[ Page 1829 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Ministry of the Environment estimates.

On vote 83. Mr. Skelly –– 1847

Mr. Skelly 1829 Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 1848

Hon. Mr. Nielsen 1834 Mr. Strongman –– 1848

Mr. Skelly 1839 Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 1849

Hon. Mr. Nielsen 1844 Mr. Strongman –– 1850

Mr. Lloyd 1844 Mr. King –– 1850

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 1846

Appendix –– 1854

The House met at 8:30 p.m.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

THE ENVIRONMENT

(continued)

On vote 83: minister's office, $131,756 -continued.

MR. SKELLY: Before the supper hour we were discussing the minister's conduct in his ministry, the way he operates his department and the lack of value that he assigns to the resources over which he is given charge. We discussed a few things about the Cowichan estuary and estuaries in general, and I asked the minister if they have an estuary policy for the province. I notice when the Cowichan estuary is mentioned the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) perks up, because one of his good buddies has a proposal for a development in that area that everybody in the area

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Are you saying Rooke and Rodenbush is my buddy?

MR. SKELLY: One of your good buddies. One of the donors of campaign funds and collectors of campaign funds for your party has a proposal for a development in the Cowichan estuary. It is interesting that in one of the proposals that was submitted on the estuary by this organization, the studies were done by Heede International, and this person who is a director of the B.C. Development Corporation was on the same board of directors of the B.C. Development Corporation that backed Heede International to the tune of some $5 million. And then we find out that Heede is doing studies for this person on his proposed development in the Cowichan estuary.

In every incident we look into relating to this person and his proposals for development, you find I can't really say a conflict of interest an unusual coincidence of circumstances surrounding the support that he's giving to the government and the support the government is giving him.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: No, we're not talking about the Ministry of Economic Development, but we're talking about the way the Minister of the Environment undervalues the resources in the case of the Cowichan estuary; how he was having a conflict with the Minister of Economic Development as to who could be the best Minister of Economic Development, and he was ignoring the value of his resources and his jurisdiction altogether.

The same thing applies in his administration of farmland in the province. We're seriously concerned about the loss of productive agricultural land in the province under this minister's jurisdiction. Last year the minister got up during his estimates and boasted that less land had been taken out of the agricultural land reserve since the Social Credit government came to office than had been taken out under the previous NDP government. Then in the year following they took some 40,000 acres of farmland out of the agricultural land reserve. In the year following his boast that less land had been taken out in his administration than under the previous NDP government, he took out more land than had ever been taken out in the previous history of the agricultural land reserve.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Fine tuning!

MR. SKELLY: Fine tuning, they call it.

Recently in the Regional District of Fraser Fort George they put something like 40,000 acres back in.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Back in?

MR. SKELLY: You put some land in.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Oh, thank you. You're usually confused, and that proves it.

MR. SKELLY: I'm talking in net terms - something you probably don't understand.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Are you really?

MR. SKELLY: I think we've got him stirred up a little bit. You put some land back in the reserve. It wasn't there before, but he had taken 40,000 acres out, and then he put some 40,000 acres back in to level things off.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Back in?

MR. SKELLY: You can get involved in the debate afterwards, Mr. Minister. You'll have your opportunity.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: You're very kind.

[ Page 1830 ]

MR. SKELLY: But in the meantime he had held off for some two years or more, and in Chat same period of time a number of people from the Fraser-Fort George area had applied for subdivisions in the very area that was under application. It was recommended to go into the reserve by the regional district, by the Cattlemen's Institute, by the local Farmers' Institute - everybody. The Land Commission was in favour of placing this land in the agricultural reserve because of its capability for agriculture. Yet the decision was held off for two years and, in the meantime, something in the neighbourhood of 20 subdivision applications went in in that area. It caused a heck of a mess, a lot of confusion, and there are going to be real problems with development within that area that's to be included in the agricultural land reserve.

That's the kind of political wheeling and dealing that has gone on with the agricultural land reserve under the jurisdiction of the present minister. That is not the only example; it's just the most recent example.

There are something like 15 or 20 subdivision applications in the space of two and a half years, and some pretty interesting Social Credit names from the riding of Fort George were proponents of those subdivision applications in that area that recommended for inclusion in the agricultural land reserve.

Basically what the minister has done is to politicize the agricultural land reserve, and anyone with a Social Credit Party card who comes to the minister in the secrecy of cabinet or in the Environment and Land Use Committee Contrary to the recommendations of regional people, local government people, agriculturalists and people in the agricultural industry, the minister gets involved in these political wheeling and dealing operations whereby subdivisions are approved in these areas.

Another one which was brought up and became quite a subject for discussion in the press last year was Seymour Arm Estates, Mr. Sorenson's operation on Shuswap Lake. It was noted in the papers of the day that he had a friend who was close to the government, and the friend was the member for Shuswap (Mr. Bawtree) . In fact the member had recommended that he go on the board of revision. A Social Credit appointment goes to cabinet and has his land deleted from the ALR because of his political connection. That's how the Land Commission is being handled under this government. It's straight political wheeling and dealing, and you know it.

"Cabinet Committee Freeze Land From Agricultural Reserve Despite Protest" - protest from the local government, protest from the agricultural industry in the area, protests from the Land Commission. Everybody opposed deletion of that land from the agricultural land reserve. But the guy with the political credentials comes in, talks to a cabinet committee in the secrecy of the cabinet committee room, and he gets his land out of the agricultural land reserve. That's how this government manipulates the agricultural land reserve. Through legislation they tried to undermine the Land Commission. They fired the whole Land Commission and appointed people who they thought would help them dismantle the agricultural land reserve.

MR. KING: Who did they appoint?

MR. SKELLY: Unfortunately they appointed people.... Many people in the agricultural industry, although they opposed the reserve to begin with, are now strongly behind it and oppose the kind of political manipulation that's going on under the present minister and under the present government. And the very people he appointed refused to get involved in the dismantling of the reserve, and that's to their credit. But in spite of it, in spite of their protests, in the secrecy of the cabinet room land is taken out of the reserve, valuable farmland that will be lost to agricultural potential forever. And it's a real shame in this province that the minister should get involved in that kind of political wheeling and dealing.

You expect it of the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) , you expect it of other ministers in that cabinet, but the minister who's supposed to be responsible for the environment, for protecting productive land in this province, doesn't value that productive land at all. As a result, that land reserve is slowly being dismantled. High quality land is being taken out, high-quality land is being threatened, and it's a policy of that minister to slowly destroy that agricultural land reserve. It was a policy of this government before they came into office, and in spite of the roadblocks put in their way, they're continuing to do it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. members, perhaps if the House thins out a little it will be quieter.

MR. SKELLY: Can you suggest anyone who should possibly leave, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: We're not used to that many members at this time of the evening, so per-

[ Page 1831 ]

haps we can maintain a little bit of decorum and quiet. The member for Alberni has the floor.

MR. SKELLY: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. This is what is taking place in the agricultural land reserve and again it relates back to the fact that the minister basically doesn't care about the environment. He doesn't care about the resources that he's charged with protecting, he doesn't care or understand the value of those common property resources, and he's always willing to sacrifice his resources when demands are placed upon him by the Minister of Forests, the Minister of Economic Development, the Minister of Mines or the minister responsible for Hydro Always the Minister of the Environment - so-called - is willing to forgo the value of his resource that he's supposed to be defending and let those people overrun his ministry.

There are a number of other problems that I'd like to bring to the attention of the minister. One of the problem we have in British Columbia is the whole question of funding for environmental advocacy groups, the whole question of the environmental assessment and review procedure, the whole question, in fact, of the rule of law involving the environment. When you go to other provinces and you go to the United States, there is a rule of law with regard to the environment. When people see a development coming or a development being proposed that looks like a threat to the environment and a threat to the quality of life, air, productive land and water, then they have access to the courts and they have access to the protection of law. We do not have that in British Columbia under this government and under this ministry.

It was never brought home more clearly than under the Pesticide Control Act which the minister brought down last year. The Pesticide Control Act is basically designed to eliminate effective public involvement in the adjudication of pesticide application. Certainly we needed some legislation in this province with regard to pesticides. A royal commission was struck under the NDP government. We had examples of pesticide control legislation in other jurisdictions.

HON. MR. CHABOT: You studied everything to death and did nothing.

MR. SKELLY: We looked at legislation and studied legislation in other jurisdictions.

HON. MR. CHABOT: You looked, looked, looked.

"I was going to do this; I was going to do that."

MR. SKELLY: This is the minister that prefers to shoot from the lip and to do everything without any advance studies. As a result, we've seen mine after mine close down in British Columbia because of the minister's lack of study, lack of information, lack of ability. That's the problem. Oh, we've done adequate study into the Forest Act, though. You turned it over to the Council of Forest Industries and let them write their own statute, that's what you did. That's the study that was done by your ministry.

In any case, we're dealing with environment here. One of the problems is the lack of a rule of law with regard to environment in the of law with regard to environment in the province of British Columbia. There is really no legal structure covering the environment that people can appeal to to protect the quality of life and to protect the quality of common property resources in this province.

In the United States they have a court system that works fairly well as an advocate of the people. When you want to control development in the United States, you have a legal framework in which the people can operate. There is partly the initiative process through which people can pass things like coastal zone management legislation, as they did in Washington state or as they did in California; there are proposals for initiatives that came right from the people putting demands on government to pass that legislation. We don't have that here, although to his credit the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) attempted to have the legislation proclaimed. We don't really have a legal framework through which people can appeal.

Under the Pesticide Control Act, an appeal procedure was set up. Unfortunately, though, the Act was only proclaimed in March of this year and the regulations were published in April of this year. This was after most of the pesticide application permits had already been issued by the interministerial pesticide committee. When I phoned up members on that committee just before the Act was passed and asked them how many applications had gone in this year, they said something like 213. This was roughly around the time that the Act was proclaimed. That was 213 up to March of this year, compared to 120 total for last year. So the number of applications for pesticide permits has increased drastically; it's doubled over last year. Yet up until April 25 or so, nobody had the option or the right to appeal.

Now even the regulations which spell out the appeal procedure are vague. They allow the

[ Page 1832 ]

pesticide appeal board to establish their own procedures so that people appealing a pesticide permit or a pesticide application, for example, in the Okanagan Lakes do not know what kind of procedures are going to be laid down by the pesticide appeal board because the regulations are so vague that nobody knows what the appeal procedure is going to be. It simply states that the appeal board can lay down its own procedures and nobody knows what those procedures are yet. So it's going to take a long time.

Why weren't those spelled out in the regulations? Why wasn't a systematic rule of law established in environmental matters? Because the minister wasn't concerned. What he wanted to do was to have the right to apply pesticides or have the right to have government agencies apply pesticides with minimal public input and minimal possible public appeal procedures. That's exactly what we have under the present legislation.

When the Canadian Bar Association environmental law subsection took a look at the Pesticide....

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Canadian Bar Association?

MR. SKELLY: The Canadian Bar Association environmental law subsection.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Oh, really?

MR. SKELLY: They wrote to you and asked for some input into drafting the Pesticide Control -Act.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The Canadian Bar Association, eh?

MR. SKELLY: The Canadian Bar Association environmental law subsection. The B.C. branch - I'll give you their address shortly - wrote to the minister and asked to have an opportunity to give him some legal input into drafting the Pesticide Control Act, and the minister refused that input. As a result, when the Act went before the environmental law subsection to be analysed, Justice Rayner stated that it was so sloppily drafted as to be almost unworkable. That is the kind of legislation that has come out of this ministry. It is basically because of a lack of concern on the part of the minister for the legislation. The pesticide regulations have done a little bit to ameliorate the problems in the legislation itself. But we really don't have that systematic codified rule of law with regard to environmental matters.

The same thing applies in the Pollution Control Act. A municipality goes before the pollution control branch, has their sewage system approved by the branch, and the branch determines that all the effluent falls within the parameters established by the branch and hearings of the branch. An appeal goes before the Pollution Control Board, and the Pollution Control Board decides that a permit should be issued. The minister in his absolute discretion can then overturn a decision of the Pollution Control Board. Why should the appeal and the ultimate decision always rest with the minister? That is despotism. We should not have that kind of despotism built into environmental legislation, especially under the present minister, because he is so incompetent in dealing with environmental legislation and environmental matters.

That has never been more clearly established than in relation to the 2, 4-D application programme in Okanagan Lake to control Eurasian milfoil. For anyone who goes to talk to the minister about 2, 4-D, it is like talking to a rubber wall. There is absolutely no way that the minister is going to accept any kind of argument, regardless of the authority behind those arguments, because he has already established and paid for three scientists who have counselled him on the value of 2, 4-D applications in Okanagan Lake.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who are your scientists?

MR. SKELLY: I'm getting into that. Jay Lewis has done quite a bit of work on this project.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Scientist - PhD.

MR. SKELLY: I think that he should be given credit for the work he did - something like 2,800 man-hours went into that report.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Amazing. It would have taken three years.

MR. SKELLY: They consulted a lot of authorities.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Yes, tremendous.

MR. SKELLY: At least they footnoted and documented the material that they presented in the report; not like the critique done by the minister's ministry on the book - on the other phase of 2, 4-D. They simply attacked the submission of the South Okanagan coalition section by section, again without giving any references whatsoever, without any valid attack on the authorities presented by the South Okanagan environmental coalition. In

[ Page 1833 ]

every case he rejected competent, respected authorities cited elsewhere because he had his paid scientists who told him that the programme was okay.

MR. COCKE: Dr. Jim Nielsen.

MR. SKELLY: That's how the minister deals with the opposition. Even B.C. Hydro, the guys that we criticize as being a huge, monolithic, ivory tower and a hydra-headed organization, are responsive to public input. When the Black Greek citizens' association in the member for Comox's (Ms. Sanford's) riding, and the people from Gold River in my riding, appealed to Hydro to cancel their spray programme along B.C. Hydro rights-of-way, Hydro at least went out and listened to those people, had some respect for their complaints and their concerns and offered to do an experimental programme and to suspend applications of 2, 4-D along the rights-of-way in that area. Hydro was more responsive to citizens than this minister is.

He always goes back and cites his authorities. In the interim reports that were filed by Powrie and Oldham and Mackenzie on the control of Eurasian milfoil in Okanagan Lake there was not a single footnote, not a single reference, no bibliography. Nobody knows what studies they consulted. A first-year biology professor in a university or college in this province would have thrown those reports out and would have told a first-year student in biology to at least document his sources before he came in with a paper like that. That paper is garbage. As a teacher I would have done that. Anyone would have done it. You simply can't make broad, sweeping statements as those three professors did and expect anybody to respect them as an authority. You must quote the background, you must cite the studies and authorities, and they didn't bother.

I'm told that something like 100 man-hours of labour went into the Oldham, Mackenzie and Powrie report, as opposed to something like 2,800 man-hours of labour into the other phase of 2, 4-D. It's a darn good report and it's been circulated all over Canada and the United States. It's quite a respectable document in scientific circles.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Oh, really?

MR. SKELLY: Yes.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Name a scientist who agrees with it.

MR. SKELLY: I'm not saying a scientist has to agree with it.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Oh, of course not.

MR. SKELLY: In fact, a scientist who agrees with something, you've got to question his objectivity. But they're willing to look at it and check it out and test it. That's what scientists do. They don't accept payment from a minister to say what the minister wants them to say. They test every thesis, test every assumption. That's what scientists are for. They don't go up to the Okanagan Valley and make sweeping statements: "Don't worry, Big Brother is going to look after you. The government wouldn't poison you. The government wouldn't dump poison in your domestic water supplies. The government wouldn't dung poison in your irrigation water supplies. The government wouldn't dump poison in the water that you use to water dairy animals." They're putting Aqua-Kleen 20 into the lake.

You know, one of the lines in the interim report says: "The manufacturers of Aqua-Kleen 20 say it's not harmful." That's one of the authorities they cite - an authority that wants to sell the chemical to the provincial government. Oldham, Powrie and Mackenzie state in their report that the manufacturers of Aqua-Kleen 20 say it's not harmful if you put it in water supplies.

MR. LEA: That's good enough for the Fonz.

MR. SKELLY: That's good enough for the government that wants to dump the material in the water in the first place. So you pay a scientist to say exactly what you want to say. That's exactly what you're doing.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Are you saying they can be bought?

MR. SKELLY: How much did it cost you?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps if the members who wish to speak in this debate would wait until they are recognized by the Chairman, we would facilitate the progress a little better. If you would address the chair, I would appreciate it.

MR. SKELLY: That's question No. 2, Mr. Chairman. It's a question on the order paper. How much money did they pay these people? What type of research did they do? Did they ever table any bibliographies, any references, any sources, or did they simply produce the kind of paper that the minister wanted them to

[ Page 1834 ]

produce, criticized by almost everybody in scientific circles as having no authorities cited? It would have been thrown out, as I say, as a first-year biology paper in any college in this province.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Name a scientist who criticized it.

MR. SKELLY: I'll take that as question No. 3. Unfortunately, this scientist works for the government and he has some fear of being fired. However, I did read a letter that he wrote on government stationery into the record last year and I'll do it again.

I've asked a number of questions of the minister, Mr. Chairman. I've made some comments on his competence and his administration. I would appreciate having some response from the minister.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, it's a great pleasure to respond to some of the comments by the member for Alberni. With reference to the personal observations and suggestions, I can only offer pity to the member. If that's an attempt to display his personality to the public, I can only offer pity, I'm sorry. If that's the way you are, that's the way you are. That's one of nature's mistakes; I can't be held responsible for that.

The member for Alberni with his opportunity and ability to say anything he wants.... It is his privilege, of course, to say anything he wants, because he has no responsibility. He can say anything he wants. That's fine; that's fair. He came on with some very, very heavy, very strong, well-thought-out comments, consistent with his record of the past, which we won't read into the record again tonight because it's already bored one generation.

He mentioned environmental problems, including Garry Point, and the member, in his particular way, suggested that Garry Point was found to be illegal in court because of an environmental question. That's what he suggested.

The Garry Point situation in Richmond went to court and it was found that the municipality of Richmond had erred in allowing the developer to be heard when the opponents were not given the same opportunity. It was found that the land use contract therefore was invalid because of that reason - because the proponents had been heard and the opponents had not been given the opportunity. But it was nothing to do with Environment; it was strictly a technicality.

The member mentioned that I criticized environmentalists in my speech on the budget.

All he has to do is read Hansard, but that's probably too much of an effort for him to do.

MR. LEA: Where do you think he got it?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Perhaps the member for Prince Rupert would like me to read the Hansard.

MR. LEA: Yes.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I'll get a copy of it and I'll read the whole thing then. It was nothing to do with environmentalists whatsoever. Environmentalists, in fact, were not even mentioned in the speech.

MR. SKELLY: "No-growthers, " you called them.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The member for Alberni suggests that no-growth means environmentalists. In his interpretation, apparently, people who are opposed to growth are therefore environmentalists. He ums wrong again, but that is consistent with his way of life.

The member for Alberni talks about the loss of agricultural land. In 1975 my friend over here from Delta was opposed to a gentleman by the name of Carl Liden, a former member of the NDP who ran in the constituency of Delta. It's interesting to note that in the brochure distributed by Mr. Liden - with great respect to Carl Liden - he had a beautiful picture of Tilbury Island, and it said: "We must protect agricultural land." The NDP allowed Tilbury Island to be used for industrial purposes rather than for agriculture. You talk about Tilbury Island and you talk about Riverside industrial park in Richmond. The Howard Wong farm at No. 5 Road and Steveston Highway -your government permitted that to be taken out. Well, actually it was not taken out, it was never put in. They allowed it to be developed for industrial purposes, with a little rider. They told the people who were developing that land: "We'll allow you to take it out, but by way of blackmail you give us 40 acres. You paid $15,000 or $17,000 an acre; sell it to us for $7,500." They allowed all that land to be taken out. I do not disagree with their decision, because Richmond has peculiar problems relative to boundaries. Because it's a delta there are no boundaries in Richmond other than those made by man.

You have this member for Alberni over here who is talking about the despoilation of agricultural land, forgetting Riverside industrial park, forgetting Tilbury Island and forgetting the 20 acres the NDP government bought for ICBC for a claim centre on the corner of

[ Page 1835 ]

the freeway and Steveston Highway. It was prime agricultural land and they bought it for a claim centre at $25,000 an acre. Richmond council said: "Stick it. You are not going to use it for that purpose." So they said, "Let's invent little gardens for people and charge them $10 a year" - hobby farms or hobby gardens or something like that. In Richmond at $25,000 an acre they wanted to build a claim centre on that prime agricultural land, because it suited their purpose. Tilbury Island, Steveston Highway and No. 5 Road, both sides of Riverside industrial park, and other places throughout the province too numerous to mention, and they have the nerve to come back and make all these noises.

I was very distressed with the consistent attack on Mr. Doman by this rather peculiar member for Alberni. Herb Doman is a very, very responsible citizen of the province of British Columbia. Herb Doman has been very successful in his endeavours. I don't know Mr. Doman's personal background, but I've been told by some people who know him that Herb Doman has done a remarkable amount of work during his lifetime and has been a model of success in rising from a fairly ordinary background to a leader of industry in British Columbia. I can't understand this particular hangup that the member for Alberni has about Herb Doman. I don't know whether he dislikes Herb Doman as a person or whether he dislikes Herb Doman as one who has succeeded or whether he dislikes Herb Doman because he has a different political philosophy. I don't understand why he dislikes Herb Doman. There are probably reasons which it would not be proper to suggest in polite company, but I can suggest why. I can see the problems this member has in adjusting to life, and probably those are some of them. I happen to believe that Herb Doman is a very responsible citizen of this province. He's a very successful man, and I give him full credit for that. He has done a great deal to employ many people in the lumber industry in this province. He operates very efficient, modern and clean plants.

MR. LEA: How do you know?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Because I have taken the opportunity to visit some of these plants, Mr. Member for Prince Rupert. That's something you never did unless you could get in by helicopter.

MR. LEA: Did you meet Doman?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Whether the plants lie operates are at Ladysmith or Duncan or elsewhere they are highly efficient.

MR. SKELLY: Should he build them in estuaries?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Should Herb Doman build a sawmill in the estuary? Presumably you're speaking of Cowichan.

MR. SKELLY: In general.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, this government did not give Mr. Doman permission to build a sawmill in the Cowichan estuary. The NDP government gave him permission to build a sawmill in the estuary.

Here is this member for Alberni asking me whether Herb Doman should have permission to build a sawmill in the estuary. We didn't give him permission. The NDP government gave him permission to build that sawmill in the Cowichan estuary. Since we became government we have not granted anyone permission to build in an estuary.

Although I don't have documented evidence to support it, I understand that there were certain advantages given to some people when it came to building in estuaries. Perhaps it was advance notice of when a certain date was going to occur or when there would be a cutoff. When I receive that information I will certainly present it to the House.

As I suggested, Herb Doman, I think, is a very responsible, fine citizen of the province of British Columbia, and I think every member would agree if they knew Mr. Doman.

The member for Alberni asks: "Would you allow him to build on an estuary?" We haven't; we simply have not allowed him to build on an estuary. Only the NDP government allowed him to build in an estuary, and, I understand, with a little assist.

The member for Alberni said: "You shouldn't even consider whether someone should expand in an estuary; you should simply tell them, 'Forbidden, out of bounds, forget it.' " Well, that's fine. I suppose that's one way of handling things. You simply make decisions, period. You don't allow for any input from the local government, you don't ask what their opinion may be, or the regional district or the people affected in the area. You simply say: "This is the key it's going to be." I don't totally disagree with that concept; that's perhaps a responsibility of government to say: "Look, this is the decision that has been reached." And that's fine if that's the way you want to run a government. There's nothing terribly wrong with making decisions; that's a responsibility of government.

[ Page 1836 ]

However, the same member suggests that this government should be censured for not providing enough local input into decisions. You can't have it both ways. I suppose you can have it both ways if that's your style. But governments are going to make decisions; governments are going to suggest how local input should be considered and, indeed, whether local input should be considered.

In the case of the Cowichan estuary, this government decided that indeed we did want to have local input. We solicited the local government, the regional government and the Indian band in the area, which is the major landowner in the Cowichan - about 6,000 acres.... We received a response from those two levels of government plus the Indian band, and all three suggested that they were in favour of some type of expansion on the estuary, provided there were reasonable environmental controls attached, which was relatively common to what is now known as option C of the 1974 task force. We respect their attitudes and their desires. The task force is engaged at this moment in attempting to develop and propose a land management programme for the estuary.

It has been suggested - and perhaps there is some truth in it although I haven't been able to confirm it - that the federal Ministry of Fisheries will, regardless of what decisions may be made, bring in a ruling to prevent any development in the estuary. That, of course, is the jurisdiction of the federal government under the Fisheries Act, and they have control. Should they decide to do that, then I suppose we, as law-abiding citizens and as a law-abiding government, must observe the ruling of the federal government. But we have not been advised of that, although it has been rumoured by some people.

I become very curious listening to that rather pompous member for Alberni who talks about protection of estuaries. I don't disagree with him on the need to protect estuaries. He suggests that estuary difficulties occurred since this new government was elected. I've searched, I've talked to senior staff and I have not been able to find any action taken by the former NDP government to protect estuaries. I have not been able to find that. There were no Acts. I haven't been able to find any orders. The member suggested there were some orders of some kind for the Tsitika-Schoen. The Tsitika-Schoen we've been dealing with is the area there including Schoen Lake Park and Schoen Lake and the others. He suggests they were going to do it. Maybe they were going to do it, but I can't find any legislation that protects estuaries anywhere.

I can't find any orders that protect estuaries. The member suggests orders-in-council are not necessarily the best way to protect an estuary. That perhaps is correct. However, an order-in-council is an order in law and does prohibit certain developments from taking place in estuaries. The only orders that I'm aware of are the orders we imposed on the Fraser estuary and the Cowichan estuary. There were no others in place.

You can talk about what you intended to do. You were in government for three and a half years and you did nothing. Maybe you were too busy doing other things, but you did nothing relative to the estuaries. You brought in no controls on the Cowichan; you brought in no controls on the Fraser. You talked about it, yes, but you had nothing to do with the Cowichan or the Fraser.

Mr. Chairman, the member suggested that under the Environment and Land Use Act, certain actions were taken. The Environment and Land Use Committee of the day made a recommendation and issued a news release on the Cowichan that has no effect whatever in law. Who cares what the opinion of the Environment and Land Use Committee may be? There was no order. A cabinet expresses its desire by order, not by a press release that has no effect whatever. That's why the local government in Cowichan wound up in court when they tried to downzone the area. The court threw it out. The NDP did nothing about estuaries. They talked a great deal about it and they continue to talk, but they did nothing. We have imposed restrictions by way of order-in-council. I'm not suggesting that's the perfect answer to the problem, but it's an improvement over what was.

The member for Alberni suggested Mr. Doman has made six applications for something. We're not aware of six. We've had two applications from Mr. Doman, one for a channel to the mill - and Mr. Doman is required to provide an environmental impact assessment of such a channel - and the other to replace a couple of dolphins in the bay. That's all we are aware of. Maybe he's made separate submissions to the member for Alberni. I don't know. We haven't heard of them.

Certainly some of the estuaries in the province are in danger - no question of that. They've been in danger for many, many years. Most of the estuaries in the province have been utilized for industrial purposes for the better part of this century. The concern about estuaries is relatively contemporary, although there were some pioneers many, many years ago who tried to bring their concern to the atten-

[ Page 1837 ]

tion of the government of the day. But of course they're in some trouble. We're attempting to resolve some of these problems, and I can only repeat that nothing was done by the previous government about resolving these problems.

They say: "We were going to bring in zonal coast management." How much is a "going to" worth? Absolute garbage! It means absolutely nothing.

MR. SKELLY: What are you going to do?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Well, I can say the same .thing: "We're going to bring it in." So we're even.

MR. SKELLY: When?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Quicker than you did. Soon.

MR. LEVI: When is soon?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Before you people did.

The member for Alberni suggested I have an opportunity to ask questions. I wonder if the member has done any research on what new developments have taken place in estuaries since the government changed? I don't mean the replacement of a dolphin here and there, because that's pretty picayune.

In case someone missed it, that was a great question the member for Alberni asked, and I appreciate him asking: why permit Doman's to operate on an estuary? I can only repeat that we didn't, they did. They allowed Doman's to rebuild where Slegg's was at one time. They said: "Go ahead. The status quo is the way it is right now." Doman's said: "Well, the mill's burned down, or it has been destroyed. What does the status quo mean?" They said: "You can go ahead and build." So they went ahead and built. I do not blame them. It's an excellent mill and it employs some people.

The member was quite exercised and excited about the Land Commission, specifically to do with public hearings. That's rather interesting, because the amendments brought in last year permitted - in fact, demanded - public hearings to take place when a municipality, a regional district or the Land Commission requested of cabinet that land be excluded. We modified the legislation so that it is mandatory on their part to hold public hearings. They didn't have to before. It could all be done in secret. All I can suggest, Mr. Chairman, is that the authors of the bill were members of that members government, which brought in the original Land Commission Act whereby municipalities, regional districts, the Land Commission, or the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council on its own may remove any land from an agricultural land reserve without a hearing and without comment. Simply go ahead and do it upon application. And he suggests that there is a lack. Yet we introduced public hearings as part of the procedure for the first time.

The amendment he regrets apparently - section 9 (a) he referred to - allows access of a citizen to the government, access of a citizen to an elected representative rather than the stone wall of an appointed commission, whether it be the Land Commission or any other commission. It allows access, further appeal to an elected representative rather than appointed bodies.

The member, Mr. Chairman, indulges in cheap shots at citizens of this province who have no opportunity to defend themselves. I wish he would do the same thing outside of this Legislative Assembly, because it would be interesting to follow his career in court. You can take all the shots you want in this House because you are immune from prosecution. I would suggest, Mr. Member, that, if your backbone were stern, you would provide the same opportunity to Mr. Gary Sorensen or Mr. Herb Doman and take the shots at them in public, not in the sanctuary of this House. I would hope that they would proceed against you, because you bring down the reputation of elected representatives by such cheap shots in the House, where you have immunity. But I understand from people who have known you longer than I have that that's not new.

MR. SKELLY: Name names!

HON. MR. NIELSEN: No, I wouldn't want to embarrass any members of your party.

I don't know what the precise figures are in the score card on the agricultural land reserve acreage.

MR. SKELLY: You knew them last year.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I would suggest that at the present time there are more acres in than before. But as I told one of your colleagues last year, the acreage game is a bit of nonsense, because anyone can play games with numbers. If all you're interested in is numbers, then you can play whatever games you want.

I'm sorry I mentioned the Agricultural Land Commission at this moment, because I wanted to continue on for just a moment, Mr. Chairman, about the slandering of private citizens, people who are interested in doing something

[ Page 1838 ]

positive in this province. I mention Gary Sorensen, whom I met a couple of times, Mr. Herb Doman, whom I met a couple of times, and also the three doctors whom the member referred to, apparently with not terribly high regard. These three doctors from the University of British Columbia were appointed by his government to undertake a royal commission on pesticides and herbicides. The same three doctors - Mackenzie, Powrie and Oldham - were appointed by me as a special advisory committee on the milfoil problem in the Okanagan relative to 2, 4-D use.

I'm disturbed, Mr. Chairman, that this member in exercising his option as a privileged member of this House suggested - at least my impression was that he suggested - the three doctors could be bought. He said: "You pay them to bring in the decision you want them to bring in. You pay them to do this." They can't respond. These three doctors can't respond to this member for Alberni because of the statements he's made in this House, because he's immune from prosecution.

MR. SKELLY: They can respond.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: They cannot respond in the proper manner, such as defamation action. To suggest that these three doctors, all of whom are highly respected professionals, can be bought to provide an opinion that a minister would like them to bring is absolute nonsense, and it's a disgrace to three very highly qualified individuals in our society who are prepared to take the time to become involved in a royal commission into pesticides and herbicides, which lasted a couple of years, and then to further permit themselves to be used by the government again for purposes of an advisory committee, and to subject themselves to public hearings, and to meet with various groups in the Okanagan at some inconvenience to themselves although they were paid a per them for the purpose. To suggest that their opinions can be bought is a very cheap shot.

MR. SKELLY: That was your suggestion.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: You suggested they can be bought to provide the opinion I desire.

MR. COCKE: You're putting words in his mouth.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: You don't have to put words into his mouth; he says enough. If you were in the House you might have heard what he said, Mr. Member for New Westminster.

But if you don't edit the Blues, have a look at them tomorrow and see what you said.

MR. SKELLY: I don't edit the Blues.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: That's good.

I think that's a particularly cheap shot at three very highly respected individuals in our society to suggest they can be bought.

The member has a bit of a problem understanding the Fort George inclusion. Again, history suggests some very peculiar things. The member says it took a couple of years to bring that 41,000 or 42,000 acres.... Whatever the acreage is - about 42,000, 1 think - the former government didn't feel it should be included. They didn't bring it in; it shouldn't have been included. The former Land Commission apparently didn't believe it should be included. It was brought in after, of all things, public involvement, because people in the Fort George-Prince George area were not satisfied that all of that acreage should go in. Public involvement - you're criticized on one hand for not having enough and you're criticized on the other for having too much. But anyway, the former government didn't believe the land was important enough to put it into the agricultural land reserve and it's now been included.

There is no real point, I suppose, in moving into other areas over which this ministry has no jurisdiction. There is nothing wrong with listening to the opinion of that member for Alberni. He suggests certain situations which may indeed improve the overall benefits to society by reason of environmental management. There is certainly nothing improper with those suggestions or those motives. Those motives and suggestions are shared by almost everyone who is employed by the Ministry of the Environment - some very highly competent, professional people. But there is no point in discussing jurisdictions beyond British Columbia.

This is the same member who suggested during debate one day that the people of the United States should be protected from cancer because of 2, 4-D, but people of Canada should not be. And then the EPA issued a news release saying indeed they didn't say that at all. They didn't say that 2, 4-D was carcinogenic. It was an error on the part of someone [illegible] writing a letter to someone, but that member, in his attempt to bring about an emergency debate one day, said: "It's all right for the people of the United States to be protected, but not Canada."

MR. SKELLY: They didn't say it, but they

[ Page 1839 ]

said it.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: No, they didn't say it at all.

MR. SKELLY: It was an error in a letter.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: It was a newspaper report based on a letter written by a junior member who didn't understand the facts of life, and it's a simple as that.

MR. LEVI: Read the letter.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The letter has already been distributed to the press. It's a matter of public knowledge.

I'm sorry I was distracted for a couple of moments but I think the member for Alberni suggested that the Pollution Control Board upheld the Penticton application and I arbitrarily denied it. Well, the board never even heard the appeal, never mind ruled on it. They never even heard the appeal.

Just for the information of the member, I am advised that between 350 and 400 permits were issued last year - not 113 or whatever figure you ca up with.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, just before I recognize the next member wishing to speak, on page 429 in the 19th edition of Sir Erskine May under the chapter title "Rules Governing Contents of Speeches, " I would just like to read for the benefit of all members a short passage: "Good temper and moderation are characteristics of parliamentary language. Parliamentary language is never more desirable than when a member is canvassing the opinions and the conduct of his opponents in debate." Perhaps if all members would take that into consideration, this evening's proceedings would be a little more orderly.

MR. SKELLY: I hope your comments weren't directed at me. I would like to thank the minister for his response insofar as he did respond to some of those questions, but I feel that I have an obligation to respond to some of the allegations that he made about the former NDP government.

First of all, with regard to Mr. Doman being permitted to build in the estuary, that's absolutely true. He was allowed to rebuild the Slegg mill in the Cowichan estuary, a positive move - it was to take a smaller area than the previous mill. He was required to clean up the site that was left in a fairly poor state. He was obliged under an agreement with the government of the day - an agreement into which he entered freely with the government. So there was an obligation on the part of Mr. Doman to perform in a certain way when he rebuilt the Slegg mill in the estuary.

Yes, it was an efficient mill. The NDP government recognized it was an efficient mill and a valuable contribution to the economy to replace an existing mill - not to expand development in the estuary but to replace an existing mill. In fact, constraints were placed on Mr. Doman on his expansion in the estuary and it appears that the government now is lifting those constraints.

I don't know what the minister was attempting to suggest. I have a suspicion of what he was attempting to suggest but I am not going to go ahead and put words in the mouth of that minister. The kind of allegations he made while he was a hotliner and the kind of allegations he's made while he's been in this House indict that minister from a long time back. But I'm not sure what he was trying to insinuate - whether I have something personally against Mr. Doman. As a matter fact, I don't.

I do recognize the contribution he's made in terms of employment on Vancouver Island. I do recognize the contribution he's made to the forest industry in terms of efficiency of operation and conversion of wood. I do recognize the example that he's set for others in the industry -Hopefully others would follow that example but unfortunately under the new legislation that's coming down, that probably will not be possible and the inefficiencies will be preserved - in fact, to the detriment to people like Mr. Doman, with other people attempting to get into the industry.

The minister said there were no controls in the Cowichan. Those controls were established by an agreement between Mr. Doman's company and the provincial government through the Environment and Land Use Committee. Again, I say it was an agreement freely entered into on the part of both parties, one person wishing to develop, the government wishing to protect the estuary from any expansion of development which might prove harmful to the estuary. So the minister is not making a true statement when he says that there were no controls placed on the Cowichan estuary.

Now on the other hand, he turns around and he says that I'm asking for two things, or I'm asking for one thing but not for another thing, or asking for conflicting things when I say that the government should indicate that there are certain classes of land in this province in which the province has an interest, in which the people of the province have an interest as a whole and in which future

[ Page 1840 ]

generations have an interest. Because of its obligation to protect future generations and the interests of the total people of the province, the province has an obligation to step in and protect those lands.

Certainly local involvement is required. When we got involved in the Land Commission in the first place, that was the whole idea behind the Land Commission - that there was a provincial interest in preserving food production land. We recognized that interest. In fact it hadn't been recognized in the past and it was far too late in coming. after 20 years of Social Credit government, you talk about "we were going to do." Twenty years of Social Credit government, and we saw erosion of farmland at the rate of 15,000 acres a year, the best farmland in this province.

You talk about 20 acres in Richmond, you talk about 20 acres of Riverside Industrial Park and 40 acres exchange of land that took place. There were 320 acres on the Knight Street Bridge property alone that you allowed out of the agricultural land reserves. The Knight Road property. You know the one where Robert Bonner and Les Peterson were representing the developers.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: What exchange in Riverside?

MR. SKELLY: The Knight Road property in Richmond. You know very well what I'm talking about. The land in Chilliwack that you allowed out of the agricultural land reserve.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I said blackmail, not exchange.

MR. SKELLY: Oh, and talk about blackmail. After the developer of that property had his land released from the agricultural land reserve, the Chilliwack council said: "We're not going to allow it to be rezoned for a used car lot or a new car lot or something. We're going to keep it in agricultural land as airport development property." So he offered a certain amount of acreage to the municipality of Chilliwack in order to get it rezoned. You talk about the kind of blackmail that takes place every day over exchanges of agricultural land in this province, and Social Credit members are involved time after time.

I'm not saying anything about Gary Sorensen that hasn't already been said in the newspapers and on hotline shows, Mr. Member. So I have no fear of being prosecuted by Mr. Sorensen or going to court for defamation an a writ by Mr. Sorensen.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Repeat it outside.

MR. SKELLY: You repeat it outside. Give it a try and see if it works.

HON. MR. CHABOT: You don't dare.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: You're the one that's saying it. Say it outside. Don't tell us; tell them outside.

MR. SKELLY: Do you want me to read it out of the newspaper?

This is the minister who talks about going outside and making statements and being honest and attacking upstanding citizens of the province. This is the same member who says: "Nielsen says he still believes that politicians should not always be honest or candid with the public." He stands up here like some kind of a Dr. Joyce Brothers and talks about my motivations in questioning him on Herb Doman and on Gary Sorensen and all of these people. Why should I go outside and hand them their own newspaper articles? What did I say? That the member for Shuswap (Mr. Bawtree) appointed him to the board of revision, that he's got all the Socred credentials and that's how he gets into the minister's office and gets his land out of the agricultural land reserve? I'll read it right out of Moira Farrow's article in The Vancouver Sun, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Oh, that's a great authority! Now we know who your writer is.

AN HON. MEMBER: Read Frank Clarke's letter in the Salmon Arm Observer.

MR. SKELLY: Frank Clarke, chairman of the board of Columbia-Shuswap Regional District?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Chairman of the board?

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right, chairman of the board.

MR. SKELLY: But in any case, if Gary Sorensen wants to read my statements, all he has to do is look in the newspapers.

The minister said, when I was talking about 2, 4-D, that I said that Americans should be allowed to die of cancer from 2, 4-D but not Canadians or something. He got the statement confused in some way. Then he came out with some letter from a Mr. Reising to a Mr. Zemansky and he said: "Oh, it was all a mistake. He'd been in touch with the EPA and they said it was all a mistake. But I didn't

[ Page 1841 ]

quote Mr. Zemansky's letter.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: You quoted the newspaper.

MR. SKELLY: No, I didn't quote the newspaper. But I did quote a staff report to the Subcommittee on Administrative Practice and Procedure of the United States Senate, in which EPA files indicated....

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: I'm not sure what your feelings are about Richard Nixon. I think you'd find a lot in common. But the chairman of this subcommittee was the Hon. Ted Kennedy. The report states:

"The guidance package sites a two-year rat-and-dog feeding study performed by the Food and Drug Administration in 1963 as sufficient to satisfy the chronic safety testing requirements for re-registration. Yet a summary report on the study in EPAfs files indicates that there was increased tumour formation in rats.

"John M. Carley, manager of the reregistration task force, stated that he doubts that the summary report was ever read in the preparation of the guidance packages. An independent pathologist who reviewed the raw data on the study at the request of the subcommittee staff concluded that 2, 4-D is carcinogenic - that is, cancer-causing - in rats."

A footnote is provided. It names the studies and it names the independent pathologist, unlike the report done by Drs. Powrie, Mackenzie and Oldham for the minister.

I would like to state that at no time did I say that their opinions could be bought. That was the suggestion made across the floor by the minister, and I hope that that appears in Hansard because it was the minister's statement. Maybe the minister will be willing to say that outside the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: For the kind of money they got, they could buy the minister.

MR. SKELLY: But here is the kind of statements that Dr. Oldham, Powrie and Mackenzie made in the second interim report: "Theoretically, dioxins should not be formed during the synthesis of 2, 4-D. According to the manufacturer of Aqua-Kleen, dioxin is not present in their product." They're always taking the word of the manufacturer. Where is the scientific evidence? Where are the studies done? Unlike the Kennedy committee, where are the footnotes, even, to indicate their authorities and to indicate the people who stand behind this information? They should at least have the courage to put their names to that information so -that it can be tested and challenged by other scientific authorities.

Now the minister says: "Nam any scientist who has ever attacked the interim reports." I'm not going to name this one...

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Fair enough.

MR. SKELLY: ... because he is worried about being fired.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I'm sure he is.

MR. SKELLY: No, hold it. I can do it, because he sent a copy to Sam Bawlf, minister. I think this was prior to the Lloyd Brooks memos, so he should be okay.

"This report, as opposed to the first interim report, deals mainly with proposed chemical and biological means of controlling the weed. It is a rather generalized report which does not really address the technical specifics of either of these control methods. Many of the statements made in this report are interesting and indeed encouraging from the control point of view. However, none of these statements are referenced. This is unacceptable from a scientific point of view, although it may be accepted in other types of reporting."

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: I'll table the thing if you want, or you can get a copy from the Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Bawlf) , if he's not up doing a lap-sitting contest somewhere.

"I feel some naivety is expressed in the report with regard to the introduction of biological controls. For example, the report suggests that an insect be introduced this summer" - that is 1977 on an experimental basis."

"In section 6 the report seems to lean towards the use of 2.4-D as the solution to the weed problem. Much of this conclusion seems to be based on the work of Lim and Lozoway in 1976, a report which has yet to be completed and which, in preliminary draft, does not indicate that 2, 4-D will be very effective in eliminating the growth of this weed. I am not aware of any experiments that have indicated that 2, 4-D will kill the roots of Eurasian milfoil.

"I trust this satisfies your re-

[ Page 1842 ]

quest...."

You can get the name of the scientist involved from the Hon. Minister of Recreation and Conservation.

There have been a number of critiques of the interim reports on Eurasian milfoil done. I would like to say that at no time did I suggest that the opinions of these gentlemen could be bought. That was a suggestion made across the floor by the Minister of the Environment himself.

The work they did on the pesticide royal commission, which was appointed by the then Minister of Health, was a well-documented report. There were a number of appendices to that report. The recommendations were very widely accepted, but not accepted by this government because they suggested that we follow along the lines of the Ontario Act, which does provide a rule of law in pesticide control and does provide some citizen control over the operations of pesticide administration, and even has a citizen advisory committee, which was also recommended by Oldham, Powrie and Mackenzie but which the minister and his staff chose to ignore when bringing down the legislation last year.

So those were some of the things in a well documented royal commission report in which the public had input and scientists had input. It was very well documented and well presented, and yet it was rejected by the present Minister of the Environment because it involved too much public control over the amount of poisons that the government will be spraying on the people of this province.

I do accept the numbers of pesticide applications. The minister made a correction in a statement I had made that there were only 120 last year. He corrected that statement. But in any case, up to March 9, the number of applications up until the time the Act came in had doubled, and I'm not sure how it stands now, but I'd be interested in the minister giving us the accurate figures.

The minister stated in regard to Land Commission applications for inclusions and deletions that the acreage game was nonsense, and yet that's exactly the game the minister played last year. He said they had waited on the Ness-Nukko-Chief Lake area for public input into that inclusion, but the public public input was long since passed and delay after delay after delay took place in cabinet's inclusion. The recommendations had gone to cabinet a long time ago, and that's where the delay took place. Between the time of the initial recommendation and the time of inclusion a number of subdivision applications went into that area and a number of those subdivision applications have already been approved or are in process and are going to cause problem with that area.

Whether the previous government rejected inclusion or not - probably not - we developed an initial agricultural land reserve. It was done with public input; it was done with public hearings. Every regional district did public hearings prior to establishing the agricultural land reserves in their area.

That was then vetted by the land commissioners themselves, and a land reserve was established. It was well known that because of inaccuracies in the Canada Land Inventory maps, inclusions and deletions were going to take place down the line in a process they called "fine tuning." So those public hearings and that public involvement did take place. Our major complaint about the present minister is in those section 98 hearings.

He talks about an appeal procedure from an independently appointed commission to an elective body. We don't have that from the courts. Can you go to court and get charged with murder or theft or something, and then go to a politician and appeal it? There are bodies established that do make final decisions. Can you go to the Workers' Compensation Board on an injury claim and be rejected on the claim and have the claim finalized through a medical review panel and then go back to your politician and say: "I want this decision overturned."? Of course you can't, because it politicizes the whole operation. One of the reasons why the Workers' Compensation Board was established as an independent authority was to prevent that kind of politicization of the procedure and to give the workers the benefit of an independent adjudication procedure. The same thing should be done for landowners as well.

HON. MR. CHABOT: The former Minister of Labour used to get them to overrule on his constituents' claims. When they threw them out he'd have them reinstated. The former Minister of Labour used to tamper with the WCB through the chairman of the board.

MR. SKELLY: The Minister of Mines is mumbling something about interfering with the Workers' Compensation Board. Let him make that charge outside the House.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I will. I've got the evidence.

MR. SKELLY: But one of the reasons why the Workers' Compensation Board is independent and is a final authority on those injuries and

[ Page 1843 ]

compensation for injuries is to keep the process from being politicized. What this minister has done is not to provide an extra appeal procedure beyond an appointed commission. He's politicized the whole process, so that a guy can flash his Social Credit Party card and have his land deleted from the reserve in the secrecy of cabinet. That's destroyed the whole procedure.

We should have an independent procedure, and there always has to be a final appeal, a final review. It shouldn't be in the hands of politicians, it should be in the hands of an independent authority. That's where a number of states have better legislation than we have, because they do have a citizen appeal to the courts, and the courts act for citizens and are an instrument citizens can use to affect how government policies are made. If the government wants to change policy, then let them bring it in in the form of a bill; if they want to include land, let them bring it in in the form of legislation. if they want to delete land, let them be responsible to every single member of this House and have a full debate on the issue. Right now it's done secretly in cabinet.

On the Brett Chevrolet issue, when we asked the minister who was allowed to be present at the ELUC hearings on this land application for Brett Chevrolet, the minister said the member for Chilliwack (Hon. Mr. Schroeder) was there to give local knowledge. So I wrote to the minister, and I said: "Would it be possible for all members who have section 97 or 98 hearings coming up within their ridings to be informed by the ELUC? Just send us an agenda and we'll come down and provide some local knowledge." The minister wrote back to me and said: "ELUC hearings are secret and the agenda is secret. No. we don't want the benefit of your local knowledge."

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Is that what I said? Is that exactly what I said?

MR. SKELLY: That's exactly what you said.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Can you table the letter?

MR. SKELLY: You must keep . copies of your letters. Do you want to table your own letters? Table your letters.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Are you ad-libbing again? Are you making up facts?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! If we address the Chair, hon. members, the debate will go with much more order than it does when the

Chair is not addressed.

MR. SKELLY: I apologize, Mr. Chairman. This is addressed to you. Is the minister saying to me that he will give the ELUC agenda to members from ridings in which there are section 97 and 98 appeals and allow them the benefit of providing local knowledge of those appeals? Is that what the minister is saying? Is he telling me that he told me otherwise? Let him answer that question.

But in fact he did politicize the Land Commission process by allowing those secret appeals that are solely politically based, and most of those appeals and deletions take place contrary to the recommendations of the Agricultural Land Commission and local governments. Certainly there has to be an appeal procedure, and cabinet and the government have to have some authority over an area where there is a broad provincial interest, and where the interests of future generations are involved. But that interest should be handled by an independent body, and the Land Commission is such a body. There has to be a final appeal procedure, and it should be to an independent commission rather than always back to the people who make the decisions in the first place, and that's the government.

One of the problems - and the real reason for the absence of the rule of law - is the discretion that is built into legislation with regard to environment in this province. It's always the people who make the decisions in the first place and take the action in the first place who are the ones who sit in appeal on their own judgment. That destroys the whole process, because there is already a predisposition to a certain way of action and a bias on the part of the people who made the decision in the first place. There should be more independent adjudication procedures which are totally separate from government. It doesn't matter whether it involves the Pollution Control Board or the Land Commission or the pesticide appeal board. What the government should do is instruct those appeal boards in how the procedure should be established for maximum protection of the citizen and maximum protection for the quality of environment and the quality of life in this province. That's a failing on the part of the minister. He doesn't seem to have that concern for people who are concerned about the environment. In fact it is clear that he doesn't have much concern for the environment at all.

I have another question for the minister. There are a number of advocacy groups around the province, consisting of people who are concerned about the environment, who wish to

[ Page 1844 ]

be informed about the environment and to participate in questions which are under review by the province - such as the question before the comptroller of water rights as to whether we should have the Revelstoke Dam. We need some procedure by which those people can be assisted to become independently informed.

What about the South Okanagan coalition, for example? The minister attacks its report -2,800 hours of work. He attacks the people as armchair environmentalists. If he was concerned about the quality of work which went into this report, why didn't he assist in funding an independent study on Okanagan Lake? Not an in-house study, not hiring people through the water investigation branch or the ministry. Why not fund an advocacy group, and let them examine the scientific authorities? Why refuse to do it? Why create polarity which doesn't have to be there? Why not provide the assistance? I'd like to ask the minister: what groups have you provided financial assistance to? I'm talking about advocacy groups, like SPEC or the West Coast Environmental Law Association, and other associations that are concerned with assisting people and protecting the quality of environment and the quality of life in this province. What groups have you financed and to what extent?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I don't have the list before me of the groups which have been funded. I'm talking about recognized organizations, not self-appointed organizations. I believe SPEC and the West Coast Environmental Law Association were given a grant for publication of some book in which they had an interest. I cannot think of them - a number of recycling organizations, of course, and others. We have not had that many requests. At no time were we advised or was any request ever made by the South Okanagan environmental organization for funding for that publication. I think we have responded quite positively towards some of these organizations which have asked for funds.

A concern has been expressed to me by some of these organizations which have come over to Victoria for a meeting - not for funding -that they are not particularly interested in receiving any funds from any provincial government or from the federal government, because they wish to retain their independence of government at all levels. They would rather not be dependent upon any government for funding of any kind, because they would not wish in any way to feel impeded in their opinions. We have got along very well with these people

I do not believe the South Okanagan Coalition ever requested funding, and I don't know whether they spent 2,800 hours or whether they spent 24 hours putting that thing together. It really doesn't matter how long it took. Length of time does not necessarily mean quality of report. If a person typed it with one finger it would take a lot longer than it would take a professional stenographer. So what does length of time mean?

I think that the quality of the reporting by the three members of the commission is what counts rather than the length of time it may have taken them to produce their report. The bibliographies - apparently a major concern of the world - relative to 2, 4-D are adequately found, I think, in the royal commission submission. I know that the three professors made use of the knowledge and information they acquired during those hearings. I'm not suggesting that it was the reason for them not including a bibliography; but it may have appeared to them to be somewhat redundant, when they had already submitted the report to the government of the province relative to 2, 4-D and other pesticides.

MR. LLOYD: I'd like to make a few comments on some of the remarks of the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) . He's as negative as the rest of his colleagues over there. The phony environmentalist says that this minister isn't living up to his duties, to his role as Minister of the Environment.

This actually is the first time there has been a Ministry of the Environment established in the province. Far from not living up to the role, we've passed legislation last year outlining means of controlling pollution spills. I think this is a very forward step that this government has taken.

He mentions people talking about things and doing nothing about them. Certainly I think he's very hypocritical because obviously this government has done something about them. I would say that this present minister has put more teeth into pollution control in the province than ever existed before. This isn't out of the ordinary for the member for Alberni. He's always trying to create headlines by raising public hysteria and crying wolf. But I think the public is starting to see through it. I think the young people looking for jobs are starting to see through it. We all have a concern for the environment. Certainly this government and this minister have really exemplified that concern.

Mr. Chairman, he also went on to mention the agricultural land reserve in the Nukko-Ness Lake area. He indicated it was held up by cabinet and that isn't true. It was not held up

[ Page 1845 ]

by cabinet; it was held up by my request as the MLA for Fort George. That had gone to public hearings, there's no question about it. But, as with a lot of public hearings, who takes the consensus about what really happened? As everyone knows, that was a large application, some 45,000 to 50,000 acres. There were rock quarries, gravel pits for the highways, and a good number of things in that reserve that should never have been in there originally. There were indications made that there would be efforts to fine tune it later on. But, rather than put it in on the broad brush application like the NDP did when they brought the AIR in in so many other areas in the province, we thought it was about time that the Land Commission was effective, that they did a proper job on it.

I'll say we had very good co-operation in the Prince George area, not only from the Land Commission but from the lands people themselves the lands inspector and the land manager plus all the other government agencies that were involved in there - the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) , the Fish and Wildlife people and all the others who were involved in proper land-use planning. I think it would have been very premature to put it in any earlier than it was put in. Even at the present time, I am very pleased to see that this large application is still subject to fine tuning at a later date. I think if the AIR is ever going to have any credibility, it's very essential that it is open for this type of fine tuning. I want to thank the minister for not putting it in on that original application.

The other thing that we always have to look at in an area as large as that is making a provision for community centres. That was overlooked in the earlier, broad-brush application. When you already have a store, gas stations and schools, why scatter a subdivision all over the country? Why not properly plan it into a few compact areas? Again, this was overlooked in the original. So I have no reservations whatsoever about requesting that that not be put in immediately.

I would like to ask the minister for a few comments. We had the opportunity last summer to tour the McGregor River basin, which is another favorite topic of the member for Alberni. We had an opportunity to tour that reservoir and then come down the Fraser River over the Grand Canyon project, which has also been reserved as a flood reservoir. Looking at the two areas, there's no question but that the greater damage or the greater cost in relocating would be in the Fraser River area, where we would not only have to move a railway 1845 but dislodge a number of communities already established. I would like to see that we have a good close look at it. The flood control report did state that one more reservoir is required on the upper Fraser system. Certainly, of the two, the McGregor would be preferable. We can do that without diverting it into the Arctic. If it's going to be a big problem, we can leave it just as a flood reservoir for the Fraser. There is the possibility of getting power off it as well. I would like to see that power used in that particular area, if it is generated at that site - in the upper Fraser and the McBride area. McBride is still dependent on diesel generators and it's held back that community for a number of years. So I would like to know if the review is underway on removing the flood reserve on the upper Grand Canyon area.

One other area in my community that appreciates the increased emphasis that has been put on the Ministry of the Environment is the Bear Lake community. We struggled along out there for the last five to ten years waiting for more commercial property and residential property to come on stream. I would like to say that in the last year we have finally been successful in getting some commercial property available. We have a store going in in that community now. There will be more lots opened up for residential lots, and I would say the co-operation between the Ministry of the Environment and the Highways ministry has been really appreciated in that area. I would like to give them full marks for that.

The other thing I think the minister has mentioned before is the additional staff now in the field reviewing land-use applications and inspections. Certainly this is welcomed. We had a terrific backlog in our area. I would say that, other than a few problem ones, we're pretty well catching up on that.

There still appears to be a certain amount of bottleneck in Victoria. I don't think they have streamlined the operation quite enough or increased the staff in some particular areas. Getting the registration and the land title through is still a pretty long and drawn-out procedure there. 1 think if you put more people in the field, it's only natural that we should build up the lower end as well. Certainly the whole ministry needs modernizing and computerizing. I'm sure the minister is quite aware of that. I'd like to see more emphasis put on getting this up to date.

I think the idea of moving the land ministry out to regional areas such as was discussed in the Forest Act and giving more regional control is a very positive step, and I understand that's underway at the present time.

[ Page 1846 ]

The new policy on agricultural lease to purchase is a very welcome policy. Again, I think there are a few areas there that should be fine-tuned. Certainly there were some indications brought up at the meeting we had last weekend at the Social Credit mini-convention in Prince George. A lot of the people were still quite concerned about what you have to do to be able to apply for agricultural land leases. The requirement that you have to own 40 acres under cultivation restricts a lot of young people and a lot of bona fide farmers from really getting out and getting an application in, whereas a real estate company can just go out and buy an existing farm of some hundred or so acres and continue to put applications in. So I don't think it's really serving the purpose that the requirement is in there for and I'd like to see that looked at.

The other one is the price of timber left standing on agricultural leases at the time of purchase. This was another very contentious item which has been brought up many times in the past. A lot of times the farmers are logging off the timber left on their agricultural land in order to clear enough to qualify for purchasing it. The stumpage they pay is far higher than the quota holders themselves are paying adjacent to it, so they have a great deal of difficulty getting rid of it, and selling it. In some cases they even suffer a loss on it, and certainly I think we have to have a very good look at that. No doubt in the past at times some agricultural lease land was taken and just logged off and turned back to the Grown and abused in that particular regard. But I think in the case where it is a genuine farmer, we're going to have to have a good look at it and see that there is some encouragement actually left to keep as much timber standing on it and to manage it in line with the new Forest Act as a small woodlot.

I think those are my main areas of concern and certainly the areas that concern most of the people in my riding.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: As well as some of the difficulties relating to the ability of citizens to acquire Crown agricultural land, there are some legitimate misunderstandings about the policies as well. The problem he mentioned about it being necessary to have 40 acres under cultivation is relative only where we're dealing with plots of land which are in themselves not viable for a farm operation. But if a young person in the northern area where lands are available wishes to engage in farming, he certainly can without having any lands under cultivation or without being a farmer by way of land ownership. Certainly we're attempting to resolve the conflicts.

The terms of the new agricultural land policy are very generous to the enterprising farmer, the person who is attempting to get into farming for the first time. They're very generous. We've been criticized by some as being too generous, but we would find it difficult to be over generous to persons who wish to develop farming from a dead start and raw land.

The member mentioned the question of the reserves in the McGregor area and the Grand Canyon. Reserves were placed many years back on these for Hydro, for flood-control purposes or for whoever put the reserves on, whether it was Hydro or someone else. I have instructed members of my staff to investigate the need for such reserves. I don't have an accurate count but there is probably in excess of a couple of thousand reserves in the province. A tremendous amount of land is in reserves for different purposes, and different reasons, and some of the reserves are relatively casual. A request was made by a ministry at some time for a map reserve to be placed on certain lands and it was done, and the reason for that may have long since elapsed. We're attempting to resolve some of these reserves because we do have a number of requests from people who would like to make use of certain lands in the province. These again are in a reserve, even though the purpose of that reserve may have since been served or there is no need for that reserve. So we're doing a review on these.

I share the desire of the member for Fort George (Mr. Lloyd) that computers be utilized for information relative to Crown land. It's unfortunate that computers were not introduced at the very early stages of land management. There are a couple of reasons why they weren't: (1) they weren't available and (2) they weren't recognized as what was necessary. I guess Queen Victoria gave some of the registrations that were made in this province.

But we are developing a programme now of putting the information on computers and attempting to utilize the computers which are available to government. Certainly that will resolve some of the problems. Many hundreds of man-days will be required to transmit this information to the electronic tapes, but once it's in place, of course, it will be highly utilized and very beneficial to the citizens of the province.

Members from the north have suggested to me many times that they feel there is a need for the government of the province to look closely at the situations in the north and that which is unique to the north. The concern offered to me by citizens from the northern part of the

[ Page 1847 ]

province and citizens from the eastern part of the province, in the Kootenays, is that of ten regulations or rules or laws brought in relative to land throughout the province do not take into consideration the conditions which exist in the north and in the Kootenays, and that perhaps it would be well worth considering some modification to certain laws or regulations to allow for this difference in climate and difference in conditions in the north. I think it's well worth pursuing, because certainly agricultural land in the delta area of the lower mainland and Vancouver Island's Saanich Peninsula means something quite different than agricultural land in the Peace River area or in the Fort George area. I think that's worthy of consideration and it is being pursued.

MR. SKELLY: The member for Fort George (Mr. Lloyd) alluded to the McGregor River basin and the proposed dam on the McGregor River. It was announced again by Mr. Bonner recently that planning on the McGregor Canyon dam had been suspended on the high dam. He gave a number of reasons such as parasite transfer problems from the Fraser River system into the arctic drainage. I wonder if the minister is willing to table the studies done by B.C. Hydro which caused suspension of planning on the McGregor Canyon dam.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

It appears again that Mr. Bonner is more responsive to the citizens of this province on the question of the McGregor River dam than the Minister of the Environment or the cabinet were. That's where the real reaction to the public came. The chief executive officer of B.C. Hydro made the decision, which should have been made by the government considering the serious environmental considerations of the McGregor Canyon dam.

In the first week of March, the minister went up to Prince George and announced that he was going to proceed with planning on a low level dam.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I did?

MR. SKELLY: This was reported in the Prince George Citizen.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Oh, you mean the Prince George Citizen reported it - not that I said it, but that they reported I said it.

MR. SKELLY: I'm asking you a question to give you an opportunity to possibly correct the Prince George Citizen.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Who cares about the Prince George Citizen?

MR. SKELLY: So you don't care about the Prince George citizens either.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: They can say what they want - freedom of the press.

MR. SKELLY: Look, you'll have an opportunity to respond to the question. I'm asking you: are you going to proceed with planning on the low-level power generation dam on the McGregor diversion? Is that what your position is on the McGregor diversion? Are you willing to table the studies done which caused Robert Bonner to announce suspension of planning on the McGregor Canyon dam, in which he said there were parasite transfer problems between the Fraser River and the arctic drainage? Are you willing to table those studies? There have been a number of demands or requests made by the McGregor Action Group, a very responsible group in Prince George that are supported by a number of prominent people in that area and prominent groups throughout the province, including the B.C. Wildlife Federation, among others.

They're asking for three things. One is a lifting of the flood reserve on the McGregor basin. Another is the tabling of the studies done by B.C. Hydro or their agencies into the high dam on the McGregor Canyon. Thirdly, the province should embark on a tree-planting programme in that area to reforest the area. Another request was for a salmonid enhancement programme project in that area. What's the minister's position on this?

A strange thing that the member for Fort George (Mr. Lloyd) brought up was the fact that he, as an individual member, convinced cabinet to hold up the Ness-Nukko Lakes AIR inclusion for a number of months or year or whatever until he had an opportunity to deal with some problems in that agricultural land reserve. And it appears again that individual members of this government are influencing decisions with regard to the creation of agricultural land reserve areas, decisions which should be made based on the agricultural quality of the land and the integrity of the agricultural land reserve as determined by an independent commission, rather than by a member who has supporters among the real estate profession and who could possibly have an interest in developing land in that proposal for an agricultural land reserve in the Prince George area.

[ Page 1848 ]

This again is an example of how the minister has allowed the Land Commission to become totally politicized and, in fact, has thwarted the objectives of the Agricultural Land Commission by giving it a political taint that was unheard of before. This is the kind of thing that shouldn't be allowed to happen. An independent commission should be sitting and determining, based on agricultural values and the agricultural merits. An individual MLA having the right to hold up inclusion of land into the agricultural land reserve is unwarranted political interference and we shouldn't tolerate that in this province.

I asked the Minister of Highways and Public Works (Hon. Mr. Fraser) some weeks ago now to table the number of subdivision applications that have been made within the inclusion area. We know, through checking the files in Prince George, that there are something like 15 to 20 applications in that area that took place while the member for Fort George (Mr. Lloyd) was holding up inclusion of that area into the agricultural land reserve. He said cabinet didn't make that decision; he made that decision. That's unbelievable political interference in something which should be handled by an independent Agricultural Land Commission.

He talked about the minister putting more teeth into the Pollution Control Act. I would like the minister to answer this question, Mr. Chairman - again, if he's prepared to answer it. How many prosecutions have taken place under the Pollution Control Act within the last year? We had a statement by Bill Otway of the B.C. Wildlife Federation that an official of the Pollution Control Board had advised one of the branch offices not to proceed with a prosecution because the polluter was a personal friend and contributor to W.A.C. Bennett. Now this was some time ago.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: In testimony before the McCarthy inquiry, by Bill Otway. That's possibly something the minister could look into.

Again, when we're looking at the kind of political interference that takes place with the agricultural land reserve in this government, it's conceivable that that very thing could be happening with the Pollution Control Board and with every other independent review body, or supposedly independent review body, that this minister has jurisdiction over.

Is it true that the member for Fort George held up the inclusion of the Ness-Nukko Lakes area into the AIR for something like two years?

How many prosecutions were there under the Pollution Control Act in the last year, -if the minister would answer that question?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I'm advised, Mr. Chairman, that 12 prosecutions were undertaken last year.

I have just a very minor point, perhaps. It isn't up to the Land Commission to include land. It has another purpose, another function. That must be by way of the political process, so it is part of the political process for them to include land.

I would be pleased, Mr. Member for Alberni, to table the report, but I simply do not have it. B.C. Hydro referred to a study done by, I believe, a Calgary professor. If I had it I would table it, but I simply don't have it. If you like, I'll make inquiries to Hydro if they have copies of it. I'm sure it is readily available to anyone.

I called across to you, and I say to you with all due respect to the Prince George Citizen, I just can't be responsible for what they print. If they want to say that I suggest we're going to have a low-level dam or I suggest this and that, that is up to them. They have independence. It seemed to have been lost that the original concept of the dam was for flood control, and then Hydro got into the act. That study has been going on since about 1968. Both the provincial and federal governments recommended that some type of dam be constructed for flood control in the lower Fraser Valley. But no, I didn't say we had planned a dam or that a dam was to be built, low-level, high-level or mid-level.

All that really happened was that Hydro said they no longer have this active interest in constructing the McGregor diversion. I suggested to some of the people in Prince George that this doesn't mean it's completely over because the reserve is still there and the original concern about flooding in the lower Fraser Valley is still there. The report commissioned by the government of the day in 1968 suggested we could be looking a $500 million dollar flood in terms of those years. But no plan is underway for a dam of any size.

MR. STRONGMAN: After listening to the member for Alberni I thought I should rise tonight and talk about one form of garbage that most of us don't wish to talk about. His speech and his remarks tonight triggered my thoughts. I'd like to go back to a topic that I've attacked on a, number of occasions in this House. That is the very needed facility that is required in the lower mainland and that is an industrial liquid waste disposal system.

[ Page 1849 ]

Mr. Minister, you and I have talked about this for almost three years now. This is your third set of estimates in which I have queried you. I would hope that eventually your ministry would address itself to this very real problem that industry in the lower mainland faces. The problem is that your ministry will address itself to a particular person who may wish to go into the business of disposing of industrial liquid waste and they'll be very supportive. The only thing that results from it is that it is not a viable business to invest in.

The government either has to legislate the need for this type of disposal facility or they have to finance it. I think that our government and you as a minister of our government would agree with me that we don't necessarily wish to get involved in the financial part of business. Therefore I'm urging you to address yourself and to consider the possibility of legislating the need for this type of facility.

Right now most people get rid of liquid industrial waste by dumping it onto a landfill. Environmentally it is the very worst thing we can possibly do. It is something that you, our government and most of the people in this House do not agree with but it is the only viable displacement of this type of waste. If we are going to continue in this vein, we are going to have a real problem in the lower mainland with industries that wish to get rid of waste like this and who are right now told they shouldn't do it. So day by day they break the law, putting waste into vats and taking them to landfills where they are dumped. They quite often get correspondence from these landfills indicating that they are breaking the law.

If our government and your ministry are to do the right thing, we either have to help finance these people or we have to legislate the methods of disposal of liquid waste as I have just described.

Right now there are several methods of disposal. We can do it through a thermal burn; we can distill it; we can put it on land fills. The very worst way is land fill. That's our present method.

MR. LEA: Let's distill it.

MR. STRONGMAN: Only the member for Prince Rupert could talk about distillation and talk about it with great enthusiasm, having used the distillate for many years as I have, but with not the same enthusiasm.

Seriously though, Mr. Minister, I won't prolong this. It's not a debate, it's just a query that I brought forward to you. I don't really think that you've given adequate answers yet.

We either as a government have to help financially or we have to legislate the use of the right disposal methods. If we don't do that, we're going to have an environmental problem that's going to drive industry out of the lower mainland. That is something that our government, myself and you as the minister don't wish. I hope you will address yourself to it.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I appreciate very much the comments and suggestions from the member for Vancouver South, and indeed we have been discussing it for some time. A great deal actually has taken place relative to this problem. It's my belief that those persons who produce the chemicals should be involved in a method of disposal of those chemicals as a waste product.

Many of the chemicals are reusable and can be recycled - solvents and such. Others can be consumed as a fuel for energy, particularly in such areas as cement plants and other industry, which can use the polluted or used oil for that purpose. We have made contact with a large number of industries and have suggested to them that perhaps it would be well worth their consideration to develop some type of industrial co-operative or perhaps to act independently to establish such a plan.

We do have a recycling plant operating in Delta at the moment, inadequate, I believe, for the tremendous amount which is available. We have others who have expressed interest. However, funding is always the problem. I don't understand the economics of that particular industry but it seems that those who have the idea cannot get the funding from regular bank sources and others. I really don't know what the economic restrictions are of that.

We have instructed our pollution control branch to contact the GVRD to try and develop a plan whereby the pollutant liquid or disposed waste cannot enter the system. It will be collected at plants, factories and so on to be disposed of elsewhere. The problem is that it does enter the system and there are regulations you can make which would be effective enough to prevent it from being dumped at two in the morning or midnight or whatever. It does enter the system. But I concur with what you suggested, Mr. Member, that this type of recycling plant of a major size - a plant adequate to handle the quantity within the Greater Vancouver Regional District - be established. We are looking for some type of

[ Page 1850 ]

mechanism to establish such a plant.

The Ministry of the Environment, of course, would not entertain any thought of financing such an enterprise if it were to be run by individuals, because we would also be in charge of policing it by issuing permits and so on. But we certainly have encouraged other ministries within government who are responsible for such financing and we have encouraged them to give very strong consideration to such a request. We would certainly speak out strongly for such a use.

AN HON. MEMBER: We're going to.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Well, you were going to and we are looking at it again.

I'm not aware of what specific applications may have been made to government agencies relative to such financing, but I know that we have indicated our very strong support for such a concept. Perhaps we will see something, perhaps we won't, but I agree that the present situation cannot be tolerated for an indefinite period of time - in fact, for not a very long period of time at all.

MR. STRONGMAN: Mr. Chairman, the minister has brought forward that funding is a problem with a project like this. Again I would like to stress the point that it is not necessarily funding. The point is that governments -whether municipal or provincial, and in this case likely provincial - giving the direction have to legislate the way that things are going to be disposed of. If we legislate, if you legislate, if our government legislates indirectly through the municipal force that we will then allow a business to set up a viable disposal system for this type of waste.... I think that most members in this House and most people in this chamber have no idea of - the copious quantities of liquid waste that industry creates in the lower mainland. It is a major problem and it is a problem that most people turn their back on because they don't see it and they don't know about it. It is a by-product of the things they buy every day.

You made the point that most of them are recyclable. They're not. The item that you can recycle - petroleum products that you can distill and bring back into the system - are less than.... I'll be very conservative: They are less than 5 per cent of the total volume, likely less than I per cent. The vast majority of liquid wastes created by industry.... The very industry that this province requires right now to make it a change from its primary economic base is secondary industry, and these are the ones that produce great quantities of this particular waste. The one thing we have to do is give them an outlet for it. You state that the funding isn't available. That's not the problem. The problem is that you can't make a profit disposing of it.

There are two ways to create the prof it base: (1) you can give them grants, which I don't agree with, and (2) you can legislate a process of disposal or you can legislate that you should not be allowed to put liquid waste like this in landfills, like the Richmond landfill right in your constituency where most of the liquid waste from the lower mainland goes now. It percolates into the river; I'm sure eventually it gets there. And I'm sure your constituents don't agree with it, mine don't agree with it, and the constituents of the members on this side and aver here don't want that.

Interjection.

MR. STRONGMAN: I'm being serious right now, Mr. Member. All we have to do is to legislate the method of disposal and you'll get the private sector to look after it in a fine economic way.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I might remind the members that matters involving and requiring legislation are not subject for debate during estimates.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I have listened to the debate this evening with a good deal of interest and some consternation. I must say that seldom have I witnessed in this House the kind of pompous, self-righteous response that the minister gave to my colleague for Alberni when he first took his place in the House. Mr. Chairman, I viewed that performance and I thought to myself: shades of the little Napoleon exuding his own peculiar style of egotistical pomposity. It's rather peculiar for a political neophyte to come into this House and start lecturing members on their conduct and what is appropriate for debate in this House, with the background of a hotliner. He's no expert on parliamentary rules, Mr. Chairman. The only experience he may have with slanderous conduct and behaviour is from the particular kind of vituperative language he used in his hotline days. Perhaps he has some experience from that perspective with slander.

To suggest that it's improper for a member to conduct his arguments in this House without going out into the corridor and standing the proposition of a slander suit is a bit much. From a man who, first of all, said when he lost the federal election that the voters were

[ Page 1851 ]

too ignorant to understand what the issues were, or some comments along that line. From a man who, when he was brand new as a minister of the Crown, told some reporter where he could go when he was asked a question pertaining to his ministry.

We thought at that time that that kind of personal arrogance would dissipate with the man gaining some experience in the House. Apparently not. He comes in exuding that same self-righteous - it's a bit much - terribly pompous attitude. Man, oh, man, Mr. Chairman. I don't know who he thinks he is to lecture members of the House in that way. If it's necessary to remind members of the language they use, that is the role of the Chairman of the Legislature and the Speaker.

Mr. Chairman, the big problem with that member is that he's used to a hotline that he could cut off. He used to cut people off when they became argumentative or he didn't like what they were saying. He can never keep quiet when someone else is speaking in debate in this Legislature. He has to keep nattering away, as someone else observed earlier, to reveal that great wilderness area that exists between his ears.

Mr. Chairman, I want to talk a little bit about the transaction pertaining to the Seymour land release in the Shuswap area. I want to refer in detail to a letter that was directed to the minister from the chairman of the Shuswap regional district, Mr. Frank Clarke. I want to read that letter into the record because I've met the man once and I respect him very much. He's a very capable chairman of one of the regional districts that I have to deal with in my riding. I quote this letter as it appeared in the Salmon Arm Observer on January 18,1978, and it's directed to the Minister of the Environment.

"I have received a copy of your letter dated December 22,1977, to Mr. N.F. Putnam in which you advised Mr. Putnam that his appeal to the ELUC on behalf of Seymour Arms Estates Limited for the complete removal of approximately 423.63 acres from the Seymour Arm agricultural land reserve has been approved.

"Even with the qualifications attached to the approval, I consider the decision regrettable. I realize that the Land Commission Act allows no further appeal. However, since this decision may be expected to have an important effect on the attitudes toward the Land Commission Act, especially in the Shuswap area, I am anxious to appreciate the reasoning behind it. No appeal from this region has stirred as much public. interest or provoked as much public comment as has this appeal.

"The considerable amount of time and effort expended by our regional board and by the British Columbia Land Commission in trying to reach a fair and balanced decision on this appeal is quite broadly appreciated. Also appreciated is the surprising speed with which the appeal to the ELUC was arranged, and the fact that the hearing on December 6 was permitted all of 25 minutes."

"An appeal hearing on the release of 400 and some acres of land was conducted in 25 minutes. In the face of these facts, an unfortunate side-effect from the decision is the damage it does to the already shaky credibility of both the regional district concept and the Land Commission. A logical explanation of the ELUC ruling is therefore most important.

"When I learned of the ELUC decision, I regretted more than ever my unsuccessful attempt to attend the hearing in Victoria on December 6. 1 assumed that you were informed of my telephone call from Kamloops to your secretary advising that I was grounded there en route. I assume also that my stated intention to support the Land Commission ruling was read into the record of the hearing. I understand that although our MLA, Mr. L. Bawtree, did not attend the hearing, he would normally be given the opportunity to be heard before the decision.

"I feel that in view of my stated and sincere regret at not being able to reach Victoria in time, in view of the circumstances surrounding my inability to get there and in view of the importance of this appeal to this area, I might have been accorded the same privilege.

"This removal of some 424 , acres from Seymour Arm AIR leaves approximately 1,200 acres of privately owned land remaining within that AIR. It is therefore only reasonable to expect that the precedent in this decision will prompt further appeals not only from Seymour Arm but also from other parts of the Shuswap area.

"If the considerable amount of time and effort which we put into the Seymour Arm Estates' appeal produced an unacceptable ruling, you will be able to understand the importance of us discovering where we went wrong or what we overlooked. The regional board recommendation to the Land Commission was preceded by numerous trips into the area; by a private hearing in the regional office which I accorded a delegation from Seymour Arm Estates, including

[ Page 1852 ]

the president, their council, their accountant, which also included Mr. L. Bawtree, MLA; a subsequent hearing of the Seymour Arm Estates group by the regional board; careful study of a Seymour Ann Estates brief; equally careful study of a brief from the Seymour Arm resident ratepayers' association in addition to a number Of private written submissions from residents of the area; review of all of the available technical opinion of the potential of the area; study of a very detailed report from the federal fisheries on the importance of the Seymour River as a spawning stream; review of as much of the history of the area as we were able to gather from discussions and old literature. I presented all of this information to the Land Commission in person, in addition to making myself available for questioning.

"The Land Commission's ruling on our regional board recommendation benefited from yet another and more detailed appreciation of the area by Mr. N.A. Gough, professional engineer and pedologist; and a final hearing of Seymour Arm Estates Ltd.

"Although the Land Commission ruling was more liberal than the regional board recommendation, we were able to reconcile it with our understanding of the philosophy and the intent of the Land Commission Act. In other words, it was not inconsistent with the attitude toward the Land Commission Act which the regional board has been attempting to maintain.

"Now it appears that throughout the whole long process of assessing Seymour Arm Estates' appeal, both the regional board and the Land Commission must have overlooked some very important considerations or else there has been a significant change in the attitude of your ministry toward the Land Commission Act.

"I respectfully seek to be informed.

"I must comment on item number 33 in the materials concerning this appeal, which were supplied to the ELUC by the Land Commission. This is a letter to Mr. G. Sorensen, president, Seymour Arm Estates Ltd., from Dr. A.F. McLean, chairman, Seymour Area Property Owners Association.

"I an not sure of the significance of the change in title. When I was advised of the organization of this group in January, 1977, the title was Seymour Arm Property Owners Association. This association was apparently organized in Calgary in January, 1977, and immediately claimed to represent the views of some 140 property owners in the Seymour Am area.

"While I accepted this claim by Dr. McLean and Mr. Sorensen, I asked Dr. McLean on two occasions in writing and once verbally for more information on the organization. I desired to know the names of the other members of the executive, a list of the membership and a copy of the constitution. To date I have not been honoured with even an acknowledgement of my request. I did not and I do not consider it inappropriate to ask for the proof of legitimacy, especially since Dr. McLean has given notice that he intends to claim the same weighty voice in forthcoming meetings and hearings on a settlement plan for the Seymour area.

"In the meantime the one letter which I have received from a non-resident property owner is quite opposed to Dr. McLean's point of view concerning development of the area.

"If the ELUC were satisfied as to the legitimacy of the association which Dr. MrLean claims to represent, I shall be pleased to be informed of this too.

Yours respectfully,

F. H. Clarke,

Director, Electoral F,

Columbia-Shuswap Regional District."

He is now chairman of the board.

There are a number of points raised in that particular letter. As far as I know, the minister has not responded by explaining the drift away from the customary policy of the Land Commission.

I want to make a few comments about the role of local MLAs in this kind of deal. The member for Shuswap and the member for Fort George have both participated on behalf of groups attempting to have land removed from the agricultural land reserve. The member for Shuswap has gone so far as to indicate that he's made his assessment on the quality of the land involved. Mr. Chairman, the member for Shuswap is not a professional; he's not a soil expert; he's not a hydrologist. He has none of these skills - and very few political skills - which would justify the kind of assessment he presumes to make.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. You're well aware of the rules of the House which prohibit personal attacks. We are here to discuss the estimates of the minister.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I don't think that's a personal attack; I think you're becoming

[ Page 1853 ]

over-sensitive. I certainly don't think he has any of those skills that would qualify him to make the kind of appraisal. But, beyond that, the more important point is, I think, that it's inherently wrong for any politician to represent a group seeking to influence a provincial agency. The Land Commission was constituted and appointed by this House, by the government, and for any politician to seek to influence that agency implies political manipulation; it implies political influence; it implies the pork barrel. And that has no place in B.C. politics today. I honestly believe that the members over there - because they're fairly new in politics - do not perceive the impropriety of the situation. I really don't believe they understand.

But you know, how would it be for one of the cabinet members to go before that committee, one of the cabinet ministers who has the authority to appoint the members to that agency? The implication would be that, if they didn't comply with his recommendations, their appointment may be fairly short-lived. And that's happened, Mr. Chairman, in the past, in certain jurisdictions. It's equally improper for government members or even opposition members to seek to influence what is supposed to be and what is set up by statute to be a quasi-judicial independent agency; it's absolutely wrong.

These members, Mr. Chairman, either through ignorance or arrogance - one of the two - or disdain for the due administrative process, blithely ignore that and seek to influence the decisions of boards such as the AIR on behalf of their friends from the big development agencies. I think it's absolutely wrong. I think it's a political scandal, Mr. Chairman -an absolute political scandal.

Interjection.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Chabot) is a hopeless case. He can't perceive the difference either. The regulation of the WCB is done by statute, not by personal representation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! We're on vote 83. Would the member please confine himself to vote 83?

MR. KING: That's right, Mr. Chairman. I wish the members over there wouldn't get so upset. I'm going to have more to say on this whole thing tomorrow. There are a variety of questions involved in the participation of MLAs in the process of applications to remove land from the ALR. There are a variety of questions posed in Mr. Frank Clark's letter that was made public and has never been answered by the minister to my knowledge. I would ask that tomorrow he would provide those answers to the House because I think they're very important and very fundamental to the preservation of farmland in this province.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Williams moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 10:58 p.m.

[ Page 1854 ]

APPENDIX

3S Mr. Barnes asked the Hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing the following questions:

A. When did the Housing Corporation of British Columbia do the following:

1. Purchase property situated between Pendrell-Nicola-Cardero and the lane north of Davie Street in Vancouver?
2. From whom was the property purchased?
3. What was the purchase price and the terms of payment?
4. Did the terms of sale include concessions to former owners or other bodies besides actual selling price?

B. The Minister recently announced plans to sell the Housing Corporation of British Columbia.

1. What is its total debt?
2. What are its total assets?
3. What is its total amount of annual revenue?
4. Has the former owner of property (A-1 ) above indicated plans for interest to purchase?

The Hon. H. A. Curtis replied as follows:

A.

1. December 13,1977.
2. Dominion Construction Co. Ltd., Harold Ridgeway, and Angus Apartments. 1 1
3. $1,000, 000; $500 down, $50,000 on closing, balance on a mortgage paid out December 31,1977.
4. HCBC guaranteed to provide 30 parking spaces in the development to be paid to HCBC by the people who will be running the restaurant, for a 10-year term, based on an anticipated cost of $4,286 per parking space. Under a restrictive covenant registered against Lot 15, which is the gardens, between the former owners and the City of Vancouver, the former owners are responsible for maintaining the gardens as open space.

NOTE-Term of covenant: The restrictive covenant is to terminate on the earlier of September 30,1987 (10 years) ; or at such time as the buildings located on the lands are no longer designated as a heritage site by the City; or at such time as the buildings located on the land are destroyed or deemed to be destroyed

B.

1. * Approximately $6.5 million.
2. * $23 million.
3. * $2.27 million for year ended October 31,1977.
4. All inquiries are referred to Sales Advisory Committee.

NOTE-See Annual Report tabled in this House March 31,1978.