[ Page 1855 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

An Art to Regulate Smoking in Public Places and Meetings (Bill M 214) Mrs. Wallace.

Introduction and first reading –– 1855

Oral questions.

New computer equipment. Mr. Levi –– 1855

Constitutionality of Heroin Treatment Act. Mr. Gibson –– 1856

Negotiations on international boundaries. Mr. Lea –– 1858

Statement

Non-smokers' Day. Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 1860

Mr. Barrett –– 1860

Motions and adjourned debates on motions

On motion 8.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 1861

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply; Ministry of the Environment estimates.

On vote 83. Mr. Levi –– 1877

Mr. King 1861 Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 1879

Hon. Mr. Nielsen 1862 On vote 84.

Mr. Smith 1863 Mrs. Dailly –– 1879

Mr. Bawtree 1864 Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 1879

Hon. Mr. Nielsen 1866 Mr. Stephens –– 1879

Mr. Smith 1867 Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 1880

Mr. Lauk 1868 On vote 85.

Mr. Stephens 1868 Mr. Stephens –– 1880

Hon. Mr. Nielsen 1868 Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 1880

Mrs. Wallace 1869 On vote 86.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen 1872 Mr. Lockstead –– 1881

Ms. Sanford 1874 Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 1881

Hon. Mr. Nielsen 1875 Mr. Stephens –– 1881

Mr. Cocke 1876 Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 1881

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 1876

Committee of Supply; Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs estimates.

On vote 37.

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 1882

Mr. Levi –– 1886

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 1890

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. KEMPF: In the gallery with us today is an individual who I am very proud to have with us to watch the proceedings. He is a fellow I worked with for many years in the lumber industry - an old sawmiller, an old logger -and he lives in one of the smallest communities in my constituency, Telkwa. Mr. Speaker, it's with the greatest of pleasure that I introduce to you this afternoon Hr. Paul Trobak and his nephew by marriage, Mr. Al Morran make of Victoria. I ask the House to them very welcome.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, up until a very short time ago a very gracious lady used to grace the Law Clerks' table in this institution; I see that Evelyn Iiiller is back - in the members' gallery, visiting the chamber. I would ask the House to extend a very warm welcome to her.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, seated in the gallery this afternoon are 35 students from Colonel By School in Ottawa - part of the Open House Canada exchange - accompanied by their teachers, Mrs. Irene Duncan and Mr. Dave Campbell. Along with those students are 10 students from Cambie Junior High School in Richmond, accompanied by their teachers, Mr. Dan Carswell and Mrs. Ken Wong-Moon. I'd ask the House to welcome them.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, in the precincts today is a group of students from Captain Meares Secondary School in Tahsis who have traveled here a long way under the direction of their teachers, Mrs. Susan Lusyk and Mr. Barry Lutvey. Unfortunately they won't be able to attend the session today; but I think it should be drawn to the attention of members of the Legislature that some of the marble in the parliament buildings was brought here from Hisnit Inlet, near Tahsis, and that these students have some affinity to the parliament buildings for that reason.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today are two friends of mine from Summerland, Vernon and Mary Schroyen. I would ask the House to bid them welcome.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I have two groups of students to introduce today, both from the north part of Vancouver. Island. Touring the buildings at this moment is a group of students from Sunset Elementary School in Port McNeill, accompanied by their teacher, Laurie Richards.

Later this afternoon there will be a group of elementary, - school students visiting the chamber from Coal Harbour Elementary School in the northern part of Vancouver Island, and they will be accompanied by their parents, Pat Hole, Sylvia Reusch, their bus driver, Darlene Cartwright, and their teacher, Brian Klaver. I would like the House to make then welcome.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Speaker, may I bring to your attention guests in the Speaker's gallery today, Mr. and Mrs. Clappison of our town of Maple Ridge, and their relatives from the homeland of Yorkshire, Mr. Connors and Miss Denise Connors. Will you bid them welcome, please?

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw to the House's attention that today is non-smokers' day, and I would urge all of our people in this province who can do without this very addictive drug to do so. However, for those who cannot, I'll meet you out in the hall in 15 minutes. (Laughter.)

Introduction of bills.

AN ACT TO REGULATE SMOKING

IN PUBLIC PLACES AND MEETINGS

On a motion by Mrs. Wallace, Bill M 214, An Act to Regulate Smoking in Public Places and Meetings, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

MR. SPEAKER: I would ask hon. members that during the procedure of the taking of a vote, perhaps it would be wiser not to interject. It is difficult to tell whether or not it is yeas or nays if it is mixed up with other words.

Oral questions.

NEW COMPUTER EQUIPMENT

MR. LEVI: I have a question to the Minister of Finance. I'm going to read this slowly because it might get a bit complicated. In the Vancouver Sun on May 17, B.C. System Corp. placed an ad seeking some equipment that would be compatible with the IBM 370 architecture equipment. Now the government at the moment has a 371-45 which they obtained in 1976, and in January, 1977, they got a 371-58. It's my

[ Page 1856 ]

understanding they're now seeking a piece of equipment in the order of the 3033 size. In view of the fact that the 3033 has 15 times the capacity of the 371-58, and that the 371-58 has three times the capacity of the 371-45, could the minister tell us what the government is going to do with all of this excess capacity with these computers? Just before he gets up, though, because he may take it as notice, I'm sure, has the government placed a reserve on an IBM 3030, and if they have, when did they do it?

The final piece, so he can take it as notice: the time frame in the ad is July 31 for the placement and operation of the equipment. Perhaps the minister could tell the House how it is going to be possible to do that in that very short time frame.

MR. SPEAKER: We normally ask one question at a time.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Yes, I'm advised the B.C. Systems Corp. are advertising for a larger central computer unit, the object being, Mr. Member, basically to save money in the process. There are three smaller units which will be disposed of in the process. I'm advised there's a considerable saving in the monthly rental down the line when this changeover is accomplished. As you indicated, the model is the 3033, a larger computer which can now be supplied by some four different major suppliers. So there has been a request for quotations go out for this.

You mentioned the date of July 31. 1 think that was two to three weeks from the date on which the ad appeared, I'm not sure which. It was the latest possible date that could be used, and I'm advised that all of those interested would have time to submit in that time period.

Yes, I believe there was a reservation in order to place this possibility on line for the future. Yes, there was a reservation placed with no commitment for purchase some time last year.

MR. LEVI: Just a supplementary question. I asked the minister a question last year as to whether the government I don't think I used the word "reservation" was obtaining a 3033. At that time he said no, so perhaps the minister could tell us when exactly the reservation was made on the 3033. Or was it with the IBM? Are we talking about an IBM 3033? Is that what the minister was referring to when he said a reservation was made last year? Now I specifically asked you last year about that, and you said no.

HON. MR. WOLFE: If the member can't remember what he asked last year, I certainly am not able to. As I recall, the question was: had an order been placed? We'd have to look back to see. In effect this is commonly known in the industry as a soft order or reservation, so that when your opportunity comes up to buy you are given an opportunity. I believe the model reference is an IBM, but it is an IBM or comparable unit of a similar character.

CONSTITUTIONALITY OF

HEROIN TREATMENT ACT

MR. GIBSON: I have a question to the hon. Attorney-General. Bearing in mind the ineffectiveness of policy and the great public cost caused by unconstitutional legislation, and bearing in mind the waste of time in this House in debating matters which turn out to be unconstitutional, and noting that competent lawyers, including those who said the youth containment law was unconstitutional, are now saying the same thing about the Heroin Treatment Act, will the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) , as he has authority to do under the Constitutional Questions Determination Act, refer the Heroin Treatment Act to the British Columbia Court of Appeal for an opinion on its constitutionality before taking up the time of the public in this chamber on debate?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Pretty argumentative question.

MR. SPEAKER: The question plies into the future activity of a government.

MR. GIBSON: I had particular reference to your memorandum of April 24 in which May states that it's perfectly proper to ask the government what its intentions are, and it is the intentions of the government that I am questioning. Mr. Speaker, with respect, it's not a question of policy; it's a question of intentions of the government, which May makes perfectly clear is a proper item for questioning, and a very important item.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's a policy question.

I will cite the reference in Beauchesne which we have adopted as a guideline for our questioning. It clearly outlines and we have as a practice in this House established that it is not admissible to ask questions into the future activity of a minister of the Crown. I must continue to uphold the rules that were adopted by the House. The reference is section 171 of Beauchesne, just for your reference. Perhaps you could rephrase the question and

[ Page 1857 ]

make it admissible.

MR. GIBSON: I still submit that a question with respect to the intentions of the government is perfectly admissible. Perhaps I can rephrase it in this way: does the Attorney-General not think it important that the constitutionality of a measure be certified, when it is in doubt before it is brought before this House, as he has the power to do?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Certification is another process. As far as his reference to the particular statute is concerned, that is reference by cabinet and not by the Ministry of the Attorney-General.

MR. GIBSON: Does the Attorney-General deny that it is his duty to make a recommendation to cabinet in this regard if one is to be made? Surely not.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Oh, come on! That's not a proper question.

MR. MACDONALD: I'm asking the Attorney-General on the same question whether tie is prepared to give consideration to and report back to the House on referring the question of the constitutionality of that legislation to the court of appeal prior to the large expenditure of public funds in a programme which might be ruled to be unconstitutional. Will the Attorney-General consider the matter and report back to the House?

HON. MR. GARDOM: I am thoroughly prepared to consider any matter, make no mistake of that fact. But as I've indicated to the hon. member from North Vancouver, this constitutional question reference is that of a cabinet decision. Secondly, I would like to mention to the hon. member that any legislation that comes into this Legislature, both during the term of this administration and any administration behind it, comes in as a result of consideration and advice.

MR. MACDONALD: I just want to be clear. Will the Attorney-General on this legislation -this is the one we're talking about, with grave doubt as to its constitutionality -report back to the House after considering whether this legislation will be referred?

HON. MR. GARDOM: If my hon. friend across the way has an opinion, we would be delighted to receive it.

MR. SPEAKER: But not during question period.

MR. GIBSON: I have a supplementary question to the Attorney-General on an Act which unquestionably is within his jurisdiction. Would he give this House an estimate of the cost to the public so far on the ruling of the Youth Containment Act unconstitutional?

MR. SPEAKER: The question is not admissible; it is completely argumentative.

MR. GIBSON: It's a request for information, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order.

MR. BARRETT: Is that question out of order?

MR. SPEAKER: By the standing orders by which the House is covered I must rule it out of order.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I challenge your ruling.

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: You are afraid to deal with this issue; that's exactly what's going on.

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: Right on! It's a waste of taxpayers' money, and you know the programme may be questioned in the courts.

AN HON. MEMBER: Gordon, how do you know the other one is unconstitutional? It's in front of the court of appeal.

MR. BARRETT: You're the Attorney-General. Why don't you find out?

HON. MR. GARDOM: It's before the court of appeal.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Section 172 of Beauchesne clearly outlines this procedure for question period: "The Speaker, in common with his duties of supervision over the proceedings of the House, may rule out any question which violates the privileges of Parliament in the same way as he deals with irregularities in motions and amendments. He may make an alteration to the question or refer it back to the member for correction." - as was done earlier today - "A member may call the attention of the House to the matter and may challenge the

[ Page 1858 ]

action of the Speaker." The decision of the Speaker has been challenged.... Order, please. We must dispose of this matter.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who is the leader over there?

MR. SPEAKER: The ruling of the Chair has been challenged, and so I must ask the House to act.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker is reading the rules, with respect...

SOME HON. MEMBERS: You're not recognized.

MR. LAUK: ... referring to written questions; we have our own procedures and.our own rules for oral questions.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. Further to the challenge, the procedure which I have just outlined for all members is that procedure which is followed in the British House.

On reflection and after conferring it is apparent that the motion which this House adopted at the inception of the question period in this House gave the prerogative of ruling questions in or out of order to the Chair without challenge. So I cannot ask the House to make its expression known.

MR. GIBSON: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, I want to make sure I understand what you ruled out of order. You ruled out of order my question to the Attorney-General asking for the cost to the public of finding the youth containment legislation unconstitutional. That was the question you ruled out of order. That's the question I asked. May I have the confirmation of that?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. Perhaps we could solve this with members who have the floor.

The question was ruled out of order on the basis of it being argumentative. In the opinion of the Chair it is what has been called in this House many times an "iffy" question. Therefore, it being argumentative, it cannot be considered in order, and the Chair has so ruled. Perhaps the member could find another way to ask the question and put it in order.

MR. GIBSON: But, Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might explain. There is nothing "iffy" about it at all. The youth containment legislation has been found to be ultra vires of this Legislature by a court; it's under appeal. I'm asking the Attorney-General what the cost to the public so far is that a court of competent jurisdiction has found that statute to be ultra vires. What's "iffy" about that, may I ask?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Can we move to the next question?

MR. BARRETT: I don't understand on what ground it was ruled out of order.

MR. SPEAKER: The prerogative of the Chair is to rule a question out of order. The question appears to be out of order on the basis of it being argumentative, and the Chair has so ruled.

To the next question, please.

MR. BARRETT: I ask the Speaker to clearly define what in that question is argumentative.

MR. SPEAKER: The question seeks information which might take place if a certain course of action is followed; that is the understanding of the Chair.

MR. BARRETT: No.

MR. SPEAKER: Perhaps if the question can be phrased in such a way that it's in order, it could be acceptable.

NEGOTIATIONS ON

INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARIES

MR. LEA: A question to the Premier. Would the Premier tell this House why the provincial government has kept its position secret in terms of negotiations on international boundaries within the province between Canada and the United States?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the negotiations are going on. British Columbia has a position that has been researched and presented to the Canadian negotiators and, as such, we have been invited to be advisers at the request of the federal negotiators. To aid them in their ability to negotiate with the United States of America, we have been asked that we not weaken their attempt by all parties, that is west coast and east Coast, presenting what may be differing opinions and weakening their opportunity to negotiate. So it was at the request of the negotiators.

[ Page 1859 ]

MR. LEA: A supplementary question. I'd like to ask the Premier whether he is aware that the position paper is being made public all over the United States but not here in British Columbia. It's being let out of the bag in Washington, D.C. I would like to ask the Premier whether he doesn't think that it's desirable Chat the position of this provincial government, which I believe is a good one, wouldn't be better if everybody in British Columbia had a chance to know what that position is. The federal government is obviously selling us down the tube. I agree with that, the Premier agrees with that. Why shouldn't we have everyone in this province behind us against the federal government taking our international boundaries and chasing them right down the river to the United States -our fish and our jobs?

HON. M. BENNETT: Well, that wasn't a question, but I'll respond in kind. The province does have a good position and I believe that we have a strong position, an historical position. I'm glad to hear the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) agrees. He believes that he knows the British Columbia position and agrees with it. He makes statements about the distribution of the British Columbia paper being distributed by the United States of America. I will have to check the validity of that charge against another government.

MR. LEA: A further supplementary. I didn't make the charge against another government. I said it is being distributed all over Washington, D.C. , by some people who are in the negotiations. That's how I got it - not through my own government here but through Washington.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Was the member seeking the floor to ask a supplementary question?

MR. LEA: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: What was the question?

MR. LEA: The question is: why can't we make that public here in British Columbia when the United States, through its negotiating team, is making it public to their people?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I've already mentioned that we're part of Canada and the government of Canada has the responsibility for negotiating this treaty. It's part of their responsibility. All of the Premiers of the Atlantic provinces and the government of British Columbia have offered submissions pertaining to their areas as part of the negotiations. We've asked to be observers, and we have been accommodated.

In order for them to negotiate more adequately and strongly for Canadians, the negotiating team of the government of Canada has asked all of the provinces to maintain their positions in a confidentially so the strong Canadian case cannot be weakened. That can surely be understood by everyone. There are those who would rather play politics than ensure a strong agreement.

British Columbia will make sure that our position is understood. If we are unhappy with the negotiations, at the proper time British Columbia will indeed have an opportunity to make its case known. As the member should know full well - but perhaps does not - any negotiation that is not concluded must go to a binding decision in international law, which may be the outcome of British Columbia if we were unhappy with the negotiations. British Columbia is doing everything to press our case, and our position has been given to the federal government in a very forceful way -both on a political level and at the staff level where the research was developed and the historical precedents on boundaries cited.

The final question was: why don't the provinces of Canada squabble among themselves in the media so the Americans could get a negotiating benefit? The answer, I say, is obvious.

MR. SKELLY: With the indulgence of the House, could I make a late introduction, Mr. Speaker?

Leave granted.

MR. SKELLY: I'd like to introduce two late guests who have arrived in the gallery, my wife Alexandra Skelly, and my son, Robert I-lark William Skelly, who was born in 1975.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the people of British Columbia I'd like to ask leave to table in this House the government's position paper to the federal government that I have received through channels in Washington.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask leave of the House to make a short statement.

Leave granted.

[ Page 1860 ]

NON-SMOKERS' DAY

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, while the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) is going into the hall, I would like to recognize, as he and other members have, that today, May 31, has been proclaimed by the province of British Columbia as non-smokers' day.

Mr. Speaker, the health hazards of cigarette smoking have been well documented and highly publicized. I hope that the observance of today as non-smokers' day will stimulate public interest in this social health problem and encourage smokers to consider kicking it.

The costs, Mr. Speaker, to the taxpayers of this province as a direct result of cigarette smoking are astronomical. It has been estimated that 7.8 per cent of all physician services are related to the treatment of health problems induced by smoking. A conservative annual estimate in British Columbia of medical and hospital costs involved in the treatment of those illnesses would be $45 million.

According to the fire marshal's office, careless smokers were responsible for starting 997 fires in B.C. in 1977, and 31 people died in those fires. The value of property loss from the fires was estimated at more than $4.5 million. In the province's forests in 1977, approximately 9,000 acres of valuable timber were destroyed by some 1,800 fires and careless smokers, Mr. Speaker, started more than 300 of those forest fires.

It is estimated that British Columbians spend in excess of $150 million a year in the purchase of cigarettes.

The provincial government is vitally interested in this problem, Mr. Speaker, and during the past 18 months the Ministry of Health has been attempting to combat some of the problems posed by cigarette smoking on a number of fronts. We have encouraged municipalities to introduce local bylaws. Some have responded, but many have not. The province's general hospitals have been asked to restrict smoking to certain areas, and to consider eliminating cigarette vending machines. In a few instances, the co-operation has been excellent. Frankly, as Minister of Health, I must say that I have been disappointed by the lack of action on the part of many of our hospitals.

I quite often get letters from individuals complaining bitterly about the smoking that is allowed in the patients' wards in many of our hospitals. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that this year those dedicated individuals who serve on the boards of our public hospitals will make a concerted effort to ensure that their hospitals will eliminate smoking in the patient areas and restrict staff smoking to staff boundaries.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say that the pamphlet, "Cigarettes and Your Health, " which was produced by my ministry's division of health information, has been received with considerable enthusiasm and has proven to be an effective incentive in encouraging many smokers to quit. In the 15 months since it was introduced, approximately 200,000 copies have been distributed. The B.C. College of Pharmacists forwarded copies to 1,800 of its members in the province and, as a result, many of our drugstores in B.C. have supplies in their stores for the use of their customers. It's interesting to note, Mr. Speaker, that a major chain requested supplies for their 55 pharmacies across Canada, and a group health insurance programme in the state of New York requested and received permission to reprint that pamphlet.

We're also involved in the funding of a programme which is being conducted in our school system which will encourage students not to start smoking. That programme is called "Butt Out" and it's conducted by Action B.C., the organization which very effectively promotes good health through physical activity and proper nutrition and good life styles.

The Ministry of Health is also considering the development of other programmes that will help cigarette smokers kick their insidious habit. It's a slow process of public education, but I believe the tide is beginning to turn. More and more smokers are recognizing their problem for what it is: an expensive, anti-social habit that poses a terrible threat to their health.

Interjection.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Me? I stopped years ago.

I hope that all members will support Non-Smokers' Day including the member for MacKenzie (Mr. Lockstead) , who is draped around the ashtray in the hall, as a first step to kicking the habit.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to respond to the statement.

Leave granted.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to add my words to the necessity to stamp out those cigarette-crazed addicts who cause so much havoc to the people of this province. I welcome the words of the minister and I hope that the minister has the gumption to include

[ Page 1861 ]

nicotine in Bill 18 so that our morals can be imposed upon those freedom-loving people out there who choose to smoke cigarettes against our wishes and our desires, because so much money is lost and it makes them cough.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, this drug-crazed group of nicotine addicts, who are causing such havoc in our population, need the heavy hand of that minister to stop this addiction from spreading across this nation. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the bill will allow us to lock them up, put them away for being nicotine-crazed addicts that the minister doesn't like.

I welcome the minister's sanctimonious statements about moral judgments of human behaviour. I hope he has the courage to lock up those cigarette smokers with those other drug-crazed addicts that he condemns.

AN HON. MEMBER: There's a full moon.

MR. BARRETT: Put them under the bill; lock them up.

AN HON. MEMBER: The butterfly net!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. I think that perhaps the statement in reply may have exceeded the original statement.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make a statement to make the Minister of Health's day complete.

Leave not granted.

MRS. JORDAN: 1 was going to tell the Leader of the Opposition he so frightened me, I immediately stopped smoking.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to proceed to Motion 8.

Leave granted.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 8 under the name of the hon. Provincial Secretary.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to move the motion standing on the order paper in my name. This was a motion that was not included in the blanket motion given on the first day when the House opened.

On the recommendation of the special committee appointed on March 30, under standing order 68, pursuant to the Ombudsman Act, that the following members be appointed to the special committee referred to in section 2 of the Ombudsman Act: Davidson, Calder, Mussallem, Hewitt, McClelland, Williams, Dailly, King, Lloyd, Lockstead, Gibson.

And that the said special committee be empowered to appoint from their number one or more subcommittees, and Lo refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the committee.

That the committee. may sit during a period in which the Legislative Assembly is adjourned, and during a sitting of the House, and during the recess after prorogation until the next following session, and shall report to the House on the matters referred to it at this session, or following the adjournment, or at the next following session as the case may be.

I-respectfully submit this motion.

Motion approved.

Orders of the day.

The House in committee of supply; Mr. Rogers in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY Or THE ENVIRONMENT

(continued)

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

MR. KING: Last evening I think the good humour of this chamber was interrupted by what I view to be the rather unforgivable response from the Minister of the Environment to my colleague, the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) - a response that I characterized in terms of its content as being rather contemptible. I subsequently went on to raise with the minister the question of the removal of a large tract of land from the agricultural land reserve at Seymour Arm and the head of Shuswap Lake. I read into the record a letter from the chairman of the Columbia-Shuswap Regional District, Frank Clarke, in which he publicly posed a number of questions to the Minister of the Environment with respect to changes in policy and the procedure for hearing these applications and appeals.

I want to put to the minister those questions that, as far as I know, were not responded to - certainly not publicly. Specifically, I want to ask the minister why it was necessary to proceed with the appeal hearing in Victoria, when the chairman of the regional district involved in making the original decision to decline the release of this land had phoned the ministry to indicate chat he %, us stuck in the city of Kamloops due to problems with meeting the airline schedule. Why was it

[ Page 1862 ]

so necessary to proceed in his absence under those circumstances, rather than call an adjournment of the appeal until an appropriate opportunity when all of those people - the objectors and those affected - could be present for the appeal? I ask the minister, further, to indicate what new evidence came before his ministry which would justify overturning the original decision that was taken by the local regional district in declining the release of this particular parcel of land to Mr. Gary Sorensen and his company. I would appreciate it if the minister would respond to those two specific questions.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The wording of the question from the member for Revelstoke-Slocan asked generally that the questions would be answered for Mr. Clarke. They were answered -to Mr. Clarke, of course. I don't send copies of personal letters to the newspapers. If Mr. Clarke chooses to distribute my replies he is most welcome to do so, and perhaps it's already been done. That was in very early February - I believe it was about February 3 -and I have not heard back from Mr. Clarke relative to that - at least, I don't believe we have.

The reason the hearing went ahead, of course, is that the appeal is at the request of the appellant. It is arranged through the regulations and the Act, with due notice given to all interested parties - and it is on the request of the appellant. The appellant did not ask for an adjournment. The regional district was represented at the appeal. It's unfortunate that a specific person could not attend, but all other persons who had advised that they wished to attend were in attendance. It's unfortunate, perhaps, that this gentleman couldn't be there, but there was a representative for the regional district. As I said, the appellant did not request that adjournment be made, and the hearing was for the purpose of hearing the appeal of the appellant.

The testimony from the regional district was available; the entire file was available to members of the committee, including information and opinions from the regional district and other persons involved in that hearing, although I do not have that file before me. We were advised - and I can't quote, of course, what the testimony was - that one of the main concerns with the regional district was that they did not have their plan in place. It was suggested rather than declared that one of the reasons they wanted the land to remain within an agricultural land reserve was that they did not have their planning in place. A representative of the regional district was advised that the purpose of the Land Commission was not for planning, but rather for the preservation of agricultural land. Another comment was that there was concern about some spawning grounds in the area, and it was suggested - by I'm not sure whom, precisely - that, indeed, this is well covered under the authority of the federal Ministry of Fisheries. And they do, of course, have authority over such areas.

As I said, I don't recall hearing back from Mr. Clarke subsequent to that letter in February. But I have heard that the regional district in the area is relatively satisfied with the situation and, through some of their representatives, is involved quite actively now with the federal Ministry of Fisheries relative to the spawning areas, I believe, in the Seymour River or Seymour Greek, or whatever its proper name my be.

But the opinion of the committee was that the arguments put- forward to retain this acreage in an agricultural land reserve were inadequate and it was the opinion of the committee that, based on the information presented to the hearing, the appeal should be upheld and granted, and thus it was done.

In Mr. Clarke's letter to myself - and perhaps you read the letter last evening; and I believe Mr. Clarke sent a copy of that letter to me, or at least a letter which contained the same information - I believe there was no reference to the agricultural value of that property. Mr. Clarke discusses the spawning area and other situations. I noted in my response to him that he had not mentioned agricultural values. It was only agricultural values that were being considered at that appeal.

MR. KING: Well, Mr. Chairman, as I understood the procedure, it was not up to regional district representatives to designate agricultural land or to measure the value and the quality of agricultural land. Indeed, the fact that it was in the AIR in the first instance would be as the result of those kinds of tests and those kinds of examinations by qualified experts from the Land Commission. For the minister to suggest that elected representatives to regional district boards should get into the debate as to the quality of agricultural land is a departure which I totally disagree with.

That is encouraging, in my view, the tendency that we have seen under this particular government to invite that kind of representation not only by politicians at the regional district level but politicians at the provincial level also. And I want to say that it is, in my view, most improper - absolutely impro-

[ Page 1863 ]

per - for MLAs and for local politicians to get into the position of making representations on behalf of land developers, or anyone else, that land should be removed from the land reserve because it is not appropriate for agricultural use. It is not up to the politicians to make that kind of determination. No such qualifications exist by the member for Shuswap (Mr. Bawtree) , for instance. There are professional people on the staff of the Land Commission who are charged with making that determination. In fact, Mr. Chairman, the tendency to shift to this kind of interference by elected officials is the kind of tendency which invites representation on behalf of friends or political supporters based on political considerations rather than technical considerations. And I suggest and I assert that that is most improper.

I can say, Mr. Chairman, that when people come to my office asking for assistance in terms of a redesignation of their land, my assistance extends only to explaining to them what the procedures are through which they might make such an application through the regional district board and to the Land Commission. I have steadfastly refused to endorse any such application because it's beyond my jurisdiction. Certainly it's beyond the competence of politicians to get into that kind of support. It lends itself, as I said, to political patronage rather than any technical assessment. And I'm surprised that the minister at least appears to be inviting and giving credence and support to that kind of strategy and that kind of procedure in his ministry.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I wish to address to the minister a few questions concerning this whole matter of the agricultural Land Act and the allocation of land for agricultural purposes and other uses in the province of British Columbia.

I happen to represent a portion of the province that is large in area and small in population, if you compared it to the lower mainland. I think that no one would disagree with that. But I would like to say, Mr. Chairman, that in that particular part of the province we run into many, many problems that have been created as a result of the present regulations respecting the use of Crown land that are, in my opinion, completely out of touch with the particular area that I represent.

I'd like to give you a few examples, through you to the minister, of some of the problems that I've encountered. This is just a thumbnail sketch, Mr. Minister, of several problems that I can recall that I've run into in the last few years.

For instance, the school district of North Peace River wished to relocate and consolidate three schools 35 miles north of Fort St. John. It was their hope to consolidate three one room schools into an area where they would build a new school and a new activity room and some facilities to accommodate the 130 to 150 students who needed education. Mr. Minister, because it was zoned agricultural, it took almost two years to get permission for a farmer to sell 10 acres of very, very rocky land, which was unproductive in terms of agriculture, to the school district so that they could build a school which improved the educational opportunity for 150 children in the area. It wasn't agricultural land, and the reason the school board chose that site was that it was central to the whole area of rural farm students who needed the facilities. That's just one example of the sort of thing that we run into in the north.

I can give you another example of an industry in Fort Nelson. I don't think it is any secret that we have two large sawmill complexes in Fort Nelson and, incidentally, the municipality of Fort Nelson is surrounded by half a million acres of Crown land. A lot of it is not productive; a lot of it is swamp and muskeg, agreed. But out of that half a million acres we've probably got at least 100,000 or more acres of land that could be utilized in one form or another, including agriculture, as a matter of fact, and for small holdings.

In this particular instance, a company applied for a piece of swamp - and that's what it was, swamp - for a log dump. They wanted to use it during the winter months to stockpile logs after the ground was frozen in that particular area so they then could feed the logs into the mill during the summer months. They received permission to use the land and purchase it, but the price that was quoted was for industrial use. They paid a substantial amount of money for a piece of swamp that had absolutely no use and no other purpose at all. It was unproductive; it would have never been productive. It couldn't be used for anything else, yet they were required, because they were an industry, to pay industrial prices for a piece of land that had no other use at all.

I've run into situations where tourist facilities along the Alaska Highway have applied for land for sewage lagoons, because of the requirement under the Ministry of Health to improve their facilities, and there again they've been charged a commercial price for the purchase of that land from the Grown. Yet beyond them are thousands of acres of

[ Page 1864 ]

Crown land, anywhere beyond the very edge of the Alaska Highway. These are people who provide services, Mr. Minister, for the traveling public. They live there, they make a contribution in terms of the facilities that they provide, and yet they're discriminated against - if I may use the word - by regulations which are not really applicable to the circumstances in that part of the country.

It happens time and time and time again. We have land sales come up in areas like Fort Nelson - there's one advertised now - for a few small parcels of land. They are what I would consider to be homesites. There's a great demand for homesites in Fort Nelson of three, four or five acres, so that people can use those sites. Yet the upset price, Mr. Minister, on that particular sale, which is advertised for July of this year, runs from $6,300 for one site. None of these sites is over 4.5 acres, but the upset price runs from $6,300 to almost $8,000. Mr. Minister, that's better than $1,500 per acre for land that will cost the purchaser several thousand dollars more in terms of clearing, because there is scrub timber on it that has to be removed. The only facility or utility that they are guaranteed is access to the Alaska Highway and power. That's all they get along with the land.

These are the types of problems which are brought to my attention time and time again. I hope the minister does not think I am being very critical of the department. What I am trying to do is bring to the minister's attention a problem which exists as a result of a different concept which we must recognize in respect to some parts of the province as compared to others. If that land was located in the Okanagan Valley or if it was located in the lower mainland or south of Hope, there would be some justification for the Crown to ask those prices. But in my opinion, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, there is no justification for setting those types of prices in newly developing areas, particularly when the Crown has control of almost all of the land surrounding areas like Fort Nelson, for instance, and areas along the Alaska Highway.

I would hope, Mr. Minister, we will be able to devise a programme which will take into consideration the areas of the province on a selective basis. I am not of the opinion that one Land Commission and one Land Act can accommodate all of the province of British Columbia. It is too large a province and it's too diversified in terms of land capability for one blanket proposal or one blanket Act to accommodate all situations. I think we have to consider regions of the province and the development of those regions in relation to other areas of the province, and devise some system where we can cut through the bureaucracy and the red tape that is presently surrounding so many of the applications 'that I become involved in each and every day.

I'm not blaming the minister and I'm not blaming the department. What I am saying is that I think there is a better way, and the better way is to devise rules and regulations which are acceptable in terms of preserving as much of the agricultural land as possible and still providing an opportunity for people to purchase land from the Grown and homesites if that's their desire. In many parts of the province - at least 50 per cent - that is a legitimate desire and a desire that we should give attention to in terms of the ministry.

MR. BAWTREE: Mr. Chairman, I find that I must protest the completely uninformed and unwarranted attack by the the member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) on the farmers and ranchers of this province. I don't mind the member attacking me. After all, I have been criticized by experts and it doesn't really bother me. But I must protest and ask him to apologize for the attack on the people of this province who are supplying food to the people of this province.

The member for Revelstoke-Slocan said I was not an expert. I would read from the Blues. The member says: "Mr. Chairman, the member for Shuswap is not a professional. He is not a soil expert. He is not a hydrologist. He has none of these skills and very few political skills also." Mr. Chairman, I want to tell you that I along with most of the ranchers and farmers in this province are professionals. If we weren't professionals we wouldn't be feeding the people of this province at the lowest cost of anywhere in the world.

He says we are not soil experts. I can assure you that we are. We can recognize a gravel pit when we see one. We know bedrock when we see it. He says we are not hydrologists. Yet most of us have a great deal of knowledge about the flow of water and the way it works on our land. Most of us are engineers as well. Even though we may not have any letters after our names we can manage water very adequately.

I want to tell that member that I, along with the ranchers and farmers of this province, feel that an apology is warranted. He also charged that I and the member for Fort George (Mr. Lloyd) approached the B.C. Land Commission in order to help our friends. Mr. Chairman, this also, as usual from that member

[ Page 1865 ]

over there, is a completely erroneous statement.

I have on many occasions visited people in my riding, and maybe people from outside of my riding, who needed assistance in one way or another. I gave my opinion as to the agricultural value of their land. I can assure that member, Mr. Chairman, that I do not write letters to the B.C. Land Commission in order to assist my friends. I don't even ask any of the people from my riding who come to my office wanting assistance what their political affiliation is.

Mr. Chairman, the member for Revelstoke Slocan stated last night: "The more important point is that it is inherently wrong for any politician to represent a group seeking to influence a provincial agency. For any politician to seek to influence that agency implies political manipulation. It implies political influence. It implies the porkbarrel, and it has no place in B.C. politics today." I would like to read into the record the history of a piece of property on Shuswap Lake. That piece of property has been farmed for many, many years. It dates back to about 1908, when it was first homesteaded by a chap by the name of Herald. This property was farmed by that family from this time on until 1975.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We are on vote 83, which is the minister's office.

MR. BAWTREE: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I'm getting onto land reserves and the jurisdiction.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Please allow the Chairman to make his point before interrupting.

We have had several discussions. Last night, I was beginning to wonder if it was the member for Revelstoke-Slocan's estimates, and now I'm wondering if it is your estimates. But it is really not. It is the Minister of the Environment's estimates, and we should be discussing those matters which are specifically covered in his administrative responsibilities. So please consider that in your debate.

MR. BAWTREE: Mr. Chairman, all matters relating to the Land Commission come under that minister's jurisdiction.

I want to relate that in 1975 that particular piece of property was still in a farm, owned by the original people who homesteaded it at the turn of the century. In 1975 the taxes on that land were $45.17. In 1973, when the Land Commission was formed, the taxes on that farm property were increased many times over. In 1974 the taxes on that farmland were increased some more until in 1975 the sole remaining owner, who is a spinster living on that piece of property, was assessed $2,703.17 after three years under that NDP administration. This' was a piece of farm property, and that owner could no longer retain that property because she couldn't raise $2,703.17 in order to pay the taxes.

The NDP administration took that property over; they bought that property from her. She was no longer able to retain that property in her name. They took it over as a park. They talk about political manipulation and how we shouldn't be involved in political manipulation. Yet that was a farm from 1907 and, obviously, it must be in the agricultural land reserve, mustn't it? The fact that that NDP government wanted to take it over for their own purposes wouldn't have any affect on this, would it? No, of course not.

However, I did write to the B.C. Land Commission in 1977 just to see what the status of the land was. This is the letter regarding the Herald Provincial Park on Shuswap Lake. "In response to your letter of July 11,1977, please be advised that the Herald Provincial Park has never been in the designated agricultural land reserve for the Regional District of Columbia-Shuswap." That member for Revelstoke-Slocan had the nerve to get up in this House and talk about political interference in the decisions of the Land Commission. Never in the history of this province have we had more political interference in decisions of the Land Commission or any other commission than when that administration was in power.

I want to assure this House and the people of my riding that when they come into my office and ask for my assistance - whether it's for problems they have with the B.C. Land Commission, ICBC, the Assessment Authority or any other of the multitude of authorities that we are governed by in this province today -they will have my assistance. When they come to me on matters of land I can give them my professional assistance, my professional opinion.

I want to assure you that I do not make any presentations on their behalf - as that member charged - to the Land Commission.

I would just like to say a few words. There has been a lot of discussion about a piece of property up on Seymour Arm. This Seymour Ann property has been there and been on the fringes of some agricultural enterprises for a number of years. Again, that area was homesteaded in 1908. The particular piece of property in question was never farmed, could never have been farmed. It is nothing but about 90 per cent gravel and rock. In fact,

[ Page 1866 ]

when Highways decided they wished to do some improvements in that area to the roads on adjoining pieces of property, they just went to this particular piece of property and dug a borrow-pit, and there was the gravel right on the surface. If that piece of property was down in the Okanagan or near the Vancouver area, I can assure you it would not be available for subdivision. It would not be available for farming either because it would be far too valuable as a gravel pit.

I'm concerned, as I'm sure all members are, about the problems that may develop if we are not careful with the salmon spawning in that area. But I can assure you that you are not going to preserve the salmon spawning beds in that area by turning it over to agricultural uses and clearing it all off. We would have nothing but a gravel wasteland in that area. We would have terrific erosion because the snowfall in the area is very close to that in Revelstoke. The erosion, in my opinion, would wipe out or very seriously damage the salmon spawning in the Seymour River. Therefore I have discussed on many occasions with the salmonid enhancement programme people, developers in the area and other people who are knowledgeable on the subject ways of trying to protect that resource which we have in that river. I'm sure that it can be protected. But it will not be protected if we're going to start bulldozing all the tree cover and trying to make a farm out of a piece of land that is really nothing but gravel.

The only thing I want to add is to assure the people in my riding that when they come to me for assistance and want my opinion about the agricultural potential of their land, I will give it to them freely. I will not ask whether they are my supporters or not, as that member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) indicated he does.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, not too many questions were posed by the last member speaking, but the member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) had some observations and questions. I appreciate him describing some of the difficulties associated with land and several of the examples given - the school district problem, the two-year wait, the agricultural land at Fort Nelson, and so on. There are certainly problems. There is no question that legislation which is drafted for a province the size of British Columbia, with its incredibly diverse areas, climatic conditions and many, many other problems - topography and so on....

I think that perhaps there is a tendency to draft legislation as it relates to the more heavily populated areas, particularly the Fraser Valley, Okanagan Valley, Vancouver Island and others. I believe very strongly that a delegation from the Peace River today had a few suggestions which, I think, were well thought out, excellent, relative to the Land Commission - how they could make the Land Commission concept work better and how it could be implemented so that it benefited the citizens of British Columbia rather than caused some difficulties for many of the citizens. I think their thoughts were very, very good. It was suggested that more people from the north or from other specific areas should be members of the Land Commission. That's hard to disagree with. One of the problems, of course, is that when you have a commission, you wish to limit the number of members. It's impossible to represent all areas of the province and all professions associated with agriculture. So I guess a government can do the best it can with people they believe to have the capability to function as commissioners. It was suggested, and it is certainly worthy of consideration, that what we perhaps need is an office of the Land Commission in a northern area - perhaps Prince George or north of Prince George - staffed with people who are acquainted with the north and who understand what agriculture means in the north, not what agriculture means in the lower Fraser Valley or the Okanagan.

Many of the problems associated with the Land Commission have been with it since day one, because many of the maps were drawn up rather hastily - a broad-bush concept, based on information which was badly outdated. So today we find applications coming to the Land Commission for exclusion of lands from an agricultural land reserve which is completely subdivided and has existing homes all through the area. It was included because the maps which were used at that time did not recognize subdivision which had taken place some years after the mapping had taken place. So certainly the boundaries are far from being accurate.

The chairman of the Land Commission a few months back suggested to me that there is probably about a million acres of land within the agricultural land reserves in the province that very likely shouldn't be in. But also there's probably a million acres outside that should be in. That's to be expected because it's physically impossible to inspect 11.5 million acres even in a few years. So there are going to be situations where lands are improperly in and some lands are perhaps improperly out.

The lots in Fort Nelson interest me a great deal. You quote $6,300 to $8,000 as an upset

[ Page 1867 ]

price. The policy of the government of British Columbia for many, many years under the Land Act has been that land which is disposed of to a private individual should be disposed of at market price. The upset price you mentioned should, I stress, reflect market value. That's how they're supposed to be achieved - market value.

One other option in some situations on a Grown subdivision would be that the upset price would reflect either market value or the actual cost of creating those lots. I find those prices to be rather high for that area of the province. I've already asked senior staff in lands management to have a look at those assessments and see how accurate they may be. It's our intent to provide land to people in British Columbia at the lowest possible rate, but we do not wish to destroy the market of land by flooding the market with cheap Grown land, if you want to call it that, and therefore cause great distress to many other people. But certainly when we're putting land up for sale, we want to do so at the most reasonable possible price to the individual. I regret those costs if they are out of line, and we will check into that.

Just by way of an example, one lot was recently auctioned, I believe, near Cranbrook. The upset price was, I believe, just over $8,000 for a 4.5-acre lot. The upset price was met and in addition a bonus bid of $10,000 was made for the land. I can hardly wait to hear the new owner appeal his assessment next time. But there are some strange things that do occur when it comes to values placed on land. The Land Act does impose some difficulties in people making these assessments because it suggests that market value is the reasonable price.

I very much appreciate the comments. The period of time that it takes to get land is scandalous in British Columbia. Unfortunately, it's been a fact of life for many years. I mentioned earlier that we have strengthened our land and water field staff to try and re solve these problems, to try and speed it up. I have been assured, and I have some faith in the assurance from the people who advised me, that we can see light at the end of the tunnel. Possibly the backlog could be cleaned up within a year. That backlog, I might men tion, is many years old. We processed perhaps 5,000 applications in a year, but we started the year with a backlog of 6,500. So we've never been able to quite catch up. And yes, sometimes it takes three years. That's just not to be condoned; that will be modified. We do have people moving out into the field and resolving that problem.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I would like to introduce to the House a very fine group of people who traveled from Surrey today - the senior citizens from St. Helen's Park. Also with them is Jack Ingleson who organizes these trips on a regular basis. I would ask all members to make them welcome.

MR. SMITH: I am just going to be brief. I do want to continue along the line of what I've been discussing with the minister. Might I say to the minister that the auction that is advertised for Fort Nelson may very well result in bonuses being paid to the Crown over and above the --ice that you are asking, for the simple reason that you only have six parcels available of small acreages for homesites at this particular time, when the demand is several times that? So what will happen is a few of the people will probably pay the government's price, plus a bonus, in order to have a place to build a home.

I suggest to the minister and the officials of his ministry that that is not the way we should be going, particularly when with the exception of a very, very minute amount of land in the Fort Nelson area, everything surrounding that whole community is owned by the Grown. There are hundreds of thousands of acres of Grown land - some of it is not good land, but some of it is. The area encompassed by the corporation of Fort Nelson and the area that we've been developing serviced homesites on, I think, is working out reasonably well where within the incorporation, the water, the sewers, the streets and so on have been going in. This is fulfilling a demand for those people who wish to live in the incorporated area. But we have many, many people up there who wish to live outside on a small acreage, and when there are so many acres of Crown land available, that has got to be a legitimate desire on their part. They like to have a home outside of the city or outside of the incorporation; they like to have a horse for the kids. To ask the prices we're asking for four to four and a half acres of what is basically a homesite - $6,000 to $8,000 - is, in my opinion, extortion. It's a price over and above what should be asked by the Crown for those properties.

All I can say to the minister is that if instead of six sites we had 60 or 100 available, we might find that the price offered would be substantially less. But there is a requirement; there is a desire and a need up there to be filled. I believe because the government has the land - it's Crown land - we should be looking more closely at that particular need and not charge everything that the

[ Page 1868 ]

traffic might bear for a few small individual parcels at a time, but try to accommodate the demand as it appears in an area like that at a price that will get those people onto homesites. They become permanent residents in the area and thereby are very much part of the fabric of a newly developing community.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, I rise only in response to the honourable gentleman from Shuswap (Mr. Bawtree) who, on the second occasion since this House has been in session, rose to make a few remarks. Although one cannot describe the honourable gentleman from Shuswap as being the firebrand of the Social Credit caucus, he must be held responsible for his remarks in this House, which is protected by privilege.

I would think that the honourable gentleman, who speaks slowly and deliberately, would do likewise in his thought process. I will not include his reference to some sort of garbled charge about Herald Park, which nobody seems to understand. Perhaps he could collect his thoughts, put them down on paper and circulate them. But he did say that there was never more political interference with the Land Commission than under the New Democratic Party administration.

Well, let me tell you, Mr. Chairman, that there's a trial that has just been decided by the Supreme Court of British Columbia. The appeal period has expired so we can speak about the matter without fear of offending the rule of sub judice. That trial involved a defamation suit brought by a member of the New Democratic Party against a person who made the same remark outside of this House. The Supreme Court of British Columbia heard witnesses, including the former members of the Land Commission, officers and other people involved, and the judgment was that there was absolutely no political interference whatsoever from the cabinet level on down with the Land Commission as it was composed under the New Democratic Party administration.

For that member to stand for only the second or third time in this session and dump that kind of poison on the floor of this committee is a disgraceful performance from any given MLA. It's absolutely disgraceful. I certainly hope that the honourable gentleman from Shuswap becomes more considerate in his remarks in this Legislature. No wonder he doesn't speak often, Mr. Chairman. He probably is very fearful to do so. He has this uncontrollable urge to slander people under the protection of this Legislature.

Secondly, Mr. Chairman, it cannot go only in passing, but perhaps it should go only in passing. The remarks made by the hon. minister last night were intemperate. They displayed a widespread and personal contempt for a number of people, not only an individual member of this Legislature. They were certainly remarks that were totally unbecoming a minister of the Crown. I hope he's had an evening to reflect on what he said and regrets it very much.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Thank you, father.

MR. STEPHENS: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to ask a very brief question of the minister. I'd like to know whether or not his department has involved itself or is about to involve itself in the South Moresby wilderness proposal in the Queen Charlotte Islands. Do you feel that it's part of your responsibility to become involved in that matter, and if so, what have you done and what do you intend to do about it?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'd like all members to take note of the fact that that was a perfect example of a question that is in order. Questions like that will be most welcome by the Chairman.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The question is at the moment before the Ministry of Recreation and Conservation. I believe it will probably come before the Environment and Land Use Committee, of which I'm chairman, but at the moment representations have been made to the Ministry of Recreation and Conservation, and I believe representations have also been made to the Ministry of Forests. We have been advised of the interest of the various organizations in that area. I've spoken to some of the representatives and have advised them that certainly we would be prepared to look at their information and recommendations. At the moment the Ministries of Recreation and Conservation and Forests are communicating with the persons who are proposing this wilderness area.

MR. STEPHENS: The minister says his ministry has made recommendations. Would you please tell us what recommendations you have made to the other ministries?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: We haven't yet.

MR. STEPHENS: All right, then let me ask you this. I understand that Mr. Foster of your ministry has done quite an extensive study on the area. Are you familiar with that study?

HON. R. NIELSEN: No, not that study. Do you want to ask any more questions? Do you have

[ Page 1869 ]

any more?

MR. STEPHENS: Well, I might have more questions, depending upon the answer to this one.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I'm not familiar with the study on this area by Mr. Foster, although there my be one in existence.

MR. STEPHENS: Just let me point out to the minister that perhaps he should read it. It is a very excellent study. It was prepared for Parks Canada, and I'm sure that he could obtain a copy from his ministry without any difficulty at all. I would suggest to the minister it might be well worth his while to read it so that when he gets involved in this proposal he will have considerable knowledge on the subject.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: We don't establish parks.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your remarks regarding the question from the member for Oak Bay. But I would point out that in committee when we are discussing estimates is the only opportunity that we have to get into a discussion of the direction of government, and very often remarks from the opposition have to be a great deal more than just question and answer. it is not only the opportunity of the opposition to raise points during estimates, but it is also their obligation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I appreciate your thoughts on the matter, hon. member. I would ask you to perhaps, if you feel strongly about it, review relevancy at your leisure. I'm sure it's in May's 19th edition.

MRS. WALLACE: As I say, I appreciate the problems you have, Mr. Chairman, with many of us at many times, and I will try to keep my remarks relevant.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I believe also that the Chair's remarks are addressed to all members of the House and not specifically to the official opposition. Please continue.

MRS. WALLACE: I have some grave problems trying to grasp just what is the position of the Minister of the Environment on a great many of the subjects that fall under his purview. He stood in the House last night - and I am very appreciative of the fact that he is not quite as arrogant as he was last night in his answers today - and indicated that he was very much in favour of the preservation of river estuaries. And yet, Mr. Chairman, I stood on the same platform with that minister in Duncan when he attempted to take a straw vote of the people attending that meeting to try to ascertain whether or not they were in favour of development in a specific estuary -namely, the Cowichan estuary.

Now I just don't understand a Minister of the Environment who can stand in this Legislature and say that he favours the protection of river estuaries and yet would involve himself in that kind of an exercise on a public platform - attempting to take a straw vote to find out whether or not the people who were attending that meeting were in favour of development in a river estuary. This is, to me, a complete disregard of his responsibilities. He is charged with the protection of the environment and, as such, that is his prime duty. Instead of that, we find him involved, as has been indicated, with the economic development aspect.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

He has been responsible, as much as any other person, for creating the kind of confrontation that is developing around this province which would make the general public think that if they're going to have economic development, we cannot protect the environment. He has created that kind of confrontation and it's a most unfortunate situation that we find ourselves in, because we can move in both directions, Mr. Chairman. He has created the impression that anyone who stands up and criticizes his inaction in protecting the environment is some kind of a heretic who is ill-informed, who hasn't done his research and who does not know what they're talking about.

I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that there are many very responsible organizations and groups and governments who are taking a stand that is quite contradictory to this minister's stand. I would point, for example, to a recent release from the federal government; it's entitled "Human Activity and the Environment." This release points out that man no longer has frontiers to which he can expand. There are no new frontiers and we must learn to live within our present confines and to live in harmony with our environment rather than in opposition to it. That is a report which has been issued by the federal government of this country. This is not some offshoot, some heretic, some ill-informed body; this is a responsible government agency that has come out with this statement and has indicated that we must move in that direction. The Hon. Len Marchand, in

[ Page 1870 ]

speaking in an address that: he gave in February, said: "Preventing and control of environment damage has grown into a thriving industry in Canada, an industry that creates new jobs and technology that other nations are buying from us."

Protection of the environment is not something that is going to take away our jobs, Mr. Chairman; it's not something that's going to stifle our economy. Until that minister is prepared to recognize that fact and stand up and fight for the protection of the environment, I see very little purpose being served by him for the province of British Columbia and for the citizens of British Columbia. He is not prepared to take that stand. He is not prepared to come out and take a stand that will, in the long term, bring us far greater return than the short-term sort of approach that has been taken by this present government.

I'm concerned about what this minister and this government are doing in using their friends. You know, 1 have been put into a position of constantly having to monitor what goes on in the Cowichan estuary. As a result of that I have been put in a position of appearing to be opposed to the Doman Industries developments there. I have no quarrel with Doman Industries, but I do have a quarrel with a government that makes rules and regulations and then doesn't enforce them. I am concerned, Mr. Chairman, when the minister tells me that he has now at long last decided to issue a cease and desist order; I am concerned about how long that minister was aware of what was happening in the Cowichan estuary. How long did he know that there was development taking place there that was contrary to his order-in-council? Did he deliberately sit on his hands until someone blew the whistle and made it necessary for him to act? I'm concerned about these kind of problems. I'm concerned about that minister who is more interested in how many suits he takes when he goes out on a tour than he is about the environment.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MRS. WALLACE: Well, he has two executive assistants, and I see them running around the corridors of this building carrying.... Whenever the minister is leaving, his two executive assistants are traveling with him carrying his suits and his suitcases and his various....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, that hardly relates to the administrative responsibilities of the minister.

MRS. WALLACE: Well, I'm concerned that he is more interested in this sort of object than he is in the protection of the environment. He's more interested in his own appearance than he is in what's happening to the environment.

You know, Mr. Chairman, there are many, many responsible groups around this province that are taking a responsible attitude toward the environment. I have spoken about the federal report; I've spoken about Minister Marchand.

The recent technical seminar of the Society of Engineering Technologists made their theme "Technology and the Environment." The spent their whole conference discussing how these two things go hand in hand. Those are the kinds of programmes that this minister should be associating himself with. Those are the kinds of activities that he should be directing his attention towards. Instead w find far more attention on putting 2, 4-D in the Okanagan lakes. I understand that now it is spreading to Cultus Lake.

If it's a question the minister wants, Mr. Chairman, I would like to know what his plans are for Cultus Lake. Is he preparing to go ahead and treat Cultus Lake with 2, 4-D? Because there has been some milfoil found in that area, I understand.

It's been mentioned that Hydro has been prepared to cut back and in many instances to desist from the use of 2, 4-D because of possible unknown hazards to human life from that substance. In my constituency Pacific Logging was all prepared to move in with a stump treatment of 2, 4-D. When new evidence presented itself, what was the action of Pacific Logging? They stopped. They said: "No, we will not go ahead with that programme." Yet the government of this province, under the leadership of that minister, who should be giving the kind of leadership to get more companies and more Grown corporations involved in being more aware of what is going on, is saying: "No, we are going ahead."

I have another specific question for the minister. This relates to land use. I understand that in South Surrey - an area that the minister should be familiar with - Hydro has a proposed Sunnyside location and they are looking for leases for minerals rights. This land is in the AIR. I'm wondering whether or not the minister is going to let this development go ahead. If Hydro gets the rights they are asking for there, generally speaking it is certainly not going to be in line with the Land Commission and the AIR. I would like his comments on what his stand is on that particular instance and into what position it has

[ Page 1871 ]

moved.

Naturally I want to talk a little bit about the Ladysmith harbour. The minister was good enough to meet with a delegation of local citizens who came to see him recently and he appeared very interested in what they had to say. He indicated at that time that he would visit the area and have a look himself. I'm wondering whether or not he has been there yet and what his comments are if he has seen the harbour first hand. There seems to be a rumour around that what is being asked for as a result of his committee which is reviewing this thing for log storage is no more than it was previously. It is supposed to be a better location because it has moved out of some of the areas, but in fact it is an increase of approximately 50 acres.

When that delegation met with the minister and reviewed with him what has been happening in the Ladysmith harbour, I was very surprised that he seemed completely unaware of what was going on. Apparently he was unaware that transient logs were stored there. I don't know where the minister has been. I have raised this question every year since I have been in this House, but apparently he was unaware of it. At least that is what he told the delegation. He seems to be unaware of what is happening there. He seem to be prepared to sit back and let the logging interests stymie any joint multiple use of that harbour until such time as it is completely dead. I'm wondering whether he has had a change of heart, whether he has been up there, whether he has reviewed that harbour and whether he is prepared to take some action to ensure that that harbour is protected.

The committee has had to operate by consensus at the instruction of that minister. It has gotten absolutely nowhere because two members of that committee have refused to agree to anything that the majority wants. Because they say no and because it has to be a consensus nothing has gone ahead. Of course, those two representatives represent the logging interests in the harbour.

Another point that I want to raise with the minister relates to his staff member who is charged with the responsibility of looking at land with a view to assembling land for recreation - in this particular instance, the recreational area at White Crown. I raised this matter under the Minister of Recreation and Conservation's (Hon. Mr. Bawlf's) estimates, and he assured me - and his staff assure me - that they would be prepared to look at this. But they can't do anything until they have the land released.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Released from what?

MRS. WALLACE: This land is presently owned by Grown Zellerbach and MacMillan Bloedel. They are, I understand, prepared to make a swap. Now the original thinking was that they wanted virgin timber for logged-over land, but that was surmounted years ago, before this minister was responsible. Crown Zellerbach are not asking for that kind of exchange.

I've spoken with the chap who does the reviews of this. He indicated that he's been there - once. He thought he'd found the right place. He traveled alone. This was some four or five years ago; he hasn't been back. This is a continuing, long-standing problem.

It's an area that is much wanted by local residents. There is a committee set up that's really pushing for this. They don't want just a professional ski area. It's a family recreation area they're looking for, and they're most anxious to have that land freed up so that development can go ahead. Now I think that the man who is looking at these things is thinking in terms of some sort of professional ski area. That is not what these people have in mind, and I would urge the minister to have some input into this thing so we can get that land freed up for some kind of a family park. It's within an hour's drive of Victoria and would be a great boon to people who live on Vancouver Island.

I want to turn to another facet of the minister's responsibility and this lies in the field of water resources. I'm sure the minister is aware of the water licensing provisions which relate to surface water, but I wonder if the minister is aware that in this province we have absolutely no licensing provisions for ground water. I wonder if the minister is aware of the importance of ground water to many individuals and to many communities in this province. Ground water is very susceptible to being drained off by adjacent wells. It's very easy to destroy a whole town's water supply by simply sinking another well for another purpose and draining that water away. I'm particularly concerned about this because of my own area and because of the [illegible] situation that we have in many parts of British Columbia, but particularly on Vancouver Island. We have a situation in the Cowichan Valley, for example, where the sole water resource of the North Cowichan municipality and the city of Duncan is ground water. Now it's quite feasible that at the present time any industry - for example, a pulp mill -could come in and sink a well to provide water for that kind of an industry and drain away that entire resource of the residents living

[ Page 1872 ]

in that area.

What I'm asking, Mr. Chairman, is that we have some legislation to license ground water. I have contacted the people in the minister's ministry. We've had quite some correspondence on this. They tell me they are studying it, but it's a long way down the road before we're going to have any action. I suggest to the minister that that's not really good enough. We have been studying ground water for years in this province. His own ministry has been studying ground water. There've been extensive studies done. One was done in the Prince George area; there have been studies done in the Cowichan Valley; there have been studies done by federal authorities; there have been studies done by American authorities. An American study that was done in 1971 recognized that they had to get on with the job in the States because if we got ahead of them here in Canada, we could spoil their source of ground water if we were to start licensing ground water here. It's been going on for a long time - the studies, the technology. The knowledge regarding how this water lies and how it can be tapped is well established.

As far as the legislative end of it, Mr. Chairman, we have ground- water licensing all around us. Alberta has ground water licensing; Washington state has ground-water licensing; Australia has ground-water licensing. The Acts are there; the legislation is there. It's working in other countries. I would urge the minister to move quite a bit more quickly to ensure that we protect this resource here in British Columbia.

We cannot let it go on with no restrictions. I live in an unorganized area where the only water supply is wells. Every time somebody moves into that area and puts down a well, somebody else's well goes dry. It's just not good enough to have this very valuable resource with no controls, no restrictions. We've seen fit to license surface water for a long, long time, and ground water is, at this point in time, equally important, if not more important. It's a potential future source, and we must have some control over that very valuable resource, that first resource as far as the citizens of British Columbia are concerned.

I would appreciate the minister's comments on that and my other questions.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Certainly the members last comments about ground water are well appreciated and shared by the. water resources branch of the ministry. Indeed, they are moving on it quite quickly. I do not know if we can expect legislation to be before us certainly not this session - but I would think that we would very likely see regulations in place in the foreseeable future. It no doubt will be very bureaucratic and quite expensive to implement at the beginning. We are working with the well drillers' association and other interested persons to determine how best to go about licensing well drillers, the regulations necessary for that, and so on.

A significant portion of the population is served by wells - between 10 and 15 per cent are served by wells - and the topography in British Columbia makes it very difficult from a technical point of view to identify the extent of the aquifers and other situations. Many provinces and many states brought in legislation to deal with ground water because it is easier to do on the Prairies, as an example, than it is in British Columbia. Of course, the same need is not in B.C. as it is in some of the other provinces. But we're moving on that with all due haste.

The member discussed the Duncan meeting. I thought perhaps members of the House might be desirous of having the statements made by the member for Cowichan-Malahat completed rather than left hanging. I asked the 620 people in that meeting, or whatever number it was, on Valentine's Day in Duncan what their opinion was, because their opinion was not being heard We had the opinion of the local government; we had the opinion of the regional district; we had the opinion of the MIA; we had the opinion of one or two organizations. But the Ministry of the Environment had not the opinion of the people who were living there, and certainly had never had the opportunity of finding out what the opinion was of those specific people who were interested enough to attend that meeting. So I asked them what their opinion was. I asked them who would be in favour - and that's what you mentioned - but I also asked them who would be opposed, which fills in what was said that evening.

One of the problems, I guess, with the people in that area is one which is common throughout the province and maybe throughout Canada. A lot of people may have an opinion but they just do not express it. After that meeting, certainly many, many people took an opportunity to offer their opinion. Prior to that perhaps not more than half a dozen had by way of letter, but they've certainly responded since then.

But the question was: "Are you in favour?" And the question was also asked: "Are you opposed?" That's getting some opinion from the people who had taken the time to come to that meeting and had expressed an interest in the future of the area. We've heard from many of

[ Page 1873 ]

them since.

The member mentioned, I believe, that stands have been taken on the Cowichan. Just for the information of the members in the House, stands indeed have been taken by levels of government on the Cowichan, but I am not aware of a stand having been taken on the Cowichan specifically by the federal government. However, the local government - it's North Cowichan - has advised me that they are in favour of limited development of the Cowichan estuary. The regional district - it's the Cowichan Valley regional district, I believe -has also advised by way of resolution that they are in favour. The Indian band has advised by way of resolution that they are in favour. So as you've said, some have taken a stand. That report should be presented to us probably at the end of next month or soon thereafter.

The milfoil problem has spread from the Okanagan lakes, or at least in addition to the Okanagan lakes, to Cultus Lake and other waterways up the Fraser system. We have reasons to suspect that it's probably located elsewhere in the province. Perhaps we simply haven't found it yet because people may not use those relatively small lakes.

The two main concerns at Cultus Lake, I suppose.... The people who are concerned at the moment, the citizens, are those who are concerned about the threat to the recreational value of the lake. The other concern is with the people who are responsible for the fish hatchery nearby. We are working with the federal government on this issue and we have had some biologists in the area explaining to those persons immediately concerned what milfoil is and what kind of a problem it is. But no programme has been introduced at Cultus Lake at this time. The federal government is a major partner in determining what programme may be used.

The mineral rights on that land the member referred to in south Surrey would come under the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources. I really don't know what the intent is. You're talking about Hydro. It suggests perhaps some underground storage of natural gas or something. It may be ALR land but that's on top of the land, not the mineral rights. If they obtain the mineral rights, presumably you could still cultivate soil even though there's a cavity many many feet below. I presume that's what they were discussing in south Surrey.

Yes, I was in the Ladysmith harbour. The problem as outlined to us was not transient logs being stored but transient logs being sorted in the harbour. The people we discussed it with were concerned about the transient logs coming in and being sorted in that harbour and then being hauled out again. Many of them felt that they didn't mind logs coming in and being stored for purposes of providing logs for their own sawmills. There seems to be one or two particularly difficult spots in the harbour. One is Burleith Arm, where I think Pacific Logging sorts. That seems to be a very touchy problem. The other is a proposed area which apparently is a very minimum environmental impact. The logs were stored there but the people don't want them because they live nearby. So that's being sorted out.

The advisory committee, I understand, has agreed to approximately 50 out of 75 recommendations rather than being in total disagreement, as you suggested. I believe they have also agreed that the problems that they have not recommended be resolved by the ministry, relative to the plan of the harbour, and they are going to have a look at the plan once it is in place.

I will have to do some research on the White Crown question. I believe Mr. Al Raine has been in some discussion either with yourself or others. From your remarks I think I heard the land is privately owned, which makes it a different matter and a bit of a more complicated matter. But I think Mr. Raine has probably provided some good information for the organization or individuals who are attempting to acquire that property for ski use. I guess the Minister of Forests would have something to say about it as well.

MRS. WALLACE: I would just like to follow up on the Ladysmith harbour, and I thank the minister for his answers. In connection with Ladysmith harbour he mentioned that there had been an agreement on X number of points. I think that to be very clear we should see just how that thing is operating. We had a proposal brought in by staff people because that committee could not come to a consensus on anything. So they were taking it point: by point - in fact, lease by lease. Certain things were being agreed to, sure. It was agreed that, for example, the marina should have the right to have their lease extended. But then when it came to agreeing whether or not the present log lease in front of that area should be removed because in order to extend the marina you have to do that, that was not agreed to. So really the fact that you agreed to the marina extension didn't accomplish anything if you didn't agree to removing the log lease that was in front of it.

The oyster people were prepared to agree to the removal of certain oyster leases that were

[ Page 1874 ]

necessary for one small operator there to have his log boom close to his mill. They were agreeable to that even though it was valuable oyster land. At the same time, when it came to changing a forestry lease to allow the oyster production to expand or to allow a marina establishment to expand, the forestry people did not agree to that.

So that kind of an agreement - those 25 points - really don't amount to very much, Mr. Minister, when you have that kind of contradiction occurring. It is sort of breaking off a piece at a time, and you don't get an overall plan by taking one little piece like that at a time and agreeing or disagreeing. You get nothing but confusion and a completely disrupted harbour management scheme. That system of simply breaking off one piece at a time and trying to get agreement on that without looking at the overall context is just going to get you nowhere in an overall harbour management scheme.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, I would like to very briefly raise a few issues with the minister this afternoon.

The first one relates to the Island Copper Mine on the northern part of Vancouver Island and the dumping of tailings into Rupert Inlet. The minister is well aware that the federal Environmental Protection Service expressed alarm some six months ago about the tailings that were being dumped into Rupert Inlet. The Environmental Protection Service at that time indicated that the damage to the environment from the tailings was extensive and that it may be irreversible. At the same time, we had conflicting opinions with respect to the environment at Utah Mines Ltd. on the northern part of the Island - Island Copper Mines.

Since the minister established a special committee to investigate the two separate findings which were so divergent, I would like to know what the situation is at the moment. I would assume, after six months, the people responsible - Dr. Buchanan, who is head of the environmental studies division within the Ministry of the Environment - would have had time to analyse the findings of the two groups and will be able to report to us today what the situation is.

If there is a problem, I am wondering whether or not the minister has considered some alternate means of dealing with the mine tailings from Island Copper Mine up near Port Hardy. What kind of proposals are being presented to him? How might we be able to ensure that the operation of the mine can continue without damaging the environment? I would really like to know what the most up-to-date information is with respect to Rupert Inlet and the northern part of Vancouver Island.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

The other issue which I would like to raise, Mr. Chairman, is really an appeal to the minister. For approximately four or five years, there has been a group of people in the northern part of the Island who have been trying to get some Crown land so that they can develop it for housing purposes. It is a unique experiment in that the people themselves wish to develop this land and proceed with the subdivision, doing a lot of the work on their own. I know governments move slowly, Mr. Chairman, but I am appealing to the minister this afternoon to ensure that some of that red tape is cut. Those people have been waiting now for five years, working with that organization known as the North Island Land Lovers, trying to get that land released out of the tree-farm licence so that they can develop their own subdivision up on the northern part of Vancouver Island.

The last thing I would like to raise with the minister at this time relates to a study that has taken 22 months to prepare on the Campbell River estuary. That study has been carried out by the Ministry of the Environment, Fish and Wildlife people, the Regional District of Comox-Strathcona and the Ministry of Economic Development. I have a few questions to ask with respect to that study.

The minister has now had the final study for a month or so. I'm wondering if he has had an opportunity to read it. If so, could he indicate to the House this afternoon the kind of action he might be recommending as a result of this very extensive study on the Campbell River estuary? Could he also tell the House why the Ministry of Economic Development decided to pull out of that study at an early date? The Ministry of Economic Development apparently just decided that the study was not worth doing, and I have not been able to determine why the ministry made this decision. I'm hoping that the minister can tell us this afternoon.

The other thing in relation to this study is the kind of action that the minister might contemplate. He talked earlier about his concern for estuaries. There is a very clear indication of the kind of damage that can be done to estuaries through the development of industry at Campbell River, and the whole object of the exercise, Mr. Chairman, was to try to recover that estuary. I'm wondering what kind of recommendations the minister is prepared to make to his cabinet colleagues

[ Page 1875 ]

with respect to relocation of the industry. What kind of costs is he prepared to recommend to his fellow cabinet members in order to relocate industry there? Is he prepared, perhaps, to meet with federal Fisheries people who are spending a lot of taxpayers' money at this stage on a salmon enhancement programme? Unless estuaries such as at Campbell River are cleaned up - brought back so that fish can live in them - there is not much point in spending all of that money on a salmon enhancement programme. I would appreciate the minister's comments on those three issues.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just before I recognize the minister, I hope the member wasn't misquoted in the paper today when it mentioned that it's your birthday.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: To the member for Comox: on the Island Copper, you're quite right. The committee was established, and the latest information from the two doctors is that they require a great deal of information, and they say it's going to take some months yet before they have their recommendations. It's perhaps a bit of an unfortunate situation associated with that in that the attitudes of two responsible groups would be so different in their conclusions and their reading of a situation. They are quite different, and this is why we felt it was necessary that the Ministry of the Environment - provincially and federally - try and find out what the situation is, or at least what the two could agree on as to the situation, rather than having these very divergent opinions. They advise us it's going to take time; they must get more information.

I certainly don't have the licence before me, but it's my understanding that part of the licence for the dumping of those tailings included a bond and the possibility of land disposal as an alternative built into the licence. If the studies were to indicate that this should be halted immediately - presumably, if the mine is to continue operation -they would have to go to land disposal, which is not necessarily without problems itself, but it may be the alternative. And, if that were not possible, then who knows what someone would recommend.

The people you spoke of, those individuals who were looking for this Grown land .... I believe the land is in a forest reserve at the moment. I spoke with representatives of their group - I'm not sure which city it was - last year, I believe, and we discussed some of their problems. I know that it was being pursued at that time by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, which was responsible for that type of subdivision, and Forests, about removing the land from a forest reserve. It's not actively being logged or something, but I think it's in a forest reserve. So I'll try and check to see what the latest is. I haven't heard from these people since that time and I put it out of my mind because I believed it was being properly handled.

The Campbell River estuary study has been available to me for a couple of weeks and I have had the opportunity to read through it. I've also asked some senior staff to summarize it and offer some critical comment, which they're doing.

I'm sorry, I don't know what your reference was to Economic Development. I'd have to ask them what their attitude was toward that. Rather than being that specific about the Campbell River estuary, perhaps Campbell River is a more dramatic example than some of the others, and history gets involved in this and traditions and attitudes, I suppose, which change over the time. Raven Lumber being situated where it is - right in the centre of that estuary - and having been there for a number of years, and different attitudes which have prevailed and different pressures on that area have caused what we know to be the problem today.

Relocation of industry naturally would be expensive and there is always the question of who should cover the cost. I suppose it will be argued by some people, if you're discussing relocation, that perhaps it would be better to allow the mill or the existing plant to expire, if you like, through the normal period of time where the mill would get to a point where it would have to be torn down anyway, rather than move it and re--establish at this time. So there are many, many alternatives that will be considered.

I think that the Campbell River estuary situation demands a remedy. I don't believe it can be left as it is, because as I suggested it's perhaps the worst example of what happens to estuaries over the years. I think some strong action must be taken. It is going to require a great deal of negotiation; it's going to require a great deal of co-operation.

I think the federal government should be part of the solution with specific reference to their salmonid programme. If the federal government were to advise us that they feel so strongly about the salmon resource in that river, then perhaps they should feel some responsibility in assisting that resource. Perhaps that would be by way of arrangements to relocate industry, move some of the log storage to other areas or to a dry-land storage. These are various situations which

[ Page 1876 ]

could present themselves. That will be presented to the Environment and Land Use Committee in the immediate future for consideration as well. We will then have reports to make public on what the recommendations are and what the decisions are, if any, of the government. It is not going to be resolved quickly - the actual estuary problem. I think what can be resolved fairly quickly is what direction we are going in.

MR. COCKE: I just have one or two words to say. I believe that this minister, having shown his attitude toward 2, 4-D in the interior as far as the Okanagan Lake chain is concerned, and having interpreted reports the way he has, is hooked on 2, 4-D. He's almost like the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) and his budworms.

It gets even closer to home- than one would imagine. I have before me a large picture taken on the lawns of the parliament buildings, where one of our employees is pushing around a 2, 4-D sprayer. It is marked right on it - 2, 4-D. We couldn't believe it until we blew it up, and there it was - 2, 4-D, probably right outside the Environment minister's window. Now I would worry, if I were he. It's one thing to have it pumped into the lakes in the Okanagan, but it's certainly another thing to have it right on our lawns where barefoot children might be playing. I will send this picture over so that the minister can have a look at it, and see whether or not he wants to admonish any of his colleagues for their behaviour in this regard.

[Mr. Kerster in the chair.]

I would like to say one word about the whole question of the Okanagan Lake chain, and that is that I believe that for every plant you kill you create food for the next plants to grow, so that 2, 4-D actually takes nothing out of the system at all. All it does is create more nutrients for successive generations of plants. There have been many, many studies of this area.

I realize what a serious problem it is, and certainly I sympathize with any environment minister having to make decisions around how you are going to eliminate the problem. As a matter of fact I have a fair amount of land on one of those lakes - Skaha, on the east side, a beautiful place. I have some little weeds growing on my place already, or at least they're on our shoreline already. It's a worry, but I still hate to see us using something that might be detrimental to the health of people, and also something that in the long run may be about as valuable as spraying budworms. One of the reasons they are stuck with their spraying system in the New Brunswick and Nova Scotia areas is because they have done it and killed all the parasites and all the predators. So now they are stuck with budworm spraying for eternity.

If you don't like what I'm talking about, why don't you just nip outside and enjoy the hall.

The lake system, I believe, deserves to be looked at a lot harder than it is. I know that many people are of the opinion that there are some uses that could be made of the weed. Certainly I recognize it is hardly a valuable food to be harvested for livestock, but there is a body of opinion that says it is one of nature's plants that is very high in methanol, which is something one could look at.

I do think that 2, 4-D is really not the answer and I do hope that one day we're going to seriously look at other ways of controlling this weed. I think we should also think of other ways of controlling the weeds in our lawns at the parliament buildings. You know, even in my own home, for years and years I've refused to use a weed spray. I get out and dig them up, and we've got plenty of manpower. You know, one of the best uses for the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Chabot) would be to get him out there digging up the weeds instead of using 2, 4-D on the weeds in the lawn of the parliament buildings.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: First I have some general comments. Certainly it would not come as a surprise if they're using 2, 4D because it is the most commonly used herbicide in the world. If I'm hooked on 2, 4-D perhaps it's because most of the wheat used for our bread in Canada is treated with 2, 4-D from the Prairies, and perhaps we're all hooked on it. The Prairies use it in great amounts, of course - about 7.5 million pounds last year.

Just a comment, though, to the member for New Westminster, because I think it's of some value to members. Alternatives to 2, 4-D use have been suggested and investigated for control, just to show that, indeed, 2, 4-D was not the first choice and the only choice and the last choice. There have been so many suggestions made.

Bottom barriers, polyethylene or mesh screen, or sand and gravel on the bottom of the lakes have been suggested and are being tried in selected areas.

Draw down the lakes and use electricity for control of the weeds - don't ask for technical details - electrocute the weeds. Someone had that idea and it was again looked into.

[ Page 1877 ]

Dry ice, lime, rock salt, various types of dredges - over 14 different types of dredges have been looked at or used. Many of these are from private individuals and others are more commonly used dredges, some of them very sophisticated, others not so sophisticated.

Machines, of course, have been considered -machines that went on almost indefinitely. There are still machines on stream which are being developed, machines which are being modified and monitored. Many thoughts have gone into it.

The last serious - I shouldn't say serious because it might offend others - major suggestion was by an organization who believed they could use a modification of Portland cement at a considerable quantity - I think about a ton an acre. They believe that it's the toxicity of that compound which would kill the weed. I don't whether it would cement the bottom of the lake as well. That's the latest one that's being considered. The gentleman has made a very serious approach and is in contact with the federal Ministry of Fisheries to determine if they'd have any objections to introducing this material to the lake.

There have been many, many ideas considered and 2, 4-D is the programme of this year.

MR. LEVI: I was at a meeting on Saturday. You might ask your official; he was there too. It was at Gibson's at Elphinstone High School, where the students put on a very good exhibition of all of the literature and also a great deal of illustration relating the problems of 2, 4-D. It was very well done. The ministers official who is sitting with him was there, and somebody from Environment Canada, and a Mrs. Doucet, who has some area of specialty in this.

The thing that came to me in talking to people about this was that one of the things that we have in Canada, which is probably a very serious shortcoming, is that we rely to a great extent in this province on Environment Canada to help us with standards and information and they, in turn, rely on the Environmental Protection Agency in the United States.

There was a very interesting point made that in our own ministry we do not have a toxicologist, so that area of specialty is not there. It was also very interesting that somebody pointed out that Canada's universities do not train toxicologists. Somebody else has indicated that McGill University is now going to put on a programme for the first time. All of our toxicologists are trained in the United States. Perhaps the minister might indicate when he gets a chance to answer just what the plans are for a toxicologist in his department.

There is a great deal of anxiety about 2, 4-D, partly, I think, because of the proliferation of information, some of it valid and some of it not. However, it occurs to me that we don't have at the moment the kind of backup people that can give us the right kind of answers. That's the difficulty.

But what I actually got up to speak about was garbage. Unfortunately the three ministers who might be affected by what I am going to say are in the House. They are the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Mair) - and I might just run straight into his estimates - the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Chabot) and the present minister.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: Yes, Mr. Minister, I just want to talk about garbage. You may know - or maybe you don't know - that it has been strongly suggested that when we have trouble with landfills, we might start using some of the old, disused mine shafts. You are aware of that?

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: Yes, you'll be in the first tip when it happens.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Just like your speeches.

MR. LEVI: My God, we've got him roused now. Old Jobs!

I want to ask the minister if he will tell us just what his ministry is doing in respect to the whole question of garbage, because it does come under his responsibility. For instance, you recently had a seminar in Victoria, at which members of the minister's ministry were there, and they discussed the question of landfill and the cost that will accrue to people in the greater Victoria area as a result of the kind of operation that will have to be run in the next few years.

I am much more familiar with what goes on in the Greater Vancouver Regional District. Just to give the minister some idea of what we are talking about, there's approximately 500,000 to 600,000 tons of garbage that have to be disposed of in the Greater Vancouver Regional District area each year. The average cost of disposing of that is something in the order of $35 a ton. That's to collect it, which is the major cost; and then you have to transport it, which is probably in the order of about $6 to $7 a ton; and then you have to dispose of it in the landfill, which is probably another $4

[ Page 1878 ]

to $5 a ton.

One of the things that concerns me is that there is a great deal of discussion going on in the waste disposal industry, or the garbage industry - whichever term you prefer - as to what alternatives there might be. Now back in the east, particularly in Ontario, the govern-ment of Ontario has entered into some agreements with one of the very large, multinational corporations, Browning Ferris Incorporated. They're looking at an alternative mechanism for disposing of garbage. My concern is that, presumably, we in British Columbia will be looking at these alternative mechanisms as well.

We come then to the question of whether, in fact, we are going to leave the disposal of garbage - in the main, landfill operations -in British Columbia as it is now. Or are we going to see a greater involvement of private industry? In order to do many of the alternative methods of disposal - if they go into pyrolysis or other kinds of sorting operations - takes a great deal of money. Now Browning Ferris received altogether $13 million from the Ontario government, and it was for an experimental resource recovery operation. This was to separate the garbage and that kind of thing. Whatever you go into - if you go into pyrolysis, which is the heating and the sorting of all this garbage - you're getting into very large sum of money. If that's the case, that money -, and we've had examples of this both in the United States and in eastern Canada, particularly in relation to Browning Ferris Incorporated - is, presumably, not coming from the corporation. This money comes from the government. Now I put it to you, Mr. Minister, that we must get into a debate, into a discussion in terms of the garbage industry, as to whether in fact it should not be considered to be a public utility. As we have to face some of the larger problems of disposal, we're going to require more infusions of money from the government area.

In a recent study that was done by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - and they have what is called "A Decision-Maker's Guide in Solid Waste Management" - they have a chapter which is certainly worth bringing to the attention of people in his ministry. I am sure he knows about this; he has a very competent young man who is working on this in there, Mr. Giles. In one section of this book, "Public or private ownership and operation of processing facilities, " they discuss this question. At the end they have a conclusion, which I just want Lo read - it's not very long:

"It is the responsibility of the public sector to ensure that needed processing facilities are provided and are operated in an environmentally acceptable manner, whether or not they are actually owned and operated by a unit of government. In deciding between private and public operation and ownership of a given facility, a city must evaluate factors such as the ability to raise capital, the degree of technological risk involved, the management expertise required and the expected operating cost."

The projections in the GVRD are something in the order of 800,000 tons by about the year 1990. It may not be that the best way to approach this is simply to look for landfills that are larger, that have a longer life. We have Lo look at the same time for other methods of disposal. It has even been suggested - and not in any facetious way - that we shoot the garbage out into space. That was one of the proposals that was dealt with in a very serious way by one conference.

But the other thing is - and this is why I am happy that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is here - that not only in terms of the consumer do you pay 16 cents to 18 cents on every dollar you spend for all of that packaging, but you are also paying money, as a taxpayer, to dispose of that packaging. They get you coming and going.

There has to be some view expressed by the government agency, particularly the minister. What are they doing about it? I know that from time to time they attend conferences. What views does the ministry have in respect to the whole question of landfills?

We have had a number of problems. We presumably still have the problem up in the estuary at Squamish where they want to build a landfill. I would like the minister to tell us what his views are on this. What studies are being done? How many personnel does he have that are looking into this? This is a very important area because it deals with the whole question of health; it deals with the environment; it deals with the whole question of future cost on this. It doesn't matter whether it is private or public; in the final analysis, most of the money is going to come from the public purse. That appears to be the experience in the United States and in eastern Canada. If that happens, then what we are simply doing is providing those huge government grants again to those multinational corporations. There is one national corporation in Canada, Laidlaw Transport, that is involved in this and is operating in a big way in British Columbia through some subsidiaries.

There are other issues which are not relevant to the minister's estimates - the ones

[ Page 1879 ]

where the debate goes on between municipalities as to whether the municipality should collect it or whether the private people should get contracts. But the major issue I think the minister has to address himself to is that down the road, in terms of the whole issue of waste disposal, we are talking about large sums of public money. The money will have to come from the public, from the taxpayers, from the governments by way of grants. I would like to know from the minister just what is the thinking in terms of his ministry on this whole issue of waste management.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, the whole concept of waste management is reaching a new high profile. Garbage is big business, there's no question about that. It's extremely costly. We are looking at waste management as part of our responsibilities in the Ministry of the Enviroment.As I mentioned yesterday, we are attempting to look upon this waste as a resource of some kind for ultimate use, usually to convert it to energy or to reclaim whatever is possible through some pretty sophisticated methods which are available but very expensive at the present time. The common habit in British Columbia is that waste landfills are usually operated in a public way. There are a few private companies, sure. Some of the public landfills are operated by a private company.

Landfills are beginning to give us increasing problems, including Richmond, which has lots of problems and more to come. The leaching problems are well documented and common to most landfills. There is the simple problem of running out of room. It's hard to believe in a province of our size that we don't have room. One would think that's ridiculous. Garbage itself is a problem. We also, believe it or not, are running out of room for other types of wastes which are being placed - hog fuel and other wood waste. I think we can utilize that as well.

We have a relatively small number of people pursuing this question at the present time but they are people who are quite competent. But it will not be the responsibility only of that small group to offer resolutions. We intend to modify our ministry to have a specific department looking after waste management. Rather than consider the materials to be garbage, we're going to look at it as waste management for utilization wherever possible.

I don't know what the future will bring but I would think that probably in the not too distant future we will see less and less of landfills as we know them today for several reasons. Health is one, pollution is another and running out of space is a third. But also as the economy provides, we will be able to get a very good return from utilizing this garbage for other purposes. British Columbia perhaps only has a few locations where you could readily convert garbage for heat by way of steam or electricity because of the quantity. GVRD is one example. They have enough quantity to actually get a plant operating.

We do have some excellent suggestions before us. We do have some very competent people reviewing that and analysing how it is done elsewhere. L think we will be in a very good position to move on that very, very soon.

Your comment on your trip to Gibsons and the lack of a toxicologist is very appropriate. We took over when the administration of pesticides was transferred to the Ministry of the Environment. There was a staff of five. We have modified that to a staff of 19. 1 understand that of the 19 there is no toxicologist. We do have a toxicologist on our appeal board - Dr. Godolphin from the University of British Columbia and the Vancouver General Hospital. I'm curious now more than anything about why there wouldn't be toxicologists engaged with our environmental lab at UBC. Perhaps there is and we haven't identified them as such. But I certainly agree with you that toxicology is one of the most important aspects of any of these herbicides.

Vote 83 approved.

On vote 84: general administration, $1,798, 066.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, this may have been asked earlier. If it has been I can look up the answer. I wondered if I could ask the minister why there is no vote for provincial disaster grants this year.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: For the last couple of years we have not expended any moneys from this vote. Rather than attempting to calculate what it might be.... I believe we have a $10 vote for a provincial disaster grant simply to provide us with the authority to get money from Treasury Board in the event of a disaster. There is no way of predicting what amount would be appropriate. We are prepared to react to a provincial disaster and seek the funds from Treasury Board as required.

MR. STEPHENS: I'd like to ask the minister what is included in the provincial disaster fund. A couple of years ago in my practice I had occasion to act for a client who lives in the city of Courtenay and whose house was

[ Page 1880 ]

being threatened because the riverbank upon which it sits was being eroded. I attempted to get some funds to assist him. Is this the fund from which that money would be taken?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: No, Mr. Member. The definition of a disaster is not that clearly enunciated. The cabinet must declare a disaster to have occurred before the money from this vote would be spent. Perhaps that person could receive some assistance from our streambank protection vote. But in many instances an individual like that may not have any opportunity of recovering damage. There are certain hazards that are beyond the control of the government. No, that particularly would not be considered a major disaster. If it were an entire village or perhaps a subdivision, yes, we could move in.

MR. STEPHENS: The minister made reference to another fund from which he could get assistance. Would you please expand that a little bit? I'm not familiar with that fund and I would like to know about it.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The streambank improvement programme allows the provincial government to expend 75 per cent of the costs and local governments or local people spend 25 per cent. It's a good programme throughout the province. We don't have the funds many would like to have, but it does do a great deal of work. As you can appreciate, we have so many stream and rivers, and therefore banks on either side, that we can't keep up with the demand. But the work done is well done and does serve a useful purpose.

MR. STEPHENS: Is that money set aside in advance in the budget and where does it appear? Is it in your estimates? If so, could you point it out to me, please?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: It would be under vote 86.

MR. STEPHENS: 1 wonder if the minister could explain to me what appears to be a shifting around of responsibilities in vote 84, 1 notice that included in the estimates are two associate deputy ministers for whom there was no fund set aside last year. I presume those are new appointments. Would the minister please explain why whose appointments were made and what the duties of those people are?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: These are classification changes. They would previously have been described as programme managers rather than associate deputy ministers, but they would be serving the same function.

MR. STEPHENS: I presume that then accounts for the absence of the sum of $105,000 spent last year on programme manager 3 and programme manager 5. Is that correct?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Yes.

Vote 84 approved.

On vote 85: land and water management, $11,477, 133.

MR. STEPHENS: I notice that in this vote there is an increase of 101 employees over last year. Is that right? I wonder if the minister could account for what appears to be a very large increase and the purpose of these employees.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Basically the difference in the figures this year is because we have reorganized the entire ministry. Land and water management has attracted 40 positions which had been allocated elsewhere. They had previously been employed in different branches within the ministry. There has also been a conversion of those persons who were classified as temporary or temporary-permanent employees; they have now been put into the permanent category. We have juggled figures but we haven't increased the staff in that area.

MR. STEPHENS: Mr. Chairman, what additional activities is that ministry indulging in that requires these additional 40 people in the land and water management area?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Basically field operations, land and water. As we mentioned earlier, in some instances we've had a backlog for three years in land applications and water applications. These people will basically be used in the field to attempt to resolve that problem.

MR. STEPHENS: I have just one more question on this vote, Mr. Chairman. There is an increase of approximately $0.7 million allocated to water resource administration. Would the minister please explain what that additional funding is required for? It's about the fourth item down - water resource administration.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: That increase would represent that portion of water resource administration that we just discussed - the transfer

[ Page 1881 ]

and so on.

Vote 85 approved.

On vote 86: environmental and engineering service, $26,288, 717.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I don't want to rehash old ground, but I would like to take this opportunity to remind the minister that there is a proposal by B.C. Hydro before the government to construct a 500-kilovolt transmission line from Cheekye-Squamish to Dunsmuir on Vancouver Island. And many of the citizens, particularly on the Sunshine Coast, Texada Island, Lasqueti Island and Vancouver Island, are extremely concerned about this proposal. The environmental impact, should this project proceed, is simply horrendous.

I've discussed this matter in the House before, but I would like to ask the minister if he or his ministry have had any input with B.C. Hydro. Have environmental impact studies been done or completed? And furthermore I would like to ask the minister if he agrees with the proposal of the New Democratic Party and the residents of the area that a moratorium be placed on the start of construction of this 500-kilovolt transmission line while we look at energy alternatives such as the utilization of wood wastes, the possibility of a natural gas line through Powell River and Lasqueti Island to Vancouver Island, providing we have security of supply. The National Energy Board says we do. 1 would ask the minister to answer these two little questions.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, the route hasn't been chosen as yet. That's the big argument that's going on. There are a number of alternative routes which have been presented and I think that the resolution is probably contained in those alternatives which have been presented. I understand new technology has been introduced about underground splicing which may eliminate the need to go across Lasqueti Island and others.

We're very much involved in this by way of our linear development guidelines and have been very active in considering the alternatives which have been suggested to Hydro. I would think that there are going to be some very good alternatives presented. Hydro has not laid down its plans and said: "That's it, period." They have been very responsive to alternatives and I would think that there is a resolution. I would hope there is.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I wish to remind that minister as a member of cabinet, Mr. Chairman, that

Hydro has told us on at least three separate occasions that the decision in regard to construction of that proposed Cheekye-to Dunsmuir line will not be made by Hydro but will be a political decision made by the treasury benches. I would therefore suggest, when the subject comes up again in cabinet and with the ELUC, that the minister support the proposal put forward by myself, our critic for the environment, the member for Alberni, Mr. Skelly, and that a moratorium be placed on the start of construction of that line for at least two years - possibly three - while we look at the alternatives.

MR. STEPHENS: Mr. Chairman, I'd ask the minister to explain the addition of 55 further employees to his ministry under this vote.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Environmental and engineering service again went under the same type of modification as land management and others. This basically would be the conversion of the so-called temporary employees to permanent employees. This , us a direction from Treasury Board to resolve this issue, instead of having these (04) votes with all these temporary employees. Since they're working permanently, let's call them permanent and increase the number.

Vote 86 approved.

Vote 87: environmental protection, $7,774, 376 - approved.

Vote 88: Environment and Land Use Committee secretariat, $1,016, 324 - approved.

Vote 89: provincial Agricultural Land Commission, $691,389 - approved.

Vote 90: building occupancy charges, $2,732, 825 - approved.

Vote 91: computer and consulting charges, $1,356, 400 - approved.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS

On vote 37: minister's office, $150,911.

HON. MR. MAIR: Usually I very much welcome the opportunity to address the committee on the activities of my ministry, and that....

Interjection.

HON. MR. MAIR: I'm sorry, two minutes? You want two minutes or 20 minutes Mr. Member? Two

[ Page 1882 ]

minutes is enough? All right.

I do - Mr. Chairman, to the members opposite - have a rather detailed, about 20-minute summary of my ministry which I'll be pleased to give; however, I'm in the committee's hands. If you wish me just to make a few opening remarks and sit down, I will.

HON. MR. MAIR: I think that first of all I would like if I may to introduce to the committee the three senior members of my ministry, who will be with me shortly. And, in light of remarks made by the member for Revelstoke Slocan (Mr. King) a couple of weeks ago, I thought it only fair to indicate to the chamber the method by which these three gentlemen were selected - not because I think that the remarks were made in any great seriousness, but because, while I am confident that this government will stay in office for many years to come, I don't think the reputation of the people named ought to rely only upon my confidence.

The Deputy Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, Mr. Tex Enemark - a very distinguished public servant indeed - I hired in Ottawa in November, 1976, and he I might say has served my ministry and this government with great distinction ever since. The Assistant Deputy Minister of Corporate Affairs, Mr. Keith Saddlemyer - who will also be joining us very shortly - had a long and, I might say, very distinguished career in the province of Saskatchewan.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MAIR: I have to buy time until I get help, Mr. Member.

Mr. Perry Anglin, also from the province of Ontario - from the federal government - had, once again, a very distinguished career with the federal government. I might also add, if I may, Mr. Tony Stark, who is a programme co-ordinator in my own office; and I hired him from within my own ministry - he was, in fact, hired by the previous government. I introduce these gentlemen to the chamber for two reasons. First, I would like to acknowledge their contributions to the ministry since they have come upon the scene. And I would also like to dispel any nations whatsoever that their appointments were in any way political; because they were not, and I'd like the record to show that.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MAIR: The allegation was made, Mr. Member, and I think it only fair to them that that be clarified by me. It's not for you to thank me, Mr. Member; it's for the people who work for me.

Now I'd like to deal with a number of different aspects of the ministry, if I may. First, I'd like to deal with Consumer Affairs, and the programme that we have followed. Members may recall that, in the House last year, I noted that we had some considerable dissatisfaction with the use of assurances of voluntary compliance. And I'm sure the second member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Levi) will recall the debate, or a discussion we had on this device. I indicated at that time that I thought it was not necessarily an advantageous tool to use in enforcement proceedings, unless the reason for its use was as an act of contrition on the part of the person who had violated the statutes, or unless the person who had violated the statute in question could show that the violation was due principally to carelessness or was merely an isolated instance of ignorance based on long-standing, industry-wide practice.

I must say, Mr. Member and other members of the chamber, I am very pleased with the results of our new practice. We have cut down our enforcement proceedings considerably. I think there is a great deal less uncertainty in the marketplace as to where we stand on matters of enforcement. All in all it has worked very well.

This year in the consumer area we will be concentrating largely on improved administration of our consumer legislation programme which has been passed in recent years - during the time I have had responsibility, during the previous government and the government before that.

We have reorganized this part of the ministry, Mr. Chairman, to separate the enforcement investigations from the other parts of the programme which provide services to consumers and the business community. As well, all matters relating to credit legislation and debtors' assistance are now consolidated into one branch. Responsibility for the Debt Collection Act has been transferred to that branch from the Corporate Affairs department.

A consumer education information branch has been organized to concentrate efforts on providing information to consumers, to the business community and, in co-operation with the Ministry of Education, to teachers and students throughout the province.

Mr. Chairman, the new Travel Agents Registration Act vms proclaimed with regulations, and went into effect on February 21 of this year. More than 500 travel agents and wholesalers received licences under this Act, and

[ Page 1883 ]

the travel assurance fund to protect travelers' deposits has started out with more than $200,000 in the kitty. The B.C. Association of Travel Agents worked very closely with my staff and the regulations proposed were not submitted to cabinet until they were sent to all of the travel agents for their comments.

The Motor Dealers Licensing Act, Mr. Chairman, is not as yet proclaimed because we are at this point receiving input from the various people affected throughout the province. However, I am confidently expecting that we will be proclaiming that along with regulations in the very near future. We feel, as with all of our statutes, Mr. Chairman, that prior to proclamation and the bringing into place of regulations and their enforcement, particularly where it affects such a large industry as this one, we ought to have as much input as we possibly can from the industry. However, that does not mean that the delay will be unwarranted.

We have not, as I am sure the members opposite will note, proclaimed some sections of the Consumer Protection Act, and that is clearly because of the proposed federal government intrusions - if I may use that word - into that sphere, with the late and somewhat unlamented Borrowers and Depositors Protection Act, and the possibility of new legislation. We have, I think, through our own efforts -that is, the efforts of our ministry - persuaded the federal government to alter its approach very significantly in this area, so we have agreement that any federal legislation will not be imposed on British Columbia in areas that are clearly a matter of our jurisdiction.

I must say, Mr. Chairman, to the members, that we do not intend to wait forever for a federal Act in this area and will either proclaim those sections or seek further assistance from the Legislature in that regard. We have, of course, proclaimed the two important sections dealing with the cooling-off period for door-to-door contracts, which is extended from three until seven days and we also, of course, proclaimed that part of the statute which related to tax rebaters.

I'm interested to note that the federal government has now taken great credit for dealing with tax rebaters, as if they had suddenly been the first on the scene to look at the problem. It reminded me of when I was back in Ottawa in February, 1976, and had to explain to the then minister, Mr. Ouellet, and my counterpart in Ontario, Mr. Handleman, just what a tax rebater was. However, with their selective recall, they are now taking all of the credit for seeing the problem first and coming up with some solutions.

MR. MACDONALD: You're taking the credit from us.

HON. MR. MAIR: Well, Mr. Member, if I've taken the credit from you, I don't know where you hid your statutes or any of the material you were using for the statute you were going to bring into place.

MR. MACDONALD: We just chased them out of town.

HON. MR. MAIR: You must have taken that to the first member for Vancouver Centre's (mr. Lauk's) basement, or his archives.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to, if I may, in the area of consumer legislation, point out to the committee that for about a year and a half my ministry corresponded with the chartered banks in Canada, particularly with their main organization, and pointed out to them, time and time again, that they were not living up to the spirit, much less the letter, of the law in the province of British Columbia with respect to loan agreements and loan forms. After a slight brouhaha last December, I am very pleased to advise that they have all indicated that they will revise their standard loan forms to correspond with our legislation, and that they are not only going to do that, but they're going to redraft them in language that is comprehensible to all consumers. I think that is a great step in the right direction.

I'm also please, Mr. Chairman, to be able to report to the committee that since last year we have prevailed upon a major retailing chain to be fair to people who have been recently discharged from bankruptcy. This chain had been following the practice of suing discharged bankrupts to try and collect on bills for necessities of life incurred before bankruptcy. These discussions continue with another chain which, to our knowledge, was the only major retailer still following this unfair practice.

I must say, if I may, Mr. Chairman, at this point that I feel very proud particularly of the debtors' assistance branch of the Consumer Affairs side of the ministry, because they have done so much, not only to return to the marketplace about $1,750, 000 which might not have been paid if they had not intervened, but I think more importantly than that they have given people who want to pay what they owe the method by which they can do it, and have given them, of course, the dignity which comes with paying one's accounts. I am convinced, Mr.

[ Page 1884 ]

Chairman, that people do not want to avoid their responsibilities - rather the opposite -and I am very pleased with the efforts that that part of my ministry has made in that regard.

Mr. Chairman, the question of a rust code and product warranties has been very much on our minds. At this point we do have forthcoming a voluntary code on automobile corrosion. For a long time we in British Columbia were perhaps a little sanctimonious in this regard and felt that it wasn't a problem that prevailed here. We found out in Prince George that is not so. We're looking forward with great interest to how this voluntary code works.

We are also studying the whole question of warranties and product liability with the other provinces and with Ottawa. I think it probably would be fair to say that it is premature whether or not B.C. should proceed with similar legislation contemplated in Ontario and other provinces until we've had more consultation and have seen just what we're up against.

On the question of cemeteries, while we're not coming in with any legislation in this session in the consumer aspect of our ministry, we are proceeding on a consolidation and modernization of the cemeteries law pursuant to the Gosse report, which was commissioned by the former government and brought down in 1976.

On the corporate affairs side, Mr. Chairman, when we were informed in October, 1976, as I'm sure this chamber knows, we took under our wing a great many branches of government which had been hitherto in the Attorney-General's ministry or the Ministry of Finance, and in at least one area, in the Ministry of Energy, Transport and Communications. A great many components thereby cam under our roof. One of the problems, of course, we found is that a great many of the statutes which we took upon ourselves had not been amended or indeed perhaps even looked at very seriously for some 30 or 40 years. There are a great many areas which are very sensitive on the marketplace where a great deal of work had to be done and we're in the process of doing that now.

MR. LEA: Name one.

HON. MR. MAIR: The Companies Act, Securities Act, credit unions, co-operatives, insurance, real estate, to name a few. The Companies Act, I concede, Mr. Member, came in during your administration in 1973 but carried with it a share of problems. Others such as credit unions, co-operatives, real estate and matters of that sort were either the subject of very little work or work which was of very little assistance to us. I have in mind the Rosenbluth report, which I'm sure you are referring to.

I think it would be most inappropriate at this time if I did not pay a great deal of tribute to the people who work in a number of areas of my ministry, but particularly the companies branch. I think when one recognizes that incorporations have increased from about $5,000 per year to over $14,000 in 1977, with very little increase in staff, we can see just what credit is due them.

Mr. Chairman, I think that one of the points which I would like to make to the committee today in terms of our priorities in the future is our goal to simplify, codify and expand all commercial and corporate legislation in the province, with the ultimate objective of eliminating undue risks in the marketplace while limiting intervention of the government to a minimum. I think that pretty accurately sums up our philosophy.

Mr. Chairman, I think I indicated to the committee that we do not propose any legislation on the consumer side this year. But we do propose three bills at least which we will be bringing to the House in short order and which, I might say, I have discussed with my critic opposite. I think most importantly we can say we have achieved a great deal of acceptance in the community by reason of the fact that we have circulated them in the manner which I think if not unknown, is certainly little used in this House - a White Paper. I think that When I bring this legislation to the House, which will be very shortly, the members will see that it has received a great deal of study and thought from the members of the business community and professional communities involved, and that it is good legislation.

I will try to move along very quickly because I'm sure that there are some questions, Mr. Chairman. I feel 1 should mention to the committee that the capital market study which was undertaken last year has been completed and the results are expected to be in printed form and available for study some time early this summer. One of the practical things which we have achieved in the last year is consolidation of the administration of the Securities Act with insurance, real estate and strata titles. I think that bringing all of these areas under one administrator was a logical step and will serve the public very well indeed. Of course that has brought with it a move of several of our senior civil servants to Vancouver. I have details on that

[ Page 1885 ]

because I anticipate there will be a question or two on it. I think I can say that it is going to be a great improvement in the long run because regardless of the fact that there has been a temporary removal of some positions from Victoria to Vancouver, it will take these very key and sensitive branches to the area where the action is, which, of course, is Vancouver.

I think that basically I have given as best I can an overview of the two branches of my ministry. I will not go into any details as I have them in my notes here on some of the philosophical approaches that our ministry has taken and intends to take because I think that with the skill that has been so evident in the past years from the other side of the House, this will be dragged out of [illegible]- kicking and screaming in due course in any event.

I would, however, like to make one or two comments in two areas which are two big political winners - rent decontrol and liquor administration. I would like to congratulate -and I'm sure that members of the chamber join me in congratulating - Mr. Jim Patterson on being appointed as the rentalsman. lie also has the responsibility for the Rent Review Commission. I think that he is the right man for the right job at the right time.

We are moving into decontrol, as this House knows. We are moving very slowly and care fully. I will not use the porcupine analogy that I used last year, but nevertheless it continues. As I say, I think we could not have a better person in that position at a time such as that.

In terms of liquor policy, I would not in any way disguise from the chamber that we have had our share of difficulties in that area, both in the distribution branch and liquor control and licensing. However, within the next short period of time, I an expecting to be able to make a significant announcement in the distribution branch area, which I think will go a long way towards giving this chamber confidence that that part of the liquor administration is once again in good hands.

The licensing policy, of course, has given us a great deal of concern, particularly in the area of neighbourhood pubs, which, I might say, I think is a good concept. However, if I may be permitted a small criticism of the former Attorney-General, I don't think that it was thought through far enough so that we had a policy with which we could all live. I think we are now doing that, if we haven't done it. I think the neighbourhood pub concept as such will continue and will be a very viable licence. It will perhaps bring some sanity to the drinking habits of the people in British Columbia, and at least enable them to do their drinking, if they must, in an area close to their homes and where they don't have to use their automobiles.

In any event, Mr. Chairman, with those few remarks concerning my ministry, I presume that there may be one or two questions that the hon. members will have and I hope they will bear with me and my staff as 1 try to answer them for you.

MR. LEVI: I was interested in the minister's observations about the agreements of voluntary compliance and that if there was sufficient show of contrition it was okay. I thought that acts of contrition usually followed the experience on the rack or the auto-da-fe. I never quite thought that contrition would be forthcoming from the business community on the basis of a signed document. I don't think that has really been the experience. You missed that eloquent piece of ... and I'm not going to repeat it.

HON. MR. MAIR: I'll read it in the Blues.

MR. KAHL: Where's your tie?

MR. LEVI: My tie is over here. The Speaker ruled last year that you can wear anything that is comfortable.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, the second member for Vancouver Burrard has the floor. I would appreciate if that member speaking and recognized would address the Chair.

MR. LEVI: If not, I would strongly suggest, Mr. Speaker, that you remove that redneck.

I want to say one good thing about the minister. That's the good news, and then I want to give him the bad news.

In terms of consumer protection and debtors' assistance, I am personally very pleased that lie has carried on with the programmes. A couple of years ago I expressed that removing the community aspect of these programmes was a bad move.

First of ail, what I want to talk about is what I really think is an absolute state of dereliction on the part of the minister: his complete failure to recognize the seriousness of the complaints and feelings among consumers in terms of the supermarket ripoffs. I have raised this is in the House before. Frankly, I have been shocked that the minister has not taken the opportunity to put this particular issue before a committee that he is the co-sponsor of, the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture. This is not a new problem.

[ Page 1886 ]

It's a problem that has been with us for many, many years. it's a problem that is fraught with all sorts of euphemisms as to exactly how this problem might best be explained. I call it kickbacks; other people call it volume discounting.

Yesterday I came across a new euphemism for kickbacks by the president of Dominion Stores. "Earned cost reduction" is the way he characterized this particular practice, before a committee in the Ontario legislature. Then he refused to answer any more questions.

The important things about this issue is that it is tough enough for people, particularly in British Columbia where we are at the far end of the country and we have transportation costs and we basically pay more for our food than anybody else, and we also have the import problem. The issue of kickbacks in supermarkets is a real problem.

The next thing we get is what I consider to be the asinine attitude of the Attorney-General, who says that if you have any information to bring it to him. Some information is available, but the only way that this practice can be examined in such a way that we can start putting our finger on just what is going on, in terms of the collusive arrangements that exist with supermarkets and suppliers, agreements on advertising, and discounts on bulk buying, is to simply bring these people before a committee and attempt to elicit the information.

It's amazing that when this problem arose in Ontario starting on May 1, they made no bones about putting it before the standing committee on resources, which covers a multitude of operations, including agriculture. That particular issue is still before that committee, and I'm given to understand it will be before the committee for another three or four hearings.

We have such a committee. Unfortunately, as it happens, the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture is doing exactly that; that is their function. The minister is a co-sponsor of this; it is dealing with the consumer.

I appreciate that we have got all sorts of stratagems and protections for the consumer around the purchasing of cars, the business of the travel bureaus, doorstep purchasing and the cooling-off period. But the fundamental problem to people in this province, particularly people on fixed incomes, is the issue of rent and the issue of food.

I want to deal right now with the issue of food. Because his is the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, I fail to see why it has not been his desire to put this particular issue before that committee and bring the various supermarkets there, bring the marketing boards there and to ask them specific questions. There is a missed opportunity there. It is amazing that in Ontario they can take the opportunity to do this, but in no way are they prepared to do it in British Columbia. We then have to wonder why. What do we have to suggest? Do we have to suggest that in some way the chain stores are major contributors to the political party of the government, and somehow they won't bring them before the committee because of that? It is a missed opportunity to do something for the benefit of the consumer.

The Attorney-General is now in the House, and he is about to leave. Good-bye. Thank you. The Attorney-General and the issue of information. It is not a question, Mr. Chairman, that has really been investigated in this country -this whole issue of supermarket kickbacks and the whole business of how they arrange these under-the-counter arrangements. In fact, the last time it was dealt with in any real investigative way was in 1958 when the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission held an inquiry in which they produced a report called "Transmitting a Study of Certain Discriminatory Pricing Practices in Grocery Trade Made by the Director of Investigation and Research." That was made in 1958. When the Batten commission report in 1968 looked at the whole question of inflation and food prices, they made reference to this study.

When Dr. Mallen completed the last report for the Food Prices Review Board, it was completed and issued in February, 1976. Mind you, it is carefully entitled. It is called "Preliminary Paper on the Levels, Causes and Effects of Economic Concentration in the Canadian Retail Food Trade: A Study of Supermarket Power."

In the 1977 issue of the Canadian Consumer, the interview between Dr. Mallen and Maurice Shore of the Canadian Grocer was printed. Right off the top, Shore said to him: "Dr. Mallen, what are the major findings of your study of supermarket power?"

Dr. Mallen replied: "One main point is that there are extremely high levels of concentration in the food retail business in many Canadian cities, and this is having a detrimental effect on consumers."

The other main point of the report is that the degree of bigness that we have now is not required. "Economic concentration in and of itself is not necessarily a bad thing. Some industries require it in order to get all of the economies. My argument is that rather than having a trade-off, where we get less competition and more efficiency, we are getting less of both at the retail level."

[ Page 1887 ]

Dr. Mallen spent a great deal of time looking at this question. He has a very strong bias towards the point of view of the consumer. Perhaps I'm doing him a disfavour in saying he has a strong bias. Rather, he looks at the issues of corporate concentration; he looks at the issues that affect the consumer. Certainly in this particular point of view, he is talking about the benefits that accrue to the consumer.

In the discussions we have had in the last three weeks in this province - statements I and people in the community have made about the business of kickbacks - there has always been the great request for more information. The minister knows as well as I do, Mr. Chairman, that there are many people who would like to talk but they are afraid to. They are afraid to because it could mean the end of their business, particularly small entrepreneurs.

I don't know if the minister has had an opportunity to talk to Mr. Murchie of the Murchie tea and coffee people, but Murchie is not in that position. He has no obligations to the large stores. He has people that will not take his goods, again because he's not prepared to go along with practices. I recommend him to the minister. Mr. Murchie has been contacted by the combines investigation people.

What we need is an open discussion in terms of an inquiry. In the 20 minutes of presentation by the minister, he dusted over some of the operations of his ministry, some of them very good and worthwhile. But what he failed to do was to look at a very fundamental problem - that is, the cost of food, what is happening to the consumer and how the consumer is going to be protected from these kinds of practices. These practices do go on.

You know, Mallen, when he did the interview in the Canadian Consumer - they did the interview when he was with Mr. Shore - he also produced a letter which was reproduced in the magazine. I just want to read some extracts from the letter. If the minister hasn't seen it, I'll certainly make it available to him. It's a letter addressed to Dr. Mallen, who made the letter available: "As requested, I am going to put a few thoughts down on paper as to what I regard to be some of the serious problems relative to the merchandising in food in Canada. Unfortunately, unlike the United States, the power of the chain store in Canada is beyond the comprehension of most people. In the United States, one chain store may dominate one or two states, but no chain store dominates the entire country, nor do a group of chain stores dominate any particular area.

For this reason, the processor or manufacturer not able to get onto the shelves of a particular chain can always sell to someone else, and a competitive factor takes place.

"However, in Canada, with few exceptions, there are seldom more than three or four buyers at any one major centre of distribution - in some cases, it is much less than that. In western Canada, the market is completely dominated by Safeway. There are many stores where small independents and even chains have tried to compete with Safeway but because of the power which they have, if they don't go along with Safeway policy, then they're soon forced out of business.

"In eastern Canada in Ontario we have Dominion Stores, Loblaw's, Steinberg's and A & P, which completely dominate the market. In Montreal and the rest of Quebec. it's Steinberg's and Dominion Stores, and to some greater degree there are more independent stores as compared to Ontario and western Canada."

What I want to do now is call the minister's attention to this statement.

"If anyone states that the consumer dictates what is going to be sold on the market in Canada, they're completely naive. The consumer buys what the retail store wants to sell. That's the product which they make the most money from. Products are delisted and removed from the shelves overnight - not because there is not a consumer demand, but because the processor, manufacturer or supplier will not pay the demands for the co-operative advertising, volume discounts, volume rebates and many other demands that the industry is faced with at all times."

The individual starts to get into some of the arrangements that are going on. I just want to repeat:

"...because the processor, manufacturer or supplier will not pay the demands for the co-operative advertising, volume discounts, volume rebates or many other demands which the industry is faced with at all times."

I gave you another euphemism earlier - earned cost reduction.

"As you're no doubt aware, it's not uncommon for a chain store to demand $6,000 to $10,000 before they will list a new product. This is really a form of extortion, because unless a product is on the shelves, there is no possibility that it can be accepted by consumers and sold. You hear so much about the fact that the chain stores handle food for about a 1 per

[ Page 1888 ]

cent turnover. This is true, but what is never mentioned is the fact that they have many other ways of increasing their profit margin. One of the major ways, of course, is the cash discount. They demand anywhere from 1 per cent to 2.5 per cent for cash discounts. It used to be 10 days; in many cases now it's 15. In the meantime, the goods have been placed upon the shelves and sold before they've been paid for, therefore they're operating with other people's money."

[Mr. Rogers in the chair]

There are a number of practices which are acknowledged, Mr. Chairman, that go on in terms of the chain store operations. Yet nobody has taken the trouble to do an in-depth inquiry. The letter that Dr. Mallen received goes on to say:

"I feel that the volume rebate is one of the most insidious parts of the present merchandising scheme. As you're aware, the industry cannot offer a programme to any chain store which cannot be offered to another. Therefore if one chain makes a demand and industry feels that they have to meet this demand to be on the shelves, the same demand has to be made available to everyone else and it's a vicious cycle. The volume discount has merit because there are savings in handling carload lots and large volumes. However the volume rebate at the end of the year does not reflect any savings that could be passed on to the consumer."

That's got to be of concern to the minister. "I have on one occasion talked to presidents who showed me cheques that have been mailed to chain stores for volume rebates which are actually greater than the profits for the entire year of that particular company."

Mr. Chairman, I understand that we should be getting a report from the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture. It's unfortunate that that report isn't available now so that we could deal with it in these estimates.

This letter goes on to say:

"No firm objects to co-operative advertising, as it's one way of advertising their merchandise. What they do object to is the fact that the price they have to pay for that advertising is several times what the actual costs cost the retailer to buy that advertising. In other word, processors pay a premium for being included in the page of advertising submitted by the particular retailer."

That's one of the practices; that's one of the mechanisms for kicking back.

"Another factor that I think is most unfair is that the retailers are now deeply involved in their own private labels and they have the power to establish the price for not only their own products but also for the competitor's products. And there are many instances when the competitor's product is selling at prices higher than it need be and the chain's private label is selling much lower so that they will capture a larger share of the market. In other words, the consumer who buys a nationally advertised brand is often subsidizing the chain store private brand."

"As you're aware, the manufacturer cannot establish the retail price. If the retailer is interested in taking over a large share of the market, they can increase the price of another brand and lower the price of their own brand. The profit they make on the other brand is often much greater than the one they make on their own, until such time as they capture the large share of the market."

There is the issue of corporate concentration: how do you capture the market? By size?

"I honestly believe that retailing in Canada would be much healthier if the products available to the consumer were those that the consumer requires, not those from which the retailer stands to make the most money. I would have to admit that today, with the large volume of products on the market, if a product is not selling, it should be delisted. But it should not be delisted because of the fact that the manufacturer and the processor were not willing to meet the demands put upon them by retailers for special discounts and programmes."

We have a great deal of information, but it's the last two lines of the letter which really say it all about this problem:

"I hope this is useful to you. As agreed, the source of information is not to be disclosed."

And that's what happens in this issue constantly. In the last three weeks I had a number of phone calls from people who gave me information but were not prepared to sign -affidavits. They're not prepared to make reports because they're in the industry. And yet they're actually describing the practices that go on every day in the supermarket industry where the taxpayer and the consumer get ripped off.

As I said in my beginning remarks, the

[ Page 1889 ]

minister has failed the consumer on this issue, which is probably the most important issue that they had an opportunity to come out of his ministry and take a stand on.

I agree with him. He did something specific about the tax buyers. Then he got ripped off himself down in Ottawa. But this is a different issue because this is an international issue. Somebody has to break the ice in this business and start investigating it. Somebody has got to put the finger on the supermarkets and say: "Look, if this is what you're doing, it's wrong. This is not free enterprise and you've got to do something about it."

We've got a report that has just come out of Ottawa: the report of the royal commission on corporate concentration. It cost $5 million, and they tippy-toe around the edges. Corporate concentration, oligopoly - the thing is we have got to , get the studies now on the food industry. They did a couple of side studies.

The minister has missed an opportunity to do something real for the consumers because a lot of work has been done in the past on some of the peripheral issues that affect people. But this is one that affects everybody. What we had was a series of stonewalling efforts in this House from the Minister of Agriculture and the Attorney-General. We're even getting it from the Chairman of the committee, but I can't really attack him because he can't defend himself - not this Chairman of the committee, the Chairman of the standing committee.

I would like the minister to tell us just exactly why it is that he feels that his ministry is not competent, because that's the impression I got when he was answering the questions in the House. He's not competent to amass the information, so turn it over to the combines investigation people. After all, those people are covering the whole country. I have never completely understood the priorities of the combines investigation people. You know we have major issues in this province and this country of corporate concentration and the operation of monopolies.

The only two things that I can find those combines investigation people have taken the trouble to do anything about are the fishermen, when they were on strike here, and a small mattress manufacturing outfit in Richmond.

Yet there are major issues affecting the consumer and the taxpayer, such as corporate concentration in the food industry, the whole kickback problem, the impeding of competition - that's what that Combines Investigation Act is all about. This is the ministers system. That's what he supports - the free enterprise system, which we all know is neither free nor enterprising. It can only operate if it's private and if it's monopolistic, if it's prepared to put other people out of business so that the big people can swallow up the little people - that's the nature of the private enterprise system.

His job, as the minister, is not to protect the corporations; it's to protect the consumer. You haven't done that. You've failed, and you've failed badly on this. If he shakes his head much more it is going to fall off. When the minister gets up - and I want him to have an opportunity - I hope he will give us some explanation of this.

Now I want to just go to the issue of the study on the capital markets. I don't know what's happened to that report. The information I had at the beginning of the year was that it would be ready in January; it was going to be ready in March; now we' re told it's going to be ready in August. What's the problem? I understood the report was finished. However, it may be that the government rejected the report and said: "Go back and do some more work." I spoke to people who'd had discussions about the report, and they were concerned about the lack of depth of the kind of information that was being requested. So perhaps the minister would comment on this. Tell us exactly what it is that's holding up that report, and also what is happening to the other report being done on the capital market by a firm of financial consultants. There are two reports, as I understand it, which were announced last year.

First I would like the minister to respond to the question of why he failed to come to grips with the issue of the allegations of that kick-back - why he was not prepared to refer it to the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture - and then I'd like some information on those two reports.

HON. MR. MUIR: I think I have to say 'that I haven't failed at all. I think there is an honest disagreement between the second member for Vancouver-Burrard and myself as to what one has to do in the situation relative to the supermarkets. Let us, for the sake of discussion, assume that everything that the member opposite fears - and that I may suspect - is the case and that it has in fact happened, and happened in its worst form.

This is a national problem. We're talking about national and international companies -as he has indicated - and it's a problem that is comprehended by the national government in its combines investigation legislation. The problem as I see it, Mr. Member, is this: I

[ Page 1890 ]

simply do not have the authority to do anything about this. If they were found guilty of these practices, there is no statute which I administer which they would offend by these practices. And, obviously, I simply have not got either the money or the power within my ministry to do the federal government's job for it.

Without meaning to be provocative, I can see that if 1 were to set apart in my estimates the sum of, let's say, $1 million to investigate practices in the supermarkets in British Columbia, the members opposite would very rightly say to me: "Why are you spending British Columbia taxpayers' money to do the federal government's investigation for it? You have no power, Mr. Minister; you have no Act; and therefore you should mind your own business."

Now I take what the member says very seriously. I think there are certainly practices that have been brought to our attention which cry out for investigation. I don't think there's any question about it. If they're not true, well, let's find out that they're not true. If they are true, then let's do something about them.

What I say to the member opposite is: is there any sense in calling these people in front of an investigative committee after what you have just said? I point out that you said a moment ago that they're afraid to talk. They're not going to talk to committees; they're not going to talk to anybody. This calls for investigation and not for hearings.

MR. LEVI: But the companies....

HON. MR. MAIR: It calls for investigation, Mr. Member, in my view. I respect your view; now please hear mine. It calls for investigation, in my view, by the people who have the authority to do something about it if the allegations are proved to be true.

Now we have not heard from the agriculture committee as yet. I'm told that they have information; you're told that they have information. But we don't know what that is yet. Let us, at least, for goodness sake, see what they do have before we make any further decisions as to whether we should do anything beyond that. I don't think there is any question that the problem the member raises with respect to either inability to disclose sources or fear on the part of people to disclose sources has been adequately documented by Miss Parton and Evans-Atkinson and people of that sort.

I know that problem exists. I think, Mr. Member, that the thing we must do now is wait and see what information we have. If there is any possibility that there's been a breach of the statutes of British Columbia, I undertake to see that they are investigated. If not, I undertake to see that the information gets to the proper authorities, and that, of course, is the federal government.

In regard to the capital market study, Mr. Member, I'm not at liberty to go into any great detail on the matter, but let me just give you this answer. They have given us a number of drafts from time to time as to what they have been doing and the conclusions they have reached. In so doing, in the eyes of the Ministry of Economic Development and our own ministry, they have identified new problems. We have asked them to go into those problems and to identify them and to report upon them before they give us the final report. That is the reason it is going to take a little more time than we had anticipated. It's an extremely detailed report. I think it's a comprehensive report that certainly matches our original hopes, if it does not exceed them.

So I think that all in all, we are better served in the government, in the province and in this Legislature to give them a little more time to go into the matter in great detail than to ask them to come in with what would only be an interim report at this time.

The hour is drawing nigh, so let me just say to the member, first of all, that we have a disagreement on what we should do on the supermarkets. I do not think we have any disagreement as to what evidence there appears to be, but we have a disagreement as to what ought to be done. I'm obviously not going to convince you and it does not look as if you're going to convince me, so we can go at that back and forth as long as you want, but there it is.

As far as the capital market study is concerned, I hope that I've given you an explanation that is suitable. I assure you, as an hon. member of this House, that it is going to be a first-rate report and I would rather, as part of the reason for the report coming into being, see it done exhaustively and thoroughly than to ask them to fall short of our expectations.

MR. LEVI: The minister said that if he when he came into the House with an estimate for $1 million for investigation of this issue, and he got the information, what could he do with it.

HON. MR. MAIR: No, I did not say that.

MR. LEVI: Well, all right, you come in and

[ Page 1891 ]

request a $1 million to investigate, but it's not your jurisdiction to investigate these things.

HON. MR. MAIR: I'm saying that you wouldn't vote me the money because it isn't my business.

MR. LEVI: No, wait a minute. I'll tell you why we wouldn't vote the money. Mr. Chairman, the minister is right. We wouldn't vote you the money; that's quite true. Do you know why? Because we already agreed in this House that the standing committee on agriculture could go out and look at the whole issue of food prices and land and agriculture and the whole ball of wax. So far, I'm informed, we've spent $1.5 million. Now what are we going to give you another $1 million for?

What I'm simply saying to you is that that committee has information that relates to supermarket practices and that the logical thing to do is to ask the committee to set up some meetings, call the supermarket people together and say: "Look, we have these allegations. What do you say about them?" That's the route that they went in Ontario. This isn't a question of giving somebody a whole new set of terms of reference - those are the terms of reference of that committee. The terms of reference are Lo investigate the question of food costs and the whole range of things. They're broad. They can do that under that committee.

Now you say that they will come in with a report. They're going to come in with a report where the information that they have gathered has not been done in any public way at all. That's what should be done. A little bit more money in that committee - that's fine, they could do that. One of the things that the minister surely must realize, Mr. Chairman, is that the way you start dealing with problems is to bring some public light on those problems. You have to have a vehicle to do that and for the first time in this province, in relation to the whole food issue, that government's set up a committee. Great - then take advantage of it. Ask the committee to hold a set of public meetings. Call the stores.

Now we have to deal with the issue of the people who are afraid to talk. That's a tough one; I appreciate that. After all, people's jobs and businesses are at stake. All right, you've got to put your heads together with the Attorney-General and other people, and how do you get the information? Well, I'm not a great believer in having secret meetings, but in the province of Quebec they had a series of inquiries in relation to the construction industry and in relation to the meat industry. Some of the meetings were in camera, and if that's the way you've got to get the information, then get it. But the main thing is there has to be an opportunity for that.

I see that the hour is late and we have a dinner to go to, Mr. Minister, so I....

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Chairman, because I don't want to forget to bring this up tomorrow and I know we have tomorrow to go at it, I want to point out to the member that there are a number of serious handicaps to trying to do this through a committee of the House and trying to do it on a provincial basis. Not the least is that while the committee, as I understand it, has the power to subpoena, it does not have the power to search and seize documents and do all of those things in which police powers do prevail as far as the federal government is concerned. I think we all agree that it's going to be like extracting teeth to get it voluntarily. When you don't know what to subpoena, it's pretty difficult to use the power of subpoena. So I leave that as food for thought overnight, and we can discuss it tomorrow.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Gardom moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:58 p.m.

[ Page 1892 ]

APPENDIX

7 Mr. Lockstead asked the Hon. the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications the following questions:

With reference to Columbia River power development financing-

1. hat is the total expenditure on construction of storage projects to date'?
2. What are the total expenditures on generation, transformation, and transmission facilities to date?
3. What is the estimate of the total amount required to complete the project'?
4. What was the total amount, including interest, received under the Columbia River Treaty?

The Hon. W. R. Bennett replied as follows:

1. ": $596,660, 504 to February 28,1978.
2. " $657,047, 459 to February 28,1978.
3. " $37,688, 920 ($6,885, 314 for storage projects and $30,803, 606 for generation, transmission, and transformation) .
4. " $479,107, 523."

8 Mr. Lockstead asked the Hon. the Minister of Energy, Transport and Com munications the following questions:

With reference to the Peace River power project-

1. What is the total amount spent to date, including generation and transmission?
2. What is the latest estimated total cost of the project?

The Hon. W. R. Bennett replied as follows:

1. " $708,127, 202 to February 28,1978.
2. " $734,724, 081 (not including allowance for litigation settlement) ."

27 Mr. Stupich asked the Hon. the Minister of Finance the following question:

What is the total amount transferred to General Revenue from B.C. Petroleum Corporation to date?

The Hon. E. M. Wolfe replied as follows:

"Total to March 31,1978, $545,250, 000."

32 Mr. Stupich asked the Hon. the Minister of Finance the following question:

With respect to the Perpetual and Special Funds, what were the balances of principal and interest in each of these funds as at December 31,1975, and as at December 31,1977?

The Hon. E. M. Wolfe stated, in his opinion, the reply should be in the form of a return and that lie had no objection to laying such a return upon the table of the House, and thereupon presented such return.

34 Mrs. Wallace asked the Hon. the Minister of Finance the following questions:

1. Were any Government vehicles sold to Peter Pollen Ford Sales Ltd. in the fiscal year 1977/78?
2. If the answer to question No. I is yes, (a) what are the full details and selling price of each vehicle and (b) were the sales by public tender'?

The Hon. E. M. Wolfe replied as follows:

1. " No.
2. " Not applicable."