[ Page 3599 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Committee of Supply; Ministry of Environment estimates. (Hon. Mr. Rogers)

On vote 75: minister's office –– 3599

Mr. Gabelmann

Mr. King

Mr. Hyndman

The House met at 10 a.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Prayers.

MR. NICOLSON: I seek the floor on a point of order. Under standing order 9, the duties of the Speaker — which I would not presume to read to Your Honour.... Mr. Speaker, as you have often said, the Speaker has no knowledge of things which happen outside the House, and to have knowledge of them they must be brought to the House. I am going to file with Your Honour this morning's Daily Colonist, the headline of which reads: "Morning Sittings Aim to Catch MLAs Sober." The lead paragraph says: "As far as Premier Bennett knows, B.C. MLAs don't pour Scotch on their breakfast cornflakes. So the B.C. Legislature will replace its former spirited evening sittings — cancelled March 20 — with a morning version, when legislators are virtually certain to be sober." It goes on to make other similar comments.

I bring this to the attention of the Speaker that he might consider appropriate action for what is not an attack on a particular member, but an attack on the Legislature. I would expect that, as is outlined in Abraham and Hawtry's Parliamentary dictionary, the House Leader would take the appropriate action to support His Honour the Speaker, who of course cannot move motions, but who is the agent of backing up in a similar manner as when a member is named in the House. I would ask the Clerk to take this for the Speaker.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Speaking to the point of order, I would hate to think that any member would take offence at jest, or that the members of this House, in the heat of summer, have lost their sense of humour about remarks that may have been taken out of context. If any member feels offended by a remark made in jest by me, I certainly would apologize to those members. I do believe my statement to be true, that no member of this House takes Scotch on his Cornflakes. If any member does and wishes to state it, I would certainly apologize that I have inadvertently wronged someone who does.

I do wish, in all seriousness, to tell all members of this House, to the point of order, that no offence was meant to any member. If any member takes offence, I certainly would take this opportunity to apologize for what is the banter or jest that takes place in the corridors among members, which usually never becomes the source of headlines.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: In the view of the Chair, the point raised by the hon. member for Nelson-Creston and the clear apology forthcoming from the Premier.... At this time the Chair's opinion would be that the matter has been put to rest, if that is sufficient on an apology of that kind.

MR. NICOLSON: I wish it were so simple. It is my understanding that Toronto newspapers are phoning out here to the west. Once again this House has been degraded. While the members opposite may laugh, I will be content that I have discharged my duty. I hope that you will do yours, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LAUK: On the same point of order, in the Victoria Colonist this morning a reporter indicated that the implication of the Premier was indeed correct. The reporter herself has indicated that the statements of the Premier are correct — that members are not sober in the evenings of the Legislative sitting. You and I know, Mr. Speaker, that that's a falsehood; we know it's not true. I ask the Speaker to take into consideration that a member of the press gallery is also involved in the breach of privilege.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. I will take the matter under review.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT
(continued)

On vote 75: minister's office, $152,422.

MR. GABELMANN: I find it a little bit hard to get my mind off the nonsense that was expressed by the government side earlier this morning on what to me is a very serious issue. The fact that the....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We are on vote 75.

MR. GABELMANN: That's right. The fact that the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers) was one of those who laughed about what to me is a very serious matter is a concern to me. Nevertheless, I'll try to get on to....

AN HON. MEMBER: Go ahead. Finish it off.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will all members please come to order. The committee is on vote 75, the Ministry of Environment. Order, please.

MR. GABELMANN: My comments this morning will follow on some of the ones I made last night. I want to express some concern on several issues in North Island as they relate to what I judge to be the minister's absolute incompetence and lack of concern for the environment.

Before I do that I want to raise another matter that I consider of great concern as to the way in which the minister carries out his responsibilities as the Minister of Environment. Earlier this year in May there was a report on Hernando Island that a woman had been bitten by a wolf. I have no knowledge as to whether the report was true or not, and I will make no comment about whether it was a valid complaint. My concern is not so much about the alleged wolf attack as with the way in which the minister responded. When the report was made to his ministry, two conservation officers began to make their way to Hernando Island to investigate and determine whether or not there was some truth in the report and, if there was, to see if they could find the evidence and possibly find the wolf.

My understanding of the situation is that before the officers could get to Hernando, they were called off by the minister. They were told by the minister, or his office acting on behalf of the minister, not to go to Hernando and not to

[ Page 3600 ]

pursue the particular matter. You can imagine the rage and indignation of your staff when that happened, Mr. Minister, because some weeks later when they were able to go over to the island, of course, the trail was cold. Now no one knows whether the wolves were being maligned or not. The best evidence I have as to the reason why the minister interfered with the proper duties of his staff is because his Vancouver Club friends jointly own that island, and one Mr. Killam, a friend of the minister, phoned and said: "Don't send your officers over to the island." That is as Mr. Killam reports it, as confirmed indirectly by people in your ministry. If that is true — and I believe it to be true — then it's a serious case of the old-boys' club, the rich millionaires' club from Vancouver, interfering with the proper processes that should go on in your ministry.

The real concern that I have, believe it or not, is that because the investigation could not be completed there is still some lingering doubt about whether or not that woman was in fact bitten by a wolf. I have my doubts as to whether she was. I suspect she wasn't, but no one will ever know, because your office — through yourself, in my judgment — interfered because an old family friend called and said: "Don't come to the island with your staff. " If that is true, as I believe it to be, it is another serious example of an absolutely incapable running of one of the more serious and important ministries in this province.

Examples abound of the minister's inability to act on behalf of the environment and on behalf of environmental issues in this province. Where is the minister's voice to preserve the farmland at Site C? Where is the minister's voice to have environmental concerns dealt with in energy development in this province? Where is the minister's voice when pulpmills pollute, as they do in Port Alice worse than anywhere on the continent? Where is the advocacy from the minister when lakes are destroyed, like Buttle Lake, which I talked about yesterday? Where is the minister when these kinds of concerns are expressed? Where is the minister's voice when it comes to herbicides, pesticides and other dangerous toxic chemicals, the PCBs and PCPs and many others too numerous to name? Where is the minister's voice? It's not there. He is not the advocate for the environment. In that cabinet he is a small voice with no influence. He was given the job just to attempt to leave some impression that the government cares about the environment when clearly it doesn't.

We talk about Port Alice, another good example of a situation which for years has gone unheeded by governments in this province. We have an old, old sulphite mill where I was able to obtain an internal company report that documented violations of the excessive permit already granted by the ministry, a 30-month permit that was allowing the recovery boiler stack to emit two and a half times what the standards should be. The company report itself — as I indicated earlier this session in a question during question period — documents that often the recovery boiler stack exceeds the already excessive permit level by two and a half times. Has the minister gone to Port Alice and talked to the people in that community? Have they gone to Rayonier and talked to them about speeding up their program? He nods his head. We sure don't hear about it. Meanwhile people in that community live in the most polluted atmosphere this side of the eastern provinces and states.

What's happening? Perhaps because of some of the pressure I put on publicly by raising this issue, the company now indicates that they will proceed with their pollution abatement equipment program. Why didn't the minister do that some time ago? He knew about the problem. Why was it up to an MLA? Why isn't the Minister of Environment taking those kinds of action? If they wouldn't respond, why didn't the minister publicly say the kinds of things that needed to be said, so that Rayonier, that giant multinational corporation with no social responsibility to the people in our community, would take some action because of the pressure put on by the Minister of Environment? He says he had talks with them, but it didn't work. The only time they have even indicated that they might do something is after there's been some public pressure from the MLA. Well, that's not good enough, Mr. Chairman. That member is the Minister of Environment, and he is responsible for cleaning up some of these pollution problems that exist, particularly in the case where for some years we have known that there are serious violations of what I consider to be already excessive permit guidelines for pollution in that particular pulpmill.

I think the performance of the minister in this case, as on Buttle Lake and in dozens of other cases around this province, demonstrates his absolute lack of concern for the environment. Or, Mr. Chairman, it may indicate something else: maybe he is concerned about the environment but his colleagues aren't, and he can't get them to do anything. Maybe the Premier tells him what to do. Maybe he's just a joe-boy for the Premier. Maybe that's the problem. Whatever the Premier says he can do, he does, and he doesn't dare to raise these pollution control problems because they might cost extra money in enforcement, or they might require additional budgeting, and as a result of that the Premier won't let him loose, won't let him take those concerns.

MR. SKELLY: Loss of campaign funds.

MR. GABELMANN: How much does come from Rayonier for election campaign funds for Social Credit? Maybe that's why the minister doesn't act or why the Premier won't allow him to. There must be some reason why the minister doesn't seem to take these environmental concerns and march with them, be public with them and demonstrate some concern. We're living in a fragile world. We're living in a society that can't go on much longer the way it is. And what do we have? We have a government that now wants to develop energy proposals without any concern or input expressed by the Ministry of Environment. You're a lame duck, Mr. Minister. You haven't got the support of your colleagues. I'm not sure whether you like it or don't like it. I suspect that for you it's just a stepping stone to what you might consider to be an important ministry, because I don't believe you think this one's very important.

What have you said about Robson Bight? Do you know what Robson Bight is? Probably not. What have you said about Buckley Bay? There was a big announcement that there'd be a moratorium on log dumping, right after they allowed MacMillan-Bloedel to have the log dump in the member for Comox's (Ms. Sanford's) riding. What's your concern about oysters when you allow the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) to determine foreshore policies in vital and vulnerable areas like Buckley Bay?

What's your concern, in the particular case of Campbell River, with the Roderick Haig-Brown park, when both the Lands minister and yourself are quoted as saying it's the other guy's responsibility? The Minister of Lands says, "Oh,

[ Page 3601 ]

no, that's the Minister of Environment's problem and his responsibility," and the Minister of Environment says, "Oh, no, it's the Minister of Lands.' " In the meantime, through great generosity from the Haig-Brown family, we have the possibility of a very unique and important park in Campbell River — and the ministers are buck-passing between each other. The Minister of Lands shakes his head. All I know is that the community group, which is a non-partisan group including people, I might say, who are active Social Credit members, is absolutely condemning the ministry for its lack of concern. If it's the Minister of Environment's problem, do something; and if it's the Minister of Lands' problem, get them to do something. But, Mr. Minister, don't just pass the buck.

Let's go back to Robson Bight. Maybe you've had a chance to learn where that is now. That's another estuary. It happens to be the estuary where the Tsitika River flows into Johnstone Strait. It happens to be one of the best killer whale feeding areas on the coast. MacMillan Bloedel has a proposal to put a log dump in there. What have you done to preserve that particular estuary and that particular bight? Scuba divers from Port McNeill go all the way down to Robson Bight for scuba diving. National Geographic says it's one of the best undersea scuba diving areas in the world. And what's happening? Mac-Blo probably has more concern for that particular bit of the environment then the minister does. From what I can see, at least they have been considering alternative suggestions, like trucking the logs out to another location. What's the minister said or done about it? Nothing that I know of.

I can imagine the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) being very vocal in his determination that the logging go ahead and the forestry be developed in that Tsitika watershed. But shouldn't the Minister of Environment be arguing the other side? Shouldn't he be in there attempting to preserve some of these areas?

Can you imagine what would happen in the south seas or Hawaii if the prime scuba-diving areas were allowed to be destroyed? Can you imagine the outrage? Yet we have waters between Robson Bight and Whisky Point on Quadra Island — in that whole area — that are better, according to National Geographic, than any in the world. And we allow them to be polluted and congested with log dumps! It's absolutely appalling. Where's the minister's voice? Has the minister even been there to have a look at it? If he has, I don't know about it.

What's happening with a couple of other estuaries? It's a long, slow process to solve the problems with the Campbell River estuary. Now that B.C. Forest Products is in instead of Elk River Timber, hopefully they'll have enough capital to speed up the program. But where's the pressure from the minister? If there's any pressure the community doesn't know about it; I don't know about it. I suspect there isn't very much pressure. What's happening in the Salmon River estuary in the Kelsey Bay area? The impression in the community is that there's not much concern — another log dump. It's bloody pathetic.

I think I'll leave it at that, Mr. Chairman. I've raised a variety of issues. There are many others in my riding alone. I haven't even begun to talk about environmental issues elsewhere in the province. I haven't mentioned the Skagit. I mentioned Site C only in passing. I haven't talked about the northern rivers, the fragile and important environment of the Charlottes, or the Fraser River. I could go on and on. Other members, I am sure, will. In the meantime I trust that I will get some response from the minister on the variety of issues I have raised. Perhaps I'll get back to him if I'm not satisfied with the answers.

HON. MR. ROGERS: I'd like to start off by welcoming my official critic back. I hope you are feeling a little better; I know you were ill yesterday.

I have been to Hernando Island, and you are quite right; I do know some of the people who are property owners on Hernando Island — only a few. Hernando Island has had two wolves on it for some 12 or 14 years. Maybe I should give you a little history of the island. It was originally settled prior to the First World War by people from the United Kingdom. They built a railway on the island. They established an orchard and schools. They logged the island and they had a farm on the island. When the real war started in Europe they abandoned everything and went back to England and didn't return. As a result of that, Hernando Island has not only a population of ungulants but they also have a population of wild cattle that have been there now since the end of the first war. Biologists would probably find them fascinating. They've lived in the wild now since the end of the first war and they roam over this island, which is over 1,000 acres.

Approximately two or three days after the pesticide control board had approved the use of 1080 in limited areas on a reactive basis only, and only by conservation officers, for the first time in the history of North America we had a report of a wolf attacking a person. The report I got was that a woman had been attacked by a wolf and staff were being dispatched to poison the wolf.

I made some inquiries. You've got the situation wrong about Mr. Killam. Mr. Killam was all in favour of having conservation officers go up there and immediately poison the animal. I decided that that was not the right thing to do. It certainly isn't in keeping with our policy. The woman in question went to a doctor in Powell River where she was treated. The doctor's report says that there were superficial scrapes on her hand. The woman refused to have a rabies shot that the doctor had offered her and suggested she have on the assumption that if she had been bitten by a wild animal there was a possibility of the animal being rabid. As you know, rabies shots are very painful so the woman refused to have them. The reason I told my conservation officers not to go in there and poison the animal was because our guidelines specifically state that we do not use poison against wolves or any other animal in this province until all other methods have been tried, including having a conservation officer go in there and shoot the animal, if it is in fact a problem animal. We have asked the RCMP for a report because their people were involved in it. They wouldn't submit one.

I might point out another thing that is interesting in this matter. On this rather remote island on the day when the wolf attacked, there was a reporter from the Toronto Star who happened to be there at that very time. One could be suspicious that perhaps they were going to file a nice story about the Minister of Environment in British Columbia poisoning wolves and selected an island that had a wolf on it and someone who could be conveniently attacked by a wolf. I don't know if that's the case or not but I'm not prepared to ask my staff to use the 1080 poison on anything more than what is an alleged attack. Conservation officers did go to the island

[ Page 3602 ]

and interview the woman. There are some personal matters about this woman's history which would make me suspicious of whether or not she really was attacked by a wolf. The animal has since been dispatched, in any event.

I am told by Fish and Wildlife staff that wolves swim quite freely between different islands. Many people believe that if there is a wolf on an island, once that animal is removed there won't be another one. That is not the case. If there is game on the island and if the wolf is of a mind to swim between the islands it will do so. I am totally opposed to a policy of obliteration of animals, whether they be predators or not, just because they don't suit the convenience of the property owners or the people in the adjacent areas.

There is a lot of follow-up to this story. The woman refused to go back to the same doctor. Photographs were taken of her hand indicating a bite from a wolf. An RCMP officer who saw her hand said he had been a policeman for six years and he definitely knew what a woman's hand looked like when it had been bitten by a wolf. But the doctor who treated her, whose opinion I think I have to respect a little more, said there were certainly no bite marks. I don't think there is ever going to be a conclusion to this particular investigation. I must admit I got a phone call from Toronto wondering why my ministry hadn't issued a press release on our poisoning of the animal. At that point I thought my earlier suspicions were well founded. I am convinced that the people in the ministry handled the problem properly.

In dealing with the poisoning of animals, it's a very difficult subject. We have a situation where, if conservation officers and the people who are properly trained do not do this, it's done illegally and without control by people who are ill-trained for it. It's a difficult environmental problem, and I think we have come to what is at least the best solution possible.

Port Alice. I have not had the opportunity to go to Port Alice, but I've had four meetings with Mr. Butter and the other executives of ITT's Rayonier plant. I met with them in conjunction with the former federal Minister of the Environment, John Fraser, and the new federal Minister of the Environment, John Roberts. He and I have discussed the Port Alice situation. On two occasions I have made it abundantly clear to the people of ITT that they will be required to have their clarifier and their outfall extension in on the scheduled date and that we are not going to give them any extension.

I would say they had been playing both sides against the middle. They went to Ottawa and asked for an extension there and then came back and told me that they thought they had an extension from Ottawa, and would we now give them an extension. As early as January of this year John Fraser and I talked about it and said: "No, there will be absolutely no extension on their permit; they must have the equipment in on time." And when the federal government changed, the first person I spoke to in Ottawa was the deputy, because, of course, the deputy doesn't change, so we were able to bring the file up to date, and we agreed. Sure enough, the people from Rayonier went down to Ottawa just as soon as the government changed and said: "We've got a problem here and the province of British Columbia is being unreasonable. We think you should look at it." And they had already agreed with me, so I think my record on Port Alice....

I wish I had had time to go up and visit the place, quite frankly. You're quite right, it is one of the major environmental problems of the province, but don't for one minute think that I'm relaxing on demands that we have with ITT. They have some serious problems; they are the last mill that operates using that particular process and they asked for exclusions which I'm not prepared to give them.

You asked about my colleagues' support. Well, I get support from my colleagues. I know you would like to have the impression that we don't get support from our colleagues, but I get a surprising amount of support from my colleagues. In fact, there are very few objections when I raise environmental issues, but that's just a personal matter.

Buckley Bay. Yes, the staff of the marine resources branch and I met with the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) and the people from MacMillan Bloedel and, quite frankly, we weren't very enthusiastic about them putting a log dump in. I think the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) knows that. We stressed our point reasonably well, but the people from Lands, Parks and Housing had to make the decision. I guess you should discuss it during that minister's estimates. But among other things, that particular area had not been used for oysters before; it had been used for a coal-slag dump. There were other problems associated with it. They are going to use good logging practices, using bundle booms of the dry-land sort and a number of other things. If it has the monitoring and the controls that they have assured us will take place, I think these two things can work in harmony.

Robson Bight. I'll be quite honest with you; I haven't had correspondence on Robson Bight. I am an active scuba diver. I try to get under water once or twice a month, if I ever get out of this place — of course this isn't the right time of the year to be doing it in any event — but this particular thing hasn't come to my attention. I'm glad you did bring it to my attention, because I will have a look at it. I may have seen something on it, but it certainly isn't something that either the deputy or I know something about that's really active.

Haig-Brown Park and the people from Campbell River. The people from Campbell River came to see me, and the situation that they propose is something like this: they have a piece of land which is in the middle of the urban area of Campbell River and they'd like to see it made into a park. I think that's a very worthwhile objective, but it's not a subject which is even for negotiation. We were presented with what was essentially a bill: "Here is the bill, pay it, and we can proceed with it." There were no negotiations to take place; in any event, it's a local park priority and not a particular priority of this ministry. If we did have the money, which we will have through the Conservation Trust Fund next year, we might give it some consideration. But they have a very urgent time-frame on this particular proposal and I could do nothing but refer them to the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing.

Estuaries. We have issued the Nanaimo estuary study. The Cowichan estuary study has been a very long and involved study and I expect to have it released within the next month. Our people have said that before — the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) laughs — but it is in the final draft stage; actually I think it's ready to go to the printer. Again it's a difficult problem to resolve because of the various conflicts, and we still, believe it or not, after five years have some incomplete data.

The Queen Charlottes and the Fraser. Well, I've been to the Queen Charlotte Islands and I recognize some of the problems there. I've had meetings there with the resource people of my ministry and the Ministry of Forests, especially on Riley Creek. I haven't had time to spend more time in the Charlottes, although we have a massive study underway on the south island to do with ecological problems.

You say you want to talk about the Fraser. I think our

[ Page 3603 ]

record on the Fraser is one of activity unparalleled by any previous Minister of Environment that has had anything to do with this particular area. A team of environmental conservation officers went out, indicated where the problems were and were very aggressive about it. They laid a number of charges, and a number of charges are still pending before the courts. As a result of their five months' investigation we have now formed a committee made up of the various users and the environmental groups; SPEC is included as well as the manufacturers' association. In fact, anyone that we thought would be interested in sitting on this particular group we invited to come forward, and we expect our first meeting to be taking place within a month. We're moving on this matter at, I think, great speed.

I can tell you that I'm getting an awful lot of pressure, and am having no difficulty absorbing the pressure and pushing it back, from people asking us to back off on illegal landfills, and illegal hog-fuel dumps. You may have noticed in orders-in-council that export permits have been issued for hog fuel that was formerly used for land fill. We got tough on it; they had no other place to go, so they found a market for it, and now we've had hog fuel going out by barge. We've been asked to give an exemption for one particular group for 15 days until they get their barge-loading facilities in place.

I can tell you that between the Mission bridge and Sand Heads it has been extremely active. The major pollutants that come into the Fraser come in that particular area. We're going to expand the terms of reference and the area of investigation for the people. The major water pollutant that affects the entire province is the lower Fraser. With the staff that I have, and the work that I asked them to do, that's the area where they went and were most aggressive. We laid charges against people who had permits and weren't operating within the permits, and against people who were dumping without permits.

Quite frankly, we've got the cat among the pigeons now as far as the GVRD are concerned, because they're now stuck with the problem of trying to find a place to get rid of some industrial liquid wastes. They've always had disposal facilities for solid wastes, but they've not had disposal facilities for liquid wastes. They've just been dumped and leached, and any substance that is dumped eventually finds it way back into the water system, either through the aquifers or else through regular seepage. I think we've been very aggressive in that particular area. If the press doesn't care to report where I go or who I speak to, and therefore the people in your riding don't know about it, then that's not something that I really feet particularly comfortable to comment upon.

One of the things you mentioned yesterday was Quinsam coal, and I share very much your concerns about the problems that happen. Sure enough, people did come forward and say: "We're going to truck coal for 25 years, a truck every three minutes, through the middle of Campbell River." Like you, I said: "Forget it. You have to dismiss that as being totally unreasonable." I'm quite sure they knew that before they got started, and I think perhaps, in all honesty, they never really intended to use the spit in the first place. They had a nice rendering and a picture of a few trees and a shed, but I couldn't believe it. They may find another way of getting the coal out. They may come in line with the coal guidelines, and that may have major economic benefits in the Campbell River, but my prime concern is the effect on the water system, and the fish. We are going to have to be very aggressive on that, and we're going to have to be sure before the project starts, if the project starts, that it's viable. It has to meet all the coal guidelines plus the requirements of my ministry.

I haven't been to Quinsam; I haven't had time to go up and see it. But I've been to an awful lot of other areas in the province. I've been up to see the proposed Site C and a couple of other places, but time just hasn't allowed me to go up and do that.

I really share your concern on the discharge of tailings into Buttle Lake. It started in 1966, and I guess the final permit was actually signed by Bob Williams, so a lot of people can share the blame on this particular thing, if that's what's happening. The real problem with Buttle Lake is that now they have found some substantial mineral reserves. One of the things I find interesting in my estimates is that it's not often the people opposite don't know a lot of the coming problems that we face. I have grave reservations about the existing system for discharging tailings into Buttle Lake, let alone increasing the tailings. The people from the mining company have been to see me; they say that Dr. Clark's facts are incorrect. I say: "Well, if you want to do that you'd better convince Dr. Clark and a few other people as well." They say his findings err very much against the mining company; they may err the other way. He may have been conservative in his findings.

The fish are not dead in Buttle Lake. The fish are showing some signs of stress; that's the official word. I don't like that; the idea of a fish suffering stress gives me great distress. One of the things the mining company points out is that because the area is of such high mineralization some of the problem can come from natural stream runoffs. If that's the case, we're going to have to know that. Once again, it requires a very extensive and expensive detailed study before you can come up with any of those findings. It is a major economic and ecological problem that takes place in your riding.

Quite frankly, I don't see that it has any easy solution. I would like to explore and am going to be exploring what alternative tailings-disposal areas there are. As you know, the mining company is in-filling part of its old mine with it, and they have substantially reduced not the volumes but the metals that get into the lake. It is not an adequate solution in any event, but they are proceeding under the guidelines they have now. I wouldn't want you to think I am ignoring it or not concerned about it. I am really specifically concerned with their major new metal finds and the extension of the life of that mine for 20 or 30 years, I think it is. Buttle Lake probably — I think we can all agree — won't be able to take it for another 20 or 30 years. We have to look for a solution a little sooner than that.

I think that will answer some of your questions.

MR. GABELMANN: I appreciate the minister's comments on a variety of issues. The concern I have is that your good words are not followed by good actions. That is a concern I have had expressed to me by a lot of people in the community. However, I'll take you at your word and expect to see the proof in the actions shortly in a variety of areas, certainly in Battle Lake and Port Alice. I wish you would find some money to do a major study on Buttle Lake. The Clark report was done by Dr. Clark and two part-time student assistants, I believe. Certainly he indicated in his report that he did not have enough funding to do the kind of study he would like to do. As a result of having an inadequate study, of course the company can say that it's not valid. But the

[ Page 3604 ]

evidence of the fishermen and the people who have known the take for decades is inescapable. The minister has expressed that as well. Let's do the major study and let's not rely on the company documents. Let's spend the money and do that as quickly as possible.

Three other issues need a reply. You haven't talked about Tahsis, which I raised yesterday. You haven't responded to the question of onus of proof in herbicide and pesticide applications. The argument I made yesterday was that those who wished to apply them should prove that they have to and that they must use that particular material in that particular fashion rather than having the community and community groups proving that they shouldn't.

My concern about Hernando Island and the wolf problem is not at all alleviated by the minister's response. I am not saying that a person was bitten by a wolf on that island. Frankly, I don't believe there was a particular wolf attack. My concern is that two of your conservation officers who had already got the helicopter and were on their way to the island — not to poison the wolf but to investigate.... They work for you, and you are going to win the argument, I guess, but I am told by the people involved that they were going there to investigate the complaint. Sure, there are wolves on the island, but they didn't know there was a specific wolf there that specific day. They were going to investigate an alleged wolf attack. Before they could investigate they were called off. How were they called off? By the person they report to in the ministry? No. They were called off because Larry Killarn phoned his friend the Minister of the Environment, who then called his staff off, who then were unable to investigate to determine whether or not there was in fact a wolf attack on the island. That is the evidence as it is very clear to people in Campbell River and area. My point in raising that is that I believe it was an unwarranted interference by friends of the minister who happen to be the landowners in the particular case. However, I will leave that for now.

I would like a reply on the onus of proof on pesticide applications. I would like a major reply on Buttle Lake and I would like some response on Tahsis. I appreciate the comments of the minister on Robson Bite. Please do have a look at it.

HON. MR. ROGERS: I agree with you on Buttle Lake. The one thing the Clark report did was to indicate you're going to have to spend a lot more money studying. We agree with that, and that's not a problem.

The problem with your proposal on pesticides is that it is very difficult to prove a negative. I don't think we can accept what you are asking us to do.

On Hernando Island, I called off the poisoning, not the conservation officers. However, it was two days earlier that for the first time in several years the poison had been approved. The only poison that existed was in Williams Lake. It hadn't even been prepared into baits yet, because there was only one person in the province capable of doing it. The people in the ministry were at the point of getting ready to take a government aircraft to go to Williams Lake to get the poison, to bring it down to Campbell River, to fly it over to Hernando Island to use it on the wolf, and I said no. I still defend that position. Maybe there was a mix-up in it, but there was no way I called off the conservation officers. I suppose I could find the letter I received from the people on Hernando Island absolutely reaming me out for not having dispatched the animal with poison, and my subsequent letter to them saying that I still made the right decision. That is what they wanted to do, and I don't blame them. They had children that use the island as a summer cottage area. The problem I had was strictly to do with this poisoning.

On the Tahsis, I've answered it once in the House, I guess. We still have to do some planning between ourselves and forestry to come up with the best integrated solution for this thing. It may very well be — as you require or ask for — that the area might get put aside totally in the ecological reserve and that just this one particular valley be saved. It may be that there are possibilities, but we have to continue looking at that. I think that answers your questions.

MR. KING: I want to get some information from the minister today regarding the current program of centralization of some of the staff in the interior of the province particularly. I'm not sure how widespread it is although I understand there has been a centralization in Penticton which has resulted in the removal of staff from Vernon and Kelowna. My concern is that the Vernon office used to send a representative to Revelstoke. I think they spent one or two days a week in Revelstoke. There is a very significant area in the Shuswap and Revelstoke area where enforcement is difficult. It's a very large, rural area. Centralization is fine but if it results in a diminution of the enforcement then I have grave concern about it.

In any event, I wrote to Mr. Anthony, the assistant deputy minister, on June 19 indicating my concern that Revelstoke continue to enjoy the presence of a representative from the Vernon office rather than just responses to particular complaints. I asked when the decision had been made to close the Vernon office and to abandon the Revelstoke office. It was significant that I wrote to the associate deputy minister but I received a reply from the minister himself. I don't know what the policy is there or whether the staff of the ministry are afraid to deal with elected members of the Legislature without it being referred to the minister. In any event I did appreciate the minister's letter. It left a few things, in my view, that need some clarification. The minister's letter came on July 2. He said:

"Following the change of structure and mandate for the Ministry of Environment announced by the Premier in December 1978, my ministry has been restructuring and decentralizing its programs to more effectively serve the people of the province. Wherever practical my ministry chose the recommended resource management boundaries adopted by the ELUC several years ago. The changes resulted in all the ministry programs in the Revelstoke area being administered from the regional centre in Nelson."

That is fine. I don't care whether the representative comes from Vernon or Nelson. My real question is: will Revelstoke be served on the same kind of basis it previously enjoyed — an office and representative in Revelstoke on certain days? Nelson is a good deal further than Vernon and there is a ferry in between. I just wonder about the travel problems in terms of having an officer from Nelson in Revelstoke once a week.

The other thing that intrigued me was that the minister says that there was a change in structure and mandate announced by the Premier. In other words, is the minister saying that these plans for this centralization were made by

[ Page 3605 ]

the Premier before the current minister assumed the office? I would just like the minister to respond to these two questions so I understand what is going on.

HON. MR. ROGERS: There was a release over a year ago on this particular thing. What we've done is that we still have about 100 small offices throughout the province, a conservation officer, and a secretary or a Fish and Wildlife person in very small areas. I could give you a list of them. There isn't one in Revelstoke now but we may have a one- or two-day-a-week person. There may be someone there now, working out of the Vernon office.

Let me just cover what has happened. The decision was made to centralize in regional offices in Penticton, Nelson and Kamloops, and small ones in Williams Lake, Smithers and Prince George. More of the Victoria responsibilities were taken to the regional offices and they were consolidated. Some things still remain in Kelowna — the Soils Laboratory, Project SAM. But the waste management office, for example, is moving to Penticton. The process is going on at this very time. That's why I can't tell you where everyone is finally settling out. We hope to have one person one or two days a week in the Revelstoke area, especially because of the pressure that you have got there with those extra people who are working there right now. But I don't know, and I can't give you that until we get all the bodies finally sorted out in this move.

The reason for the policy is that we want to be able to better serve people for those things that can be handled on a regional level at a regional office. For example, we have major offices in Kamloops, Penticton and Nelson, and then sub-offices. I was in the one in Merritt the other day. The conservation officer there tends to represent the ministry on our whole broad front — everything from waste management to Fish and Wildlife.

Certain things were moved into this ministry in the reorganization period as well, as you know. So we have had a changing mandate. Fish and Wildlife is one of the things that was in Recreation and Conservation. They have been integrated with our people.

Mr. Anthony is the assistant deputy minister in charge of all these regional offices. The idea here is that if someone in your constituency has a problem with the ministry, they can deal with the local office and hopefully the problem can be solved more quickly and easily right at the local office, rather than necessarily having to come to Victoria, which, as you know, just extends the time between when we get the request from the citizen and when we can give him the answer. Maybe that answers your question.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the minister's explanation, but there are, perhaps, some things that the minister should know too. One can really get into trouble by knowing a little bit.

The minister tells me that the decision to centralize the offices was made by the Premier before he assumed office.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Or the minister — I don't know; it was before I got here.

MR. KING: By the cabinet, eh? Approved by order-in-council?

HON. MR. ROGERS: I don't know.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please address the Chair.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, it's interesting that protests have come from the cities of Vernon and Kelowna regarding the loss of these jobs and this government service in those two particular cities and surrounding areas, and the centralization of that staff in Penticton. The protest developed to the extent that the mayor of the city of Kelowna met with his MLA, who, for your edification, Mr. Chairman, happens to be the Premier of the province. A report of that meeting was carried in the Kelowna Courier on Friday, July 4, 1980. It was headlined: "Bennett's Silence Suggests Worry."

"Premier Bill Bennett seems preoccupied with a fear not to show favouritism in his home riding. The latest example of this fear is his non-involvement with the consolidation of Environment ministry offices that will be set up in Penticton. Kelowna city council has been up in arms over the move. The ministry intends to construct a new building in Penticton to house consolidated staff, including 16 people with the water management branch in Kelowna. Premier Bennett, in a meeting with Mayor Dale Hammill this week, said he wasn't involved in the move as it was an interdepartmental decision, and that he didn't intend to get involved."

When I asked the minister he clearly indicated that, yes, this restructuring was done before he assumed office, that this was announced by the Premier when he changed the minister's office. That's not what the Premier told the mayor of his home town. I guess my question to the minister now is: which one is telling the truth, the minister or the Premier? I suppose if we have to go by track record, I would place my confidence in the minister.

Mr. Chairman, does the minister know what is going on in his ministry? Is he being manipulated by the Premier, who is apparently unwilling to face a problem in his own riding?

The plot thickens, my friends. The minister tells me: "Yes, we are centralizing; we are moving all these people to Penticton and Nelson, Then we are going to reach out with our long tentacles and service all of that vast rural area. Revelstoke may have a conservation officer and it may have a pollution control officer one day a week or so. If that is the case, why did your ministry acquire new office space in the city of Revelstoke just prior to the centralization in Penticton to accommodate your officer from Vernon on his visitation to Revelstoke one day a week, and then, after having consummated a five-year contract for that office space, attempt through a representative of the British Columbia Buildings Corporation to cancel the lease on that five-year office acquisition, only to be told by the proprietor that he had renovated the office to accommodate the standards laid out by your ministry and that he was not prepared to terminate the lease? That office space is sitting vacant in Revelstoke, paid for by the taxpayers of this province. Presumably it will remain vacant for the next five years, paid for by the taxpayers of the province of British Columbia.

If the minister wants to know where the space is located, it is in the Rutherford building, the same building which is occupied by a bowling alley known as Alpine Lanes. If you knew this centralization of staff had been ordered by the Premier in 1968 and if you knew you were going to centralize these people in Penticton and remove them from Vernon and remove the one day a week visitation, why did you allow the B.C. Buildings Corporation to acquire the space on behalf of your department? You must have found out shortly there-

[ Page 3606 ]

after, because an attempt was made to abrogate that lease. This is a business government? The left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. If the Socreds had a member in Revelstoke maybe they would need a constituency office, but there are no members up there. I don't know what is going on.

I'm not sure what the monthly rental is. I would imagine it is somewhere in the area of $6 to $7 a square foot, eh? Somewhere in that area. That is going to be acquired and held now for five years because those are the terms of the legal lease agreement. Presumably the ministry has no use for it, unless for the occasional periodic visit of a person from the Fish and Wildlife branch in Nelson, the pollution control branch, or the water rights branch, or someone that may need an office for a couple of hours when they come in response to some problem in Revelstoke. The minister today indicated he didn't know whether it would be staffed on a one day a week basis. The fact that he had someone go in and try to terminate the lease would indicate to me that there are no plans for occupancy. What is going on in your ministry, Mr. Minister? Do you have any idea?

When the Premier was heckled about it he disclaimed any knowledge or responsibility for this centralization. This is a centralization, I might add, that is going on throughout all the government — the Forests ministry as well as this one. The minister says: "It's not my fault. It was ordered by the Premier." The Premier says: "It's not my fault. I don't have anything to do with it. That is interministerial." Do you ever give the public a straight answer? Do you ever consult with the leader of your party about what the policy really is and how it's going to affect government services to those people you're elected to serve? This is a shocking story of ineptitude and waste. I just wonder how widespread it is throughout the length and breadth of this province. I will let the minister respond because I have another gem or two for him.

HON. MR. ROGERS: I suppose I could start off by going through the gem which I'm sure I knew you were going to bring up. It was a general government policy of decentralization. As you indicated, it is happening in other ministries, Forests and others. When I became minister this policy was in the process of being implemented. I can't tell you what happened at Revelstoke. I have no idea. There are over 100 offices of the ministry throughout the province, and I really don't read all the leases that BCBC signs on behalf of our ministry for all our spaces. I am sure you wouldn't either if you were in my position. I will just have to find out about when that office space was requested and by whom and who asked to have it cancelled. I don't have those details with me right now.

It is the policy of the government to decentralize to better serve the electorate in this province. Yes, I have met with the mayor of Kelowna, and he has asked me to reverse the decision. It's a decision I inherited. I'm sure if I reversed the decision I'd have the mayor of Penticton screaming at me, saying: "Why didn't you go through with it? You got pressured by the people of Kelowna." Government made a policy decision and we're carrying out that decision. I think it's a wise one.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, it is a strange description of decentralization when it results in the withdrawal of services from a large area of the province and centralization, albeit on a regional basis. You might say that the ministry is being decentralized from Victoria, but the net result is a regional centralization which has a more profound impact in withdrawing effective servicing from the rural areas of the province. What you're engaged in, Mr. Minister, is centralization, not decentralization.

You have made a very serious charge against the Premier of the province and the leader of your party. You have confirmed that it was the decision of the government, which the MLA for Okanagan South (Hon. Mr. Bennett) leads as Premier of the province, as first minister of the executive council. You have confirmed that he and his cabinet made the decision to centralize these offices in Penticton. Yet by the report contained in the paper, in a conflict with the mayor of his own home town, his own city, the Premier denied responsibility for that move, or knowledge of it, and attempted to shift the blame onto his Minister of Environment. The minister is now telling us that that is not true. Mr. Chairman, the minister is telling us that the information the Premier gave to the mayor of Kelowna is not true. That's a very serious charge for a member of the executive council to make against the Premier of the province. I don't know whether he would have been any stronger in his indictment of the Premier were it not for parliamentary rules, which proscribe the use of other more descriptive terms for those who don't tell the truth.

This is a shocking story, quite frankly, in terms of saying, "Well, we have the empty office space in the city of Revelstoke which has now been leased for a five-year term to accommodate staff who will no longer be located in that community," and the minister excusing that waste of taxpayers' money by saying: "Well, obviously I can't scrutinize each application." The fact of the matter is that once you are appointed a minister of the Crown, you are indeed responsible for the proper administration of all of the elements of that ministry and all actions of the administrators.

I would think that the minister would now cause a full investigation to take place with respect to any and all ministry office space located around the province to ensure that we are not paying for empty office space at other locations as well as Revelstoke. He simply can't pull back his own responsibility for that kind of sloppy ineptitude and management by saying: "Well, obviously I personally can't scrutinize." Mr. Minister, if you have people in the ministry who cannot adequately monitor and manage space requirements, what confidence are the people of British Columbia to have in your ability as a minister to manage and protect the environment and enforce the law? If you can't even keep a handle on space requirements, then I have little confidence in the ability of the minister to be able to adequately manage the much broader responsibilities of his ministry.

I think it's a bit of a scandal, quite frankly. The Premier of the province is caught advising the mayor of his own town of one story which is apparently not the case at all — not factual — and the minister confirms that. It's pretty serious.

The minister is correct in saying that he knows what the other gem is that I talked about. It is indeed the very, very interesting story of Noranda Mines' proposed development on the Goldstream River north of Revelstoke. This proposal is to develop a mine and to develop a dam on the Goldstream River as a source of hydroelectric power for that mine. In March 1980, I wrote to Mr. Howard Debeck, the comptroller of water rights expressing my concern over the pending application for a water licence to dam the Goldstream River. The Goldstream River, it should be explained, Mr. Chair-

[ Page 3607 ]

man, is a tributary of the Columbia River which has suffered major disruption through a series of dams related to the international Columbia River Treaty.

The new proposal to dam yet another major tributary of that river caused concern to myself and many area residents regarding the impact on the environment — moose habitat, the fishery and so on. So I wrote to the water comptroller asking that a public hearing be conducted to ensure that all of these concerns were adequately vented, and to explore the need for this power development.

I'll just recite one part of the letter I wrote:

"The power dams at Revelstoke and Mica Creek have had a major negative impact on the fishery and wildlife potential of the area. The Goldstream River offers one of the remaining areas of choice moose terrain. This is a matter of particular concern to me.

"Additionally there is the economic question regarding the wisdom of developing yet another hydro project when the transmission lines from Mica Dam pass closely by the proposed mining property."

Well, the water comptroller responded and indicated that there was no need for a public hearing. He indicated that environmental impact reports done not by the minister or his staff but by a firm retained by Noranda Mines — the mine developer — revealed very little impact on the fishery and wildlife.

I question the minister about the efficacy — I guess you could say — of placing in charge of our environment and wildlife habitat a firm which is in the employ of a proposed developer. You know, there's an old saying: "He who pays the piper calls the tune." It seems to me that a group retained by Noranda might be tempted to tailor their report somewhat toward meeting Noranda's objectives. They said there was no impact.

I asked the minister a number of questions in the House, and he said he wasn't too concerned about it either. The minister wrote to a number of people in the area who had expressed concerns: the Kootenay outdoorsman, Donald F. Gould.... The minister wrote to him and said — and I quote part of the minister's letter, dated May 21, 1987:

"The relatively minor environmental impacts referred to are based on summary statements extracted from the reports by International Environmental Consultants, to the effect that the dam and reservoir will not interfere with the critical moose winter range, nor will it significantly alter the fur-bearer population of the valley. The reservoir will, on a small scale, enhance the waterfowl capability of the Goldstream Valley. Other wildlife species present in the area will not be affected by the construction or operation of the dam and reservoir."

That's the essence of the minister's reply. He was prepared to, and did, in fact, completely support the findings of International Environmental Consultants, the firm retained by Noranda. The minister, as far as I know, took no initiatives through his ministry to conduct his own investigations. He tells us that he sent a copy of International Environmental Consultants' reports to the fish and wildlife branch in Nelson so that his regional officers could have a look at this report and file any objections.

But I thought his ministry and the fish and wildlife branch and the biologists he retains had the mandate and the responsibility to act themselves as the custodians of the resources of our province, not to rely on a private group which may have had their report coloured by a vested interest in that they were retained and funded by Noranda Mines. But he supported them, and he said no water licence hearing was necessary.

One of the reports commissioned by International Environmental Consultants lists the economics involved in the two alternatives for power for the mine. One alternative was to dam the Goldstream River to flood important moose winter range, and that would certainly have an impact on the fishery. The other alternative was to extend the transmission line from the already existing generating plant at Mica Creek to service the mine. IEC came to the conclusion that the cheapest option was to dam the Goldstream River.

"Noranda commissioned a study by B.C. Hydro to determine the cost of providing power to the Gold stream site. The capital cost to bring power to our property boundary was estimated at $7.9 million. Added to this would be our own cost for a high voltage line substation, plant diesel standby and initial operation."

It goes on to demonstrate on page 26 of that report that the total annual cost of the transmission line from B.C. Hydro would be $9,254,000, but of the dam only $6,940,000. So the water licence was granted without a public hearing.

The objectors, including myself, the city council of Revelstoke — who ultimately changed their position and decided that they should intervene and there should be a public hearing — the Kootenay outdoorsmen's group and the local rod and gun club, were all denied an opportunity to have any input whatsoever into the decision. The minister assured me in question period in this House — the water comptroller also assured me — that there would be no environmental impact. The economics were such that they dictated that if that mine were to go ahead and be viable, they required the Sweeper Bill dam on the Goldstream River.

After all of these assurances from the water comptroller, after assurances from the minister that everything was jake, that it didn't matter if we inundated that little bit of moose habitat which remains in a largely flooded Columbia River chain, that the economics of developing this hydroelectric power plant of their own were much more reasonable than Hydro's, lo and behold, about three days ago I got a message from my secretary in Revelstoke. I'm going to read the message to you, Mr. Chairman: "Jim Smith of Noranda Mines dropped into the office to let you know they're not going to build the dam. They are putting out a press release today which will be issued at Revelstoke. Main reasons for the change in plans are that it will cost $3 million less for B.C. Hydro to construct lines, and unfavourable publicity to the dam."

The company themselves have come to the conclusion that the unfavourable publicity from damaging the environment of that area made the project questionable. They have also come to the conclusion that the original economic data contained in the report regarding the economics of the two choices — a transmission line from Mica or a hydroelectric plant of their own — were faulty. If this is not an object lesson to the Minister of Environment, I don't know what possibly can be, unless he, as the water comptroller seems to be, is also merely a rubber stamp for the objectives of any corporate adventurer in this province. The object lesson is that he'd better take some responsibility for conducting investigations of his own and not relying on the biased interests of the corporation seeking to invade the resources and environment of the province to provide the information for him.

[ Page 3608 ]

The water comptroller accepted at face value the data provided by Noranda and indicated no worry whatsoever. The minister accepted the environmental studies — no problems whatsoever. Now the very firm that sought the right to conduct this flooding has concluded that their own economic data was wrong and, indeed, that all the environmental conclusions they had reached were certainly less than valid.

It is another absolute scandal. What this speaks of, Mr. Chairman, is a water comptroller who is a complete and utter rubber stamp for any hydroelectric project proposed in the province. The Minister of Environment is so weak or disinterested that he is prepared to endorse any adventure by a corporation, even in the case where they themselves have to recognize that what they are proposing will not be accepted by the public and is not based on sound economic data. Out of embarrassment they withdraw their plan. That has exposed this minister, as I indicated, as nothing more than a rubber stamp, and I would be very, very interested in listening to the minister try and justify his position and his conduct in this particular case.

I am not at all satisfied, I must indicate, that the biologists of the fish and wildlife branch in Nelson enjoyed any active role whatsoever in the initial investigations of that valley and the impact the proposed flooding would have upon it. Mr. Chairman, it's a scandalous situation and it doesn't do a great deal to enhance my confidence in the ministry.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Chairman, going back to decentralization, if I might just for a moment, the policy of decentralization was a government policy. The choice of the offices' locations were put up to the ministry. The decisions were made by my predecessor, the now Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair), I presume in consultation with the staff. However, that's the position I inherited.

The other position is that all ministry offices — they tried to consolidate them, for example, in Smithers or in Kamloops or, for that matter, even in Prince George — are concentrated in one effort. We're the only ministry with an office in Penticton because we're the only one that has an office with significant staff in the Okanagan Valley.

You suggest that this system isn't very efficient. I can assure you that one of the real advantages of having regional offices is that all of the various functions of the ministry take place in one centralized office. I was in the one in Prince George recently, and in many cases, for the first time, people working for the same ministry — essentially dealing with the same problems — are on the same floor and talking to each other and getting on. Yes, that is very much the case. For example, Fish and Wildlife have never even dealt with pollution control people before, because they've never even known who they were dealing with. So there has been some genuine advantage to that.

The Goldstream situation and Noranda. You're quite right, it's a difficult situation. It is up to the proponent to produce the environmental assessment studies in every single case in this province. That is not inconsistent with what has gone on in all other hydroelectric projects. The proponent must produce the environmental studies and these environmental studies are then circulated to all interested ministerial parties. The comptroller makes the decision as to whether or not a licence is granted. The reason the comptroller makes the decision is because his decision is appealable to cabinet. In the particular case of the Goldstream, there was no appeal to cabinet. The fish and wildlife branch were asked by the comptroller if they had objections. They had some initial objections, but when they were asked to come back and firm up and clarify their objections, they said they had no further comment on the matter. The water licence that was issued has subsequently been cancelled. I'm advised that maybe Noranda, for public consumption, is saying they're doing it as a result of public pressure, but when they did their sub-surface investigation, the cost of their proposed dam was much higher than they had originally indicated.

I must admit the press release that was issued in Revelstoke was brought to my attention at the same time as it was brought to your attention, and subsequently I advised you, but you had already been advised by your own staff. The comptroller of water rights makes these decisions and the decisions are appealable to cabinet. I can comment on them, but I cannot affect them. I cannot go out and go against his thing until such time as they do appeal to cabinet. You know that process, because that process is the very process that took place during the Revelstoke Dam hearings in your own city. It is not as if it were a strange thing to you. In the case of a B.C. Hydro proposal, they have to do the environmental studies themselves or hire someone outside to do them.

Yes, there is always the suspicion that the professional integrity of the people who do an outside study is somehow tainted by the fact that the people who retain them to do the study want results to reflect what their environmental position is. These people have some professional integrity that they have to fall back on. You may question the integrity of the people who did this one and so may people in the ministry. That is why the reports are circulated to the ministry for their comments. There was ample opportunity for appeal. The notices were sent out.

I particularly asked the question, when this one came to me: "Surely it doesn't make economic sense to build a power dam only about six miles from the high voltage lines?" I asked that question myself, and I was assured by officials that it definitely makes absolutely no sense to run from Mica. I couldn't understand it and I asked it again. Again, you've got to rely on those professional opinions. I can assure you that I really wanted to know. I was frustrated as you are on the matter because it didn't make sense to me. Subsequently the Minister of Energy (Hon. Mr. McClelland) and I went up and had a look at the site. It is not very far away from that main road that is being built now between Mica and Revelstoke. I wouldn't think you are more than five or six miles off the road before you get to the Noranda site. However, we were assured by the professionals that that was the case, and they were allowed to proceed. Since they've changed their mind, I can tell you, we've cancelled their water licence. It is not an easy situation, but there it is.

MR. KING: I just wanted to briefly finish up a few other points. The member talked about centralization. Certainly it makes sense to consolidate in a single office the various branches of the ministry. That makes eminently good sense. But it does not make sense when existing services are withdrawn from hundreds of miles around to centralize in that one location, because the net result is the diminution of service to the totality of the area which you seek to serve. We've had this fight in British Columbia many times with respect to health facilities, educational facilities, Forests ministry offices and so on. At what point does that centralization result in diminished services to the people that it is supposed to serve? Sure it is cheaper, sure it can be more efficient to

[ Page 3609 ]

have one sophisticated hospital, as an example; but if people are dying on the way to that hospital because the service is too far removed, then that policy becomes ridiculous. I suggest the minister should have a close look at that happy line between efficiency in terms of office integration and really being able to reach out to the areas he is trying to serve.

Appeals to cabinet. We've been that route. I've been through many water licence hearings, as the minister knows, with respect to the dams on the Columbia River chain. Mr. Minister, I want to say to you, through the Chairman, that you are not a disinterested observer. That seems to be the posture you are taking. I suggest that we are dealing with the Minister of Environment, and that implies not being a passive, disinterested observer. You should be saying to yourself as a politician, or saying to the citizens of Revelstoke or whatever area, that it is your obligation to go to that water licence hearing and provide all the technical arguments and, if necessary, make appeal to cabinet against the decision of what I have characterized as a rubber stamp. I don't do that lightly. The individual citizens, the communities of the province, the rod and gun clubs and so on lack the facilities, technical staff, funding and mandate to be the protectors of the environment. It was my understanding that that was the job of the minister and his staff, who are provided at the expense of the taxpayers with the soil experts, the hydrologists, the biologists and the myriad other scientists required in making these intelligent determinations. For the minister to stand aside and indicate that he is just a disinterested observer and that this should be the responsibility of the citizenry out there is, in my view, absurd.

There are two other things before I yield the floor. There is that question of the township of Spallumcheen, Armstrong area, and the Silver Star recreation area. There has been an advisory committee set up called the Silver Star Advisory Committee. Why, oh why will the minister not agree to a representative on that advisory group who comes from the water district which is being jeopardized by the expanded recreational use in that area? The advisory committee is composed of people who are the interlopers, in effect, into that water district. The ministry has declined to appoint someone from the water district area of Armstrong, and I appeal to him, with every vestige of sincerity and persuasiveness that I can muster, to reconsider that decision and put somebody else on the advisory committee so that those who feel that their water system is being jeopardized may have some confidence that full weight is being given to their interests and their concerns. It doesn't cost anything. It's a gesture of some cooperation, and I urge the minister to do that.

On the other question of that wind storm that damaged everybody's property and the emergency funds for it, I think I'll pursue that privately with the minister, because that one would take too much time, except to say that the minister responded by saying that insurance for wind damage is readily available. I have investigated that statement, Mr. Minister, and I do not find it to be correct. Insurance coverage for wind damage to farm buildings is virtually impossible to obtain in the Okanagan. I offer that so that the minister may reconsider the decision he made on that case.

HON. MR. ROGERS: One of the things in the government's energy review policy which I find most pleasing is the fact that for once the Ministry of Environment is going to be on the outside instead of chairing the meetings. In the past we've had to solve our differences in-house; that is, Fish and Wildlife and the comptroller of water rights solved them within the ministry, and then we end up chairing the meeting when we should be one of the proponents there. That's why, when the new energy act comes in, I'm going to be delighted, because, among other things, we're going to be able to go there and stand up.... Your point is well made, but I can assure you that the debates do take place within the ministry. I'd just as soon they take place in public so the public know what the various proponents of the ministry feel about it.

The Silver Star recreational area is under Lands, Parks and Housing. It's their committee and they set it up. Our ministry is very deeply involved in that particular program, but I think your appeal to add people to it has to go to the minister responsible rather than to me.

We could talk about it, if you wanted to discuss this wind storm damage in private. There are certainly some things that can be covered by wind damage. The government's position under the Emergency Program Act is that we help people with their own specific residences, not with summer cottages or other things; because, after all, the taxpayers of the province can't underwrite the insurance for everybody. But in the event of a disaster we have to have a human thing. It's not perfect by any means, but I think it's a lot better than any other system. I can tell you that people come from other jurisdictions to see how we do it here to see what they can do about it.

MR. HYNDMAN: As a government member I'm happy to have the chance to rise in these estimates and comment on some of the interesting initiatives which have been undertaken in the last year by the Ministry of Environment.

I think though, Mr. Chairman, having regard to the clock, at this time I should move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Rogers moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:57 a.m.