[ Page 669 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral questions.

Upgrading of Highway 37. Mr. Passarell –– 669

Natural gas exports. Mr. Macdonald –– 669

Family Relations Act. Mr. Leggatt –– 669

Miard report on ferries. Mr. Nicolson –– 670

Federal Health Resources Fund. Mr. Stupich –– 670

Report on timber allocations. Mr. King –– 670

Report on the financial community. Mr. Levi –– 670

Dismissal of Margaret Caldwell. Ms. Sanford –– 671

Purcell Wilderness Conservancy boundary. Mr. Hanson –– 671

Hospital employee x-rays. Mr. Macdonald — 671

Matter of Urgent Public Importance

Natural gas exports.

Mr. Macdonald –– 671

Routine Proceedings

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Environment estimates.

On vote 89.

Mr. Mitchell –– 672

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 673

Mrs. Wallace –– 674

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 675

Mrs. Dailly –– 676

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 677

Mr. Howard –– 679

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 680

Mr. Gabelmann –– 681

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 682

Mr. Hanson –– 682

Mr. King –– 684

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 685

Mr. Davis –– 686

Mr. Levi –– 687

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 688

Mr. Lockstead –– 689

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 689

Mrs. Wallace –– 689

Mr. Leggatt –– 690

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 691

Mr. Howard –– 693

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 694

Mr. Skelly –– 694

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 694

Mr. Macdonald –– 695

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 695

Matter of Urgent Public Importance

Natural gas exports.

Mr. Speaker rules –– 696

Presenting Reports

Corrections branch and Law Reform Commission annual reports.

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 697

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, visiting the Legislature today are a good friend, Mr. Gordon Wilgan; his wife, Ann, their daughters, Beverly and Brenda; and their son, Frank, from Maple Ridge. With them are Mr. Lorne Marshall, secretary of the rural municipality of Buckland in Saskatchewan; his wife, Stella; their son, Trent; and their daughter, Sherry. I would ask the House to bid them all a gracious welcome.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I have a couple of friends in the gallery today from central Sooke, Messrs. J. and M. Sal Monwhacker, and I would like all members to bid them a special welcome.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Speaker, I ask the House to welcome Mr. Len Smith and his wife, Margaret, and relatives from Holland. I would appreciate it very much if you would make them welcome to this great city of Victoria.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, Little Red is here today and she has brought with her our two friends, Mr. and Mrs. Raabe, and we would like to welcome them to the chamber.

Oral Questions

UPGRADING OF HIGHWAY 37

MR. PASSARELL: I would like to address this question to the Minister of Transportation, Communications and Highways. Has the minister made any commitments to Arrow Transportation regarding the upgrading and maintenance of Highway 37?

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I met the officials of Arrow Transportation some three months ago. We gave some commitments on maintenance regarding Highway 37 and we're starting to carry those out.

NATURAL GAS EXPORTS

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. Following his statement yesterday that the government supports the export of an additional 60 million cubic feet of natural gas per day, and the statement of Mr. Bonner, chairman of B.C. Hydro, that B.C. Hydro has complained about the information supplied by Westcoast in support of the extension of the export permit, and pointed out that those cases referred to showed no such surplus for the people of the province of British Columbia, and pointed out that there was a lack of analysis by Westcoast and other applicants, demonstrating the impact on Canadians of having to purchase more expensive natural gas to replace cheaper Canadian gas that would be exported to the United States under this proposal.... In view of that disarray and the cogent case made by Mr. Bonner, will the minister reconsider that decision that he made in his statement of July 10?

HON. MR. HEWITT: No.

MR. MACDONALD: A supplementary to the same minister. In view of the minister's statement of March 5, 1979, that no decision would be made by this government on the export of additional quantities of natural gas until there was an overall energy policy in this province, and in view of the minister's statement in estimates that policy might come down in October, why has he backtracked and decided to support this application now?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, as I think the second member for Vancouver East knows, the permit that is in place now allows for the export of natural gas to the year, I believe, 1989. We have not exceeded that figure, Mr. Member.

MR. MACDONALD: What — 1989?

HON. MR. HEWITT: I believe it's 1989; I could check that out for you. What we are doing is supporting the application for additional sales going down there, but it doesn't exceed the existing limitation on that long-term, 20-year contract.

MR. MACDONALD: On a supplementary question, is the minister saying that this additional amount is only until 1989?

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: What did he say?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, we cannot accept an answer until you take your seat.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, the export licence, GL-41, as the member probably knows, terminates in 1989, I believe.

MR. MACDONALD: That's right, but this is an additional one you're asking for.

FAMILY RELATIONS ACT

MR. LEGGATT': Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Attorney-General. There was a news report this morning that another provincial court judge, Judge Winnifred Murphy, had been adjourning cases that had been referred to her under the provisions of the B.C. Family Relations Act. My question to the Attorney-General, Mr. Speaker, is: has he canvassed with the senior judge, Judge Goulet, as to the number of provincial court judges that are now taking a position that they will not hear matters referred to them under that particular Act?

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'll have to take the question as notice today.

MR. LEGGATT: I have a new question, Mr. Speaker. It's probably sneakily supplementary, but we can call it a

[ Page 670 ]

new question. The vagueness at the present time in terms of the Family Relations Act is a direct result of the failure to have a definitive decision surrounding the constitutional validity of this Act. Can the Attorney-General tell me why, at this point, he has not used the Constitutional Questions Determination Act to refer this Act directly to the court of appeal so that we can have a decision once and for all and settle the uncertainty in the law in this province?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Well, I'd like to respond to the hon. member and assure him that the law is being carried out in the province. There has been a challenge which was not argued in front of the court, which we all appreciate, and the matter is under consideration.

MIARD REPORT ON FERRIES

MR. NICOLSON: I have a question for the Minister of Highways. Some time over a year ago the minister acknowledged that he had received the Miard report on coastal and inland ferries operated by the Ministry of Highways. I'd like to ask the minister if he has yet had a chance to read the report.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I have read the report.

MR. NICOLSON: On a supplementary, has the Minister of Highways decided to release the report?

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.

MR. NICOLSON: On a further supplementary, will the minister release the report?

MR. SPEAKER: That question is not in order.

MR. NICOLSON: I know it isn't, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: A further supplementary to the same minister. Has the minister decided, or will he tell us, when he is going to put fares on those inland ferries now serving the northern and interior lakes of British Columbia?

MR. SPEAKER: The question is not in order.

MR. KING: I wanted to ask the Minister of Transportation, Communications and Highways if he would have released the report had the Premier not shouted "no" at him?

FEDERAL HEALTH RESOURCES FUND

MR. STUPICH: I'm hesitating, in case the minister wanted to answer that question.

I have a financial question to ask of the Minister of Health. I'm reading from the Commons debates of November 27, 1978, when Hon. Monique Begin said:

I deeply regret that you have to explain clearly that under the administrative procedures for the Health Resources Fund, which is a 50-50 cost-shared program, the concerned province must take the initiative to send us a submission or a draft submission signed by the competent authorities.

In late September I received one from British Columbia, an application without even a signature. You cannot play like that with amounts of several million dollars.

My question is whether or not B.C. has since submitted a proper application.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: The question was not correctly put by Madame Begin. We submitted all the forms at the proper time, and in the proper way. However, a holdup in the mail at one point got our application for one particular part of the Health Resources Fund to Ottawa after the arbitrary deadline of the cutoff of health resources funds, which was made without any consultation with the minister, or the ministry, or any province in Canada. It was made — I might also say, Mr. Speaker, through you to the member — in the face of a signed contract with Ottawa. So there was no question of a wrongly submitted form.

We did subsequently appeal that, and all the necessary forms are in the hands of the federal government. We have since appealed to the new government, and I've asked for an immediate meeting with the federal Minister of Health and Welfare in an attempt to have that amount of money — which is designated for the Children's Hospital in Vancouver — to be reallocated to us.

MR. STUPICH: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. On what date were the proper forms originally filed?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I could get all that information for you. I have a full file on it. They were filed with Ottawa according to all of the proper procedures before the cutoff deadline. If the member would send me a note, I'd be happy to give him the whole file on the situation as it is up to this point.

REPORT ON TIMBER ALLOCATIONS

MR. KING: My question is to the Minister of Forests. There was a report compiled, I understand, by an independent forestry consulting firm — referred to as the Thomson report — on various timber allocations and inventories in the province. Would the minister consider tabling that report as public information?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I believe the report referred to by the member was one that was actually commissioned by the Truck Loggers' Association and presented to the Forest Service. Since the report was commissioned by the Truck Loggers' Association, I suggest you ask them for a copy of it.

MR. KING: I have a supplementary question. Does the minister have any objection to the report being released by the Truck Loggers' Association?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: It's not up to me to object to a truck loggers' report being released or not.

REPORT ON THE
FINANCIAL COMMUNITY

MR. LEVI: My question is to the Minister of Economic Development. Two years ago he authorized a report by Brown, Farris and Jefferson on the financial community. Can the minister tell us if he's received the report?

[ Page 671 ]

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I believe that report was commissioned in conjunction with the Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. I believe the report is in their hands. We're taking a look at it.

MR. LEVI: Is the minister saying that they received the report? When did they receive the report?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'd be happy to take that question as notice.

DISMISSAL OF MARGARET CALDWELL

MS. SANFORD: My question is to the Minister of Labour. Could the Minister of Labour advise the House when he anticipates that he will have that legal advice as to whether he should appeal the board of inquiry decision relating to the teacher whose contract was not renewed because of her marriage outside her faith?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Not accepting the premise upon which the question is asked, the advice has been requested for Thursday, which is tomorrow.

PURCELL WILDERNESS
CONSERVANCY BOUNDARY

MR. HANSON: I have a question for the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing. Has the minister instructed his staff in the parks branch to get recommendations on redrawing the boundaries of the Purcell Wilderness Conservancy?

HON. MR. CHABOT: The answer is no.

MR. HANSON: My understanding is that the parks branch director has in fact sent a letter to the regional office. Was that done without your knowledge? Did Mr. Lee send a letter to the regional office regarding redrawing the boundaries of the wilderness conservancy?

HON. MR. CHABOT: The answer is no.

MR. HANSON: Has the minister received representation from logging companies regarding access to timber through the Fry Creek area of the Purcell Wilderness Conservancy?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Not that I am aware of.

MR. HANSON: Has the minister received representation from any mining interests regarding redrawing of the boundaries of the wilderness conservancy.

HON. MR. CHABOT: The answer is no.

HOSPITAL EMPLOYEE X-RAYS

MR. MACDONALD: I have a question for the Minister of Health. My information is that employees in the hospitals of the province, because of Workers' Compensation regulations, are required to have chest x-ray examinations, when they commence employment., six months later, and then annually thereafter. This obviously brings up the question of unnecessary X-rays at excessive dosages. Is the minister aware that this is the policy, and is it still continuing in the hospitals of B.C.? I would like to say to the minister that the question is not amusing.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I will take that question as notice.

MR. MACDONALD: I should wait for the orders of the day to be called. Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to move adjournment of the House under standing order 35 for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of public importance. The matter is the proposal of Westcoast Transmission, acceded to by the government, to export additionally 60 million cubic feet of natural gas per day to the United States without regard to the needs of the residential and industrial customers in British Columbia, and in the absence of an adequate price for our gas on the international market. I hand up the statement, Mr. Speaker, and I append to that, since the reasons in support of the application for debate are rather lengthy, this prepared statement as well.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, it becomes the responsibility of the Chair to determine the urgency of the matter and to determine whether or not, in this particular instance, the matter falls directly within the jurisdiction of this House, or whether some shared jurisdiction exists with this House and the House in Ottawa. Therefore I would reserve decision on the matter without prejudice.

MR. MACDONALD: May I speak to the matter?

MR. SPEAKER: There is no provision under standing orders to speak to it until such time as it is considered in order.

MR. MACDONALD: I don't want to debate the issue, but I want to bring certain matters to your attention as to the urgency of debate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, I have the motion and the appendices before me. Therefore I would consider those matters which the member has placed before the Chair. and come back to the House at the earliest possible time with a decision, without prejudice to the hon. member's position in this debate. Is that agreed?

MR. MACDONALD: One or two additional matters not in the notes relate to the urgency of the need for debate.

MR. SPEAKER: If there are any further matters which need to be filed with the motion, I would urge the hon. member to do so. However, we cannot provide for a debate on it until such time as the matter itself can be declared in order.

MR. MACDONALD: May I refer to the additional matters?

MR. SPEAKER: You cannot refer to them at this time. They can be filed with the Chair, or with the Table. We cannot accept further debate.

[ Page 672 ]

MR. MACDONALD: I want to make one or two points that are not in those notes, and make those very briefly.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member may wish to file....

MR. MACDONALD: Well, I would rather do them orally, but if Mr. Speaker is saying....

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, if there was a way we could do it by recognizing the member in his place just now, I'd be happy to do so. But the standing orders do not provide for it.

MR. MACDONALD: I make the single point. The estimates of that minister are passed, Mr. Speaker, and I think you should take that into account.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

MR. KING: On a point of order, there are two points that I would like to raise. I understand it is in order on a point of order to offer advice to the Chair with respect to the matters that should be taken into consideration in arriving at your conclusion as to whether or not the request itself is in order. That is not debating the issue surrounding the motion but, rather, offering some advice to the Chair as to why the member feels it's in order.

The other point is that I would ask for your consideration with respect to the practice of reserving decision on a matter raised as a matter of urgent public importance in particular. Mr. Speaker, the rules do require that a matter of that nature be raised at the earliest opportunity. That factor in itself can be compromised by a delay in the decisionmaking process. I would ask the Speaker to consider that very carefully for the future.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, the two issues that arise on this point of order are these. First, due to the delay in arriving at a decision in some other British parliamentary jurisdictions, the Speaker may ask the mover if it will prejudice him if there's a reserve for a few hours while the Speaker considers the matter; otherwise the Chair recesses. The House still sits, and the Speaker retires until he has considered the matter. I provide that information to the Speaker, but I'm sure he's already aware of it.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you very much.

MR. LAUK: The second thing I respectfully draw to the Speaker's attention is standing order 38 of our rules, which states:

"A member addressing the House shall, if called to order by Mr. Speaker or on a point raised by another member, sit down while the point of order is being stated, after which he may explain. Mr. Speaker may permit debate of the point of order before rendering his decision, but such debate must be strictly relevant to the point of order taken."

I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, the idea of urgency of debate is on a point of order, and that the Speaker may allow at least information by the mover and even — if the Speaker desires all the information before making a decision — may allow debate on the point.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, without presuming to take the time of the House to give instructions in the standing orders, with great respect I must refer to standing order 38 and suggest that is the procedure on a point of order. I must remind hon. members that the reason for recognizing the hon. second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) was not on a point of order, but rather on a request for leave to make a motion that the business of the House be adjourned. Hon. members, it is the Speaker's responsibility to determine not just urgency but whether or not a matter is urgent enough so that the regular proceedings of the House shall be interrupted. I am sure that all hon. members would like to have that matter given due consideration and that the House be given a well-considered opinion.

On a point of order, the first member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. LAUK: I don't want to delay the House any further, but it should be pointed out that when the matter is put before the Speaker, or the House, the member desiring to make such a motion rises in his place, asks leave to move the adjournment of the House to that purpose and states the matter. He then hands a written statement of the matter proposed to be discussed to Mr. Speaker, who, "if he thinks it in order...." Now "in order" is a point of order, and when one refers to standing order 38, that describes what happens during the discussion in this chamber on a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: I wish I could accept that.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might, with the indulgence of the House, introduce a guest in the House today. Unfortunately I was detained.

MR. SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted.

Leave granted.

MR. SPEAKER: Please proceed.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce to you and the House an old friend of mine and a distinguished citizen of my constituency of Kamloops. He is Mr. Sandy Sandiford, and he is with us today.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT
(continued)

On vote 89: minister's office, $164,938 — continued.

MR. MITCHELL: I would like to go over a few of the problems which have faced my riding and a decision made by the cabinet and how it is affecting my riding. The decision was made by three members of the cabinet who sat as an independent board and overruled the Pollution Control Board when they brought down a decision not to allow a

[ Page 673 ]

sewer outfall from a subdivision known as the Lagoon subdivision in the riding. Lagoon is in the Colwood area.

I am not altogether opposed to the decision that was made by the three members of the cabinet. I know that decision was made because of 20 years of inept Social Credit government. This is the part that has never been brought to the attention of this House. There have been no regulations on allowing housing to be developed on an area that should never have been zoned as residential. It was a rural area suited for farming. They allowed a collection of 70 homes to be built on it, which caused the pollution of the lagoon.

I know the problem was there and I know there was discussion on how it should be solved. I know the Pollution Control Board and the pollution branch were at divisions. I know that the cabinet made a decision to allow a sewage plant that would pipe sewage out a thousand feed into the sea. At this time I don't want to argue the decision. It was made, I sincerely believe, with good intentions. But as the road to hell is paved by good intentions, these good intentions are causing trouble throughout he riding. I think if the issue is allowed to continue, we will continue to add additional sewer outlets into the sea, and we are going to have a problem.

This decision has already spurred two groups to make an application for sewer outfalls from a holding tank into the sea. One of these is in the Pedder Bay area, and one is in the Otter Point area. Problems will develop throughout the province of British Columbia unless the government, the cabinet and the minister come down now with a firm, solid public policy that sewage treatment must be a community effort. We cannot allow groups throughout the province — be they companies or corporations or individuals — who have a large piece or a small piece of property where they can establish a hotel, a camp or a private home in an area.... Instead of setting up a proper treatment plant for the sewerage, or instead of developing a community sewerage system for the whole area, they can start the issues that were outlawed in general practice years ago — the running of sewage into the sea. They should stop it and not allow it to start up again. I feel that the issue is going to arise and every little group in a community has to rise and fight another application that comes from a group who use as their precedent the decision made by our present cabinet in allowing 70 homes in one area to establish a sewerage plant and then pipe it into the sea.

I just want the minister to rise and expound on the policy. What is the policy of his ministry? Is he going to allow each issue to be fought, to be argued, locally and the problems go to the health officers or the pollution branch, or the appeal then to the Pollution Control Board? If that is defeated, they can go to the cabinet and get another decision. Are we going to have throughout the province, throughout the greater Victoria area, from here through to Sooke, a succession of little sewerage outfalls that will go out into the sea? I know they can say that at the present time it is not polluted. But do we wait till the whole coast is polluted and then say: "Well, it's too late."?

This is a policy I want now. I want the minister to come out and publicly say where we stand. Groups are now coming forward all over the province, or throughout my riding, now making applications to pipe sewage into the sea, and they are using the precedent as set down by the cabinet. I would like his statement now.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Chairman, before I answer the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew, I would like to take this opportunity to correct an answer I gave to the hon. member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson). I believe it was last evening when he talked and asked about the Salmonid Enhancement Program.

I unwittingly gave him an answer that the balance of the money in the budget — over $1,250,000 — was money that we spent on administration and that sort of thing. Unfortunately I was in error in that regard. There's $750,000 we do spend, but it is charged back to the federal government. I'm sorry if I misled the member with that answer.

Dealing with questions raised by the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew, first of all, I'm sure, Mr. Member, you don't expect me to come up with any counter-answers to decisions rendered by my colleagues, which are always difficult decisions to make. I've sat on those cabinet committees, and I sit constantly on the ELUC committee; I've sat on liquor appeals and so on. They're always vexing. You always have two sides of the question that are very well articulated, each of which has merit. I don't know the merits of that particular case. I'm instructed that the branch allowed the application. It was overturned by the PCB and reinstated by the cabinet.

I'm also instructed that there's a good case to be made for the proposition that the subdivision, which started during the time of your party's administration, ought never to have been allowed. Be that as it may, that's history. What you want from me is some statement of general policy, and I'll try very hard to give it.

First of all, I'm sure that you did not wish to give the impression that we have embarked upon some ill-considered policy all around the province and are not concerned with the question of sewage disposal, because that's simply not so. We're committed to a long-range plan of dry land disposal in the Interior. We've already started in Penticton and that area, and we're beginning to get on the road in Kamloops. I'm sure the member understands and appreciates that there are enormous cost factors involved in any turnaround of what has been a long-term method of sewage disposal, not just in British Columbia but throughout the world. It's not something that's going to be accomplished easily, but I quite agree with the member that it's got to be started now and we've got to be making long-term plans. So we have made a long-term commitment, and I've made it a number of times over, that we have to work towards the and of no discharge into any streams, rivers or lakes in our province.

Now dealing with the question of disposal in the ocean, it's a somewhat different problem. It's different only to a matter of degree, but we can allow ourselves, I think, for the time being, in any event, the luxury, if I may use that term, of some disposal at sea provided the outfall is sufficient and long enough in order to accommodate the situation. Now I appreciate that the first thing the member may well mention to me are the journeys of the boat Ra and so on across the Atlantic Ocean, where human sewage was in fact seen. Quite obviously, we have to bear in mind that the ocean like everything else has a limited tolerance.

In any event, I think we can, at least for the time being, allow a degree of disposal at sea, which is much better equipped to take sewage than the lakes and rivers, as I'm sure the member well knows. There's a much better scavenger situation; there's a much better absorption

[ Page 674 ]

situation, and so on. However, I think that over a very protracted period of time we will get to the point where we don't have to do either. But in the meantime, we have to immediately work on the Interior, where we're talking about fresh water, interference with our salmon runs and our resident trout populations, and indeed the drinking water of the people, and so on. We have to work immediately on dry land disposal or other methods of disposal. In the ocean, on a slightly longer term, I think we have to work toward the same end.

MR. MITCHELL: I would like to rise and disagree with that statement and idea that you can run it into the sea, because something is going to happen.... You are using the example of the McCauley Point outfall where you're running it 5,000 feet out into the sea. That is an extensive discharge; you're out into deep water and you're out into the currents. You have private individuals run it over the bank onto the shore. I know they'I say they are going to run it out, but anyone who has studied the engineering facts of life of trying to run a pipe out into the western part of the Strait of Juan de Fuca — where the waves, tidal action, current, and the power of the Pacific come in — knows it will destroy any small, cheap, economical pipe that a private individual or private corporation can afford to put in. You end up having sewage literally running onto the beaches and along shore where there are mussels, crab, clams and the fishing.

The policy of running it into the sea is wrong. In Mexico they have been doing that in their unplanned areas: they build a beautiful highrise and in front of it they have a nice swimming pool, because in back, on the sea side, the sewer is running into the water. This is what we are going to have on this coast if we allow it. To say that we can run it into the sea because it's not as bad as running it into your drinking water.... I will concede it is not as bad as running it into your drinking water, but the policy of running sewers into the shore is wrong.

We can't afford the luxury of waiting until our bays and our shoreline are polluted, as happened in the lagoon area. The local taxpayers in the lagoon area have to put in the sewer development and rescue the environment and finance the thousand-foot outfall into the sea. We must take a stand on this issue before the coastline is polluted outside the greater Victoria area. We can't afford that pleasure. It would be nice to say that it is not as bad as running it into the lakes; I concede that.

I sincerely ask that you and your ministry consult with the health officials of this province who are facing these issues locally, and where individuals are asking for these applications, that you study what's happening to our coastline and how it will be polluted. Let's not wait until it's polluted and then add that tax dollar onto the citizens when trying to put the sewers in at a later date. If this land is going to be developed, let's develop it properly and put in the sewers. I agree with you 100 percent: what is good for those in the Interior — dry land disposal of sewage — is equally as good and equally necessary for us who live on the coast.

HON. MR. MAIR: I don't think we are really arguing, Mr. Member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew. I agree with you that the more we can turn to single large plants instead of multiple disposal pipes, and that sort of thing, the better. I don't think disposal of sewage in any water is a good long-term solution. I was only trying to say that when you're looking at the question of which you solve first and which you solve second and which you can afford to let go a little while longer in view of the huge cost implications, you're safer with a long outflow into the ocean than you are with any outflow into lakes and streams and rivers. I agree with what you say. It's a question, of course, of facing up to the enormous expense, which all of us are going to have to face up to, whether we are taxpayers in a municipality or a city, or general citizens of the province. I don't disagree with what you say. It's only a question of when we are going to be able to afford to do it.

MR. MITCHELL: Just one thing. Mr. Minister....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. In committee, when there is debate going across the floor and there is unlimited speaking time other than the 30-minute time limit, the Chairman will endeavour to recognize the speaker who has been carrying on.

The member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew continues.

MR. MITCHELL: When you have a private individual making the application, he's making the application to make a quick buck; it's needed now. Maybe he won't be around after he's sold his hotel or whatever he's building. It's not the same as when a municipality goes in and does a proper survey. Individuals are running pipes into the water; it looks good now, but they are not going to last. This is where I feel we should make a stand, and I would like the minister to bring it to his attention.

MRS. WALLACE: For a start, I would like to just carry on this same theme, Mr. Chairman. I think the minister is aware that in greater Victoria we have a lot of beaches that are already polluted. Certainly the city of Victoria has shown some concern about what has been happening. I know that they have been considering some alternative ways of getting rid of their waste. I think that's what I want to talk to the minister about today.

I think we have to took at those alternative ways. In my mail today I had a series of letters from your seat mate, the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), showing thousands and thousands of dollars in grants going to a few areas in my constituency in aid of sewerage assistance programs. I think we have to look at some alternative ways of spending that money, that will be more effective and less expensive in the long run.

The city of Victoria was suggesting burning their waste material. I would like to suggest to the minister that he consider something that 1, for lack of a better name, have called a garbage train. We have a railway running from one end of this island to the other and we have many, many small communities along that rail line that are experiencing horrendous costs in getting rid of their waste material. I think we should look at establishing a central depot where we could process our garbage for burning, to produce energy or fertilizer or any of the many other uses. We don't always want to think about digging trenches in the ground, or in the rock, and running that sewage into some dry land disposal.

The minister and the ministry are to be commended, as are those local areas that have undertaken it. That's a move in the right direction, because it is, as I understand it, a third

[ Page 675 ]

processing level — it is actually fertilizer on the land. That's certainly the case in the Vernon area. Those are good programs. But we have to get into more of those, and we have to get into other alternatives too.

At the Crofton mill, for example, a boiler has been installed in which the engineer who designed it is quite convinced municipal garbage could be burned. There has been some breakdown there because they thought there was too much fluid — or there was some problem. But I think those are the problems this ministry has to be looking at, and looking at alternatives, because this other method is just getting too uneconomical. Also, it's creating too much pollution.

I have indicated that the minister is to be complimented for the progressive steps he has taken, but I want to point out to the minister just one of the things that has come to my attention which indicates the sort of downward trend that has been occurring in connection with the Pollution Control Board.

The case in point concerns my old friend, Cargill Nutrena Feeds Ltd., a hog farm. When they started out, Mr. Chairman, they had permission for discharge of 15,000 gpd. They were at that time supposed to put in certain provisions to take some of the bacteria and so on out of that effluent. In 1972 that permit was extended even though there were still some problems in getting all the preventive things in. In 1977 the amount of effluent permitted was doubled to 30,000. In 1978 the Pollution Control Board granted a permit for 55,000. Apparently they have until 1980 to complete their control measures. Now that effluent is going right into the Fraser River and into our saltwater system, eventually. I am concerned that a firm like this is continually getting permits to increase its output of bacteria-laden effluent and not being pressured to put in the kind of control measures that are necessary.

Again, here is an opportunity to try something new. I was reading in a magazine that I get, Harrowsmith, that at Cornell University they have come up with a procedure — a rubber whale is what they call it — that is simply installed over the waste manure. This was set up on a dairy farm and they produced enough methane and other gasses from the fermentation of that manure to power well over 90 percent of the energy needs of that dairy farm. Now there is an alternate method. Hog manure, as I'm sure the minister is aware, is high methane. We have an energy crisis. Why spend money in putting in all these great pools and basins to try and get rid of this stuff? Why not put that money into making use of it? Those are the kind of things that I think the minister should be turning to. I would urge him to take steps in those directions.

While I'm on my feet, last night we were discussing the Cowichan estuary and I had raised some points on that. We were reaching I p.m. and the minister responded rather quickly to beat the deadline. But I have just a couple of questions regarding his response. I think he indicated that he would have a report on his desk in ten days to two weeks. Am I to take it that is the task force report, or is that the report of the Environment and Land Use Committee? It's the task force report, I gather. Okay, in that instance then, how long before that will be going to the Environment and Land Use Committee? When will it be made public so people can have it? You know, Mr. Minister, because of the delays — and I know they're not on your desk — and because of the air of suspicion that has developed locally about this report, I think it's very important that the public have access to that report just as soon as possible. And I would ask you how soon you think that can be, and certainly I would ask too for your commitment that report be made public before your final decision is reached.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Chairman, dealing with the last point the member makes concerning the Cowichan River study, I would expect that the report from the task force will be on my desk within the next ten days to two weeks. I will then convene an ELUC meeting as quickly as I possibly can to assess it. Now I think the member knows some of the difficulties that one has in getting an ELUC meeting, a meaningful one, together. I don't think it was any different under her government than under ours. The problem that you have is getting not only all of the ministers together, but more particularly getting the ministers there that really have a direct interest in whatever the subject matter happens to be. This isn't a question of laziness on the part of any minister or anything of that sort. You've got people who are travelling and who've got other commitments and so on.

Now it's going to be essential when I have that meeting that I have a number of my colleagues there particularly. There may be some reason to suppose that one or two of them may not have as much interest as others, but certainly I think the member knows that there are going to be five or six ministers that I must have a firm date from. I want to have that as quickly as possible, and I mean that — as quickly as I possibly can. I have wanted to address this matter and come to some solutions ever since I first became interested, long before I was in this ministry. But as I said last night, Madam Member, I don't want to do something in haste that we're going to repent later. I don't want you to take from that, however, that there will be any undue delays. I will use every human effort to convene a meeting of ELUC to deal with that report as soon as I have it. I'I convene it as quickly as I possibly can.

The question of making it public, Madam Member, is a decision, obviously, I'm going to have to make with my colleagues when the time comes. But I can tell you that philosophically I'm opposed to keeping reports private. I think the reports that are made ought in most cases to be made public as soon as possible, as soon as practical. As the member indicated last night, a great deal of the thinking is already public. You had some working papers which had leaked out one way or another. You know, there is no great secret as to what the parameters of the problem really are. But I will, of course, endeavour to make that public as quickly as I can.

Now going back to your original points, if I may, Madam Member, I think that I should bring us back to the point we were earlier yesterday afternoon or yesterday evening. My ministry has as its obligation basically to identify problems, not to provide the solutions for them. Now other parts of the government must, of course. It may be regional district governments, it may be civic governments, it may be municipal governments, it may be the government of British Columbia, it may be the government of Canada, it may be industry, it may be a combination of all of these things. But if we, in my ministry, were to be handicapped in our operation by having to provide a solution before we could identify a problem and force the polluter to find a solution, then we might as well not be here. So there is very little sense in saying to me: "Look,

[ Page 676 ]

you go out and provide a solution" — for whatever that sewage problem is or whatever that industrial waste problem is or whatever it is. My job is to make them do that, by simply saying that they are not allowed to get a permit under the Pollution Control Act or it will be such and so, not quite to their liking, and therefore apply pressure upon them to do what they must do to bring the problem under control.

Now I think that my deputy reminded me of a truism that I'd forgotten since about grade 5, that energy can be neither created nor destroyed. All that you're really doing when you get rid of these waste problems is creating another one. You know, it's not unlike the pesticide and herbicide problems we were talking about yesterday. We know that we're doing something that has an impact; it's a question of reducing its degree and narrowing down its target as much as we can.

On one of the problems that the member talked about on the Fraser River — I'm not well acquainted with that specific problem, but with the general problem I am. One of the things we have tried to do is to recognize that there are in existence operations which have existed long before we, as a civilization, started to care enough about our atmosphere to do something about it. There's a large unemployment problem that could result from any harsh administration of the laws we now know are necessary. We try to be flexible and work with them to try and tighten the noose, if I may use that expression, bit by bit by bit until we can get it under control. I don't know whether we're doing an effective job in all areas, but that is at least the philosophy of what we're trying to do.

There are a number of areas, of course, that do fall within this purview. In my area the one I'm most familiar with is the Weyerhauser pulp mill at Kamloops. It was initially allowed to do things to the Thompson River that it could never be allowed to do today. But I think that you, and the people that ran against me for your party, would be the first ones to holler at me if I were to suddenly shut down the pulp mill. It's as if I were to say: "Unless you apply the same standards that I would make you abide by today, tomorrow afternoon we're going to shut you down, and we're going to put 500 or 600 people out of work. "

I think that you would say: "Mr. Minister, be a little more reasonable. Give them a little time lead. Stay on top of them, don't let them off the hook, don't ever let up on them, but don't at the same time bite off the hand that's feeding us by getting rid of all those jobs. "

Basically, Madam Member, that is the philosophy we are operating under, and I would not pretend that we're always doing a good job, or that we're always doing the right thing. I don't think you would ask me to do that; you would only ask me to do my best.

MRS. WALLACE: I think that the minister didn't quite understand the thrust that I was trying to make. Perhaps it's because we have a different idea of what his ministry really should be doing. But the point I was trying to make is that as the Minister of Environment he has an obligation to do something about ensuring that the people who are in this bind, such as Cargill Nutrena Feeds, which can't afford to put in the kind of setting ponds that should be in, have alternatives. Alternatives should be proposed, and some technology, some advice should be provided to them about alternatives. Hog manure could be converted to fulfil their energy needs. Those are the kind of thrusts that this ministry should take. There is the idea of running a garbage train instead of simply throwing out money for sewage facilities which will eventually pollute our waters. We need ideas so we can utilize, re-use and recycle that waste, instead of spending as much money trying to get rid of it. Those are the kinds of thrusts that I'm trying to get across to that minister. I think his remarks indicated that he didn't quite grasp what I was saying.

MRS. DAILLY: I want to change the course of discussion to two other issues which concern me and a number of people in this Legislature. I've brought up these issues a number of times before: the leg-hold trap and the poisoning of wolves. I don't want to keep repeating points that have been made earlier, so I want to start off with a general comment to the minister and to his government on the whole process by which the leg-hold trap situation has been handled by the Social Credit government. Irrespective of whether one believes strongly in banning them or not, I want to deal first with the handling of the whole situation by the government.

Prior to the election of 1975, the Social Credit Party — through the voices of some very senior and well-known members in the cabinet, including the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) and the Provincial Secretary at that time, Mrs. McCarthy — informed the voters, more or less, that if they voted for Social Credit there would be a ban or a moratorium, at least, on the leg-hold trap. We're now in the fourth year of the Social Credit government, and I don't think the people who are concerned about leg-hold traps particularly, and many others, may I say, are very happy with the performance of the government. I think it goes beyond the matter of the issue of the trapper, et cetera, which I'll come to later. It's a matter of the cynicism with which this government handles their election promises. They made a promise to eliminate the leg-hold trap, and we are, as I said, four years into their tenure and very little has been done. There has been no move to ban it.

The same thing can be applied to the poisoning of the wolves. A promise was made just prior to the last election by the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Mair). He said that he would hold back the poisoning, and he did. But very cynically we find shortly after the election that we're back to poisoning wolves. It is the same as with the leg-hold trap. The height of cynicism by that government was their approach to it just prior to the election and during the campaign. They announced, that they would use the lottery funds in a contest to assist in finding a humane trap. How cynical, Mr. Chairman.

For the last three years there has been a man called Mr. Gabry who is well known now by the minster and who has been working on a humane trap in B.C. All he has been waiting for — for the three years of the Social Credit tenure, from 1975 until the election was called — was some financial assistance, which was not forthcoming. Then, prior to the election, they announce: "We are going to have a contest. "

Later on I'd like to discuss in another ministry the use of these lottery funds for political purposes, which is all tied in with the manner in which this leg-hold trap contest was announced to the public of B.C.

I know, Mr. Speaker, there are many people on the floor of this House and elsewhere who really do not believe in

[ Page 677 ]

any banning of the leg-hold trap. I would like to see complete banning, but I understand that there are trappers in the province who do derive a certain amount of income from trapping — how much, I don't know, but we accept the fact that they do. I think the minister is well aware that all the leg-hold trap people have been asking — the association, that is is that there be a ban or a moratorium placed on the use of those inhumane traps by those who use them just for a hobby or who do not need to trap for their income.

Now when the Association for the Protection of Fur bearing Animals asked the minister if he would consider this, the minister's answer was — and remember they were just asking to ban it for those who do not need to trap for an income — simply that if this ban took place it would not expedite the search for the humane traps. My first question to the minister this afternoon is. Would he please explain that answer? What correlation is there with the search for a humane trap and banning leg-hold traps from people who just go out for the sake of a hobby and then create countless hours, sometimes weeks, of suffering for animals?

I spoke to the minister several weeks ago about Mr. Gabry, who has been waiting for a promised cheque. I was glad to see that the government was finally going to come through with assistance for this man who has been working so long without help until a promise was made prior to the election. My question is — as I haven't heard from the minister in reply — has Mr. Gabry received his money? Mr. Gabry certainly is a person who has spent his whole life trying to find a humane trap, and he seems to be one of the few people who is getting to the point where we may be able to have a humane trap developed, but not without some financial assistance. I think this man has given too many hours of time and, let's say, part of his life to this project without proper government assistance. I hope the minister will be able to assure us that Mr. Gabry has received his money, and I hope that the financing of Mr. Gabry can continue.

Mr. Speaker, those are primarily the questions on the leg-hold trap that I would like to have answers on from the minister.

On the matter of the poisoning of the wolves, again I mention what I consider to be the utter cynicism of the Social Credit government. The promise was made to stop the poisoning and then, shortly after the election, we're back poisoning the wolves. I have talked to many people who keep informing me I am a city girl, and I have no idea of the devastation which the wolves do to cattle. I accept the fact that the devastation is there. But, Mr. Chairman, the point is that we have yet to find and to hear really specific documentation from this government, from this minister, as to the actual need to poison them. The minister has spoken in generalities....

Interjection.

MRS. DAILLY: I hope the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) will get up on his feet later on, instead of shouting across the floor, Mr. Chairman. It may be difficult for us to have to listen, but it is a free place, and I'd rather have him on his feet than shouting across the floor when I am trying to speak.

When I asked the minister why the poisoning of wolves resumed, he said that after due study it was decided it had to be done. That was a pretty generalized answer. At the time I asked him in the House, he referred to Bonaparte Plains, and I wonder if he could be a little more specific about what was found there to bring about this sudden decision to start poisoning again. I think all the people who are concerned about the poisoning of wolves have minds open enough — and I certainly have — to listen to more specific reasons for it. But may I say I still abhor the idea that is the way the wolves have to be eliminated, if elimination is necessary.

Mr. Chairman, I note an article from The Province, which said: "The Province Lifts Wolf Poison Ban Over New Evidence. " Now the interesting thing is that Alan Murray, assistant deputy minister in charge of conservation, gave an interview recently on the lifting of the controversial ban by Environment minister Rafe Mair, because "new evidence was presented about the humaneness and the use of 1080, " which is the poison which is being used.

What I can't understand is that when the hon. minister was asked why he had resumed poisoning of the wolves, he never mentioned the fact at that time that after research the type of poison that was being used was considered to be more humane. I question that, however, Mr. Chairman, and I wonder why the minister was not able to make that announcement. I think it might have been alleviated some of the concerns. My feeling is — but I'm open to being corrected — that the minister was not even aware of the type of poison that was being used at the time the ban was lifted. Otherwise I can't understand why it was not discussed with us at the time.

But, Mr. Chairman, to show why I'm somewhat skeptical about the statements that the poison being used is not going to hurt the wolf, may I just read to the House a paragraph about what it says about 1080? It says:

"It induces in the victim an early state of unawareness of its predicament and surroundings, a state somewhat similar in effect to that of gross alcohol intoxication or an epileptic seizure. And this is the point I find quite interesting:

"Thus allegations in terms of convulsive suffering cannot be regarded other than anthropocentric human-like interpretation judgment...."

It goes on and on with all these scientific terms that no one knows, and I am sure for the wolf who is dying a slow death it is meaningless.

So, Mr. Chairman, my main concern is that I understand the problem that he does face in this area, but I must say that 1, and many people, have become quite cynical about the way it has been handled politically. I am very cynical about the reasons why the minister cannot ban leg-hold traps for those people who do not need it for an income. I am very concerned also that he has not given the public of B.C., those who are concerned, an adequate answer as to why those wolves have to be poisoned.

HON. MR. MAIR: The whole question of death, whether it is animals or humans, is not a very pleasant one. It sometimes gets a little tiresome to listen to the bleatings of people who wear leather shoes and think they came from cows who died of old age, who continue to eat meat and take products of animals, and yet, on the other hand, who try to tell me that there is some difference between an amateur trapper killing an animal and a professional trapper doing it.

[ Page 678 ]

I might well ask the question, Mr. Chairman, as to what happened with the leg-hold trap during the three and a half years that member was in government. Her government was faced with exactly the same problem that mine is. She had members of this chamber, whether from her party or my party, from areas where a great part of the community depended upon trapping, depended upon an industry which was the original reason that this province was populated by Europeans. Now, Madam Member, nothing would make me happier than if those of your gender would stop wearing furs and stop demanding the products of animals and all the rest of it. Nothing would make me happier than if you could find some way to immediately make up for the income of those native peoples, primarily, who depend very heavily upon this particular industry.

In the light of all that, Madam Member, I want to tell you that I am not happy with any kind of cruel trap, and have not been. I am also going to tell you, Madam Member, that I'm not about to carry the can for anything that anybody else said, did or didn't do. I'm only prepared to answer in these estimates for what I've done and what I want to do, and I think that is only fair. If you have questions to ask of my colleagues or your colleagues as to what they should have done, or what you think they should have done, please feel free to do so, but don't try and hang that on me.

In the short time I've been in this ministry, Madam Member, I have got into the government programs a substantial amount of money, not only for the reward of anybody who comes up with a better answer to the traps that we have now, but also money to encourage those people who are looking towards those ends. Mr. Gabry has been given an amount of money — I believe it is $1,000 to begin with. Whether he has received his cheque or not, I'm not able to tell you. I've asked for it; I've requested it. Whether it has gone I can't tell you because I quite honestly don't know, But he will be encouraged and so will others.

But to suddenly end an industry that was the foundation of this province, and do it overnight, without doing something to help those people rehabilitate themselves, or indeed to find some solutions to the problems that you have raised, I think would be grossly irresponsible on my part. It is interesting that within a day or two of you asking these questions about the leg-hold trap, your member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell) was asking me what I was going to do about traplines tat have been taken away from native peoples.

Now, Madam Member, I'd like to speak just for a moment to you about the wolf problem, because I think it is quite evident that you're under some misapprehensions. I am going to, if I may, Mr. Chairman, at the close of these remarks, table with you directions that I have given to my staff on the predator-control situation, and also a study entitled Pesticides Used in Wildlife Management Programs. I would urge the members opposite that have concerns on this problem to read these documents and to take a look at them and decide for themselves whether or not the programs that we are putting in place are, under all of the circumstances, reasonable solutions to the problem.

Let me just dwell on the wolf problem for a moment, and let me remark again that there is never going to be anything pleasant about killing anything, and certainly nothing pleasant about killing animals such as wolves and coyotes. Let me also tell you that while the wolf has a very honoured place in the animal kingdom, and will always be protected, as far as I am concerned, in this province, he is indeed a predator when he comes into contact with man. Let me tell you, Madam Member, that while the wolf has a great many redeeming features, the wolf is nevertheless a predator and we have been subjected to a great deal of unmitigated garbage about him over the last few years, particularly from those people who entertain, rather than write history, particularly such people as Walt Disney and Farley Mowat, who are great entertainers but lousy historians and lousy botanists. As long as man doesn't interfere with the wolf and his habitat, then nature takes care of itself.

I'm constantly told that if we'd only let nature take care of itself, everything would be all right. That would be true if we weren't there to intervene. Unfortunately, when we intervene, we add a new source of food for the predator when he has knocked down the herds of the food that he usually preys upon. So instead of naturally dying out on his own — and this is the unpleasant part of Mother Nature — Mother Nature allows the wolf to knock down herds of deer and caribou and then allows the wolf to starve to death because he doesn't have any food. Then the caribou and the deer build up again. Instead of that cycle being tolerated by man, we add a new dimension, domestic animals, which means that the wolves no longer starve to death as Mother Nature intended them to do when they were deprived of food, but have a fresh food supply.

So we're put in a very awkward position. Either we decide that we're going to allow the wolf to continue to prey upon domestic animals, thus encouraging domestic animal losses — but still keeping down the losses of the ungulates — or we provide a degree of protection to the rancher and the pioneer farmer in the areas where he comes into contact with the wolf.

I want to tell you that the program that we have developed is going to provide a measure of protection for the rancher and the farmer in that part of the country where they have come into contact with the wolf. Let me also tell you that does not mean we're going to do anything like destroy the wolf, anything like eliminate the wolf; and I won't even guarantee that we're going to provide full protection for those people that are in that position. But we are going to have a predator control program which, only in those areas where that contact is made, will keep the predator down to a reasonable degree to support the rancher and farmer. This will not mean any diminishing of the wolf population in the province of British Columbia, Madam Member. This does not mean that we're going to poison the wolf out of existence. This does not mean that we're going to drive him out, as has been done in a country that I think you're familiar with — Sweden. A party similar to yours certainly was in power for all of the years that they eradicated the wolf. We're not going to do the same thing they've done in the continental United States, where you can count the number of wolves on one side of one hand. We're going to have a wolf population with numbers in the many thousands. But we are going to provide a measure of protection to those people who rely upon the cattle industry, the sheep industry and other domestic animals for a living in the pioneer areas of the province.

I hope that provides you sufficient answer on government policy.

MRS. DAILLY: I can see that the minister and I will not come to any agreement on this, because he has a very glib

[ Page 679 ]

tongue — I don't recall one specific answer to any of the specific questions I gave him. As far as I'm concerned, I am not satisfied with his answers, and I'm sure that the people out there who share my concern will not be satisfied.

Mr. Chairman, I do want to point out that this minister, with his glib tongue, also has a tendency to put down women MLAs in this Legislature. I want to say right now that I resent....

Interjection.

MRS. DAILLY: I've been in here long enough to feel that the women and the male MLAs should be treated exactly the same. We have members across the floor who refer to "female members." This member referred to "bleating," which I don't think he would have used with a male member. This member said that only women are the ones.... I'm supposed to talk to my women friends about not wearing fur when all we have to do is look around and see how many males are covering themselves with furs today.

Now to some people this may seem an unnecessary comment. But I want to say, Mr. Chairman, that women in this Legislature have come a long way in achieving what we consider equality on the floor of this House. Comments like that minister's are inclined to set us back, and I resent them.

MR. HOWARD: I know how impatient hon. members opposite are to hear what I'm about to say, and you don't know how much I appreciate the attention that you're paying to me.

The question of the leg-hold trap and the banning of it or the moratorium on it — is really a very burning issue out there in the urban areas, and I'm sure that it would do those people who live in the cities, who have such a heartfelt concern about the leg-hold trap, good if they got out a little bit in the country and really saw what was going on. This doesn't indicate any great difference in philosophy on this question. What it does reflect, I think, is that there is a lack of information on the part of a lot of people, most of whom live in the cities, who've never seen a trap in their lives or a fur-bearing animal in their lives, except in somebody's fur shop — and they get excited about that. But, we've got to pay some attention to the fact that trapping is a way of life and a part of the way of life of a great many people in this province, that trapping is sustenance to a great many people in this province.

If we look at it in a straight capital investment way, over the years a lot of people in this province have had a lot of money invested in leg-hold traps, and in many instances their livelihood depends upon them. In many cases it's part of a cultural inheritance to people, some of whom, for a variety of reasons, do not now trap, but in their respect for their inheritance and their past, trapping is pretty fundamental to them. It shouldn't be just pushed to one side because of the clamour of groups who, really, I don't think, with respect, have much appreciation of what's involved.

I've talked with different people over a period of time who are partial to the moratorium on the leg-hold trap. Many of those I have spoken with are ardent sports fishermen. I usually pose this question in a roundabout way: "What do you think about being out there fishing?" Many of them almost drool at the mouth at the prospect of tossing a line and a hook out into the water and catching a spring salmon or a trout or a steelhead on the end of that line. They just glory in.... It's almost an orgasmic experience....

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh! Order!

MR. HOWARD: So they say! So they tell me!

HON. MR. MAIR: Are you too old to remember, Frank?

MR. HOWARD:...to be able to dangle.... [Laughter.]

Interjections.

MR. HOWARD: We all know that fish are neither mammals nor warm-blooded.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Perhaps members should just be cautioned that we must be guided by our own conduct in this House.

MR. HOWARD: Some of the same people who are so emotionally uptight about banning the leg-hold traps are the greatest supporters of the idea of standing out in the middle of a stream and torturing some poor fish on the end of a line for an hour or two at a time, just for the sport of it. I can't put those two together in my own mind as being compatible. Once that proposal comes from individuals I've spoken with, I say: "You get your act straight about where you are on torturing animals, and I'I go along and talk with you about it. Otherwise, forget about this nonsense of banning the leg-hold trap." I'm not partial to banning it until that point in time where something better comes along. That's where we are, and that's where most of the trappers are as well. They say: "You come along and show me something which will be better than the type of trap that has stood the test of time ever since the Hudson's Bay Company owned this province. You show me something better than that and as effective and as efficient as that. You deal with me on the question of my capital investment in my traps, and I'I go along with you. You can ban the leg-hold trap, and good luck to you."

Apart from that, and until that time, I for one don't want any part of it. I don't think it should be a part of a tremendously serious debate in this House either. It may well continue to be, from the point of view of people who have to reflect an urban concept and an urban understanding and a city-folk type of approach to it. But so long as that proposition is put forward, then I think the counter proposition has to be put forward as well, to give some balance and some meaning to what it is we should be trying to do with respect to this matter.

I'd also like to talk very briefly about the Salmonid Enhancement Program. There is a bit of difficulty constitutionally about this whole question of fisheries. I don't know if it's clear in anybody's mind where federal jurisdiction stops and provincial jurisdiction start, or if there is a stop and a start place, or if it's just an overlapping. I'm inclined to think that is the case and that it has not come down to any sharp division about the constitutionality of doing certain things. I hope that does not ever come about. If we end up in the hands of the courts and they determine that if you build a fish ladder it is the provincial government's because it happens to be federal jurisdiction, then we will injure

[ Page 680 ]

further the whole process of our attempts to increase fish stocks in this province and in this country.

The province is involved in expending money, as I understand it, under the authority of the Fisheries Act of the province for stream clearance programs and for restocking purposes as well. One of the things which I think is not commonly understood is that in many instances we are taking the taxpayers' money to rehabilitate streams, to clear obstructions from them and to bring them back to a point of productivity in salmon runs, and that the decline of those streams was caused by the action of the government itself in spending money for other purposes.

Take, for example, the Department of Transport — or the Department of Highways, as it used to be known. It was common practice, and probably still is to a certain extent, in this province to go ahead blithely, in putting in new highways or rebuilding highways, to establish culverts in salmon-spawning streams without regard to the injury that may have been caused to that salmon stream. We destroyed a number of salmon streams in this province by that process, and spent public funds doing it. We are now spending public funds correcting the situation.

Just eastward from Terrace a few miles there's a small program — it's probably completed right now — involving the building of a couple of small fish ladders up into a contained pool to raise the level of the stream up close enough to the level of the bottom of a culvert that the Highways department put in order that salmon could get up the stream, through the fish ladders, through the pool, into the culvert and on to the other side where the spawning grounds were. That was a stream that will have to be rehabilitated, and we're spending this kind of money doing it. Probably the greatest injury ever caused, in a total sense, to salmon streams is by the forestry industry, with the agreement and endorsement of the Department of Forests over the years. We have had, I think, in a few instances, a rather supine federal government in terms of preserving to the fullest extent they could the question of fisheries.

We had an instance a number of years ago — and I only cite this as an example — where a logging company here was digging up gravel out of the bed of a salmon river in order to build their logging roads. This was raised with the federal fisheries people at that time. Their response, very, very regretfully, was that they felt the federal government could not do anything about it, because land was a subject matter that came within the jurisdiction of the province, and the gravel under the bottom of the river that was being dug up was in fact land. Therefore it was outside of the jurisdiction of the federal fisheries people. That was the answer received from the federal department of fisheries. The digging up of the gravel continued. And it is continued and is done in a number of instances.

We had a situation not too many years ago when the provincial government itself, in a conflict with the federal government, seized some logs owned by a timber company and in fact drove those logs or towed those logs down a spawning river in defiance of the position of the federal Department of Fisheries. The response of the federal government and the federal Department of Fisheries was: "Oh, we can't do anything about that, because we, the federal government, can't challenge the provincial government. It is the Crown and we are the Crown and one cannot sue the other." As a result, another salmon stream was injured as a result of a specific, deliberate act on the part of the government. The minister at the time who engaged in that activity was Ray Williston.

Forestry access roads, logging companies themselves, Department of Highways, mining access roads — wherever the provincial government, the parks branch, may be involved in dealing in some way with nature out there and where there are spawning grounds involved, they are able blithely, as I understand it, to get their own way and do their own thing without regard to salmon protection.

I know the minister says, as I understood it, that his department is an identification department that says: "Here we identify a certain situation or a certain set of circumstances and somebody else should deal with them." But I would like to see the minister's department, and whoever is the minister in charge of that department, have complete and final authority to determine whether or not provincial projects are going to go ahead without having first got clearance and permission under the Fisheries Act and from the minister in charge of fisheries in order to ensure that those salmon streams and those spawning beds and those creeks and those rivers and lakes are preserved and protected and are not injured by other departments of his government. Otherwise, we have a continuation of the rank stupidity of spending taxpayers' money to build highways and destroy salmon-spawning grounds and then spend taxpayers' money a few years later to rehabilitate those streams, or the stupidity of seeing the same thing happen with respect to the Forest Service.

An ounce of prevention in this area would do a world of good. Perhaps at a future time the minister might want to consider something of this nature in a positive light and take unto himself that supreme authority or have cabinet give him that supreme authority. I see him beating his chest there about that. You've got my support if you get that kind of authority. It would be good stepping stone for the minister for that point in time, I gather in the not-too-distant future, when he may be having his eyes upon becoming the Premier of this province — I mean in this parliament. The more sort of things that he can establish to his credit in that regard, the more support he's going to get from credential delegates to that leadership convention that I gather might be coming about fairly soon.

Apart from all that it would be a darned good move if the minister would take that kind of positive approach, and instead of just being an identifier of problems, he could be a preventer of them as well.

HON. MR. MAIR: I make it a practice never to covet jobs that are filled ably and filled well, so I'm satisfied to stay right where I am, thank you very much.

I'd like to thank the member for Skeena. You didn't bleat, so I won't call you bleating; you did exactly the opposite. You gave some pretty good, practical advice, I think, to a great many people who are perhaps what might be called "condominium conservationists." The mousetrap is the closest thing they've got to the outdoors, and it gets a little tiresome once in a while, when you're trying to make some accommodations of very, very difficult problems, to be faced by the arguments.... I don't mind the arguments being from people who have not had other experience, but I do mind when they're from people who have a mind set against anybody who has had other experience.

I'd like to make the comment, too, Mr. Member, that because you did not deal with the comments on wolves, I'm

[ Page 681 ]

going to take it that you don't disagree too much with the program that we have, or what has been suggested by your predecessor in your constituency when he made many speeches in the House. If I'm wrong in that assumption I'm sure you will tell me.

I'd like to speak just for a moment about the Salmonid Enhancement Program, but not at very great length. It's a new program, and as with all new programs it's going to have birth pains and problems attendant upon it that nobody could really predict.

Very briefly, let me give you just one example. The federal government, along with ourselves, have agreed to help enhance the steelhead runs. What we've done in a couple of rivers in the northern part of Vancouver Island, for example, is very materially enhance the steelhead run, only to find out that they're intercepted at sea, and that the enhanced steelhead never get back into the streams to the sportsmen for whom they were intended. These are some of the things that we're going to go through, some of the things that an uncharitable person might say sometime amount to a waste of money and effort, and things that should have been predicted. But I think that as with all things that are as new as this, we have to make allowances and I think the program is going very well.

There is a great deal of cooperation, and I'm very happy to tell this chamber that when I met with the Hon. Jim McGrath four or five weeks ago, we agreed that even though he had the virtual supreme authority over the question of fisheries, with some exceptions, he would not make any move respecting the British Columbia fishery without not only consulting me but asking my advice as well. The first opportunity he had to avoid or to fail to live up to that obligation came yesterday. I'm glad to say that he called me to ask about a problem that was strictly within his jurisdiction, and said: "Do you agree with the position I'm taking?" It happened that I did, and he's gone ahead and done it. I'm grateful for this kind of an indication of the relationship which I think will continue.

I quite agree with the member that we have done a great many things in the past to our environment, including the streams, that can only be called sinful. It's been done by forestry; it's been done by industry; a great deal of it has been naturally caused. A great many of the streams that we rehabilitate on an ongoing basis have got the way they have through natural causes, but I hope to goodness that we have learned that we've got to make decisions with all of the impacts on the environment in mind when we make them. I think that we've gone a long way towards that end. I think we've got better cooperation not only within ministries of our own government in the province, but also intergovernmentally with the federal government. It's by no means perfect; we've got a long way to go. A lot of problems are going to come up; a lot of probably unpleasant confrontations are yet to happen. But I think we've come a heck of a long way, and I think we're making good progress.

I think the one thing that the member may not know perhaps he does.... You were talking about the question of jurisdiction over the gravel underneath streams and rivers. The problem — and I remember this case well because one of the lawyers was a friend of mine — was that the definition under the old federal Fisheries Act was not sufficiently wide to allow fish eggs to be considered fish, and that's why they lost their case. That's now been changed with the new Fisheries Act, so they now.... If they don't have jurisdiction over the river bottom, they certainly are exercising it, and I'm not quarrelling with that. So I thank the member for the comments that he's made.

I have just one final comment. I didn't want to imply in my answers to any of the members opposite, but particularly the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace), that we wouldn't deal with people who were transgressors against our pollution laws. Sure, we'll deal with them. We'I take them to court, we'll fine them, we'll do those sort of things. But the point I was trying to make is simply this: we would be very much handicapped if we could not deal with them until we had found a solution for them, and had given them that solution to take care of their problems. It's for them to find the solution, or perhaps another government to find the solution. It's for us to identify the problem and deal with it in a punitive sense, and that's what we do.

MR. HOWARD: The specific case I was talking about vis-a-vis the land and the gravel and the fish did not have anything to do with eggs, and whether or not eggs were in fact fish. The response given to us was that under the British North America Act that land was the exclusive jurisdiction of the province, and the Fisheries department in Ottawa considered their case to be that was land and they couldn't touch it, which I thought was extreme stupidity, really. But that's what happened here.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, most of what I intended to talk about during these estimates has been touched on, so I don't intend to take too much time. The first thing I want to say is that last night at the close of my comments I complimented the minister on his deportment in the House. In a sense I'm a bit sorry that I did that last night, because of the comments and the attitude that he expressed earlier today about women in this House. He may not agree with me that he was being irresponsible in his behaviour and his attitude, but that's very much my feeling, and I've been sitting here getting quite angry about it.

I do not think members in this House — on either side of this House; it comes from both sides — refer to "the hon. male member" or "the hon. gentleman member," but we talk about "women members" for some reason. I wish we would quit that, Mr. Chairman; I wish we'd treat all members in this House equally. And I wish we would stop using disparaging and put-down comments when members express genuinely held views. We may differ, and we may differ within our own caucuses on issues, but it is irresponsible and not in the best interest of this Legislature or the politics of this province to respond in disparaging and in put-down ways. To talk about women buying furs is colossally misleading. Men are buying more furs than women these days — it's a fact. So to single out women in that respect is nonsense. The fact that I happen to agree with the minister about people talking about leg-hold traps who wear leather or eat meat is irrelevant. The fact is he was dealing with people who hold those views genuinely and who represent urban constituents who hold those views genuinely, and they have a right to put that point of view forward without being put down.

I had wanted earlier to talk at some length about the need in British Columbia for a ministry devoted to fisheries, so that we have someone in cabinet standing up against the Minister of Forests when those two resources come into

[ Page 682 ]

conflict. But other members have made the argument that the fisheries are not as well represented as they should be. I just want to state my position very clearly. I believe there should be a full minister in cabinet who has the responsibility for fisheries and very little else, so that when we do come into conflict in resource development in this province there is a clearly identified minister in cabinet who can stand up for the interest of the fisheries in this province, and we do not now have that. It seems that every time there is some conflict the Forests ministry wins.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Estimates do not afford the correct time, for discussing which members should be members of the executive council nor which areas of responsibility they should have. However, the administrative responsibility of the particular minister in question is open to discussion.

MR. GABELMANN: I want to leave the general comments alone and turn to a particular problem relating to an estuary in my constituency. It's the Campbell River estuary, and the minister should be quite familiar with this problem.

First of all, I should say there is a proposal by a corporation to do some coal mining in and around Campbell River, as the minister well knows, and there are some very serious environmental problems with that are being studied now by various agencies. I think the ELUC secretariat is involved in some studies related to leaching of the coal, the iron pyrites and the high sulphur content into the Quinsam, Campbell and Oyster rivers. I don't want to go into too much detail about that.

There are also studies, I understand, into the way in which and routes on which this coal would be transported to tidewater, and where on tidewater it would be loaded for export. I want to leave that alone for the time being because I know the studies are underway.

What I do want to ask the minister to comment on specifically is the question of the Campbell River estuary study. In the week or so after the minister was appointed the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) wrote asking for release of the Campbell River estuary study, which had been completed some months before that. You were appointed in December, I believe, and it had been in your possession some time before that. The member for Comox sent the letter on December 15 last year, to which there was no reply. She wrote again on January 16 of this year, to which there was a reply from your secretary saying that it would be brought to your attention — that was on January 19. On March 8 the member for Comox again wrote to the minister, Mr. Chairman, asking whether the Campbell River estuary study report could be made public, at least to the Legislature — again, no reply. I sent a letter to you, Mr. Minister, toward the end of June of this year, again asking that the estuary study report be made public. It's been in the hands of the ministry now, presumably, since September or some time around that part of last year, or maybe earlier, and I wonder why the report can't be made public.

It's very difficult for me, as the MLA for the area, to properly represent my constituency and to do my job properly if I don't know what's going on in terms of those studies — I know that reports have been presented — so that I can comment intelligently on the issue. It is very difficult to do that when we are not in possession of information that, in my view, should be public information. I think you were saying something earlier to the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) that, in your judgment, reports should be made public. I acknowledge that there is always some delay, but I don't think there needs to be the delay of eight or ten months that there has been in this case.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: I've been told I'm lucky that it's only that long. I gather there are others that are longer.

The other small point that I want to mention is the whole question of groundwater. A number of people in my constituency who have had wells on their property — some in municipalities and some not — are now finding that the areas are being built up and the neighbours are putting in wells and drying up the wells that have been there for many years. As I understand it, the one section of the Water Act that might have given some power has never been proclaimed, even though it has been on the books for 20 years. I wonder what plans the minister has to deal with the whole groundwater issue, which is a real problem — at least in my constituency.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

HON. MR. MAIR: I'm not going to apologize to the member who thinks that I made some sexist remarks, because I think that's a question of intention on my part. Since I had no intention to do so, I don't plead guilty. My remarks were directed to mostly leather shoes and the use of skins of animals, and I happened to be talking to a lady at the time. I've always thought she was a lady — never had any reason to doubt it whatsoever. So I spoke to her in terms of ladies wearing furs. If it had been you, I might have asked you about your muskrat coat or your raccoon coat or whatever you may have.

On the Campbell River study, Mr. Member, we will be releasing that report within 14 days. I apologize to you and to the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) for not answering that mail. I really noticed for the first time yesterday when I was reviewing the study that I did have a list of unanswered correspondence. I don't think I have your letter as yet, but I have got the letter from the member for Comox. I owe her an apology and I'm pleased to extend it to her. I ought to have answered that earlier; it was simply an oversight.

Now somebody else wants to ask me a question. I'll get the answer to the second part of your question, which I'm just getting from my deputy.

MR. HANSON: The subject I would like to raise with the minister has been touched on by a number of my colleagues, but I would like to elaborate on it a bit. I would like to start by telling him a little story.

Once upon a time there was a federal Fisheries cabinet minister by the name of Romeo LeBlanc who was visiting British Columbia and had never seen a salmon spawn. There was a former Recreation and Conservation minister here in British Columbia who was an excellent trap shooter and who decided to take Mr. LeBlanc to the Adams River. As a result of that experience, there was spawned a new idea, which was the signing of the agreement which culminated in the 200-mile limit. That's the good news. From that point in time, from 1977 to the present, it has

[ Page 683 ]

been a disaster, because, like many experiences we have had in the management of our own resources, the sad facts are that our fishing industry is largely foreign owned. We experienced monopoly control prior to that point, but we had never experienced foreign control of our fishing industry.

When the 200-mile limit was established, many of us had hope that for the first time we would start to manage a food resource which is of great importance to our future because we are limited in the amount of agricultural land and limited in the protein we would be able to develop and grow on the land. We have an abundance in the sea, if properly managed, for the benefit of all of us. But from 1977, when the 200-mile limit was established, until June of 1978, an excessive number of processing licences and buyers' licences were issued to non-Canadians.

Up until June, the licences, regulated by the provincial government, were issued to non-Canadians. With credit, finally the penny dropped and that particular procedure was changed so that the processing and buying licences would go to Canadians. However, the licences continued to be issued. No courage was shown on the part of the provincial minister charged with the responsibility of looking after our fisheries. Notwithstanding the jurisdictional disputes, it does state that the province may issue the processing licences. I think that they could have, if they had the courage, added on to those regulations conditions that would have guaranteed the employment of jobs here in British Columbia for British Columbians.

They could also have taken action to ensure that processing would mean more than freezing in a block of ice, or popping out herring roe, or simply freezing and shipping in the round to a foreign country for the jobs in that foreign country, as is done in Britain and Japan with our herring. We have the possibilities with this minister to take action on the issuing of those processing licences. I was very pleased with his comments that when the UFAWU was here making representation on behalf of one group of fishermen in this province, he did suggest and issue a moratorium on the issuance of processing licences.

There are a couple of facts that I'd like to bring to the minister's attention that I think are very relevant to the points I am trying to make. There are two articles in Canadian Business. One, which was in March 1979, says: "Net Profits: The New B.C. Gold rush. Japanese demands of a 200-mile limit are creating instant fortunes on the west coast. To get rich quick, go fishing. "

There are some interesting facts in this article and I would just like to relate a couple of them to the minister. One is that Canada has now become the world's largest exporter of fish. We export more fish in dollar value than all of our softwoods in this country. I'm not talking about British Columbia, I'm talking about Canada. Of all the softwoods and all the iron ore, fish is the number one export. Our exports equal three-quarters of our catch and will approach $2 billion by the early 1980s.

Earlier, my colleague here was talking about the protection of the streams and the Salmonid Enhancement Program and so on and so forth. But whose benefit is it for? Why are we spending our taxpayers' money when we don't have control at the other end to ensure that the jobs are here for British Columbians and the fish, the necessary protein for future generations and for ourselves at the present time, are guaranteed? The export of fish is rapidly becoming British Columbia's largest export. We account for 37 percent of the national total. There are very few fish boats built in British Columbia. The nets are imported from Japan. The technology involved in the electronics used in the marine industry is also imported from Japan. So it's a classic staple trap. We're exporting raw materials and we don't get the jobs. We import all the materials and manufactured goods that we need from abroad. The thing is shameful Mr. Minister, and I would hope that at some point someone will have the courage to amend those processing licences to ensure that the regulations are changed for the benefit of this province.

I want to talk about the Pacific shellfish program which was talked about in this article. Dr. Richard Beamish of the Pacific Biological Station in Nanaimo thinks that the west coast production could triple in ten years with proper care and some cooperation between the provincial and federal governments. There is an explosive demand all over the world for our shellfish, shrimp, clams, crab and oysters. I realize that there is some experimental work going on in the marine resources division of your ministry, but it is not enough. I have had some discussions with a member on your side of the House, the member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie), who is interested in the self sufficiency potential that our province has in marine fish resources. I understand that he is to some extent involved in it.

I don't think we have to have too much creativity to see that shrimp farms, crab farms, clams and so on could quite easily be viable up and down our coast, and certainly on Vancouver Island, for the benefit of my riding, which could be the centre for the administration of the 200-mile limit, in conjunction with Prince Rupert and perhaps Alert Bay. We need the jobs here in Victoria in the fishing industry, clean high-technology jobs that your colleague, the Minister of Education, Science and Technology (Hon. Mr. McGeer) has alluded to and apparently has some commitment to. I mentioned to him that I had hoped that he would encourage that.

Also, by way of history, in 1969 the landed value of B.C. fisheries was $47 million, with a wholesale market of $83 million. Last year the landed value reached $200 million, with a wholesale value of $400 million.

Now I see the minister sitting back in his seat. He's anxious to get rid of his estimates and relax and be done for it for another six months until the election.

HON. MR. MAIR: Nope. I'm happy as a clam.

MR. HANSON: There are great possibilities. I've said it a number of times, but I've yet to see any commitment on the part of any minister to really grab this possibility. I'm sure that little trap shooter, the stocky little fellow who was looking over the bridge on Adams River which goes through your riding, who was showing Romeo LeBlanc the way, would have intervened in some way for the benefit of British Columbians. I am absolutely confident of that. He wouldn't have let us, as your predecessors, who had responsibility for this.... He said all the way through the election campaign: "It's a federal matter. I can't do a thing about it." You have at least put the moratorium on the processing licences. He could have done that in 1978.

HON. MR. MAIR: The Adams Rivers is not in my riding.

[ Page 684 ]

MR. HANSON: The Adams Rive fish run through your riding. I'm sure you won't allow uranium exploration around the Adams River that may jeopardize that run.

I hope the minister will prove over the next few years that he's going to take action on this. We do not have a Sacramento Valley in British Columbia. We are capable of getting food for the present and the future from the sea and also, with proper management, from crops adaptable to the interior of the province; with hydroponics; with use of off-peak hydro power for greenhouses, et cetera. We can use our imagination and creativity to extricate ourselves from relying on other areas of the country and the continent that will not be able to guarantee our food supplies in the future.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I won't take long. I have just about four or five or six issues I want to draw to this minister's attention, as quickly and concisely as I possibly can.

The minister is familiar with a problem of a small enterprise in my riding. It's the historic community of Craigellachie, where the last spike was driven, completing the railway in 1884. The problem is that this chap has developed a small tourist enterprise called Paradise Valley Resort.

HON. MR. MAIR: I saw them again on Saturday and we're going to review the file again — for the third time.

MR. KING: Did you? Good. I hope the minister looked at the terrain. The permit for the establishment of a small trailer site has been withheld on the basis that the land is subject to flooding. One needs only to look across the highway, which runs adjacent to the property, to recognize that both the highway and the Canadian Pacific Railway main line are some six feet higher than the property they allege might be flooded from the stream beyond the highway and the railway. Obviously if it's going to flood that property, it's going to inundate the railway and the highway. It really doesn't make any sense whatsoever in practical terms.

If the minister looks at the topography of the terrain he will recognize it's highly inconsistent and doesn't make sense to withhold the licence from this individual. Beyond that, Mr. Chairman, there are established residential premises at the same elevation, and on property adjoining the one in question. If they are subject to flooding, there is no record of it over the past 75 years. I would seriously request that the minister review that application.

The other matter I wanted to ask the minister about relates to the question raised by my friend and colleague, the second member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson), with respect to the uranium exploration permit that has been granted in the Adams River, which is now in my riding also. My riding is very large. Mr. Mander went to work on my old riding. In consultation with Gerry, he extended it a great, great deal.

Mr. Chairman, I'm not going to repeat the reasons for concern. The importance of the salmon fishery in the Adams River run is evident to everyone in British Columbia. I'm not sure what the minister can do about it, but I would ask that he monitor that situation — which I understand was granted by the federal government — very, very closely and express the concern to the federal authority from the environmental point of view and the fisheries point of view as to allowing any uranium activity whatsoever in that highly sensitive area.

The third point I want to raise is the infamous proposal to divert some water from the Shuswap Lake into the Okanagan Lake system. That business simmers away under the surface. I think it is fair to say that there is a great deal of concern by local agencies and local people that idea has not altogether been abandoned. I submit, clearly and unequivocally, that proposal makes absolutely no sense at all. I would deeply appreciate it if the minister would care to reinforce my attitude for the record, so that I might translate to my constituents the commitment from the Minister of Environment that he would oppose any such plan.

The Revelstoke Dam water licence has been hashed over, particularly by me, many times in this House, and I'm not going to belabour it again, other than to make the very narrow point that relates to the minister's general area of public participation and input — for the public into these kinds of deliberations.

When the public is coming up against an agency such as the B.C. Hydro and Power Authority, which has at its disposal all of the technical resources, funds, data they are able to develop through surveys and reports over the years, which they do not always release to the public — at least with any lead time in advance of the hearings — it makes it an exercise in futility and a sham to claim that there is an opportunity for any real public input into those kinds of decisions. It's essential, in my view, particularly when it's a Crown corporation which is being funded through the tax dollars of the people who want to make submissions and perhaps oppose, or to some extent control, the type of development that is being proffered — that they get an equal break, in terms of some funding to retain hydrologists, soil experts, engineering consultants, and perhaps some legal advice. I'm not sure that's the best approach, but in some cases it can be useful, as far as the legal advice is concerned. For specialist assistance, the people deserve to be at least on somewhat of an equal footing with the agency they are trying to come to grips with and to develop public interest in. As it stands now, it is a complete David-and-Goliath kind of approach, where the public has no real opportunity whatsoever to affect the outcome. It's pretty much a stacked deck. I think the government knows that as well as we do. I urge the minister to do something really meaningful in terms of a public commitment to provide funding before any major dam construction or other river diversions and things of that nature are approved.

The public does have some real and valuable information. The public does have a valuable contribution to make in terms of planning the environment for all of our sakes and for future generations. It is a narrow view to assume that all of those people out there who are concerned in the body politic awesome kind of quacks who are simply out to create waves. That's not so. There is valuable input to be solicited from the public, and it should be encouraged and facilitated rather than discouraged.

Point number 5 — I'm going through these in very capsulized form. I could spend some time discussing each one of these points, but I'm constraining myself admirably. Princess Louisa Inlet and Chatterbox Falls — a highly sensitive area, beautiful environment — contribute heavily to the tourist attraction of this fair province of ours. Is the

[ Page 685 ]

Minister of Environment talking to his colleague the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) with respect to the proposed logging of an admittedly fairly small portion of this Princess Louisa Inlet area? I believe it's about 600 acres, and I understand that it's on private land. I would like some response from the minister in terms of what kind of conclusions he and his colleague have arrived at for making sure that logging exercise is monitored and all of the multifaceted-use considerations are adequately safeguarded.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that where you live — in Chatterbox Falls?

MR. KING: Some people say I'm a bit of a chatterbox. I believe, Mr. Chairman, that you're sent down here to represent the constituents who happen to live in your riding. Far better to be a bit of a chatterbox than to be a frozen bump on a log and never participate in the debates, but simply rubber-stamp all of the government initiatives through your partisanship and through your lack of concern for the constituents you are supposed to represent. So be it.

The last point I have is with respect to a lake in the Enderby area named Gardom Lake. It's a very small lake. I don't think it is named after Garde Basil; I think it got its name through some other more historic purpose than that. But in any event, apparently an individual has purchased private land on the perimeter of that lake, is constructing a home, and is flying his aircraft in and using the small lake as the base for his aircraft.

The thing is that the lake has federal restrictions, I believe, that prohibit the use of any gas- or petroleum-operated motor vessels on the lake. Therefore I find it difficult to understand how it can be used as a seaplane base, not withstanding the fact that it has other implications to the neighbours of the individual in terms of the tremendous noise involved and the wash that is created from the plane landing and taking off.

I would appreciate it if the minister would have a look at that situation to see whether or not he can bring any legitimate influence to bear through his department.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Chairman, to the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King), I met with the Wilkinsons, his constituents, last Saturday. I'm going to review the file again, and I assure him of that. I also will, if my estimates ever end, get up to his constituency and take another look at that property. The last time I was there it was for a purpose not totally connected with my ministry, and I was looking more at fish hatcheries.

The uranium permit question on the Adams River I answered, I believe, quite fully in a question posed by one of your colleagues, Mr. Member. I would urge you to look at the answer because it was specific as to what exploration was allowed and the controls it is under. If that isn't sufficient, I'll be very pleased to try and get further information for you.

The question of the Shuswap. I was rather surprised to hear the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke revive that issue. I'm downstream from him, as you know, and if that were ever to become a reality, the impact upon my constituency and my constituents would be as great, if not a great deal greater, than on his. I can assure him that I have no intention of allowing that to happen, if I have anything to say about it.

The question of the Revelstoke Dam and the procedures. I spoke some while yesterday on what I think are some of the things we have got to do on projects of this, sort.

Your question, I think, was primarily directed towards funding of groups. I'm not in a position — I'm sure the member knows that — to commit the government to any course of action in the future, but I think some evidence of where our thinking is at is in the Bates commission on uranium exploration, where we have provided a good deal of funding.

I'm getting a little punchy here. I had a tooth fixed today, and it's bothering me.

Princess Louisa Inlet. I'm probably one of three people at least in this House who have ever been there, and they include the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland), the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) and myself. I happen to have a great and abiding love for that area. I spent a great deal of my time as a boy up in that area, and the first job I ever had on my own away from home when I was about 16 years of age was up there. I'm hopeful that we can work out solutions to that problem. I want to stay on top of the situation to assure that we can. You'll have a better crack, I suppose, at finding out when my estimates are over and the next one comes on, because he's the man you're going to have to talk to about that. I understand from his visit that he thinks the matter can be handled to the satisfaction of all.

The question of Gardom Lake. The restrictions imposed on watercraft are imposed by us — that is, the fish and wildlife branch. I don't know whether we can extend that to aircraft. I think it is kind of interesting. It would seem to me it is no longer an aircraft once it's on the lake. In any event, I assure you I'I look into it. I think that's rather a serious question.

On my favourite little lake to fish, Six-Mile, I was surprised to see water-skiers coming at me one day, and the lake can't be half a mile long. I'm very sensitive to this sort of thing, so I assure you I'll look into it.

Going back to the second member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson), I'm concerned about the foreign investment in the fishing industry, Mr. Member, through you, Mr. Chairman. I would observe, however, that the fishing industry in British Columbia has been foreign-controlled almost since the very beginning, if you are prepared to accept British control as foreign control, and I certainly hold that it is, certainly even more than others — English control, U.K. control, if you wish — particularly when you consider the American ownership that has been on the coast for years and years.

I don't think there is any question in anybody's mind that there is an excessive amount of foreign investment in the industry. One of the problems is that we don't know how much it is. I gave an answer to questions in this House a week or so ago, an indication that we intend to find out what it is and find out just what the parameters of the problem are, and we're going to do so.

The question of licensing. Philosophically I suppose I have to answer to you that the free market ought to take care of the problem of the multiplicity of licences; but I'd also have to say that I don't agree with that myself, because unfortunately there are two intervening factors which interfere with the free market system. One is the question of policing the resource itself, and the taking of fish and the buying and selling of them, and making sure that the rules

[ Page 686 ]

are obeyed. That's a very difficult thing to do and it's outside of our control. The second thing is the whole problem of high-grading offshore to the great detriment of the onshore processors, particularly to the people who work in those plants, and the social problems that creates. As I said to you earlier, Mr. Member, I can't give you any specific answers. I can only assure you that I am very concerned, as you are, about the whole problem. My ministry is looking into it on a high-profile and high-priority basis.

The question of Pacific shellfish. I agree also that's a very exciting prospect. I think that's one of the most exciting things we have coming on stream — not just the shellfish, but also the whole question of aquaculture. I think we're going to find a difference in people's tastes now that the Third World has decided that it's tired of being starved to death by the rest of the world. I think we're going to find that there's going to be a great future for all the aquaculture schemes that are coming on stream, including the shellfish that you've talked about. The only disagreement I would have with you is that I think that the prospects are even greater than you say. I think, for example, that we're looking at ten times the oyster production as we have now. I don't think we've got enough money set aside for it at this point; I don't think anybody really anticipated just how big a thing this was going to be. But I agree with you that in the years to come it's going to be an enormous thing, and I share with you your enthusiasm and your optimism.

MR. KING: I just wanted to make the observation and I thank the minister for his response — that when he goes up to my riding on his next visitation, I hope he's more successful in his objective than he was on his last visit.

MR. DAVIS: I want to say a few brief words on a matter of conflict, although the conflict is more apparent than real — the conflict between industrial development on the one hand and environmental protection on the other. I personally feel that good, sound, long-term economics are consistent with the fullest possible protection of our environment. Certainly, good engineering is going as much as possible with the grain of nature. So I really don't think that, if we're wise in organizing our affairs, we'll make economic decisions and engineering and technical decisions which do not in conflict with good environmental practice.

I think that the job of the provincial Ministry of Environment is basically to protect the environment, and that it must do so with all possible expertise and all possible energy. I simply ask that its Pollution Control Board, for example, be reasonable and above all be definite in its rulings. Unless it's reasonable and definite in these rulings, it's going to make it very difficult for industry to plan ahead and conform with sound environmental measures.

Basically, the new types of standards that are being set up are standards which say that any activity must be within the assimilative capacity of the local environment. The local environment must be able to assimilate the pollutants that are being discharged by the industry in question — they must be well within its assimilative capacity. The Pollution Control Board is saying they must be within assimilative capacity, but not where within that capacity. It could be anywhere from zero pollution up to that capacity. That capacity is measured in various ways. The assimilative capacity of a local environment, for example, is of the order of one-thousandth of that level of pollution which has ever been known to affect human health. Any discharge for a matter of hours on any day in the year which approaches that approaches the assimilative capacity of the environment. Again, any discharge which would have any measurable effect, any significant minor effect on local plant life, or wildlife or other life also exceeds the assimilative capacity. I'm all for our standards being within that assimilative capacity, but being specific, so that the industry in question knows how it has to perform, knows what plant it has to install, and knows what additional operating costs it will encounter.

If I can be quite specific, the new guidelines or new objectives that have been announced for large industries in this province — industries of the character of smelters, refineries or power plants — say that the discharge of sulphur dioxide must not be more than 0.8 parts per million for more than a few hours in any day in the year. That, presumably, is the assimilative capacity. But the Pollution Control Board says that the requirement could be 0.2 parts, or could be less than 0.2 parts per million. Those industries planning new facilities really don't know whether they have to plan for the maximum allowable of 0.8 or more likely some figure halfway down to 0.2 or indeed 0.2 or less, and the difference in cost is fantastic. The difference in operating cost is considerable, and often it may mean the difference between that industry proceeding and that industry not proceeding. My impression is that this relatively novel approach we're adopting in British Columbia of announcing ranges as opposed to definite standards is designed more for the convenience of the Pollution Control Board and the administration of the pollution control branch than it is for industry which will create new jobs in this province — industry which, if it can be economic and keep its costs down, can also help us to control inflation. I believe that we have a problem here.

I know that the minister — certainly his advisers — will tend to say: "Well, we need flexibility. We will have to protect some of the old industries we have. But these new standards, the new guidelines, the new objectives don't apply to old industry." They apply to new industry; they apply to new developments, and I hope that it is possible for this administration to be much more definite as to what the requirements will be. Make them tough, but be definite. Make them difficult to attain, if that is necessary in order to cover all the possibilities and remove uncertainties, but nevertheless be definite, or we're not going to have the kind of investment and new jobs and new facilities we so badly need.

British Columbia's approach in many ways is unique; it's purist, really. It only takes biological considerations into account; it is concerned really only with the environment. It doesn't allow for such concepts as the latest working technology. Other administrations have, for example, said: "Well, in a particular industry there is a clean plant somewhere in the world or somewhere in this country. Put in that kind of plant and equipment and that's good enough."

That is not the approach in this province. The approach is essentially a biological and medical one. It pays little or no attention to the latest clean-up technology. At the national level it may make sense to require, as far as federal standards are concerned, that the latest clean-up technology be used. But here the often tougher requirement of meeting

[ Page 687 ]

the biological standards, environmental standards, set to the needs of a particular locality must override and must overrule if the latest working technology doesn't meet standards. We require even better plant and equipment and operating techniques.

But I think it is important if we're going to have the highest standards in this country, the highest standards on this continent, that we be definite as to what those standards are. I urge the minister, and certainly through the minister and his board, to give as much thought as they can to giving early indications to industry as to the actual standards, the actual plant, the actual operating procedures that they will require. They're being tough and I think rightly so. They're using sound environmental practice to a great extent. They're paying little regard to economics, virtually no regard to such other considerations as energy policy or job creation and so on. They are, in fact, acting like a true Ministry of Environment, and I think this is important. The costs of environmental protection in the long run are relatively low, certainly in most industries. But I urge, especially in respect to some of these larger industries, that they at least be definite. If they're going to talk in terms of ranges, certainly they should indicate which end of the range they're prepared to consider in terms of new projects in this province.

MR. LEVI: I gave a great deal of thought to the subject that I'd like to discuss with the minister this afternoon. I had to reject the Securities Act and the Trade Practices Act and get into his portfolio.

What I'd like to talk to him about is garbage, as a matter of fact.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: Well, that was under the old estimates; this is serious stuff.

What I'd like to do is just for a minute point out a few things to the minister and ask him some questions. In the March 22 throne speech there was a statement which said: "My Ministry of Environment will also open up new opportunities for business with initiative designed to improve the recovery of materials from waste. " That was in the March 22 throne speech, but it didn't appear in the June 6 throne speech.

One of the things I would like to do is point out to the minister the urgency of having some discussion and some planning within his department with respect to the whole question of waste disposal.

The former Minister of Municipal Affairs who is now the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Curtis), using some of the better, more mellifluous-sounding prose, made a speech, and I would like to quote him. He made it last year before the B.C. Water and Waste Association annual convention in April. He said: "The problems associated with supply and disposal of water and solid waste have become horrendous. There is no doubt that much of this is due to outmoded methods, increasing costs in operating antiquated plants, lack of funds and lack of properly trained personnel."

I made a speech last year in the Environment estimates on the whole question of what the government is going to do about the very large question of waste disposal. Right here in the Capital Regional District there has been a discussion regarding an application which has not yet been made but will be made to the minister's colleague, the Minister of Energy, in respect to $75,000 to do some research in the whole question of a recovery plant which would generate, in this case, steam for the use of garbage, burning something like 400 tons a day.

In the Vancouver area, in the Greater Vancouver Regional District, where the municipalities are spending pretty close to $20 million on the whole business of collection and disposal of garbage, they are having some very serious problems about the landfill question. It's not just a question of the availability of land; it's also a question of the leachate problem, which is very serious. The Richmond landfill is particularly serious because eventually if that has to close or need a great deal of money invested to take up the leachates, in any case, that's going to put up the price, the whole cost of collecting and removing the garbage, and we'I probably be getting into the whole business of collecting stations.

One of the questions I want to ask the minister is this. There are at least four jurisdictions. The greater Victoria area regional district is discussing the recovery plant. The Nanaimo people are discussing or have had a report in April of 1978 dealing with the funding for a recovery plant at a cost of about $6 million capital and $2 million operating.

In the Vancouver area, the municipality of Richmond has looked at the question of some kind of very expensive procedure to either go.... They're looking at it. They haven't completed or made any decisions into whether they should go into incineration or what they're going to do about the leachate problem.

There have been several municipalities that have had reports. The municipalities of West Vancouver and North Vancouver together have looked at the landfill problem. What I am saying to the minister is that somebody has to take some leadership in this question, particularly in the urban areas at this time where the problems are becoming very pressing. In this province we're picking up over three-quarters of a million tons of garbage. We have a serious disposal problem.

There are other technologies. It so happens that at the moment municipalities are approaching this in a very piecemeal way. There are at least two regional districts that are looking at whether they might go into some form of recovery operation.

What is needed is some leadership, particularly from the provincial government, because the federal government is somewhat peripheral to the planning of the new technologies. They are very much on the bit when it comes to the environmental question. They were very much involved in the Richmond landfill site and bringing it to the attention of the people there.

I want to say that the question of the new technologies needs to be looked into. It should be, hopefully, the function of a worthwhile conference that could be called beyond the question of water and that kind of thing, concentrating on whether, in fact, the jurisdictions in this province are prepared to get together, whether it be the Island, for instance, getting together to produce a resource recovery unit, if that's the way they want to go, or an incineration unit which could benefit the southern half of the Island. I understand that the greater Victoria regional district have discussed with Nanaimo the possibility of taking their garbage if they get into steam production. There are other problems about getting into producing steam, as to

[ Page 688 ]

whether in fact with the electricity that they generate they can get enough money from Hydro when they have the surplus after running the operation. That's a problem that has to be discussed with Hydro.

They are talking to one another. In the Vancouver area they are not talking to one another, in the sense that they all have similar problems but they go about dealing with them separately. I realize that this is a function of the regional district. But that hasn't worked too well, so I would suggest that the government could play a very worthwhile role in sponsoring a worthwhile conference where they would get together on the idea of whether in fact they are going to go into these technologies. What inevitably happens is that the government will get dragged into the issue anyway, because there's the whole question of the funding.

There is a worthwhile model in this country. Ontario to a large extent has broached these problems in a very realistic way. Mind you, their problems are three times greater than the ones we have with regard to population and the whole business of waste disposal. But they have gone into some new technologies — some of these resource recovery efforts; and they're looking at the possibility of generating power and that kind of thing. If we allow the local jurisdictions to continue the way they're going, they're going to be spending a fair amount of taxpayers' money on reports and feasibility studies and not working together. Then eventually they're going to go piecemeal to the government and the government itself is then going to have to get everybody together before it is prepared to make a decision regarding where it will put its money. There are some possibilities of cost sharing in these projects, and they are happening, particularly in Ontario and New Brunswick. But at the moment we are not doing anything in British Columbia. Where the problem increases is, of course, when you have an increase in the population. We also have a tremendous increase in the per capita creation of waste disposal to a very large extent.

I am not suggesting, Mr. Chairman, to the minister that the question of other technology is necessarily the only way. It may very well be that in Canada — and we may not be able to do it on a provincial basis — we will have to look at a similar kind of proposal that was made in the United States last year where there would be what has been characterized as a tax on materials to finance waste disposal. In the House of Representatives of the United States there has been a suggestion that one of the many ways that we might approach this is from the beginning. The idea of the tax is defined this way. The product disposal charge is based on the concept that the cost of collecting and disposing of an article after it is discarded and become solid waste should be built into the article's original purchase price. Handling the discarded product is as much part of its cost as the original manufacture and shipment. The only real aim, I think, of that is to get the manufacturer to be less inclined to produce something that can be disposed of very quickly, and rather build into it only that material which needs to be built in. That is under discussion right now in the United States. It is before the environmental committees of the various legislatures.

I'm about to get cut off and I've just got going. That's another mechanism.

If I just might review for the minister, somebody has to take the lead, because eventually, if they're going to go into new technologies, they will come to the provincial government. If the provincial government does not set up a workable waste management disposal division in the department, and sponsor the kind of practical conference that can take place, where it sets about urging the municipalities to get together through their regional districts and start some forward-looking planning and technologies of how they can dispose of the waste material other than the existing process where it's all happening in terms of the landfill....

We have some very good examples across the border in the United States, particularly in Seattle and Bellingham. They are worth looking at. They have done all the research, it's just a question of somebody giving the leadership. I say to the minister, Mr. Chairman, that he has to have a leadership role in this if it is going to benefit the taxpayer; otherwise he will be pushed into doing something. I really think that if he takes the right kind of leadership he can lay out some of the parameters.

I am in no way talking about usurping the autonomy of the municipalities. What we have here is a very serious problem with which the municipalities and the regional districts have not been able to come to grips. We are going to wake up one day and find ourselves up to our hips in garbage, and we're not going to have the places to dispose of it. Then we are going to be looking at all kinds of other methods of disposal, even to the extent that they do in some of the states in the United States, and consider dumping it down disused mine shafts. There is no reason for us to get into that kind of thing. But it certainly is time in this province that we took a leaf out of the book of what is happening in Ontario and really addressed ourselves to this whole question of waste disposal. It has some positive advantages, certainly, in some of the better efforts that have taken place. In Long Island they have been using the burning of waste for the generation of power. Certainly in the San Francisco area, where there is a great deal of incineration that goes on, they are successful.

We haven't even made a beginning in this province, but it is a very worthwhile effort for the minister's department to get involved in. A leadership one which will obviate, in the end.... The minister will have to do some head knocking if he is not able to get some of the local municipalities to agree among themselves first.

HON. MR. MAIR: If I may just deal very briefly with the remarks of the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis), I think he made similar points last night, and I would be the last one to be able to get into a debate with an engineer. I can't even understand my deputy but, of course, I've got a double problem there because he speaks Scottish.

I can say this: one of the problems of having any fixed figures when you're dealing with assimilative capacity is that it varies from place to place and circumstance to circumstance. To give you just one example, in my own constituency we have two industries which are putting sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere — the pulp mill and the refinery. If we were to have a fixed yardstick for this pollution, then we would have to adjust this to each one of them under a question of who was first in time. There are a lot of difficulties along with it, which is the reason that we try to remain flexible. I agree with the member, however, that we have to give industry some certainty as to what our standards are, and I take his advice, as intended I'm sure, as something that we will look into.

[ Page 689 ]

I'm delighted that the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi) joined the debate because one of the things about this year's estimates that I thought I was going to miss was having a little talk back and forth with that member. I don't think that he was asking me questions so much as giving me good advice. I want to tell him, however, that we have recognized the problems that he has articulated, and we are planning — subject to the consent of the government which I think will be forthcoming — for example, as just a cosmetic gesture, I agree, to change the name of the pollution control branch to the waste management branch. In other words, we will focus our attention on this as being more than just simply a matter of finding out who was polluting what and issuing permits and so on. We will direct our energies toward finding the solutions to some of these problems.

I think we're going to be greatly assisted by one of the worldwide problems, which is energy. I think this is what's bringing it into focus. In the past we could all afford to be rather lethargic about this sort of thing; now we have an extra reason to take a long, hard look at what we're doing with our waste. It provides, at some expense no doubt, a new source of energy which is very, very necessary in this world and will become more necessary as time goes on.

I think that you touched upon another very sensitive point, and that's the question of the autonomy and the sensitivity of the municipalities and of the regional districts.
Their sensitivity seems to be in inverse ratio to the amount they have to pay. They don't seem to be nearly as sensitive when it comes time to putting up the bucks. They are very sensitive when we pass the rules, but not very sensitive I when they need money to enforce their own rules. However, I think that it's time that we did provide more leadership, and I think that in the limited time, quite frankly, that I've had to address myself to this problem, we've made a start. I want to assure the member that one of the first things that I want to do after the House rises — God willing that it will sometime rise — is to see what some s other people are doing, particularly the people of Ontario. I have heard, as the member has, some very encouraging things about the plans that they have there.

I suppose the best that I can do, Mr. Member, since we don't have the same interesting things to fight about that we did last year, is to say that I thank you very much for the advice that you have given me and the thoughts that you have. I want to indicate to you that we've had some of those a thoughts already and have made, perhaps, somewhat a halting start, but a start nevertheless, towards that end.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I have one brief item. I have a I whole list of items, actually, but since time seems to be of a the essence around here — I don't know why.... The item is a matter which I raised in this Legislature on a number of occasions, which is the proposed Cheekye to Dunsmuir transmission line. I'm not going to go through that whole thing again, I promise. I've done it twice in this particular session alone. But I do want an answer from the minister, if possible, about the involvement of the Environment and Land Use Committee secretariat on this particular project. I'd like to know if that secretariat, or that committee, has a report prepared discussing the environmental impact of that proposed transmission line. Even B.C. Hydro's own report on this subject, Mr. Chairman, indicates that the proposed transmission line will be traversing through some eight parks or park reserves and through fourteen watersheds. We all know that B.C. Hydro is famous for its use of defoliants and types of chemicals that have been banned in other countries of the world. Certainly I have to think about the health of my 12,000 voters in that area. It's very important to me, and I wouldn't want to see them all sprayed with these terrible, toxic chemicals. It would hurt me deeply. I'm asking the minister if he's received that report from the Environment and Land Use Committee secretariat, if he's read that report and if that report will be made public?

HON. MR. MAIR: I'm afraid I must plead ignorance. I don't know of any report such as you have suggested. I know that the Environmental and Land Use Committee secretariat did look at various routes that it was to take and things of that nature. I'm not saying that there is no such report; I'm just saying quite frankly that I don't know of one that deals with the questions that you have raised. I might say that I know that they were involved in some public hearings, which I think were after the fact, but nevertheless, they were involved in some public hearings. There may very well be a report to the committee. Remember that they report to the committee, not to me as minister, and that's an important distinction to remember. There may be a report on those hearings. If so, I don't remember what the contents were other than that it was a report. I do know, however, that they involved a couple of public hearings on theSunshine Coast.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Obviously a report does exist; at east, some notes prepared by the secretariat must exist on his particular project. If those notes and report are available, would the minister table them in this House during this session of the Legislature?

HON. MR. MAIR: I certainly can't give a commitment o file or table anything, Mr. Member, particularly something about which I know nothing. I'm not going to start tabling blind, but I will look and see what report I have, and I will take it under serious advisement. I don't want to hide anything from you or from anybody else. If here's something there that ought to be made public in the public interest, I'll do so.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I would expect, then, that if I table report the minister will have no objection.

MRS. WALLACE: I have three items I want to discuss with the minister, and I'I try to make them as brief as possible. Everybody seems to be concerned about the mount of time that's left.

HON. MR. MAIR: I'm in no huffy; I'm enjoying this.

MRS. WALLACE: Your House Leader is apparently a it concerned.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The first problem is a local one, and it has to do with the quality of the Shawnigan Lake water. I'm sure the minister s aware that there has been correspondence between the water rights branch and the regional district. There was to have been a study conducted and jointly funded, I believe. I

[ Page 690 ]

don't know if that study ever got off the ground. I do know that you conduct routine tests, and I believe they are taken at the outlet of the lake. I'm not at all sure that is the place that would give you a reading indicative of what the actual quality of the water was in the various areas. There has been a tremendous amount of new construction around that lake. We do have the school there which has a fairly heavy discharge into the lake. I would like the minister to assure the House that he and his ministry are taking every precaution to ensure that the water, part of which is used for drinking in that community, does retain its quality.

Speaking of water, my colleague from North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) touched briefly on the groundwater situation. I want to deal with that situation too. I have letters and various items that indicate there is some loss of groundwater as a result of various subdivisions. In one instance it's a case of an irrigation project for about five crops of hay each year which has dropped the water table about 30 feet per year, in the estimation of the local residents — they're affecting some 20 wells. I don't want to detail those, but I do want to make the point that I think we need a little more than just a proclamation of a section of the existing Water Act; I believe the minister would agree with that. I know that his ministry has been working very closely with the B.C. Waterwells Association in trying to come up with a solution to this problem. We need to be assured that the people who are involved in drilling those wells are qualified people and that they are prepared to cooperate with the ministry, and with the fewest possible bureaucratic problems, in ensuring that we do have some control over what's happening with that groundwater resource.

We've talked a lot about air pollution, and we've talked a lot about water pollution, but we haven't really talked about the conservation of water; that is a major problem facing British Columbia. It doesn't seem to me that a very complicated piece of legislation is required. It has been introduced in Alberta; it's been introduced in the state of Washington and in many other states; it's been introduced in Australia. There have been various ways of approaching the problem, but it's complicated; it's more or less a regulation to control the use of groundwater. It is a very important issue, and it's one that we can't really procrastinate on much longer because that resource is not an unlimited resource. If we waste it and destroy it and allow too many industrial uses of that water we're going to find ourselves in a position in which we don't have groundwater for domestic use. I urge the minister to move as rapidly as possible in bringing in some form of control that will give us a degree of security as far as our groundwater resource is concerned.

The third and last thing I want to raise with the minister is the matter of his responsibility for the Agricultural Land Commission. I have some grave concerns about the future of our agricultural land reserve, in view of a couple of things. One of them, of course, is the report from the committee, of which I was a member. At that time, Mr. Minister, the committee reported to you in your former capacity. I think it's probably more apropos of your duties now, particularly section 1 of that report which came up with some rather bizarre solutions — bizarre in my opinion, anyway — for land regulation and land use. There was something called "indicative use," which would give the viability at any given time of any particular use, the prior criteria by which that land was assigned.

I'm sure the minister is aware of the joint statement that was issued by the B.C. Institute of Agrologists and the B.C. Federation of Agriculture which was dated April 30. That particular statement took grave exception to the recommendations that were set out in that select standing committee report, and urged that no government or minister act upon that report or proceed in the directions outlined in that report. That's a fairly large component of society that is close to and knowledgeable about land use, when you consider the B.C. Federation of Agriculture, which has some 12,000 members, and the Institute of Agrologists, which represents all of the professional agrologists of British Columbia. That's a fairly formidable body. If the minister hasn't seen the report I would be glad to send him a copy. I will send it across the floor to you, Mr. Minister.

It's a report that I think you should have a good look at. I would urge you, as the minister responsible for the preservation of agricultural land, to treat it with the respect that it is due, Mr. Minister, because it does represent the knowledgeable people in this province, and it states their ideas of the preservation of agricultural land. I'm concerned when I see communities asking for removal of 1,000 acres or more from the agricultural land reserve, because certainly they could prove that the immediate use would be more economically viable. You know, if you subdivide it, or if you put industry on it, or if you start a commercial development on it, it's going to bring back more dollars today for society than it will if it's maintained as agricultural land.

I think, Mr. Minister, that you are in accord with the concept that we are going to have to preserve that land, and I would like you to assure the House that you will act in that capacity.

MR. LEGGATT: I would like to, perhaps, throw a slightly different perspective on the debate, since I had some interest in environmental matters in Ottawa for some time, and had the chance to observe the provincial performance from a distance.

First of all, I think the minister is to be congratulated on being extremely well prepared any time he came to Ottawa to make presentations on behalf of his government, and I also think the minister should be congratulated in terms of the position that he took on bargaining for the boundary lines after we'd set the 200-mile limit. I think he was slightly late in coming to that position, but when he came to it was a good position and I think it has assisted our own negotiators in terms of getting reasonable benefits on those boundaries. We're not out of the woods, by a long way, and I hope the minister has made representation in terms of Canada's failure to enforce its jurisdiction south of the Dixon Entrance line. In the territorial sea, the federal government has made a decision that in those disputed waters they will not attempt to enforce their jurisdiction. The U.S., I understand, hasn't made the same decision and it seems to me we are abdicating by lack of action our jurisdiction over that area immediately at the Alaska Panhandle.

One of the other matters that came up in the debate was raised by the second member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson), who dealt with how the 200-mile limit came about. Too often we tend to thank the figureheads in terms of an accomplishment. It was a magnificent accomplishment for Canada, and I attended almost every one of the Law of the

[ Page 691 ]

Sea Conferences. Canada really did a fine job of negotiating, and a good deal of that credit goes to a Victoria resident, Mr. Alan Beasley, who is presently the ambassador to Australia but who did a very effective job in leading the Canadian delegation through a very complicated, myriad set of negotiations to a consensus surrounding the 200-mile zone. Canada obtained a remarkable coup in seeing that now established throughout the world.

From another federal perspective, we were also most interested in the Kitimat oil port question. It's interesting that the previous federal Liberal government with their Environment minister, Mr. Marchand, were committed to not proceeding with the Kitimat oil port proposal. In fact, Mr. Marchand publicly said: "No way." Now we have the present federal Minister of Environment, Mr. Fraser. I think I'm quoting him accurately when he said "over my dead body" to the Kitimat oil pipeline proposal.

So the first remark I want to put to our Minister of Environment is: in view of the fact that there is a proposal by the Kitimat oil consortium that is alive, that is now before the NEB, I want this minister to commit himself and his government in this House to unequivocal opposition in the same way that the federal government has done, and also commit his government to presenting a properly prepared brief in opposition to that particular pipeline.

I'll sit down. I would like to ask a few more questions, but I would like the minister's response to that initial series.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Chairman, I think my obligation in estimates is to answer questions about them and not to state unequivocally government policy which I'm not entitled to do at any time in this House without the sanction of the government. So there is no way that I am going to stand up here now and state an unequivocal government position on anything I haven't been authorized to do.

In view of the fact that the whole question of the movement of oil in the province of British Columbia — to it, from it and all of those things — is a matter affecting a great many ministries and a great many of my colleagues, and is also a matter of a great deal of government policy yet to be established, I hesitatingly resist the invitation by the member to state what government policy is, or will be.

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Chairman, that would indicate to me that there isn't any policy, or at least this minister isn't authorized to express government policy. But every minister can express his view from time to time. and subsequently one can determine whether that is government policy. I'm not asking the minister now to comment on government policy. We know the government doesn't have a position then. What we would like to know is the minister's position on the Kitimat oil. Is he prepared to give us his own position on the Kitimat oil port, as the federal Minister of the Environment has done publicly and as his predecessor, Mr. Marchand, had done publicly?

HON. MR. MAIR: I don't think, Mr. Chairman, I will accept that invitation either. I think what I will say, as I think any Minister of Environment anywhere is bound to say, is that when you are moving oil by tanker, you are to some degree courting a potential disaster. That always gives me a great deal of pause for concern. That is not to say I am going to express an opinion on an oil port or on movement of oil by pipeline, by one or another pipeline, or any of the alternatives that are open.

But I will say that I obviously must, as Environment minister, express concern with the movement of oil by ship. I don't know what more you would want from me, Mr. Member. If you want to try to read into that some government policy, you would be very mistaken indeed. You've asked me what my opinion is on moving oil by tanker, I presume. Any fool — even a fool like myself — knows what happens from time to time when that happens. As Environment minister I think this fool has got to say he is concerned from time to time about that prospect.

MR. LEGGATT: The minister didn't, however, respond to the proposal of appearing before the National Energy Board to present this government's position. I'm not asking for an answer on that, but I would hope the National Energy Board is not making this decision in a vacuum without knowing what the position of the government of the province of British Columbia is.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

It may be the Minister of Energy who has that responsibility. I would certainly urge, then. In view of the fact that we are still sliding around on this thing and we haven't got a commitment from this government, that pretty soon there will be a formal brief presented to the NEB so that they know where the government of British Columbia stands on the Kitimat oil port. There's a reason for raising these questions. It's because of a news report some time ago that the cabinet had received representation from that particular consortium with regard to the advantages of a Kitimat oil pipeline. That therefore led a good number of people in the environmental world to be very concerned there might be opposition at the federal level but that there might be support at the provincial level. It seems to me incumbent upon the minister to dismiss those doubts and come forward with a firm government policy. I would strongly suggest the proper policy is to oppose the Kitimat oil pipeline proposal. It would be a horrendous disaster for this province to send tankers up that narrow and dangerous channel.

I want to get on to something else. Mr. Chairman, that deals with another matter. The minister has a special responsibility — and, Mr. Chairman. If I'm out of order, you can let me know — in dealing with negotiations at the federal level, and dealing with the constitution. I'm not sure whether this section of the estimates is appropriate or not, but my question first of all deals with the issues raised by the minister in terms of his special responsibilities in terms of federal — provincial relations.

One of my own concerns deals with the Fraser River. We have for a long time been very proud of the fact that the Fraser River is, I think, the largest salmon-producing river in the world. But we have had a great difficulty in the chipping away of the river, municipalities competing with each other in order to obtain industry, which is very attractive from the point of view of their tax base and providing employment. But when you add up all of these little bits and pieces, we're in the position, in the long run, of destroying that estuary.

I know the minister is familiar with the Westwater Research Centre, and the excellent studies that group has

[ Page 692 ]

done. I might remind him that 40 percent of the marshland has been taken from the Fraser River. There's a 70 percent reduction in vegetation in the wetlands of the estuary and wild birds — not only fish — have suffered. The degradation of the estuary is a fact.

What I am asking the minister to consider, because of his special responsibility in negotiations with Ottawa, is the formation of an estuary bill where we have federal-provincial-municipal governments coming together on the organization of the river, so that we don't have conflicting jurisdictions over the establishment of industry. Now no one here would oppose reasonable, non-polluting industry, and when you see a single industry go in you can say: "Well, that has very little impact on the river." But you have every municipality competing for that same industry, and the total means the degradation of the estuary.

Now it seems to me it's long overdue that we come together, federally, provincially and municipally, to have a management board for the Fraser River and the other estuaries in the province where this degradation is taking place. I know the minister has some thoughts on this subject. I welcome some comments on it from him. It's a proposal that is certainly not new; it's been made many times. But it seems to me that we should end the competing jurisdictions on the river in terms of an overall governing board to protect that estuary for all time, because if there is one thing in this province which provides a magnificent future, it's our salmon resource.

The minister has $2 million in his estimates for a salmonid program, which is an excellent program. He has the total support of the community on it, but there's not much good in putting $2 million into the Salmonid Enhancement Program if we continue to degrade our estuaries. I wonder if the minister would comment on the concept of an overall estuary authority bill.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Prior to recognizing the minister, let me say that this is future legislation, and we really are on the estimates of the minister and his actions as minister.

HON. MR. MAIR: I think I can assist the member, but before I do I would just like to answer the questions raised by the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace), or my notes will go so far I'I think I've already answered her. I know I haven't.

As for the Shawnigan Lake matter, Madam Member, the note I have from my staff is that the flume investigations are near completion, and the preliminary results have been provided to the Cowichan Valley Regional District while the reports are in preparation. I understand that we also-have been taking samples on a regular basis. If that is not a sufficient answer to the question, I will provide further answers to you, if you wish to drop me a note and let me know what you would like from me on that.

On the groundwater problem, I regret that I did not answer the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) at the same time because he raised the same question. Looking at the whole problem, I think it raises difficulties. If we are not careful in tackling this problem on too wide a basis, we run a very grave risk of creating a bureaucratic nightmare. What we really require, I think, is to have proclamation of the relevant sections of the Act, if we can, on a local basis, and try to deal with it on a local basis. I think that we require a little more work on that. It is a very serious problem. We recognize that it is a unique one because it is not one that you can deal with on a global basis throughout the province, as we can with others. It is a matter of great concern to the ministry, however.

On the question of the Agricultural Land Commission, perhaps I can put the member's mind at ease by saying simply this: I do plan some administrative changes in the commission, but no policy change whatsoever. I agree with the philosophy behind the commission and the Act, and I plan no policy change whatever. We hope to be able to improve the administration of it.

Dealing with the last question raised by the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt), earlier this spring I signed an agreement with the then Minister of Environment, Hon. Len Marchand, so that we could have the type of federal-provincial cooperation in environmental matters that the member wants. I expect that this will continue. As the member well knows, the present Environment minister, a classmate of his, is a life-long friend of mine, and we have spoken on this matter on many occasions. I think that while I had excellent cooperation with Mr. Marchand, I can look for an even better relationship now with Mr. Fraser.

As for the Fraser River particularly, I would expect that our minister — that is myself — and the federal minister will sign an agreement in the very near future to manage this river in accordance with not only the Fraser River estuary studies that have been ongoing from various different aspects, but also from the principal Fraser River estuary study. I think it would take another day of estimates, and we may have another day to do it, for all I know, Mr. Member. If we're going to get into that in as much detail as you and I would need to get into it in order to fully exhaust it, perhaps we should start it tomorrow afternoon. But I hope you will accept my assurance that it is a very high profile matter with my ministry.

But I think the thing that you touched upon which is of even greater importance is to have an overall estuary program and plan in effect for the whole coast of the province of British Columbia. I'I just touch very briefly on my thoughts on that and we can, I suppose, debate later or discuss at some other time how we're going to implement that.

But it seems to me we have perhaps three classes of rivers that we have to deal with in the estuaries. We have rivers like the Fraser River, which we have done a substantial amount of harm to. It's a very sturdy river, obviously, to have withstood the barrage that it has taken over the last 100 years. But I think that's one class of rivers that we have.

We have another class that the member for Cowichan Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) and the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) and myself have spoken about that is somewhere in between. They've had an impact to them — not an impact yet that is nearly as serious as the Fraser River — but which threatens, because of its convenience and so on, to get into that position if we're not careful.

Then we have other rivers that are as yet untouched, but when certain developments take place, such as in Rupert and so on, they will suddenly become very important rivers and will fall into the class where we have to provide some protection.

We have ongoing studies in the ministry and intergovernmental discussions going on, and I feel very strongly that we must come up with legislation which will, once and

[ Page 693 ]

for all, set forth an estuary policy with which we can live, and which is going to govern the three classes of rivers that I've spoken about, and in particular will make sure that we don't make the mistakes with what I might call "virgin rivers" that we've made in other rivers in the province.

MR. LEGGATT: Part of the estimates, no doubt, is to pay the cost of studies in the Ministry of Environment, just to prove the relevancy of the question, Mr. Chairman. The minister is about, I think, to come into conflict with the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) over the development of the northeast of this province: the Quintette coal property, the Sukunka coal property, the whole concept of the extension of the BCR. His ministry has produced a very excellent study called The Wildlife Resources of the Northeast Coal Study Area, 1976-77. I understand there are some new reports coming on stream very shortly which deal with a new approach to this, and deal with the value of the resource that's there. Before we start talking about the development of the new resource, this particular study values the caribou and the various species in that area, values the hunting in that area, and then costs hat against the potential loss as a result of that development.

Now I suspect that there will be a debate in cabinet at one time surrounding this — if the Minister of Economic Development is in the chamber now — if these agreements come to fruition, and I expect we're getting fairly close on this Denison Mines proposal. What I'm asking the minister to consider is that no agreement should be signed by anyone. There is one signed now with British Petroleum, I understand, but there should be no further agreement signed until the impact of this northeast coal study is put right into the agreement so that those industries protect that wildlife resource. They have an obligation, if they're going up there to develop that, to protect that magnificent resource of the northeast of British Columbia.

In the past we've had a very bad approach to this. All we've done is costed it out in terms of jobs, in terms of, resources. We have to cost it out in terms of the loss to the existing resources that are there, which is the wildlife in the northeast. The minister, if he'I look at that report, is going to be impressed with the actual values that are there now. The value of the hunting in that area alone is $5 million a year, according to his own ministry's study. So what I'm urging the minister to do is to fight very hard in terms of whatever agreement comes down the line to protect that resource and to protect those animals. If it can't be done the project should not proceed, in my view. If we can't protect that existing resource that's there, which is capable of development itself.... The amount of hunting and the amount of tourism that we can have in the northeastern part of British Columbia hasn't even been touched yet.

If you examine these environmental reports you can see a tremendous potential there as well as the traditional idea of digging out the coal and shipping it abroad. So I'm simply urging the minister to pay careful attention to his own departmental studies and to fight like hell, frankly, in cabinet against that greatest minister of all times who is in the House today, in terms of the development of the northeast, because I want him to be as sensitive to the environment as the Minister of Environment when it comes to developing the northeastern part of British Columbia.

There is a way to end this debate that goes on about whether we....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Have you ever been up there?

MR. LEGGATT: Of course I have.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: When?

MR. LEGGATT: I flew over it a couple of times. [Laughter.]

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: From 27,000 feet up.

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Chairman, I also want to deal with an internal problem that the minister has surrounding the question of nuclear power, which is very sensitive to the environment. He can solve this by simply introducing a bill into this House which simply says that we will not embark upon nuclear power in the province of, British Columbia without the consent of the Legislature. It's a very simple process. It would end a lot of the speculation that's been going on internally, and I would urge him to do so. I am sure he will have the unanimous support of this side of the House.

I also would urge him to look at the question of environmental impact statements. At the present time Manitoba and Saskatchewan require environmental impact statements for all major projects. You can set a figure of a couple of hundred thousand dollars — there is some reasonable figure that has to be set — but environmental impact studies and statements should be necessary before our projects proceed.

On the question of cleaning up the Fraser River: there is a very interesting project in place with Crown Zellerbach on dry-log sorting which has the potential for removing in the long run all of the booms and wood that lies adrift in the Fraser River. One company has now proved that it can be done feasibly. That's the beginning and now all of British Columbia can start to move towards the dry-log sorting process. What I'm saying is that the minister can play a very important role in studying the feasibility, looking at the economics in terms of the industry and then moving the industry forward into dry-log sorting. The damage to boats in this province is just incredible in terms of driftwood that can be picked up through the dry-log sorting procedure.

MR. HOWARD: I was really very much surprised. Mr. Chairman, and rather shocked in a mild sort of way, to hear the Minister of Environment respond to the question by my colleague about the Kitimat oil port, and enunciate that his government has no policy with respect to that important and potentially damaging proposal. A number of years ago, when the Alaska pipeline proposition came into being, there was a proposal, in conjunction with moving the Alaskan oil into the continental United States — or the southern 48, I believe they call it, from an Alaskan's point of view — to bring that oil by tanker from Alaska down through Juan de Fuca Strait and into a place called Cherry Point, and offload the oil there for transmission into the northern-tier refineries in the United States.

A tremendous hue and cry of objection developed from the populace here in Victoria and from people in the Puget Sound area in the state of Washington about the environmental damage that could be caused to this area if there was an oil spill or a ship ran aground, and so on. It was that objection which caused the proposed Cherry Point oil-port

[ Page 694 ]

terminal to be abandoned, and the companies which had an interest in that North Slope oil to move it by tanker from Alaska down to the Panama Canal, and, I understand, offload it from the larger tankers to ships of a size able to go through the Panama Canal and back up the east coast. When the proposal to establish an oil port at Kitimat came along some many, many months ago, the purpose of that was really to accommodate the northern-tier refineries in the United States. All of the coastal communities in the area around Prince Rupert and south thereof and the Queen Charlotte Islands, not to mention the Douglas Channel area itself.... The whole northern coastal area was potentially subjected to the same type of oil spill and environmental damage that the people on Juan de Fuca Strait and Puget Sound would have been subjected to. It's surprising to me that a government would participate, as the previous government did, I understand, in supporting the objections of people in this area about Cherry Point being an oil port and then remain silent when the same type of damage and danger faced people on the north coast.

That's why I'm amazed and somewhat shocked that the minister would say to this House in response to that his government has no policy whatsoever about that proposed Kitimat oil port. That's tantamount to saying that they have no interest in the subject matter, or are partial to the oil port and have made some kind of private commitment. Now it's got to be one or the other; otherwise it's just straight, stupid, foolish laziness not to have made a decision about that — and a decision in opposition to it. I'm not quite as gentle about this as might otherwise be the case, but I think the minister owes this house more than just his bland statement that oh, no, there's no government policy, but oh, yes, he appreciates that tankers can run aground and they can cause damage, et cetera. He owes a little bit firmer commitment to the House than just that offhand remark that there's no policy established.

I would like to know when you are going to do something about this. Is there any possibility of making some decision about it within the next week or two? I have information that the National Energy Board has before it still a valid application from the Kitimat consortium people — the Kaiser-Ashland group now being the major factor in that consortium — and that it is in the throes of commencing hearings sometime within the next couple of months to listen to that and to other applications. I think it would be a terrible situation if the provincial government just remained aloof from the whole process and had no opinion whatever. It doesn't augur very well, I think, for the stature and the position of the Minister of Environment if he persists in that line of reasoning. I think he does owe the House more than just the thought that no policy exists about it. I for one would certainly like to hear in a bit more detail what his view is on that matter.

HON. MR. MAIR: Well, I think we had better back up a little bit, Mr. Chairman. I was invited to indicate the government's unequivocal opposition to an oil port at Kitimat and I refused that kind invitation. I was asked to give my own personal unequivocal opposition to it, and I declined that kind invitation. I decline any invitation in my estimates to give out what government policy is on something as complicated as the moving of oil, under the circumstances that exist today. Now if the member wishes to take from that some conclusion that he enunciated a moment ago in this chamber, then he's free to do so. But I can assure him he's wrong. I don't imagine that there is any area in energy policy and in environmental policy that has received more attention than this. The government's position and its policy will become clear in due course. But I'm not about to, during my estimates, give out what my opinion is because you will take it as being government policy etched in stone if I do, and I'm certainly not in a position and not entitled to give what the government's policy is on this. But I assure the member that it will become clear in due course. The matter is being thoroughly canvassed and studied. And, as I say, the interests of his particular constituency will be very well cared for, I'm sure, in all of our policies.

MR. SKELLY: I'd like to inform the government House Leader that we have two more speakers, both very brief, one to wind up our questions on Environment, and one — recognizing the patience and persistence of Mel Smith over there — to ask a constitutional question.

There are just two questions I'd like to ask of the minister. One is about the Kitimat oil port and the pipeline problem which is still alive and still to be discussed. It appears the Americans are working diligently but quietly on the northern-tier pipeline proposal, with an oil port at Port Angeles, and the Cherry Point situation.... The minister has expressed some concern about the fact that this government hasn't been consulted on their activities. I wonder what the minister is doing about the American proposals just across the strait from us.

I also understand that there's a meeting taking place here this Friday, which will be attended by Capital Regional District representatives and by my colleagues from Victoria and Esquimalt–Port Renfrew. I wonder if the minister plans to attend that one.

The other question I'd like to ask the minister is about the status of the Skagit Valley. We note recently that Hydro has applied to the National Energy Board for exports of firm power. We also know that he's been in discussions with the United States — with, I believe, Washington Public Power and Seattle City Light — and that some of those discussions have centred around the availability of power from British Columbia generating facilities, or of water from B.C. rivers, to the American side in order to compensate Seattle City Light for the loss of power which they could have generated by raising the Ross Dam. Would the minister update us on the situation with respect to the Skagit Valley and those negotiations with Seattle City Light?

HON. MR. MAIR: On the question of delivery of oil across the Juan de Fuca Strait or elsewhere in this area, I have suggested to the government — and I'm hopeful this will be considered favourably — that we make a little better effort to coordinate the efforts of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) and myself in this regard so that we are better informed as to what meetings are taking place, which ones we are entitled to intervene or have a part in, which ones we should just crash, if necessary, and which ones we can perhaps ignore. It's difficult to find out just which ones are important. In any event, I want him to know we are very concerned about that. God and the Whips willing, I will be at that meeting on Friday. Perhaps you can prevail upon your Whip to get Mr. Barber or one of the local members to pair with me, if you

[ Page 695 ]

can convince the two Whips that's okay. I'm going to be there; I've accepted that.

MR. BARBER: Take your chances.

HON. MR. MAIR: I don't know that I want to take my chances. There were some pretty provocative remarks made over at that end of the chamber a little earlier. I'm a little worried about that.

The Skagit Valley: I am awaiting a report from a meeting between my officials and B.C. Hydro officials as to the entire parameters of the problem as far as they're concerned in delivering whatever is necessary to make Seattle whole — which seems to be the phrase they like to use — in order to compensate for not raising the high Ross Dam.

I haven't received that report as yet. I expect to receive it very shortly and get back to meeting with the Seattle Light and Power officials, I would think, within the next month.

MR. SKELLY: Does it involve firm power exports?

HON. MR. MAIR: I'm not certain at this stage of the game. I'm sorry. There was a slight interruption that was overcome on May 10, which did take up a little of my time. I think we're ready to roll again and meet with them again.

MR. MACDONALD: I've been waiting for several hours to ask the minister a simple question, not on his constitution but on the Constitution of Canada. I understand the minister has trouble with one tooth, and I don't want to hold up the estimates.

The minister has been the constitutional fly-by-night of the government of the province of British Columbia. He has gone down to Ottawa with many interesting proposals, one of them, of course, for a provincially appointed Canadian Senate, and the minister has endorsed the idea that the Senate should be expanded and that the members should be appointed directly by the provincial government.

Now I don't want to debate the merits of the idea, Mr. Chairman. Nor do I want to debate with the minister about the Bundestag and the Bundesrat, except to point out to the minister that he flew into Germany and came back, according to the hon. Dr. Edward McWhinney, professor of law and political science at Simon Fraser University, with an ill-researched idea after his Cook's tour and he didn't know the difference between the Bundesrat and the Bundestag. The Bundesrat, which the minister has been portraying to the constitutional conferences as the answer to Canada's constitutional ills and the way to keep the country together, is really no more than a First Minister's conference. I recommend to the minister to read those pages of that book and not to make Cook's tours and bring back ideas unless they're thoroughly understood and to start by understanding the Constitution of Canada.

Mr. Chairman, I have a simple question of the minister, who is saying that the people of British Columbia espouse the idea of an expanded Senate with provincial appointments, which would be great in terms of jobs for the boys, but in my opinion would not be good for Canada. I don't think that we should, Mr. Minister, adopt the posture that we believe in appointments to law-making bodies in a political democracy like Canada unless there is widespread support for that idea, which I suggest you haven't got.

Therefore I ask the minister a simple question. I ask the minister what mandate he had and the government had to go down to Ottawa and propose this expanded Senate with provincial direct appointments, not by election, not by even election by proportional representation which has been suggested. What was the mandate? Was it ever debated in this House and approved by resolution that the government should speak for all of the people of British Columbia in that way? Was it a resolution of a Social Credit convention? Or was it just the cabinet of the province of B.C. saying: "We believe we know the minds of the two million-odd people of the province of British Columbia, and they want a Senate with law-making powers directly appointed by the provincial governments."? When you fight with democratic tradition in that way, you should have a mandate, and I ask the minister very simply: what was the mandate" What body of opinion was he expressing? Was there any resolution of this House? Was there a resolution of a Socred convention? Was there anything that allowed them to go off on their own and make such a proposal without the approval of the Legislature of British Columbia? As Mark Anthony said in his funeral oration, as reported by William Shakespeare, on the death and murder of Julius Caesar: "I pause for a reply."

HON. MR. MAIR: May I say that the mandate to negotiate was given to this government on two separate occasions: December 1975 and May 1979. That's all we've been doing, is negotiating. I think we've done a hell of a good job. If you want to spend an hour or two on it, I'I tell you what you should have been asking for the last three or four years. I'll give you a rundown of the work this government has done, and it's been enormous. We've got a mandate from the people to negotiate, and we've done a damned good job. You have been idly standing by making one-liners about euthanasia for the Senate, and things of that nature, and making funny speeches to the Pepin Robarts report. What we have been doing has been given, I think, tacit approval by no less than the past Prime Minister (Hon. Mr. Trudeau) of this country, the present Prime Minister (Hon. Mr. Clark) of the country, such people as Keith Spicer, a prominent writer on matters of this sort, most of the prominent journalists in the country of Canada and every single academic with the exception of Mr. McWhinney, who wants a job. Mr. McWhinney is totally out of touch with the academic community....

MR. MACDONALD: Doctor McWhinney, please.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. McWhinney.

MR. MACDONALD: Doctor McWhinney.

HON. MR. MAIR: Well, he may have gone to some box top university and got something, but he's Mr. McWhinne as far as I'm concerned. He's totally out of touch with the academic community. His nose is badly out of joint because we didn't invite him to become part of our academic advisory group. He's totally discredited, as far as I'm concerned, and I think that should answer your questions. If you want final proof, Mr. Member, as to the work we have been doing, I suggest you carefully read the Pepin-Robarts report. You will see that in that report the propositions put forward by British Columbia are dealt with

[ Page 696 ]

very fairly indeed. As a matter of fact, they form the foundation of that report. I think the job we've been doing in the constitutional field has been first class. I make no apology for it; I think we should be applauded for it.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I asked the minister a very simple question. When you go carrying an important and, in my opinion, anti-democratic idea down to dominion provincial conferences, have you received the sanction or approval of this Legislature for making that proposition? Has it been discussed even in the Socred caucus? Has it been approved by any resolution of the board of trade or the B.C. Federation of Labour or any of the groups that represent people in British Columbia? Or was it purely dreamt up in the Premier's office? What you are proposing is that we should have laws made by people who aren't elected by the people.

That's an anti-democratic idea. The answer to the question I asked has been given by the minister. There was no mandate at all and no discussion before this Legislature. He talks about two elections. Never was the idea discussed in those elections. I say that if you're going to have constitutional reform in this country, for heaven's sake have a democratic base and don't make a public relations exercise from the Premier's office and from the office of the then-Minister of Consumer Affairs, just thinking up the idea and going off there and making a trip to Germany, mixing up Bundesrat and Bundestag, and proposing that we should have a new Senate with direct appointments, just by the provincial government. I say that's not constitution building and it's not democratic. When this government wants to make propositions to a dominion-provincial conference, it should have some backing to them.

Bring these proposals so that you will not arrive in Ottawa the next time at a dominion provincial conference threadbare and naked. Bring them in the form of a resolution before at least the Legislature of the province of British Columbia, so that when you say you speak for the people of the province of British Columbia, at least there will be something to back you up, and it won't be the idea of one or two people.

I think that kind of constitution-making is in the interests of breaking up the country. It's contrary to the democratic tradition, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. MAIR: It's interesting that in the two years that I've had responsibility for the Confederation Committee of Cabinet, and certainly as long as I've been in the House, that's the first time I've ever heard a member from the other side even talk about the Constitution. It's a little late in the game. Any suggestion by your friend Dr. McWhinney that I don't know the difference between the Bundestag and the Bundesrat is a crock of crap, and you better tell him that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I'm going to ask that the minister withdraw his unparliamentary language.

HON. MR. MAIR: How about "garbage"? Will "garbage" do?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I asked you just for a simple withdrawal.

HON. MR. MAIR: I withdraw "crap." How about "garbage"?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I ask you to direct yourself as an honourable member of this House and in this committee to keep your language in good deportment. Please continue.

HON. MR. MAIR: It's a crock of garbage.

I now suggest to the member opposite that — for the first time, I'm sure — he read the paper, Reform of the Canadian Senate, put out by this government, and that he consider that in all of the meetings we have had — and if he wants me to, I can outline them — where we met with all of the Premiers of all of the provinces of Canada, the Prime Minister of Canada, the Continuing Committee of Ministers on Confederation, each one of them was in the same position we were in: that is, negotiating on behalf of their provinces, with precisely the same mandate I had, the mandate to represent the government of British Columbia. If a settlement is ever made on this issue, of course, it will have to be another forum that decides it. But at this point in time, we are the government and we're going to act like the government and we're going to negotiate for the government.

Vote 89 approved.

Vote 90: general administration, $2,444,356 — approved.

Vote 91: resource and environmental management, $47,568,812 — approved.

Vote 92: Environment and Land Use Committee secretariat, $1,245,394 — approved.

Vote 93: Provincial Agricultural Land Commission, $742,047 — approved.

Vote 94: Provincial Emergency Program, $1,577,716 — approved.

Vote 95: Salmonid Enhancement Program, $2,000,000 — approved.

Vote 96: Flood Relief Act, $10 — approved.

Vote 97: Creston Valley wildlife management, $131,468 — approved.

Vote 98: building occupancy charges, $5,867,000 — approved.

Vote 99: computer and consulting charges, $1,768,045 — approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, earlier today the hon. second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) asked leave, under standing order 35, to move a motion for the

[ Page 697 ]

adjournment of the House to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely a proposal of Westcoast Transmission to export additional quantities of natural gas.

On June 22 last I indicated to the House what I perceived to be the duty of the Speaker relating to matters under standing order 35, and I do not propose to repeat those comments. At page 370 of the sixteenth edition of Sir Erskine May it is observed that the matter raised must not be one "importing an argument." The hon. member transgresses this condition when he alleges that the proposal is "without regard for the needs of the residential and industrial customers in British Columbia," and further, when he alleges that there is "an absence of an adequate price."

Although the motion would fail on this basis alone, it should also be noted that similar motions have been disallowed when the matter, first of all, involved the exercise of discretion under statutory powers, and secondly, when the matter is one for which another authority is immediately responsible. The references for that are in May's sixteenth edition, pages 372 and 373. It must follow then that the matter is not one to be exempted from the usual notice of motion.

Presenting Reports

Hon. Mr. Gardom presented the annual report of the corrections branch, and the annual report of the Law Reform Commission of British Columbia.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:59 p.m.