission on pesticides. They spent a great deal of time making a large number of recommendations after going to the public and receiving literally hundreds of representations, either verbal or written.

In respect to the proposal of the pesticide control committee, one would presume from reading the bill and then going to the report that that committee is the minister's answer to the proposal by the commission that there be an advisory board. As it's set up in the bill we are dealing primarily with government departments. There is one additional [illegible] which says: " . . . and such other persons as the minister considers appropriate." That's an opportunity presumably for the minister to broaden the composition of that committee. One would hope that the presumption is that that would go beyond

[ Page 4714 ]

government personnel.

In the report, it was generally agreed by the commissioners.... Let's remember that these commissioners are the people who have been held up as being experts in the field. They have been quoted in this House by the minister and by some of his ministerial colleagues, particularly in reference to the Eurasian milfoil and the problem there, where they quoted at some length some of the bona fides of Dr. Powrie, who was a member of the commission. It was made up of excellent people - Dr. C.J. Mackenzie, Dr. Oldham, Dr. Powrie - and these three people were rated as the experts to deal with it.

The sum total of their recommendations in relation particularly to the role of citizens, and that's really what I want to deal with.... We should bear in mind, Mr. Speaker, that it is the citizens who have been the spark plugs of protest in the province over the years in respect to the general question of pollution and the particular questions of the use of pesticides. We have had some citizens who have gone out and protested very vigorously, particularly in relation to the spraying that was done by B.C. Hydro. We can all recall some years ago that the answer of the then chairman of B.C. Hydro to the protest was to go out and drink a cup of some of the spray just to demonstrate that everything was okay. That's almost the same as the member from Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) going down to the Fraser River and taking a glass of that, and from that we must presume there's nothing wrong with the Fraser River.

MR. SKELLY: How about the member for Dewdney?

MR. LEVI: The member from Dewdney is still in the House. We don't know on what kind of intestinal apparatus he's operating, but he did survive.

In terms of the citizen protest, I would just like to quote from the report the statement that the commission made. They say:

"A major defect in the present arrangements for control of pesticides in the province was repeatedly brought to the attention of the commission. This was expressed as a frustration on the part of citizens about being unable to have any input into the decision-making process on the use of pesticides.

"Citizens did not perceive of any mechanism whereby they could be heard except possibly by letters to their elected representatives. They made the case that there was a general frustration because they couldn't be heard, and also that citizens were constantly seeking to have input and to offer constructive criticism and suggestions about how the situations could be improved."

The report goes on to say:

"There was a general expression of a lack of credibility of government departments in matters of pesticide control. There was no clean-cut evidence of lack of co-operation of government agencies with citizens. In the minds of citizens, however, was the impression that their concerns were being ignored."

Tonight, Mr. Speaker, we've heard from my colleagues on this side of the House particularly in reference to the appeal board. Having made these opinions known to the commissioners and the commissioners having listened and made a number of comments about this, we have the appeal board situation as set up in the Act.

I don't want to go into the question of the appeal board because it's been adequately dealt with by my colleagues, although I do notice that the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) is not in the House so there is no chance of his rising on standing order 42 if I were to go into it. The only thing that I'm worried about now is that he is in his office listening and he's liable to run back here.

The commission went on to note that the citizens' concern for lack of communication and credibility in the government agencies was important. The facts underlying these concerns were not well established, but the concerns were. Presumably in drafting the bill the minister looked at the report and where the commission recommends that there be an advisory board set up. They go on to say that the board should be composed largely of informed citizens, the rationale being it should provide a link between the technical personnel of the government, Crown corporations, industry and private citizens. The form and the function of this pesticide advisory and appeal board is detailed in the later report, and they go on to make a number of suggestions about who should be on it.

They recommend, right off the bat, that there be a private citizen interested in environmental matters. Presumably that individual would come from one of the very active environmental groups that make themselves heard from time to time in the province. Also on the board might be a farmer or a rancher, a physician, a lawyer, a forester, an engineer, a biologist, an individual with experience in the pesticide industry, a food scientist, a weed scientist or a plant pathologist, an agrologist or a veterinarian and an entomologist.

One of the things they go on to say is that it is important that this be the way the advisory committee is set up. We can only conclude from the bill, and perhaps the minister will tell us when he winds up debate, that his pesticide control committee is, in fact, a substitute for this. One would gather that it isn't because of the way it is set up at the moment. The chairman of that committee is seen as being a public servant, and it would be made up of

[ Page 4715 ]

representatives of various government ministries.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

The minister has at the moment an interdepartmental committee involved in discussing the problem of pesticides. He has a representative from the Ministry of Forests, and we know that they do some spraying. He's got the recommendation from the Ministry of Health, and we know what recommendations they made in respect to Eurasian milfoil and 2, 4-D. He also has a representative from the Ministry of Agriculture.

The point is that what we're dealing with here, if that is the structure he wants, is a number of senior public servants who are meeting and who are subject to the control of their ministers. These ministers always keep one ear to the ground to see what the political climate is like outside. I pointed out, and it is stated in the Act, that the minister has an opportunity to add other people to his pesticide control committee. But unfortunately the way it is now, it's a bit of an afterthought.

One would have thought that after a commission such as the royal commission on pesticides had worked for almost three years in this province, there would have been a drafting of this Act in respect to the pesticide control committee, or an advisory board, or both. Certainly one cannot accept that the pesticide control committee can be seen as an advisory board, because the commission said that it should be composed of as many citizens as possible.

I know that it's often difficult for a minister who is drafting a bill to consider the possibility that he would give up certain of his powers to a group of citizens. There has to be a balance between how much you can give up and how much you retain because, after all, the minister is responsible to this House. Therefore he cannot come into this House and say: "I don't have control any more because I gave it to that group out there." He has to strike a balance.

You do not strike a balance by appointing a committee such as he has recommended in the bill, and then as an afterthought add one or two civilians, I think, is probably the best way of putting it -private citizens who are not public servants.

It's very unfortunate because this particular committee reinforces the negativeness that exists as a result of the lack of an adequate appeal procedure. We know that there is appeal procedure. We know that in this province for a number of years there have been some very serious problems with people appealing various decisions of boards.

This was raised some years ago, in a continuing way, with the pollution control board, where you had to be able to make specific recommendations. It's true that there are economic implications, if there is an appeal against a particular action by industry, and it is a question of whether you're going to hold up that action, and therefore the appeal mustn't be frivolous, and that's agreed. There has to be some understanding by the government that citizens have to have this input, and the rules can be set up in such a way that such appeals are not frivolous.

At the same time, the main disability towards appealing is not a financial one. In the previous government, they made a point of making a number of grants to various groups in the community who had interests particularly in the environmental area. I don't know, I'm not too sure just where for instance SPEC is in relation to the minister. I know that he did ask them to re-apply for a grant, and I'm not sure whether they were able to get a grant large enough for them to be able to operate. I'm not just singling out SPEC as a group that plays an important role in the environmental area, but certainly they have a leadership role, and their membership are very much the spark plugs in the community.

For myself, coming from an urban riding where we are not often touched by these problems, we are very much aware of what is going on. I am certainly aware of what SPEC is doing. They are located in my riding, and I have spent some time there seeing what they are doing. The role that they play is an extremely important one, and it's necessary, because when you have a committee as the minister envisages, a pesticide control committee made up virtually, and at the moment we must say completely, of public servants who have obligations to their departments, and to the ministers, then we must make sure that we have out there active vocal groups like SPEC.

There is another problem in respect to the way the Act is drafted without the citizen input. There is a feeling very much in government that as long as things appear to be going along all right, then there is no reason to take a close look at what's going on, and to be innovative. It is not the nature of bureaucracies to be innovative unless they are prodded from outside. I think that it would be a great advantage in setting up of an advisory committee. Perhaps the minister will tell us when he closes the debate , why it is that he has not listened to the recommendations of the commission that there should be an advisory committee? Does he have any particular objection to this kind of input?

We know that the minister has had some difficulty in making up his mind about what kind of a role he sees for citizens groups. One must conclude from the way the Act is drafted that he does not feel that they can play a role in the day-to-day administration of a pesticide control policy. Now it may very well be that his thinking is that it's better for us to have the situation as it is, Mr. Speaker. The government will do the pesticide control, they will have civil servants doing it, and if there is a dissatisfaction with that, there are the groups outside that can do the

[ Page 4716 ]

protesting.

But let's face it. This kind of legislation has taken many, many years to come before this House. That is the nature of protest; that's the nature of the pushing that takes place in the community that results in governments introducing new policies. It's a long, hard grind; it's not something that happens overnight. It would be better if there was an advisory committee. That committee would have a continuing contact with the government people in such a way that they could give them a point of view which is not always possible for public servants to have, particularly when they're in a senior administrative role. I'm not suggesting for one moment that senior public servants should not have and do not have private interests outside of their work. They certainly do, but the point is that you tend, if you're working in a bureaucracy, and particularly if you're a senior civil servant - if you're close to where the minister and the decision-making is going on - to narrow your perspective towards what are the departmental policies. So that has to be broadened.

The commission, in its wisdom, was certainly bright enough to take a long look and listen very hard to all of the representations that were made. They felt that they had to recommend to the government that there should be a citizen's advisory committee. They refer constantly to their interim reports, because they did do a series of interim reports over the three years, particularly in relation to the appeal system. I just want to touch on that. "The present legal and administrative arrangements are cumbersome, lack public credibility and tend to perpetuate use of chemical pesticides instead of alternative methods." I think they're talking here to some extent about who is going to be there to offer the new, innovative ideas where the perspective is not narrowed, but broadened.

That perspective can only come from people who are activists, the spark plugs in the community who are prepared to make the protests when necessary, to write the briefs and to call public meetings to call attention to the very significant problems that go on in our society. That is the way we bring about change. There's no question of that. But there has to be a possibility of accelerating this process to some extent, because all governments are notoriously slow in bringing about what many citizens feel is the appropriate kind of legislation. It becomes for them a narrow situation, rather than chewing on it for a number of years.

There's no doubt that with the technology and the advances of science we have in our society, we are going to have to make decisions a lot quicker than we tend to do now. I think that if there is a citizens' input, and a very significant one, along with that of the minister, it might very well have been that the problems that the minister has had over the summer and that the Minister of Forests has had in respect to the budworm.... Once the citizens have a complete and absolute understanding of this.... You can't do that in a short period of time. It was suddenly sprung on people.

There's a very significant problem that's going to face the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Chabot) in respect to the issue of uranium. That's another problem in respect to pollution and the health of the public. Now we don't know what that particular minister is doing about that.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: Well, it has to do with the health of the community. Of course that minister, when he has to deal with those issues, will presumably come forward with a similar kind of bill, not having given it a great deal of thought.

We are entitled to have a much better bill than we have before us, based upon all of the work that was done by the commission. That was not an overnight decision in terms of recommendations made by that commission. The fact that the commission took three years to complete.... They were not working every day, but certainly over a long period of time where there was a great deal of publicity. Now we don't expect that when a commission makes a series of recommendations, everything is going to be included in legislation. But we have to look at the main burden, particularly in relation with the recommendations regarding citizens' input. This is coming from people who are highly skilled professionals who presumably in their daily lives are often confronted by people who are well-meaning protestors in respect to various problems which they do not have a great deal of expertise on, but about which they have a feeling deep down that something is wrong. That's a very rational kind of protest.

So I would ask the minister if when he sums up he will tell us why he has excluded from the bill the advisory committee recommended by the commission. Is the pesticide control committee a substitute for that? If it is, then we have our answer, because it is made up of bureaucrats with no citizen input at all.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I find this bill to be somewhat symbolic of many of the debates that take place in this House where. . . .

HON. MR. GARDOM: We'll take your remarks as read.

MR. WALLACE: The Attorney-General says he'll take my remarks as read " probably anticipating that I

cannot find myself being as strongly for, or strongly against, this bill as most other people in this House

[ Page 4717 ]

tonight. I think this is an issue where it's very easy to be extreme - as is in the area of the unknown. I have some real feeling for the government in trying to grapple with what is an enormously difficult and far-reaching problem.

So, in principle, I feel sympathetic to almost any effort that is a step in the right direction. What we're really debating tonight, in the principle of this bill, is the fact that the government has tried to follow in some degree the recommendations of our royal commission, and has brought in a bill which in principle moves in the right direction, but which in practice has some very unfortunate deficiencies.

When I say that it's easy to be extreme on this subject, Mr. Speaker, I'm referring to the fact that if one wants to be holier than thou, I suppose one can say that obviously the safest attitude to pesticides is not to use them at all. My learned friend on my left from Burnaby-Willingdon immediately says, "Nonsense."

AN HON. MEMBER: Burnaby-Willingdon.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're wrong again, Scotty.

MR. WALLACE: Burnaby-Edmonds.

MR. GIBSON: He was flattering you.

MR. WALLACE: Of course, the fact is, that member's here so seldom that any kind of interjection makes news. (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: Vicious attacks.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, to get back to the issue....

MR. R.L. LOEWEN (Burnaby-Edmonds): Stick to the point.

MR. WALLACE: Yes, I should stick to the point. (Laughter.) I know that the member for Burnaby-Edmonds wouldn't like me to make that kind of retort to his interjections.

MR. LOEWEN: Look, even the gallery is leaving.

MR. WALLACE: No, I don't get up to speak to the gallery, Mr. Member for Burnaby-Edmonds; I get up to speak to the people of British Columbia.

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: So that....

MR. GIBSON: You're giving the people a shaft, Chabot.

MR. WALLACE: The principle of any bill dealing with public health and safety, whether it's workers' compensation or occupational health, or the use of possibly dangerous agents, really boils down to a debate as to whether we are trying to show that society can benefit from scientific and medical advances, while at the same time recognizing the dangers that accompany these advances. We try to build in safeguards and procedures which would reach that happy balance between improvement - whether it be to forests or crops, or whatever - to the maximum possible degree, with a minimum exposure to health dangers, on the part of the people living in the area where they're used.

One of the aspects of this bill which I find disappointing, more so than some of the other more specific deficiencies which other members have mentioned, is the lack of emphasis on research and advice. One of the reasons that this subject is so controversial is that a great deal is unknown -particularly in relation to what constitutes a safe, minimum concentration of use of the pesticide. When there are areas of the unknown - and I think there's a great analogy here in the ongoing controversy over megavitamins - it's very easy ....

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: I'll just ... touching it lightly on the way by, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: Well, some people think that politicians are pesticides. (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: Order!

MR. WALLACE: That's said with no disrespect to the hon. members of the House, Mr. Speaker. I'm just quoting the kind of sentiments that some citizens hold in this province. There is the analogy with certain medical treatments where there's evidence for, and evidence against, but not enough to be precise and quantify it, and be able to come up with some specific evidence which can say: "Yes, it is completely safe used in this dosage, " or to say: "It is completely unsafe in any dosage." How do you lay down general rules when, for example, as has been mentioned tonight, you're dealing with a watershed where the manner in which the chemical accumulates may be very different from one area to another?

There are so many aspects to this issue which are either unknown or uncertain, that it seems to me this subject has provoked debate tonight in a rather for-or-against fashion. It's a clear-cut issue, and you should either definitely be for this bill or definitely against it, and I just can't find myself in that position.

[ Page 4718 ]

One point that I want to make, Mr. Speaker, is that much has been said about the onus being on the user to prove the safety of the chemical. I can see the thinking behind that, but I would point out that any chemical used in this country is first evaluated and examined at the federal level. My office has made some inquiries and I am informed that the provincial regulations have to at least meet those already determined at the federal level. While the province can be tougher in the restrictions that apply against the use of a chemical, at least it first has to meet the federal standard.

I suppose it is so easy to be critical and to choose one catastrophic example to try and prove your argument - I've heard people talking about thalidomide tonight. It's very easy to pick that one example and overlook the fact that the Food and Drug Administration in Ottawa, in the past 25 years or whatever, has screened, tested and evaluated literally thousands of medications, chemicals or drugs. Many of these have been rejected and others have been made available for research only, because of the risks, or have had some restrictive conditions attached to their use. It's distorting the picture to try and make a whole argument out of one single example at the federal level, where admittedly a serious mistake was made in allowing thalidomide to be marketed for use in this country. Even then, one should temper that criticism with world-wide experience. Canada wasn't the only country that made the mistake and practically all of these other countries are also doing their own screening and evaluation in the first place.

It does come back to the issue I raised earlier in my comments, Mr. Speaker, that what we need is a more definitive outline of the kind of detailed research and study and the ways in which these studies should be done. That is the emphasis lacking in this bill.

I have heard some very harsh criticism of the government tonight, Mr. Speaker, and I feel that to put this thing into some balance, two things are worth mentioning. This government finally overruled one of its own ministers in a decision to use a pesticide. Everybody in this chamber knows that is not the kind of action that governments are wont to take since it is politically negative when a minister is overruled by his cabinet colleagues and the whole issue is publicly obvious. This government is trying. In taking that action they also demonstrated the need for some kind of more centralized area of the department of the Ministry of the Environment within which this whole matter, in future cases, should be more thoroughly screened, studied and decided upon before it ever gets to a public controversy where the government finishes up overruling the minister who is supposed to be making the knowledgeable recommendations.

1 think another part in debating this issue where the government should be given credit.... I've heard in this House time and time again what a terrible ogre B.C. Hydro is in this province. We've heard, over the sessions I've sat here, about the irresponsible and arrogant attitude in regard to what appears to be the indiscriminate use of spraying. This bill attempts to put B.C. Hydro in its place. For anyone to debate this bill tonight and make it sound as though the government is all wrong and the opposition is all right or vice. versa, I. think this overlooks many of the complexities of the subject we're debating, never mind this specific bill's attempt to deal with some of the problems within this very controversial public issue.

Much mention has been made of the study that was done by the royal commission. I think it's also fair to say on the positive side that many of the recommendations of the royal commission are incorporated in the bill. Again, the disadvantage, as I see it, is that the bill does not go far enough in implementing the recommendations dealing with research and advice.

I won't repeat the comments of the second member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Levi) , but I very much agree with the point he was making that the royal commission recommended a pesticide advisory and appeal board. It mentioned that the board should be seen as a technical board capable of assessing technical problems and advising the government through the minister on these problems. One of the other aspects was that as an appeal board, it should have the capability to hear and assess the merit of technical arguments brought before it. When acting as an appeal board, the decisions on matters of law should be appealed to the court.

So in these two particular respects the bill does not follow the recommendations. It does not build a separate advisory committee; nor does it combine the advisory function with the appeal function. In that regard, I think it's one of the weakest sections of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, there are certainly some sections of the bill which are bad. I won't mention section numbers, but where we're dealing with such a contentious bill and with all the problems I've tried to mention - lack of knowledge, lack of information, lack of research and so on - we then finish up with a section Which in effect gives the cabinet the authority to be selective as to how this Act will be applied. That puzzles me and also gives me concern. It would seem to me that the biggest danger in any legislation is where it attempts to implement broad principles, as this bill does, but then instead of making it mandatory that whatever studies or investigations are done, or whatever appeals are heard, all of this could really mean nothing in the light of this authority that's vested in the bill in one of the later sections,

[ Page 4719 ]

allowing the cabinet in effect to overrule all the decisions that might have been taken as a result of regulations and provisions throughout the bill. The committee that is set up is just described as an appeal board and not a pesticide advisory and appeal board.

Again, comparing it to many other pieces of legislation, the description and detail in the appeal section is very vague and lacking in some of the very specific aspects which the royal commission had spelled out in pretty clear terms. It mentioned that the membership should vary from 10 to 16 and that initially there should be 12 members on the board. The legislation just doesn't mention any numbers at all; it just says "such other members as the cabinet may determine." And there is no further appeal to the courts as was recommended by the royal commission.

The pesticide control committee is another body spelled out in the bill, but again in very minimal fashion. I'm really not sure from reading the bill exactly what the function of the control committee is intended to be. It mentions that it will review applications for permits and so on as referred to it by the administrator, but then it just says "and perform such other duties as the minister requires." What exactly is meant to be the range of function and the range of authority of the pesticide control committee?

Mr. Speaker, I recognize the shortcomings of the bill, but at the same time I recognize that we're in an area which is difficult for any government these days, largely because this government or the one that follows it or the one after that will always be trying to grapple with potential dangers to public health based on inadequate information. The only truly safe way to deal with this problem is to decide whether or not you ever want to use any of these chemicals at all. If people had adopted that attitude down through the years, we wouldn't have half the medications that save lives and keep people productive and keep them out of hospital and do a whole lot of beneficial things. Certainly in the treatment of crops - and this applies around the world, not only in British Columbia - if down through the years people had taken the position that maybe because there might be some damage from the use of certain chemicals, we'll just leave the crop to rot from whatever fungus or parasite or whatever, then we would have starvation of a degree around the world which would make our present situation look very minimal.

So it's very easy to take fixed, extreme positions on this issue. I feel that the government is trying very quietly but with some obvious determination to grapple with what is a difficult area for all governments - provincial, federal and otherwise.

But in trying to weigh up the pros and cons I've discussed tonight, Mr. Speaker, the single part of the bill that convinces me that it is wrong - and it would be wrong if we were discussing pesticides or highways or Hydro or anything else.... Any bill which goes into all these sections trying to find its way through a difficult area, spelling out all kinds of licences and permits and regulations and control committees and appeal boards, and then finishes up giving the cabinet, in effect, the authority simply to wipe out all the outcome from these different procedures, is bad legislation. I really can't understand the particular reason for that particular section, which gives the cabinet, in effect, authority to overrule or to wipe out or to alter or to selectively administer the decisions that have been reached through quite a substantial amount of procedure.

We have all this in the earlier sections. Even some of that is inadequate, but I think I could live with it, simply because it is evidence that the government's trying to move in the right direction. But to diminish in such a degree whatever positive impact the bill will have by allocating authority to the cabinet to limit the application of the Act - which is a few words in that section - completely frustrates all that's gone before or could frustrate all that's gone before.

So I want to make it plain that I have a great deal of sympathy with the bill and certainly with what the government's trying to do. But there's no way I can support the bill as long as it has section 2 1. I'll make another statement - as long as I'm in the House.... Any other bill that comes before this House and spells out positive, constructive ideas like you have in the 20 sections but which then gives the cabinet the chance to throw the whole thing out the window if they so choose, just seems to be an incredible contradiction. It seems that this degree of selective authority is the problem which the government's been in already, if I may say so, regarding the budworm spraying proposal. Because they came to the conclusion collectively or by a majority vote, presumably, that there was still enough unknown about the use of spraying in this particular circumstance that there had to be some delay of a year or whatever, and were prepared - and this is where I give the government full credit - to take the public flack. Obviously, the cabinet was not united within its own ranks and in fact overruled the minister responsible.

I think the reason I want to give the government credit is that what's wrong with our political system is that so often governments take political decisions even when they know that they should have the guts to face some of, the political losses by making the right decision. I think in this case the government did make the right decision, and with some political disadvantage. We are all brainwashed in our societies these days that the cabinet in always united and the cabinet is always right. Even when it is wrong, it blusters its way through the public media and pretends that it's united and fully confident in its

[ Page 4720 ]

decision.

This is one of the decisions where it did the right thing and took some political losses in the process. I would have thought that the government, having learned that lesson and having been prepared to take the political losses, wouldn't write this kind of power into the end of this bill which can get it in the same jackpot all over again by selectively deciding that the Act will not be applied in condition A or situation B or whatever.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that it is unfortunate that the government has shown the will and the desire to try and make some progress on this issue. I want to make it plain that a lot of the bill is positive and I would like to support it. But there is no bill in this House that I am going to see struggle with a difficult issue, coming up with many positive and constructive ideas, and then at the end say that on the other hand the cabinet can do what it likes. That's essentially what section 21 does, and for that reason I'm opposing the bill.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The very large number of speakers tonight will not permit me to respond to each of their individual questions. I have no intention of attempting to because questions were many and accusations were many. But there are a number of points to which I can respond.

I would say, with the exception of the last speaker, that many of the speakers offering their comments tonight would have the people of British Columbia believe that all governments, all ministers, all ministries, all the civil servants, all municipalities, all regional districts, all Crown corporations and all private citizens in the province have a great desire not only to be irresponsible, but to destroy the environment.

If what we hear from this side is accurate and true, we have people.... It was described to us how they will go out to destroy even though, as one said, they may be faced with a fine of some kind. Read the Blues, Mr. Member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) , tomorrow and see from your colleagues how these conniving people "go out skulking at midnight, like the Midnight Raider" - the second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) . They are out at midnight spraying weeds, people, animals and little babies that crawl in the night. What a bunch of nonsense!

A couple of the members mentioned DDT. They say, or some people might believe from the way they discuss it, that DDT is used a great deal in the province of British Columbia. Nobody mentioned that it isn't. The only purpose DDT is used for on very rare occasions in the province is to control the spread of rabies by spraying rabid bats. How would you control rabies? Some of the notes are no longer relevant because of a repetition of the accusations and charges.

The interesting thing, Mr. Speaker, about the bill, which does provide an appeal procedure.... I recognize that any bill can be attacked by any member, by any citizen, by any person. Any word in the English language can be interpreted or misinterpreted at will by anyone. Of course, that's the purpose of debate - to argue and to get various points across. Certainly there may be deficiencies in this bill or any bill that's been introduced by any government at any time in any country.

The present legislation which is in effect in British Columbia today doesn't allow for an appeal. We had discussions in which it was said: "Oh, you can appeal politically." Well, of course you can. Nothing is to prevent that. You can appeal politically forever. But there is no appeal and this time the minister is the final authority. There is no appeal. We're suggesting an appeal procedure whereby anyone can appeal. Discussion that only millionaires or well-heeled corporations could appeal is absolute nonsense. The bill states that anyone may appeal.

The member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) offered an interpretation on the appeal procedure, which could be taken as quite a literal interpretation of what the Act says. It's certainly not our intent, and I'm quite prepared to consult our legal people to determine if indeed that legal interpretation, as you suggest, is correct. Because it certainly is not our intent. We suggest that anyone can appeal orders, decisions or whatever of the persons named in the Act to the Pesticide Control Appeal Board, be it the person applying who is turned down, or be it an appellant who is opposed to a decision made. That was our intent in writing this Act.

I appreciate the member for North Okanagan coming to the defence of this government with reference to the 2, 4-D treatment in the lakes in the Okanagan. The only concerned citizens, according to some members on that side of the House, are those who are opposed to the 2, 4-D. They would have us believe they are the only concerned citizens. If we accept that type of attitude when it comes to any programme, be it the 2, 4-D programme or any other programme of control of a pest, then we must presume that the city of Vernon, the Vernon Jubilee Hospital, the Okanagan Indian band, the North Okanagan Regional District, other environmentalists and citizens of the Okanagan are not concerned citizens.

I reject that. Of course they're concerned citizens. The chief medical officer for the North Okanagan endorsed the provincial advisory committee's recommendation on the 2, 4-D treatment. The corporation of the city of Vernon, the spokesman for the Vernon Medical Society, the Vernon Jubilee Hospital, Okanagan Indian band, North Okanagan Regional District, and it goes on ... and ordinary

[ Page 4721 ]

citizens without titles of any kind. Thousands of people down in Penticton at Skaha beach took part in an organized barbecue by the city to be thankful that the weeds were going or gone.

Mr. Speaker, we're talking about approximately 35 acres treated with 2, 4-D this year. The chemical 2, 4-D has been tested for many, many years; 2, 4-D is recognized as effective in the control of Eurasian milfoil. Other chemicals have been used in an attempt to control the milfoil in the Okanagan lakes. Chemicals which are up to five times more toxic than 2, 4-D have been used in the Okanagan. Unfortunately, I wasn't minister, nor was this government in office, when those chemicals were used in the Okanagan lakes.

MR. KERSTER: Who was the minister?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The member sitting across represented the government that used chemicals many times more toxic than 2, 4-D. I don't hear any reference made to those. With all fairness, Mr. Chairman, it was an experiment.

MR. COCKE: What are you talking about?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: We're talking about Diquat, we're talking about Paraquat, , we're talking about the Vernon arm of May of 1974, we're talking about the Kelowna basin in May of 1975. Where were you, Mr. Member? You were in that government - you must have approved these applications. Or were you out on your own trying to clear your weeds in the Skaha Lake area?

MR. COCKE: I don't have any.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: You don't have any weeds. What do you use? What type of herbicide do you use?

MR. COCKE: I just take your hot air.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: One point was made by some member - I'm not sure which one - that individuals from various organizations should be asked to sit on the boards. Well, I'm not very pleased to advise all members of the House that not one of these organizations has written me a letter making any such suggestion. Not one.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about the royal commission?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Not one. It was mentioned by a member tonight. There are no members of the royal commission in the House. Not one of these groups has written a letter suggesting that they nominate any such members. The only reference is from one group that said: "Oh, it's a disappointing bill." Quoting from them, it says: "It is a disappointing bill. The board members will all be civil servants from government departments." They hadn't read the bill. It doesn't suggest that in the bill at all. I didn't suggest that you said that.

Interjections.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Perhaps you were thinking that, but you didn't say it.

Interjections.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) , suggested as well that the onus would always be on those who are appealing a decision - the poisoner, as was mentioned. The onus will also be on the persons seeking the permit. They must get a permit. Therefore, they must prove to the satisfaction of the committee that the permit should be issued. There is an onus on them as well. It works both ways.

MR. SKELLY: What about section 4?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: There are so many points that some of these members raised tonight, Mr. Speaker. "The havoc with the Okanagan Valley, " said our friend for New Westminster. We played havoc with the Okanagan Valley but we didn't play havoc with the Jubilee Hospital, with the city of Vernon, with the city of Penticton or with many citizens in the Okanagan Valley.

We also had the most wide-open investigation into such a project that this government's ever seen in British Columbia. We had the commissioners meeting publicly; we had every group meeting with them that wished to attend. Any person was open; any person was there. All they had to do was supply information and those commissioners would sit down and discuss it with them.

I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, if the Okanagan is going to be the example you people use, that you're in for a rude awakening as to what the people in the Okanagan believe about that programme.

They talk about certain sections of the bill which would allow the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council certain powers. You're suggesting that you can make recommendations, you can have committees or you can have boards which find certain rulings or allow certain permits, but you can have the cabinet change everything. That's unprecedented according to you people. There's an Act that was brought in by a group of people one day called a Land Commission Act. It allowed the setting up of agricultural land reserves, but it also allowed the cabinet to get rid of any of it or all of it on its own - by order, out! To suggest

[ Page 4722 ]

that any such legislation is unprecedented is absolute garbage and absolute nonsense.

Interjections.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I'm not suggesting, Mr. Member. I'm saying that it is not unprecedented. Perhaps some of those members across the floor inhaled the Diquat or Paraquat when they were spraying the lakes in 1974 and 1975.

Now there has just been so much information misinterpreted and twisted by the members sitting immediately opposite. The Act doesn't say they require a deposit to make an appeal. It says:'may be assessed, " the same as you would find in the Land Commission Act that you people wrote. When a person appeals, they may be assessed costs.

Interjections.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Well, you wouldn't know! You've never read an Act. You've never read any of these. Even if you can find a member on your side who can read and would read to you, you wouldn't understand it.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the hon. minister address his remarks to the Chair on closing second reading of this bill?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Someone suggested that we should list in the Act that it only applies to crackpots and idiots. The person who suggested we put that in the bill could be the third one.

It was suggested that three members of our commission are capable people. We recognized that when we appointed them to look into the milfoil, but Drs. Powrie, Mackenzie and Oldham are not the only qualified people in the province. They recognize that; we recognize that. There are many other persons who could be considered in advisory capacities. We do have an interministerial committee now that looks after such permit applications, but it's an ad hoc committee. It has no legal status. We intend to legitimize that in the Act.

Mr. Chairman, considering the hour of the night and some of the nonsense we've had to listen to this evening, I move second reading of the bill.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS - 23

NAYS - 13

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Bill 46, Pesticide Control Act, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:04 p.m.