[ Page 3611 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions.

Validity of B.C. Place Act. Mr. MacDonald –– 3613

Alleged Pollution of Salmon Streams. Mr. Lea –– 3613

Alleged Dumping of Radioactive Waste. Mr. Lauk –– 3614

Maplewood Poultry Processors. Mrs. Wallace –– 3614

Ocean Falls Corporation Contracts. Mr. Lockstead –– 3614

Committee of Supply, Ministry of Environment Estimates (Hon. Mr. Rogers)

On vote 75: minister's office–– 3615

Mr. Hyndman

Mrs. Wallace

Ms. Sanford

Mr. Rogers

Mr. Howard

Mr. Lea

Mr. Nicolson

Ground Water Licensing Act (Bill M124) Introduction and first reading. Mrs. Wallace –– 3637

WEDNESDAY, JULY 30, 1980

The House met at 2 p.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

MS. SANFORD: I have guests from Comox who are visiting the precincts today. I would like the House to join me in welcoming Harry and Elsie Dougan and their children John and Mary.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, there are a number of visitors from my constituency here today. Would the House please welcome Guy Rose, from Quilchena; Trevor Jeans; Bob Halbar, who is a former resident and presently lives in Vancouver, I believe; Tim Bailiff; Jean Anderson; Harry Stran; and someone we all know, Len Marchand.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, the last time my mother visited these galleries I was sitting on that side of the House. She came over here because she heard a rumour that the government was about to fall and she wanted to be in on it. I hope, out of courtesy, the Premier doesn't disappoint my mother. I'd like the House to welcome my mother, who is here, and my cousin, Nancy Page.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I'd ask the House to welcome two guests of mine today, Mr. and Mrs. Chubatty and their two youngsters from Coquitlam.

MR. REE: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I'm the secretary of the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts and Economic Affairs and I'm asking for some sort of a clarification. I understand that a committee of this House cannot sit while the House is sitting without leave of this House. I'm advised that this morning members of this House sat in what they alleged to be a committee of the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts and Economic Affairs, and they inquired of witnesses and carried on other proceedings of that committee without leave of this House. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate some sort of clarification from you as to the validity or otherwise of this alleged meeting that took place this morning.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, as you are aware, the House has no knowledge of what happens in committee. Nevertheless, I have before me a ruling of Speaker Dowding on a circumstance of very similar occurrence. I will quote from the statement of Speaker Dowding on March 29, 1973. Part of that statement reads: "Thus our committees must seek leave to sit while the House is in session." No such leave was granted in this particular case.

I will endeavour to return with a further statement on the matter for guidance of members of the House at a later time.

MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, perhaps you could also advise me, as Chairman of the public accounts committee, as to the requirement of the House Leader when setting the business of the day to perhaps observe some courtesy and some normal requirements of telling chairpersons of standing committees when he intends to call the House together at 6 o'clock, thus giving the chairpersons of committees an opportunity to seek such leave. Indeed, in this instance, perhaps the House Leader could have asked for leave himself at 5:50 p.m. yesterday. If it troubles the House greatly, perhaps we could ask for leave now, Mr. Speaker, and then we can clear the whole thing up once and for all.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. To the second member for Surrey: is there a motion to put before the House other than perhaps...? I would appreciate some guidance from the member.

MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, I'd be pleased to receive an invitation from the House Leader on the government side to sit down and discuss with him the calling of the Public Accounts meetings in the mornings if he's going to continue calling morning meetings.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, I have indicated that I will return with a statement for the guidance of the House. I have given that undertaking. I also have the statements of the second member for Surrey to consider.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, the opposition was fully cognizant of the fact that we were going to be sitting this morning. Everybody knew that.

MR. COCKE: At 6 o'clock last night.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Oh, no. Everybody was cognizant of the fact that we were going to be sitting this morning, and we did sit this morning. It was perfectly open to the opposition to request leave this morning. It would have been granted, but they didn't request it. Our members could have requested it too; it would have been granted.

Interjection.

HON. MR. GARDOM: In response to the hon. Leader of the Opposition, who suggests that we ask for leave now, if we continue to sit in the mornings and leave is requested for committees to sit, the leave will be granted, subject of course to availability of ministers and so forth.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, just as a suggestion for your guidance in considering this dilemma, I would point out that it is indeed possible to ask for leave retroactively to authorize this committee, in precisely the same way that yesterday we passed retroactive legislation providing a salary to the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan). Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you in all sincerity that if it is possible to recompense a minister six months retroactively, then it should be quite possible and within the authority of the House to extend retroactive authority for the committee to sit.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you for those comments, hon. member.

MR. LEA: I may have misunderstood but when you were reading Mr. Speaker Dowding's ruling I believe it was said that permission had to be received to have a committee meeting during session. Does it say "session''?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: For the member's clarification, the reading is: "Thus our committees must seek leave to sit while the House is in session."

[ Page 3612 ]

MR. LEA: What does "while the House is in session" mean, Mr. Speaker? Does that mean while we are in session or while we are sitting?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon member, the statement is there for the member to....

MR. LEA: Yes, I take it that it mean session. We are in session and we have been ordered while in this session by the House to sit in those sessions in Public Accounts. We have been ordered to do it. To do otherwise would have been in contempt of this chamber,

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please hon. member.

MR. LEA: I'd like to finish my point. It does not say that we cannot meet while the House is sitting; it says we have to have permission while the House is in session. We are in session while the parliament is in effect, and we are here at the call of the government and the House. To do otherwise we would have been in contempt. but we were going to be lenient and not charge contempt of the members who didn't show up. We are in session, we have been ordered by the House to have Public Accounts, the time was set by the committee; the members of this side showed up; the members of the other side didn't, and I think we'd be better spending our business finding out why they didn't.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. At this stage, we are clearly entering into a debate. I feel that the Chair has received sufficient representation from both sides to conclude the matter. I have undertaken to come back with a statement for the guidance of the House. I shall do so. Hon. members, I must at some point conclude what is becoming a debate. I have asked for members' indulgence at this point.

MR. HALL: I ask leave to move the following motion: that for the remainder of this session standing committees of this Legislature be empowered to sit during morning sittings while the House is in session.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Before entertaining the point of order by the House Leader and calling again.... I believe I did hear some noes. But at the same time, I feel, to be fair, we should hear from the House Leader of the government on the motion that was proposed by the member of the opposition.

HON. MR. GARDOM: It's a very reasonable motion but the reason that the government is not prepared to accept it at this time is that it's one that....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. GARDOM: Let me finish, if I may. Please, you fellows. Come on, you guys, just take a deep breath.

It's a very reasonable motion, but the reason we can't accept it at this time is that it's something that has to be decided as the days proceed. It might well be possible to have these meetings when the House is in session, but if we have ministers in estimates, or ministers on bills, where time has to be occupied in here with those bills, it's not possible for them to staff the committee. If we could organize the business of the House effectively to have the committee sit, we would very much like to do it. I hope to be having a meeting with the hon. House Leader of the opposition this afternoon to discuss this very topic.

MR LAUK: The House Leader is engaging in nothing short of jiggery-pokery. It is a way in which the House Leader can manipulate a defeat of the public accounts committee and what it was designed to do. That is pure and simple. We have called for night sittings; they have refused night sittings. Now they are sitting in the morning and destroying the effectiveness of the public accounts committee by so doing. Now they will not pass a motion that is perfectly reasonable — they admit — because they want to continue to play their game. I say it should be challenged. It is nothing but pure Machiavellian manipulation and you know it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, the motion before us is that for the remainder of this session standing committees be empowered to sit during morning sittings while the House is in session. Shall leave be granted for the motion?

Leave not granted.

MR. LAUK: Division.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: There can be no division on that aspect.

We now have reached the point where I ruled that there could be no division on what had just taken place. The challenge will be that that ruling is challenged, which is in order. Shall the ruling of the Chair be upheld?

Mr. Speaker's ruling sustained on the following division:

YEAS — 28

NAYS — 24

[ Page 3613 ]

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

Oral Questions

VALIDITY OF B.C. PLACE ACT

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Attorney-General. Is he aware that the government has power to refer a proposed enactment, even if it hasn't been passed by this House, to the court of appeal for declaration as to its validity?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the member is asking for legal opinion. He knows what the law is. The answer is yes.

MR. MACDONALD: I have another question then for the Attorney-General. In light of section 6(3) of the B.C. Place Act, which would give the government power to spend money outside of or beyond appropriations of this Legislature.... In other words, a blank cheque can be drawn on the public purse without reference to the Legislature. Has the government made a decision to refer this section — with its awesome powers, if I may say so, and totally unprecedented — to the Court of Appeal of British Columbia for a declaration as to whether it is in accordance with our constitutional usages and whether in fact it is or could be valid?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LAUK: I have a question to the Minister of Finance on the same topic. Has the government decided under that section to impose any limit on the amount that could be expended by the board of B.C. Place, which includes Paul Manning and group?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I think you've got the groups mixed up, but go ahead.

MR. LAUK: Has the government decided to limit the amount expended under the proposed section 6(3)? If not, will the minister be intervening before this bill is debated?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I would look to you for guidance. Frankly, I think this discussion would be more appropriate at the time the bill is debated.

MR. LAUK: On that point, I am asking whether the government has decided to limit the amount and if it will indicate so before we debate the bill. That is perfectly in order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is a fine point, hon. member, but the question will be in order as far as that aspect goes.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Again I would suggest that debate on the bill is the appropriate time, as far as I am concerned.

MR. BARBER: Answer the question.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, the arrogance of that answer.

MS. BROWN: You're not challenging the Speaker are you?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I take offence. Once again the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) has accused me of arrogance. I believe that if the debate had occurred, then I would attempt to assist the hon. members opposite, but the debate has not yet occurred, sir.

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order related to this question, I would refer the Speaker and the Minister of Finance and the Attorney-General to the nineteenth edition of May, chapter 29, page 754, entitled: "Matters Requiring the Queen's Recommendation, Moneys to be Provided by Parliament." I am asking you, Mr. Speaker, to give a ruling as to the appropriateness of these questions refused now, particularly in terms of limitations as instructed under May in terms of public expenditures. I ask you to give us a ruling as to whether or not we can indeed, by proper parliamentary procedure, proceed with this bill without the House being told what an expenditure limitation is, because I can find no precedent anywhere in the Commonwealth for such a blank cheque of a bill without a limitation.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. The Chair will undertake that on behalf of the member.

MR. LAUK: To the Minister of Finance. Has the government made a commitment to the B.C. Place as to amounts that can be and will be expended under that section?

HON. MR. CURTIS: To the best of my knowledge, those matters are currently under discussion.

ALLEGED POLLUTION OF SALMON STREAMS

MR. LEA: On July 16 the Attorney-General advised the House that a stay of proceedings was entered in the Bellas case because section 31(2) of the Fisheries Act provided a statutory defence that the logging complained of was approved by the federal minister. What proof did Crown counsel have that the federal minister approved of logging in such a manner as to cause the bank to slide into the salmon stream?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to take that question as notice.

MR. LEA: On a new question, the effect of Crown counsel's entering the stay was to deny the plaintiff, Mr. Bellas, his day in court. If the statutory defence was available to the Crown, the judge was quite capable of ruling on that point in accordance with the evidence presented. Has the minister reviewed the instructions to Crown counsel that where the Crown is the defendant, no stay should be entered, so that every British Columbian shall have the right to justice before the court?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the stay was properly used in that particular case. No such instructions have been given.

[ Page 3614 ]

MR. LEA: If, as the Attorney-General has stated, the federal minister approved the sliding of the dirt into the salmon stream, has the Attorney-General taken this up with the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers) for the Minister of Environment to check and see why the federal minister deliberately okayed the pollution of the streams and Riley Creek on the Queen Charlotte Islands?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not discussed the matter with the Minister of Environment.

MR. LEA: Has the Minister of Environment supplied any evidence to the Attorney-General or his staff that the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans or the federal Fisheries department deliberately okayed the destruction that happened at Riley Creek?

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, the matter referred to took place some time ago. I'll have to check my records and get back. I take the question as notice.

ALLEGED DUMPING
OF RADIOACTIVE WASTE

MR. LAUK: I have a question to the Attorney-General in his capacity as the representative of the great constituency of West Vancouver–Howe Sound. The federal Ministry of the Environment has revealed that the University of British Columbia dumped radioactive wastes one mile off Point Atkinson between 1948 and 1965. Apart from the fact that we know that the hon. Attorney-General glows in the dark, what representations has the hon. minister made on behalf of his constituents to secure the safe recovery and disposal of these canisters?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I would refer the hon. member to the electoral boundary maps, and he would find that it's not within my constituency.

MR. LAUK: They change so often in secret, Mr. Speaker, that I wouldn't be aware of it.

I'm astounded that the Attorney-General knows the exact place where the canisters were dumped, however, and I would like to know how he could have that information unless he was there at the time.

I refer the same question to the Minister of Environment. What representations has the hon. minister made on behalf of all of us to secure the safe recovery and disposal of these canisters that have been reported dumped?

HON. MR. ROGERS: Just as soon as this revelation was made, we made inquiries of the federal government, because, as you know, they are the people that authorized disposal in the first place, and we have yet to hear back. Once again, it goes back quite some period of time. I have spoken to staff in Ottawa, and have asked them to let us know as soon as possible (a) where the dumps took place and (b) what efforts can and will be made to recover the radioactive wastes.

MAPLEWOOD POULTRY PROCESSORS

MRS. WALLACE: Yesterday I asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he received any information about the proposal by the government of Canada for joint federal-provincial funding of the turkey processors to buy Maplewood. The minister said he was not aware of the proposal. That was 24 hours ago. Has the minister now checked with his officials to familiarize himself with the federal proposal?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any proposal by the federal government with regard to federal-provincial funding for the acquisition of Maplewood by the turkey growers.

MRS. WALLACE: Well, Mr. Speaker, could I ask the minister whether or not he has checked with the officials of his ministry to ask them if they're familiar with this? Surely he talks to his staff.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Yes, I talk to my staff. I had a call from the Hon. Eugene Whelan at 6:30 last night. At that time Mr. Whelan advised me that he was hopeful that he could make an announcement this Friday with regard to the Maplewood plant. Mr. Whelan did not indicate to me or advise me of — or request of me — any joint federal-provincial funding for the acquisition of the Maplewood plant. That's going right to the source, Madam Member, not to my staff.

MRS. WALLACE: The minister still hasn't answered my question. Could I ask the minister if his reluctance to answer this question stems from the fact that he is a bit disconcerted that the federal minister is accomplishing what he failed to do, and whether he is he still hoping that Cargill will get control of the Maplewood plant?

HON. MR. HEWITT: The question is somewhat argumentative. My staff is fully familiar with the problems of Maplewood, as I am. The federal minister is hopefully in a position to make an announcement on Friday. What that announcement will be I have no official word as yet.

OCEAN FALLS CORPORATION CONTRACTS

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I have a question to the Minister of Industry and Small Business. Is the Ocean Falls Corporation still negotiating with the Los Angeles Times to reach an out-of-court agreement or settlement on that breach of contract?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: In answer to the member's question, he's assuming certain things which make the question out of order, as far as I'm concerned.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. minister, you may either decline to answer or answer, but the order of a question is determined by the Chair.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, the question is based on an incorrect assumption. Therefore I'm not going to answer it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That answer is in order.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I've never seen such arrogance in this House, in my many years here, as we've seen displayed by that minister over there.

[ Page 3615 ]

The question, in my view, is in order. Knowing that negotiations are proceeding, I want to know if a settlement has been reached and how much that settlement is going to be for. It's a very simple question and even he should be able to understand that, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, the temperament of both questions and answers is most mandatory at this particular period of our day, as in the entire day.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I resent the member calling me arrogant, because he knows I'm the easiest member in the Legislature to get along with. However, I'll take the question as notice.

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. HYNDMAN: Mr. Chairman, as I was saying briefly before 12 o'clock, I'm happy to have the chance to join in these discussions on the estimates of the Ministry of Environment as a government member. I'd like to comment on a number of topics and initiatives which the Ministry of Environment has undertaken in the last year which have not so far been commented on in debate.

I'm pleased to see my friend, the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly), the official opposition critic on the environment, back with us today. I took some exception to one of the remarks he made — I believe it was Thursday last. If I heard him correctly, he stated that as far as he could see there is not a single person on the Social Credit benches today who is concerned about the quality of water, air and land. I want to take exception to that and for the record, Mr. Chairman, remind him that indeed there are as many members on our side as on his concerned about water quality, air quality and land quality. The Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair), for example, is a very ardent conservationist and an outdoorsman. The Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) is similarly a very keen outdoorsman. The member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet) is one of the accomplished river guides of northeastern B.C.

In my own case, Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to match my record of involvement with environmental causes with that of the member for Alberni. In my case, having been one of those who helped to found the B.C. Steelhead Society and the Pacific Salmon Society and one of the early people involved in the fight to save the Skagit, I do take exception to the suggestion that nobody on the government benches cares about the quality of water, air and land.

Mr. Chairman, it was of course the present government who instituted the moratorium on uranium mining and uranium exploration in British Columbia. I don't think a government that didn't care about the quality of water, air and land would have instituted that ban. The Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers) today was certainly a part of that decision. It was this government, Mr. Chairman, which instituted the Purcell Wilderness Conservancy. Again, I don't think a government unconcerned about the purity of water, land and air would have done that, and this Minister of Environment was part of that decision. In short, Mr. Chairman, I think it's a rather unfair assertion to suggest that members on one side have some monopoly on concern about the environment, and the government doesn't.

Mr. Chairman, the members in opposition had an opportunity in this province from 1972 to 1975 as government to display to the public of British Columbia their concern about environmental matters. They're not easy matters. I think any Minister of Environment is in the difficult portfolio of having to consider environmental concerns in the face of demands from colleagues in terms of jobs and business development and the needs of all of us as human beings. As the Minister of Environment so properly said on Thursday afternoon: "It is all of us as individuals who pose the greatest threat to the environment today." But let us remember in fairness that while members opposite were in government, it was their party that proposed, for example, a possible steel mill at the site of the Qualicum River. It has been the opposition party which has proposed a chemical plant on theSun shine Coast. It is the opposition party which has proposed an oil refinery near Merritt. It was the opposition party — then government — which presided over the greatest piece of environmental desecration ever seen in this province, which was the Dease Lake extension undertaken by B.C. Rail. It was the group on your left, Mr. Chairman, who acquired Ocean Falls, an old pulp facility drastically in need of mechanical overhaul, and didn't invest the money.

I think we can conclude fairly that any Minister of Environment is in a most difficult portfolio. This world is not black and white. It's not absolute. Members in opposition on this floor are not the only ones concerned about the environment, and that is what the facts show.

We heard about Port Alice this morning. I think it was the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) who took the present Minister of Environment to task about Port Alice. It is interesting to review what happened at Port Alice when members opposite were in government. Here is a headline of August 17, 1973, from the Colonist when members now in opposition were in government, responsible for the environment. The headline reads: "NDP Unsure in Environment Protection Field." Here is what the story says about Port Alice:

"It was interesting to hear resources minister Robert Williams' endorsement last week of the B.C. Pollution Control board decision that took the heat off Rayonier Canada Ltd. and its Port Alice pulp mill for the next three years at least. Williams admitted that because of an easing up of the controls, especially the one dealing with oxygen levels in the inlet, the government was taking a calculated risk with marine life or what's left of it in this polluted waterway. But he got angry when a newsman asked why the government was willing to take such a calculated risk."

That is part of the record about Port Alice when members opposite were in government.

As I say, it is not easy to reconcile the pressures for any Minister of Environment. Again, from the time members opposite were in government, February 8, 1974, a headline in the Vancouver Sun: "NDP and the Unions on Collision Course." The story reads:

"Organized labour and the provincial government are on a collision course over environmental protection, a Victoria-based consultant claimed here Thursday. 'The B.C. government is committed to the

[ Page 3616 ]

environment, but 95 percent of its money and a lot of its support comes from the labour movement,' he said. 'It will be interesting to see how they reconcile the needs of the environment with the needs of the labour movement. They are on a collision course.'"

The point, quite simply, is that any Minister of Environment is in a difficult portfolio facing challenges, demands, a constant cry for compromise. It's not accurate, it's not fair, and it's misleading to the public to suggest that only one party in this province has a concern about environmental matters and one other doesn't. That is wrong.

May I turn to a number of the initiatives and matters dealt with by the Ministry of Environment during the last year and comment on them. They are topics which, in many cases, have not been commented on by opposition spokesmen, and I think they are important and deserve some comment.

I think to begin we have to once again take a look at the continuing Skagit Valley situation. I want to congratulate the minister for his continuing stand in support of making every effort to save the Skagit Valley. In particular, I think all those in B.C. concerned to save the Skagit were heartened by the minister's statement yesterday when he said: "I am certainly not going to be the minister that allows them to flood the Skagit Valley as long as I have the power vested in me to stop them from doing so." That is in healthy, constructive contrast to the chief opposition critic who, if I read the Blues correctly, has called upon the government to abrogate the law — I think he used the word abrogate — to disregard the law and the 1947 legislation of this Legislature, the Skagit Valley flooding act. I don't think the cause of saving the Skagit is going to be enhanced by those who advocate flouting the law as the opposition critic did yesterday.

I think this minister is taking the correct approach, exhausting every avenue he sees for saving the Skagit. It is interesting that the Seattle Post-Intelligencer had a recent editorial, on Thursday, June 26, commenting on the latest American court decision which appears to affirm the right of Seattle City Light to flood the Skagit. Notwithstanding that the latest court decision gives the American position a leg up, this is what the editorial said in the last paragraph:

"The newest court decision makes conditions ripe for profitable give-and-take on both sides. Seattle has the better hand now, but British Columbia has the electricity that could head off the flooding and what can be a longer, perhaps nastier, dispute between friends. Both sides can profit by putting ultimatums aside and bargaining in fairness for an equitable solution."

I think it is instructive that even a Seattle newspaper, in the wake of that court decision, would have the balance and the maturity to still call for some effort to negotiate a settlement, in effect saving the valley — an approach which the minister says he is taking; an approach in contrast to the suggestion of the opposition critic, who says we should abrogate the contract and the law.

I think these estimates should record some ongoing appreciation by the people of B.C. to some of those in the public who are working hard to save the Skagit. David Brousson, a former member of this assembly, is one of those key figures who has spearheaded the fight to save the Skagit. I want to congratulate him and extend to him the thanks of many British Columbians for his ongoing efforts. Additionally, Ken Farquharson, the president of the ROSS committee, has been vigilant in his ongoing volunteer efforts to work and deal with governments at all levels. Ken Farquharson deserves continued appreciation and encouragement. And Mr. John Fraser, the Member of Parliament for Vancouver South, is, I think, to be congratulated for his work while a federal minister on his continued work to help save the Skagit.

I would indicate to the minister that although his fisheries and conservation officials may not yet have received news of it, there is an important new committee being formed to assist with conservation planning on the Skagit. That group is informally called the Skagit Anglers' Committee. It is being formed this summer. Mr. Bob Turner of Delta, Mr. Bill Turnbull of Abbotsford, Mr. Dan Hutchinson of Mission and Mr. Larry Smithson of Vancouver are voluntarily seeking to get together all of those who fish in any form the Skagit River and its tributaries, including the Sumallo. They hope to convene a gathering of those interested this fall, and then to approach your ministry in the hope of providing their knowledge, experience and assistance in working with your officials, regardless of the future of the Skagit, to help plan a preserved future fishery on the Skagit and its tributaries. I hope they will receive a welcome, cooperative and understanding reception.

One of the other things that is important this year, that the Ministry of Environment has done and that deserves commendation, is the establishment of the Conservation Trust. This year the ministry has set aside $1.25 million — and will do so on an annual basis — to acquire sensitive ecological lands for the purpose of preserving them for long-term public benefit, in a manner perhaps similar to the work now being done by the National Second Century Fund. I think the Conservation Trust initiative of the minister is an excellent one. He and his staff deserve commendation for it. It's an important signpost as to the emphasis placed by the ministry on the need to obtain and preserve these ecologically sensitive lands.

The National Second Century Fund itself also deserves some strong words of thanks from the people of British Columbia. I was pleased to see the minister himself commend them in his remarks the other day — in particular, General Bert Hoffmeister, the chairman of the National Second Century Fund in B.C., General Paul Smith of Parksville, and Ted Wilkinson, Q.C., of Vancouver. They are three of the very active members of the National Second Century Fund board. Just recently, on a long-term nominal lease basis, they gave 223 very valuable acres at Silverhope Creek to the provincial government. The minister, for his part, is committed to establishing a long-range fisheries management program there to bring back the sport fishery, including particularly the steelhead. That's an item of congratulation.

I have corresponded with the minister on the question of the Englishman River estuary and the efforts by the National Second Century Fund to acquire, preserve and hold safe a fairly substantial parcel of land in that important estuary. The ministry has been helpful in moving negotiations along. I just want to underline to the minister and his staff that I think many citizens are hopeful that there will be ongoing work between the Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing on the one hand, and the National Second Century Fund on the other, to obtain and safely preserve in the hands of the National Second Century Fund

[ Page 3617 ]

that 40-acre parcel, which, as the minister knows, is adjacent to a smaller eight-acre parcel recently acquired by National Second Century Fund from Aquilla Holdings of Parksville.

Some miscellaneous items that the ministry has been dealing with over the last year, I think, are most worthy of comment at this time. I don't think so far members have mentioned one of the most important initiatives taken by the minister, and that was the imposition on Vancouver Island of the steelhead catch and release program early last spring. I must say that as a steelheader I was one of those who initially had my doubts about the wisdom of this move. I certainly saluted the courage and the forthrightness of the minister in receiving advice from his staff about dangerous signs in the depleting stock of steelhead on the Vancouver Island streams and in instituting a program for the balance of the season under which bait was banned, only artificials could be used, barbless hooks were necessary, and everything was catch and release. In my experience that program has been a resounding success. There has been a reduction of fishing pressure on the streams. Those who would fish steelhead only, and constantly, for the table have disappeared. For example, in the Cowichan River there has been an absolutely marked increase in the visible number of fish available to anglers. In my experience the streamside chit-chat of the anglers is that people would far rather have the thrill of returning the fish, and have better action and greater sport to look forward to — all the while helping the steelhead come back — than a system under which our steelhead stocks were continually threatened. So I say to the minister that I think his judgment, in hindsight, was absolutely correct. It was a courageous move, and I salute him for doing it,

A few words on conservation enforcement in the eastern Fraser Valley. A number of areas up there require conservation enforcement. I spend some time up there, and in my experience Mr. K. Kedding, the new fisheries enforcement officer who succeeded Jack Delair, has been really getting around and doing a first-rate job. For example, he's been doing a good job of creel census checks on the Skagit River and in Ross Lake. He tells me, Mr. Minister, as you probably know, that when the fishing season opened down there there were about 2,500 B.C. anglers. It's a big job for Mr. Kedding to do, but it's important that he be out.

A couple of major construction programs are going on. There's about $10 million worth of highway construction on the Hope-Princeton this summer, right alongside the Sumallo River, which is an important tributary of the Skagit. I'm just delighted to find that Mr. Kedding, on instructions from the ministry, is doing regular conservation checks of that work to ensure that the contractor is proceeding with appropriate environmental safeguards. Similarly with respect to the ongoing construction of the new Coquihalla highway. I'm pleased to see not only that Mr. Kedding is out regularly checking on that, but that the highway contractor has been required to have biologists or conservation officers on site doing virtual regular weekly reports on approvals of the work as it goes forward, and in some cases requiring a very detailed rebouldering of stream bottoms to protect the steelhead fry and the fish coming back. That's the kind of sensitive attention to stream management problems that we should be seeing and we are seeing, and I think it's worthy of congratulation.

Fish and game licences. Some months ago the minister caused a step to be taken that I think is one of the most important in recent years in terms of fish and game management. That is to increase the commission paid to our tackle and hunting shop operators for the fish and game licences they sell. That's important because in many cases those small business people who run fishing tackle shops and hunting shops are the key link to visitors who come to buy a licence and head for our streams or our hunting. They're the ambassadors of this province, and they are the guides behind the counter who will give visitors a sense of how we fish and hunt, and how we do it. I think it's fair to say that the average sporting goods store operator is losing money when he takes time to stop and sell a fish and game licence, fill it out and talk to the visitor a lot about our regulations, explaining them, and the benefit of our fish and game resource. I don't think sporting-goods operators seek to make money out of that exercise, but to the degree that they aren't able to serve other customers and that overhead time is taken, it's important that they at least break even. The step to increase the commission to them is a very positive one and recognizes the value and the benefit that all of those people behind the counter play in passing on to visiting fishermen and hunters our sense of how we'd like them to fish and hunt, and hopefully to obey good fishing and hunting ethics.

In terms of the upper Fraser Valley — and I've written the minister about this, as he knows — there have been problems in the supply of hunting tags and fishing licences. The eastern Fraser Valley is really the first stopping place for many of our American friends who come up through Washington state and hit British Columbia. often heading to the interior or the north. They'll hit Chilliwack or Hope and come in for the licence right away. If it's a busy weekend, often the licence or tag supply can run short. As I understand it, the government agent in Chilliwack is where they look for refreshed supply and sometimes, I gather, the mails and so forth have meant that supply may have been interrupted. So I repeat my suggestion that possibly the ministry can estimate ever more generously about the demand and keep the stock and supply up.

The milfoil weed problem has been a continuing concern to many in British Columbia. I think many members have noticed in the last year a marked increase in the number of the milfoil inspection stations which this minister has established. I'm impressed by the fact that the inspectors on site are doing a very thorough job in flagging vehicles who may be requiring inspection. They aren't just sitting in a trailer beside the road hoping that people coming by with boats on trailers will turn in and have the prop and hull inspected. They're out on the road watching the vehicles and if somebody who apparently should stop isn't, they're trying to flag them in. I think it's a very constructive initiative. Although that's a horrendous problem, it's a step in the right direction. It's important to see that some of our very popular lower mainland lakes, like Cultus Lake, have inspection stations to inhibit and prevent the growth of that terrible problem.

Mr. Chairman, one of the big functions of the Ministry of Environment that the public may not realize is the mapping function. The production of maps can be of great value to our citizens, campers, hikers and sportsmen. I gather that the minister has something underway in terms of an initiative to do some fresh and updated mapping and has recently produced, for example, a brand-new — the first one in some years — map of the whole Manning Park area showing the latest improvements in the hiking and camping facilities and trails. It's just a first-rate production. It's long overdue. It's going to be a real assist to growing numbers of lower mainland people, particularly first-time hiking and camping families who are setting out. I hope that program will continue.

[ Page 3618 ]

Fishing derbies are an ongoing summertime talk of many who are concerned about salmon stocks in British Columbia. There are arguments pro and con. This minister has had the courage to stand up and take a position on the topic of derbies. It would have been easy for him to say: "Well, that's a saltwater matter. It's not my jurisdiction." I salute him for having the courage as a minister to stand up and state his opinion on the question of derbies. It's nice to see a Minister of Environment not always ducking behind the jurisdictional aspect of federal-provincial matters.

The lower Dean River is an important recreational resource to British Columbia. As the minister and many who follow the Dean know, there has been a revision to the question of the rules of the Dean this year with some, as I understand it, increase in the powerboat ban on the lower river. As I understand it, the policy has been to perhaps increase the powerboat ban to some degree and to perhaps increase the number of access trails to the river. That's raised, I gather, a fairly serious but mature debate as to what degree some of our precious natural-run rivers like the Dean should be made fully and easily accessible versus leaving some of our rivers a bit of a challenge to get to, with the result that there is less pressure. I simply want to underline my concern to the minister that after this first season on the Dean that policy should be reviewed. I do think it important that, as the minister has promised, there's going to be a long-range management program for the area. But I do want to echo an important viewpoint, which is that the long-time guides up there have undertaken a very responsible and mature approach to the management of the very precious steelhead resource. They have encouraged catch-and-release fishing and artificial-only fishing. They are as concerned as anyone to see the river preserved and protected. I hope they will be fully consulted on an ongoing basis about future management plans for the river.

If I may, I'd like to quote a very brief paragraph from a letter I received in March from Mr. Rob Stewart of the lower Dean River lodge, who, I think, in anybody's book is one of the prime preservers and protectors of the Dean River and has probably taught more conservation and switched more people to fly fishing for steelhead from hardware and bait than anybody in British Columbia. He said this:

"There is a very real value to the type of guided angler and carefully managed fishery that we have tried to protect. Until this value is recognized and the guide is recognized as a legitimate resource user, we will continue to be gradually eroded out of business. When that happens the Dean will become another has-been once-great river. "

My strong plea is that with respect to this and other areas your staff do not overlook the positive and voluntary contribution to good conservation practices that have been made over the years by some of our professional guides. They should be consulted and borne in mind.

A similar example of this has been on the Babine River and the well-known trout fly fishery there, not the steelhead fishery. People like Einar Madsen of the Norlakes Lodge.... I was pleased to see that the ministry reviewed the regulations initially proposed for the upper Babine this year and upon review realized that it would be a mistake to bring in the originally intended rules and maintained the rules of some previous years on the trout fishing, which I think has been the sensible thing to do.

Very briefly, if I could toss out some thoughts and concepts which I hope the minister and his staff will consider in the year ahead, the Whistler-Pemberton area is a tremendous, largely untouched fishing and hiking area. As we see the concentration and growth of primarily winter but to some degree summer recreation there, I hope some ongoing attention will be given to preserving and maintaining the sport fishing stocks we have there,

The Thompson River concerns many people in the fish and game movement. I hope the ministry will continue to monitor the developing concern about the future of the Thompson. I personally hope we can, at some stage soon, have a massive municipal-(city of Kamloops)-provincial-federal effort to save the Thompson and bring back the absolutely pure water quality that we all used to know.

I am hoping the ministry might look even closer at the kind of steelhead propagation program Washington state has developed. The cost-benefit ratio there is very much on the benefit side.

I am hoping that in the area of the Queen Charlotte Islands' Riley Creek kind of conflict in fishery and forestry management the ministry might sit down with the Ministry of  Forests and try to improve the current stumpage formulas which, as I understand them and the set-offs they allow, don't build in much of an incentive for those forest operators who will build roads and bridges to a first-rate environmental standard.

In closing, there is one other bouquet that I think should be advanced on behalf of hunters, fishermen and sportsmen in B.C. The B.C. Wildlife Federation has a big job to do. They do it responsibly and well. I understand they enjoy excellent lines of communication with this minister and I hope that continues.

HON. MR. ROGERS: The member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) is out of the House but I did undertake to try to get some answers back for him on Robson Bight, which is at the mouth of the Tsitika with one particular spot on the map, the name of which I didn't know. However, over the lunch hour we have done some checking. As he pointed out, it is an area used by whales, especially killer whales, for their sun-basking in the time they loll around in this relatively calm water. Our ministry staff and the people from Fish and Wildlife would most certainly be opposed to any industrial development or any use other than recreational use in that particular area.

My colleague the second member for Vancouver South (Mr. Hyndman) brings up a number of points. I hope nobody thinks I wrote that speech and gave it to him, because obviously I didn't.

AN HON. MEMBER: It was too good.

HON. MR. ROGERS: All his speeches are good speeches. I can't say the same thing for yours but I will say that for his.

The Conservation Trust Fund. In a province where 96 percent of the land is owned by the government, it always seems to be a curious factor that the government, through its agents, wants to buy back some of that remaining 4 percent. That is really only because the areas we are looking at, which are so very critical in terms of habitat, have in many cases already been taken and are in private ownership. I am approached on a daily basis by people like the National Second Century Fund and others, the B.C. Wildlife Federa-

[ Page 3619 ]

tion, who say that this small piece of critical property which would really be of benefit to the environment is something we should acquire. I am delighted that through the Conservation Trust Fund we are able to do that. I should point out that when we do acquire it one of the first things we do is we like to keep people off it because although most people know what to do and how to behave in these remote and often sensitive areas, the few who don't spoil it for the many.

The steelhead ban on Vancouver Island. I guess I must have received 200 or 300 letters after I made that decision. Divers from the fish and wildlife branch have actually spent time in the middle of January in wetsuits in the river itself counting the fish going by. When they came to see me and told me what their concerns were, I had absolutely no qualms about going along with their recommendations. Interestingly enough, there wasn't a major decrease in the number of anglers going out fishing; there was just a decrease in the numbers of fish being taken home or no fish were being taken home. Steelhead fishermen traditionally are not people who go just to get the fish. In fact, they go more for the sport than anything else, and the catch and release program seems to have been very effective.

You mentioned conservation enforcement. I'm delighted that the conservation officer in Hope who knows who you are stopped you when you saw him and asked you for your licence, and I hope that when he sees me he stops me and asks me for mine. One of the things we're trying to do with all of the staff people is to get people, regardless of their role within the ministry, to be aware of what other things are happening in the ministry so that, for example, our conservation officers aren't just dealing with fish and wildlife or game problems, but they're dealing with pollution problems and waste management problems on a sort of first-aid basis, until such time as they can alert someone else in the ministry. This hasn't been the case in the past, but it's certainly becoming more involved today.

Fishing licences and tags are definitely a problem. We have dealt with government agents; I guess we're going to have to spend a little more time determining where the big buys take place. I had representations from the vendors, the people who have sporting-goods shops, primarily, that they needed a greater commission — and when you look at the very minimal commission they got and the time that it took them to fill out the licence, I have to agree with them. We have had an order-in-council which has increased that and, to this end at least, we have some satisfaction. But we do have a problem with getting tags. We also have that problem in the Kootenays. The member for Kootenay (Mr. Segarty) has brought that point to my attention on several occasions, and we're going to try and see what we can do about it this year. It's difficult because, of course, every year tags are sent back from other areas of the province where they're just not sold, and it's a logistical problem. I suppose it's something we could put on a computer at some time.

I would like to look at the possibility of issuing five-year licences for hunting and fishing so that those anglers and hunters who renew every year could be looking at buying a five-year licence with a returnable clause, of course, in case of transfer or death or something like that. But for most hunters it's a once-a-year thing. Then, instead of spending too much money on paperwork, we could spend a little more money on some research, and perhaps put the licence onto a plastic tag which they can keep in their wallet like a credit card and put a hole in it and then hang it around their neck on a piece of leather like they do when they go fishing, because occasionally the whole wallet goes down the drain when they're out there in the middle of the river, only because they have to carry this flimsy piece of paper — it's a problem. Anyway, we're looking at that.

The milfoil situation. They're not only checking for milfoil; they're also checking for live bait. You'd be interested to know that, because the transfer of live bait between lakes has become a real problem. If bottom fish are released inadvertently or advertently into some of the small rainbow lakes, they tend to wipe out the rainbow stocks in fairly short order.

Fishing derbies. I really have nothing against fishing derbies, but the point has been made by federal Fisheries and the Salmonid Enhancement Program people that the chinook salmon stocks on the west coast are endangered. They're not endangered to the point that we're not going to allow any fishing of them, but this tends to be this one particular fish that some of the derbies aim at. Places like Gibsons Landing have a dogfish derby, which is really beneficial, because you get rid of a nuisance fish and you also have a lot of fun. The trouble that I have with the chinook is that the federal government is very close to putting a 20-inch or 50-centimetre limit on this fish because of the reduced stocks; they're going to go after the commercial fishermen. I think if, before the problem gets to a point that they have to enforce it, people on a voluntary basis would consider taking the other species when they go fishing, it might be of benefit to everybody. It could well be that in the not too distant future the feds will put a ban on this altogether, and I just express my concern. Well, I guess I didn't need to say anything and I would have got less flak, but I still think I did the right thing, and I know people in the staff agree with me on it.

The lower Dean River is a continuing problem. It's such a good fishing place that some of the best fishermen in the world come to the lower Dean and, like all fishermen, they can't keep anything quiet. One of the fishermen who came last year wrote an article in the New England Journal of Fishing, which circulates around all the doctors' offices between Boston and Washington. As a result of that, instead of keeping his little secret quiet about this wonderful place in British Columbia where you can go steelhead fishing, we get a continual onslaught and the thing constantly grows. So people worldwide.... It's like visiting Ngongo in Tanzania, you know — once you've seen it, you've got to tell somebody else about it. Well, in Ngongo, fortunately, you can handle quite a few visitors, but the Dean has a fairly limited capacity. With the fact that there is a small airstrip at the mouth of the Dean, its accessibility to what are called "day fishermen" has just increased.

So this pristine jewel of fishery, this very best place in British Columbia to go steelhead fishing, is becoming more and more publicly known, and access is not very difficult. By commercial airplane you can fly to Bella Coola, and to get from there to the Dean River is a relatively simple thing, and more and more people go. It's going to get tougher, and we're going to have to consider how we look after the fish in this particular area. Boats are a problem.

Yes, there have been a couple of guides who have been in there a long time and they're great fishermen and great sportsmen. but my position is that the people in this province who pay the taxes have the first crack at everything. If we're going to split it down and say, "Well, okay, the tourists draw a lot of dollars and they're of great benefit to the province,"

[ Page 3620 ]

that's well and true, but the freshwater fisheries resource is the property of all the people, and I've got to manage it and try and come up with solutions that are workable between the two.

Whistler-Pemberton area. If we get the opportunity to expand our hatchery program at Abbotsford, which I'm hoping we can do in the next year, then we'll be able to supply Whistler and Pemberton from the Abbotsford hatchery. There is just an insatiable demand for hatchery-raised fish to be released in all of the areas immediately adjacent to the lower mainland.

We have had the meeting between me, my ministry and Forests on Riley Creek. That has already taken place, as you suggest it should.

The Thompson River. I can only join with the broad statement made by the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair), speaking as the MLA for Kamloops, when he said that there just has to be a time come in this province when we stop using the rivers of the province as a sewage system. The city of Kamloops and the Weyerhaeuser plant at Kamloops continue to dump — admittedly with permits and all the legal requirements — into the North Thompson River. The latest permit that we have from Kamloops would appear to be the straw that broke the camel's back. This is the one that has got everyone from Savona all the way down to Hope and beyond upset and saying, "Now is the time to come to a stop," and it is for that reason that I have insisted that Kamloops look at the alternatives that are available to them, including disposal for land on irrigation, and also pumping it into the ground.

It's a serious problem and we have always.... Our communities grew up, in many cases, along the sides of rivers, and as a result of doing that they've used the river to discharge their effluent. Well, we're all polluters, because just by living and breathing every day we all produce a little bit that goes in there. It has always been convenient. Kamloops is going to grow, but the capacity of that river to absorb effluent is not going to grow, and the long-term objective has to be to get all the sewage systems out of the rivers.

The city of Vernon has probably got the.... It's an expensive system but probably the most ideal one, in terms of their disposal of liquid effluents. So I think that answers most of your questions. I think there are other members, Mr. Chairman, who would like to ask questions.

MRS. WALLACE: This has been a very interesting exchange. I'm almost inclined to say: "Will the real Minister of Environment please stand up?" We know that the Minister of Environment didn't write that speech given by his seatmate, because if he had written it he would have given it. It sounded much more like a speech from a Minister of Environment than did the run through the telephone directory that that minister gave us the day his estimates opened.

I just would say to the Minister of Environment, through you, Mr. Chairman, that I hope for his sake the Premier wasn't listening to today's proceedings on his loudspeaker, because if he was, his job may be in jeopardy. Certainly his seat-mate, the second member for Vancouver South (Mr. Hyndman), has been known to be the Premier's messenger boy before this. All I can say to the minister is that with friends like that, who needs enemies?

At least I'm glad of one thing: that the old precedent of backbenchers in the government getting up and making some remarks during estimates has been revived. I just wish that the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) were in the House, because I've just been waiting for him to get up in these estimates and talk about the Kemano II development.

MR. BARBER: He said he would, but he's never in the House.

MRS. WALLACE: Yes, he's been talking about it a lot in his constituency, Mr. Chairman, and he's been talking about all the great things he was going to do down here about the Kernano II project. Not only is he not in the House — and very seldom in the House — but he certainly hasn't seemed to have anything to say. Maybe he's out getting his speech together. I look forward to him coming in and talking about the Kemano II development during these estimates.

Mr. Chairman, I want to bring to the minister's attention something that has really become of extreme concern to me, particularly in these last few months. It's something that has been going on in this province for a long time, and is now coming to the fore on a lot of fronts. That, of course, is the use of wood preservatives, particularly PCP — pentachlorophenol — and TCP.

We've had a lot of notices in the press recently about these kinds of things happening. In the press this morning I noticed conflicting statements from B.C. Forest Products spokesmen. One is saying that PCP is harmful but not TCP. Another representative of the same company is saying that TCP is just the same thing. I would suggest that probably the person who's working in the lab who said they were much the same thing, in that they both release dioxanes, is closer to being correct.

We've had shutdowns in my constituency at Youbou. We've had shutdowns out here in the Victoria area over this thing. It's something that is coming to the fore, and it's something that this Minister of Environment is going to have to take it stand on. It is not good enough to just sit back and say: "We're doing all the checks and regulations, and we've measured that there are six cubic metres of waste a day." That is not good enough. The thing we have to have this minister do is spearhead a movement to ensure that there are some safe limits set, and if something is unsafe that alternatives are found for that particular thing. That is the responsibility of that minister. He talks about being a service ministry, and if that is all he conceives his job as being, then he is doing a disservice to the environment, because the environment has to be the prime consideration.

On the PCP, the Workers' Compensation Board have sent out some fairly lengthy detailed instructions relative to its harmful properties, again confirming my former statement that tetrachlorophenol and pentachlorophenol have similar chemical and biological properties.

"As members of the phenol group they are lipid solutions and will readily penetrate intact skin. They have a characteristic odour. Their volatile component will irritate the respiratory system and once in the lung will be ready to be absorbed through the lung tissue. If ingested, the material will be rapidly absorbed through the digestive tract. Contact between the phenol materials and the eye tissue may result in severe eye damage. The material, left resident on skin, will cause skin irritation."

This is all from a letter from the Workers' Compensation Board to the manager of a small lumber company on Vancouver Island. It is written by a Mr. Luck, who is an industrial hygienist.

[ Page 3621 ]

"If the material penetrates into the bloodstream it will exert an effect on the liver, kidneys and central nervous system. Exposure to large quantities on a short-term basis or continued exposure to moderate quantities on a long-term basis" — I would ask the minister to be particularly cognizant of that; a longterm basis and small quantities are just as harmful as major doses — "will result in permanent liver and kidney damage. Prolonged exposures may, over time, induce allergies."

Then Mr. Luck, the industrial hygienist, goes on to set out the precautions. "Wear rubber gloves. Wear rubber aprons. Wear long sleeves. All sources that liberate an aerosol material must be controlled. Prevent ingestion. Prevent eye contact. Protective equipment must be worn." I am reading that to point out to the minister that not only is this material produced in six cubic metres — or whatever it is — by a certain mill, but it is also a harmful material.

The workers in this province are the guinea pigs, because we really don't know what harm there is. I have a great thick file, kept by the workers at the Youbou mill where this PCP was in use, of the various kinds of complaints they had had over the years. Whether or not they are related to PCP, nobody knows. It is sold, of course, under many names: Woodbrite, Diachem, Prematox, Penta Plus, Diatox, Pentol, etc.

One of those companies, Diachem, saw fit to write a service report. This had to do with welding on equipment that had been subjected to this particular chemical. It talked about the high temperatures produced by torch-burning and welding and said that this can cause these chemical substances to decompose into a variety of breakdown products, some of which are extremely toxic. Yet this ministry is allowing this substance to be burned, uncontrolled, with things like chlorine, which is a very poisonous, heavy, dense gas — to come off this substance when it is burned — with no apparent concern.

I have another letter from Diachem, this one to a local logging company on Vancouver Island. It is signed by Conrad J. Titler, president of Diachem. It is written to Pacific Logging Company. It says: "Dear sir, a dangerous hazard exists in all sawmills using anti-stain chemical solution. Incidents of injury have been brought to our attention." That company was sufficiently concerned to write to the people who were using its product — in an attempt, I guess, to cover their own backs — to tell them that this was a hazardous product.

Another interesting document I have here is a document from the federal Department of Agriculture — I think it's the food production and marketing branch — Ottawa, Ontario. It's a memorandum to registrants of pesticides and chemicals. It's very interesting, and it outlines the suspension of pentachlorophenol for use as a wood preservative in the interiors of chicken houses. This was in January 1979. It's recommending that the use of pentachlorophenol be suspended as a wood preservative in chicken houses, and as a disinfectant or insecticide for mites and so on in chicken houses, and be limited in leather-tanning operations. Then it goes on to say:

"The above action, as well as some proposed actions, were the result of several recent incidents in Canada of poor feed conversions, increased flock mortality and undefined disease syndromes associated with intensive poultry operations, as well as a musty taint problem in chicken meat, all linked to various uses of chlorophenols."

That is a draft memorandum, and I don't know of it ever having been publicized. As far as I know, when a farmer goes to buy lumber to build a chicken house there are no restrictions about using wood that has not been treated, and I doubt if any farmers have ever seen that recommendation.

These are the kinds of things that are happening, and they relate to the environment. Just doing studies and tests, writing letters and quoting figures isn't going to resolve the problem. The minister tells me: "Well, we have restrictions; we can only move...." He's not just an errand boy, an office boy or an account clerk; he's the minister. He's the minister responsible for environment, and if he doesn't have the powers he needs he'd better go to cabinet and get them. When he sends me letters that tell me.... Well, first I read in the press that one of his officials in the ministry says there's no PCP in a stream. Then I get a letter from him dated June 20, which tells me that there were traces of PCP in the surrounding weeds in the stream, and 150 parts per million in the particular tank-car that I was concerned about at the time. Then I get another letter from him dated July 17, with different figures. When I send a sample off to a lab in Vancouver — incidentally the figure on lead, not PCP, in the second letter, and the sample that I had tested was .011 milligrams per litre, which I understand is the same as .001 parts per million — I get a letter back from the sample that I sent off that shows there were 0.4 parts per million. You know, you can prove anything with figures, and apparently that relates to the environment as well as anything else.

My suggestion to this minister is that he takes a good long look at the extent, usage, methods of use and the disposal of pentachlorophenol and its related products around this province. When he recognizes the degree to which we're being subjected to that substance or similar substances, perhaps then he will be sufficiently concerned to take some steps to ensure that a safe alternative is found. Of all the people in this province he is the person most responsible for protecting our environment, even more so than the corporations that are using this. He has to take the lead; he has to show the way. If he doesn't do that, certainly we're not going to find it happening in British Columbia.

While he's doing that he should have a look — he may already have done this, but he hasn't told anyone if he has — at the Cowichan estuary and the Ladysmith Harbour, and some of the tests that have been taken there — where there's a lot of log storage, a lot of wood treatment and a lot of mills — for the PCP content in those waters. My understanding is that some of the reports that have been done have indicated that there is an increasingly greater amount of pentachlorophenol showing up in both those waters.

On a slightly different tack I want to talk about pesticides and the spraying programs that are being undertaken in the province. Certainly the regional district in the Cowichan Valley has been very concerned about the railway spraying. I know the minister hides behind the fact that he got the railway people to change from one pesticide to another. It's not too long ago that we thought DDT and 2,4,5-T were okay. I think we have to look at these things as....

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: Yes, they still think 2,4-D is okay. You know, we really have to take an elimination process.

[ Page 3622 ]

We have to look at alternatives. There's very little being done in regard to alternatives. I wish the Minister of Agriculture were in the House, because I don't often give him a compliment; but I'm going to give him one today. I think that the B.C. Ministry of Agriculture is the only official organization in all of Canada, let alone B.C., that is contributing towards the work being undertaken by Dr. George Puritch at the Pacific Forest Research Centre, where he's working on insecticidal soaps, the old tried and true remedies, if you will. But he's finding the answers and getting results. There's even a company established now to use what were formerly waste materials in this biodegradable spray for forests, and he's working now on something that will control carrot rust fly, so it's getting into the agricultural field. I'd like to compliment the Minister of Agriculture for making funds available to assist that research. But I'm just a little bit shocked that the Minister of Environment probably doesn't even know it's happening. I wonder whether or not he cares, or if he is more interested in simply telling us which chemical is least hazardous. There have to be some alternatives. We have to start looking at these things.

Bromacil has been used by the railway, apparently over a great period of time and in great quantities. The Chairman may remember that I displayed in the Legislature a five-gallon can which I found, marked "crush and bury," and yet there are dozens of those cans just dumped down beside the railway track. The Minister of Environment tells me: "Well, that's not my problem; that's a municipal problem." If that's not an environmental problem, Mr. Chairman, I don't know what is. That is an environmental problem, when you're having a harmful, hazardous chemical not even treated with the degree of safety that the company outlines; and certainly companies are inclined to be as liberal as possible in any of their instructions — liberal in the amount to be used because they sell more that way, and liberal in the dangers that are involved, because they don't want to frighten people off from using their chemical.

This is a note: metabolism and excretion of bromacil in the milk of dairy cows. It was written by Donald Lisk and Walter H. Guttenman. It talks about the drift of applied chemicals onto croplands such as pastures as being common. This study was done of the amount of bromacil excreted in the milk of dairy cows exposed to from 5 milligrams to 30 milligrams of bromacil in their feed. The amounts found were astounding. Also, it's interesting to note that the people who wrote this came to the conclusion that those amounts would not be uncommon for a dairy cow to consume in an area adjacent to where bromacil was used.

Bromacil is a harmful chemical. In fact, there was a recent report that came out on the use of farm chemicals. This was published June 13. It indicated the validity of health safety tests on chemicals conducted by the Industrial Biotest Laboratories of Northbrook, Illinois. The chairman of a federal committee on pesticides said: "Spot checks on chemicals tested by IBT have shown many of the company's results to be questionable." IBT was charged three years ago in the U.S. for faking tests on chemicals.

The point I'm making to the minister, Mr. Chairman, is that as long as he leaves this up to the company, or up to the supplier, those kinds of things are going to happen. The only way we can have a thorough study and a real understanding of whether or not those chemicals are safe is if we, as citizens who are going to be affected by them, undertake to make those tests and do the kind of tests that that federal body was doing. It found, in fact, that the commercial lab hired by the companies had been faking tests. That's the kind of thing that minister has to face up to; that's the kind of thing he has to find some answers to, and not simply quote us which is the most toxic.

The thing that climaxed my desire to talk about pesticides in this committee was the fact that I got a letter from the minister on July 23 in response to one I had written to him regarding the use of 2,4-D in the Cowichan Valley. This is the 2,4-D that is going to be sprayed around by his colleague, the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland). The Minister of Environment wrote to me in reply and said: "This committee wholly feels that the use of 2,4-D in the rather limited areas near Duncan will not result in any adverse effect to the natural environment." Then he goes on to say that for my information he is telling me how I can appeal. For his information, Mr. Chairman, I know how to appeal and I am appealing and I have appealed. Why should a private member be left to defend the rights of the citizens of this province against the spraying of 2,4-D in the area of their drinking water and the water they swim in and have the minister say: "Well, we think it's okay but if you don't like it you can appeal."? That is really not standing up for the environment.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Seeing as you are a new minister I want to just briefly reiterate my concerns relative to the lack of controls on groundwater. I've gone through this with the previous ministers of Environment and I hope the minister is aware that there are no controls on groundwater. This is one of our still rather unpolluted resources, but it is a fast-disappearing resource. We are certainly not using it well or wisely. People who are dependent on groundwater supply, as are the district of North Cowichan and the city of Duncan, face the likelihood of an industry coming in and drilling wells which could completely drain their supply. There are no controls to prevent this. There are no regulations. Indiscriminate well drillers can tap groundwater and it can be left running, which is a waste of that resource. The more holes we punch in that layer that separates groundwater from surface water, the more our polluted surface water is draining into the groundwater. I know the ministry has been working — they tell me they've been working — for years and years to produce some kind of legislation that could be used to control this, but nothing happens. It has gone on now for the five years since I've been bringing this matter to the attention of the House. I have discussed the question at great length with the members of the B.C. Water Well Drilling Association, who share my concerns because they see what's happening. I understand they have been attempting to work with the Minister of Environment and the water rights branch, but I don't see anything on the order paper to indicate there are any results. The only thing I see on the order paper is my intention to introduce a bill, as I have done in previous years. From the minister I see nothing at all.

Of course, it wouldn't be a speech for me in Environment if I didn't deal with the Cowichan estuary. The minister has expressed his concern about it taking so long. It certainly takes a long time when you have a predetermined answer and are trying to find some justification for that answer. I am convinced that that is exactly what has happened with this particular report. I am convinced because we keep finding that the terms of reference are changing. Order-in-council

[ Page 3623 ]

3339 calls for a mandatory submission of an environmental impact statement assessing the development proposals. Yet a recently published excerpt from the report says the development is to be determined by the adaptation of one or more log management plans. That is a complete departure from the original terms. Certainly there has always been — I thought — an agreement that we were trying to keep that estuary for log-handling of logs only related to industry in that estuary as much as possible. When I found out just recently that we had a ship loading raw logs for Japan out of Westcan terminals — shipped in from Lake Cowichan, incidentally, where they are crying for logs for manufacture — I was more than concerned. I've been concerned about the logs in that harbour for a long time. I have here a couple of pictures. They were taken on April 5 of this year from Knipson Road, if you know where that is, up on the north bank overlooking the harbour. There are two shots and they show that estuary just completely covered with logs. I would like to send them across to the minister for his consideration.

This has gone on for five years now. If that minister really is as committed as he used to tell me he was when he sat on this side of the House — not in our party — and talked about keeping his boat at Cowichan Bay and how concerned he was about the fishery there; if he had one iota of that concern left, now that he's sitting over there as a minister, and if he has any spunk at all, he'll do something about that task force report and he'll do something to ensure it isn't the kind of thing I've indicated — something that's being prepared to come up with an answer that's already predetermined — because that's not the way to go. We have a very valuable fish resource in that Cowichan estuary. It could be by far the most valuable one on the Island and it's been allowed to deteriorate. There is the minister who could return that estuary. He is the man who is in the position to say whether we are going to retain the estuarian qualities of that Cowichan Bay or whether we're going to blacktop it and fill it with logs and leave it solely for industry. It is a very fine line; any more industry in there and there is no return.

I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your patience. I see the red light is on.

HON. MR. ROGERS: You've certainly identified a number of problems, ones that keep me awake at night and ones that I worry about on a virtually daily basis. But I'll try not to be frivolous with you for one moment.

PCP and TCP and other wood preservatives are a worldwide problem, not something that is local by any means.

MRS. WALLACE: We don't want you to solve the world's problem; just solve B.C.'s.

HON. MR. ROGERS: No, I know you don't want me to solve the world's problems, but I would like to tell you that it isn't something that's only recently been identified. There is a substantial difference between sodium pentachlorophenate and sodium pentachlorophenol. The phenol is the much more toxic of the two. The product is still licensed for sale in hardware stores. It is available anywhere you go. That is something I find difficult to rationalize. I have asked the federal government why they allow it — they are the ones who license it. The problem has been identified. There is, as you know, a federal-provincial task force, on which two people from my ministry have been sitting for over a year, to try to identify alternatives as well as what the hazards are.

You have documented some of them very well. But Mr. Tom Horn and Mr. Barry Manna of the ministry are both involved in this federal-provincial task force.

Wood preservatives. I don't know that the lumberyards of this province have been notified that they shouldn't be using them in chicken barns. But if they shouldn't be using them in chicken barns, I'm a little bit suspicious that they probably shouldn't be using them anywhere near where people live — like on patios and decks, which is the area where children are exposed to it. If you have an internal memorandum which they have not had the foresight or courage to release, maybe we should follow it up, and I'll undertake to do that. I would like to know, because if that is the case.... Most of these woods go out; some of them are cut up and used to make children's toys, and small children chew on them. The problem is there and it is very real. It is not one we are ignoring by any means, but we have great difficulty in setting down standards, especially in the disposal problem that your colleague, the second member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson), talked about the other day.

While, admittedly, when these chemicals are burned they are destroyed, we don't know enough about what comes out of the top end of the stack. We license the stack for discharge of certain chemicals, but we don't know until we do a test on it. In the Victoria one, for example, it was assumed that they would burn hog fuel and oil. On the basis of that they were given a licence, but they are burning additional things. We have to determine what comes out. Coincidentally — which may help to answer some of your questions, second member for Victoria — an air-monitoring program for that particular stack had been programmed some months ago. It goes into effect on that stack on August 11, to determine just exactly what it is that comes out of it other than the salt and other things that normally come out of it. It may mean a change in permit; it may mean a cancellation of permit; it may mean a change in what we allow them to put in. But each permit is quite specific for that particular purpose.

You mentioned a difficulty with sampling data, and you submitted some data to a laboratory. We have essentially the same difficulty. One of the reasons we're pretty particular about finding this kind of data is that in many cases the next thing to do is to take the information to regional Crown counsel and lay charges. Regional Crown counsel will throw us out of their offices and we'll be thrown out of court if we go there without conclusive data that can stand up in court. That is why the whole method of sampling and the gathering of evidence is rather like a police report — they don't just take evidence and submit it; there is a proper procedure for doing that. I don't know what else I can do to explain that. You have found different sources. There are specific sampling methods. I would be prepared to send you the information on how that is done, if you like.

Pesticides. I've said before, and I guess it's worth repeating, that on private property there are no regulations on the application of pesticides.

MR. HANSON: Why not?

HON. MR. ROGERS: It would be virtually impossible to police, that's why. It would mean that we would have to have somebody monitoring every farm, every vegetable garden and everything else. Canadian Pacific Railway, through the E&N Railway, advised my office that they are going to start to spray with a certain chemical. As a matter of courtesy they

[ Page 3624 ]

just advised us. I was, to say the least, a little bit annoyed. We sent them a strongly worded telegram saying we would ask them to cease and desist and wait and at least reconsider and use the chemical roundup, which they did do. But once again, they weren't even obliged under our existing regulations to advise, although they have undertaken to do it.

There is considerable work going on in using other forms of removal, but the mechanical methods that are used present a serious fire hazard. The analogy has to be there, though: what if your neighbour, wherever you live, is a bad citizen and chooses to ignore the regulations that are on the can? Unless there is a watercourse on their property, we have no right to act on it. Now if there is a watercourse, we can go in and be effective, but we can't just on a regular piece of property. We don't have the staff nor would I envision a chance of ever getting the kind of staff we'd need to enforce the use of pesticides on a province-wide basis. It's a phenomenal job, and I think if you consider the number of people, pesticides and herbicides, you'd probably agree with me, although maybe you wouldn't. I don't know if we agree on too much. British Columbia has the toughest regulations in Canada right now on the use of pesticides. I said something the other day — I don't know if you were in the House. We use 41,000 pounds of 2,4-D in this province and they use 8.5 million pounds in the Prairies.

MRS. WALLACE: How many acres are they treating?

HON. MR. ROGERS: There are an awful lot of acres in the Peace River country as well when you look at the statistics. Yes, they're treating an awful lot of acreage, but does that make it any safer to use it on the Prairies than it does here? It is, to the best information we have, the best available today. Hopefully we'll come up with a less toxic, more effective pesticide.

MRS. WALLACE: What are you doing about that?

HON. MR. ROGERS: What am I personally doing? What are we doing in this ministry? We have a budget to do some research, but this research is being done by Agriculture Canada, by chemical companies, by all sorts of other agencies as well. What we have to do, which is probably more important, is to license the applicators and the vendors so that we get away from the system that we have now where people use excessive quantities. If they figure one gallon per acre is going to do the job effectively, they'll certainly kill everything with two. We have overuse of chemicals, which is very much a problem.

I'm sorry you're insulted about my remark about someone throwing a can that has something written on it out the side of a car beside a road and that it's not a local garbage problem. It is a local garbage problem. It's also a problem for our ministry if that can happens to contain certain chemicals. But once again, I can't tell you where that thing came from. We don't have that kind of a police force. I wish we did have that kind of a force so we could go back and stop those people, but we don't. I'm sure you know that.

Groundwater. There are areas in the United States and there are areas in Canada where groundwater licensing does take place. I'm going to tell you something that you've heard before and that is that the terrain in British Columbia is such that it's very, very difficult to license groundwater. There are areas in this province, for example, like the Gulf Islands, which are so short of water and for which water is so critical that we're looking at the possibility of groundwater licensing right now. We're working in cooperation with the B.C. Water Well Drillers Association and the people in the ministry, and I've been into their shop in the ministry and looked at how they monitor the maps. They monitor the flow of every single well, for example, in the Saanich Peninsula. If somebody draws from another well they can.... It's all going on computer and it requires an enormous amount of data collection.

The Cowichan estuary. Let me assure you right now that there is no predetermined answer. We did not accept the challenge of doing that and neither would the staff of the Secretariat accept the challenge of saying: "Here is the answer; now you find the solution." These pictures of logs, I can assure you, are the very problem that I see and foresee. The decision to allow Doman to build his mill there was made during the time your party was in power and I think perhaps you probably realize and admit now that it wasn't the right location and they shouldn't have been allowed to do it, but nonetheless they were allowed to do it.

MRS. WALLACE: Yes, but they have rules to live by.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Well, they do have rules to live by, but we're trying to make stricter rules with an accommodation of the existing plant. As I say, we are very close to the final draft and release of that report. At that time, if you think that the results that we recommended are a part of the predetermined thing, then I'll let you stand up and say it then, but I don't think you will agree with your earlier statement. However, I'll stand by that.

I wasn't aware of the log export operation, and again that's a question that could be best addressed to my colleague, the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland). But if there is a dry-land haul and loading onto a ship at the Westcan terminal there, then I can't find a criticism. If they're dumping it into the estuary and then towing the booms around the estuary and hand-loading it onto the ships that way, then there are other ways that that can certainly be handled. Certainly, if they're bringing logs out of the Cowichan to load them on a ship to go to Japan, we don't have to drag them through perhaps the most sensitive and critical area on the whole lower end of the Island, and I would certainly agree with you there.

I really wish I could tell you that we had some simple solutions to the pesticide problem, but we just don't. We are constantly revising the data base that we have on these matters. If I were to come out and — I don't have the legislative authority to do it anyway because, as you know, it's a federal matter — allow the banning of 2,4-D, I'd have your agricultural community on my back, the likes of which I wouldn't believe.

MS. SANFORD: During the discussion on these estimated expenditures a number of the MLAs have given their assessment of the performance of the current Minister of Environment. I have to concur with most of what has been said concerning the administration of his responsibilities in that portfolio. I think the minister has been ineffective; I think he is a weak minister; I think he is one who is being pushed round by his cabinet colleagues. I think he is quite prepared to be pushed around by his cabinet colleagues; otherwise he would not remain as the Minister of Environ-

[ Page 3625 ]

ment for the province of British Columbia. He gets shunted aside, stomped on and pushed under. It doesn't matter what the issue is, his cabinet colleagues always win out over this Minister of Environment. It indicates that he either does not have the interest of the environment at heart or he does not have the stamina to stand up to his cabinet colleagues.

The Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) finds this humorous. Maybe over in West Vancouver they don't have the same kind of environmental problems that most of us in the rural parts of the province recognize and see on a day-to-day basis. Let me give you an example, Mr. Attorney-General, of why I made those preliminary statements with respect to the activities of this particular minister.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: You don't know what you're talking about. I've got a bigger rural area than you've got.

MS. SANFORD: Well, why on earth aren't you up on your feet talking about the environmental issues that affect that area? He's sitting there accepting it. He's probably won out over the minister on any environmental issues that arise.

Let me explain to the Attorney-General, as well as to the Minister of Environment, about an issue that was raised earlier this morning which exists within the constituency of Comox. It is an absolute disgrace, Mr. Attorney-General, that the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) awarded the rights to Mac-Blo for a log dump in the Buckley Bay area. It is an absolute disgrace. The Minister of Environment was involved in the discussions relating to this particular lease application, but he was ineffective, Mr. Attorney-General. The Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing won out. The Ministry of Environment personnel opposed the application by Mac-Blo; the people within the lands branch opposed the application. It was only the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing himself who approved Mac-Blo being granted the right to dump logs in that oyster-growing area.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

When I checked with the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing officials after I received the press release indicating that Mac-Blo had been granted that right, the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing officials said: "Oh, no, they haven't." I talked to the person who is responsible for granting oyster leases in this province. He's the one who handles all those applications and grants those permits. He said: "Oh, no, you are misinformed." I said: "Well, I have a press release on my desk that has been issued by the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing." So, Mr. Chairman, I think that the Attorney-General will now see that the Minister of Environment has been very ineffective in terms of dealing with that particular lease application.

Let me give the Attorney-General a few more examples of what this lease application means. The Baynes Sound area is one of the best oyster-growing areas in the world, I would like to report to the Attorney-General. But what do we do when we have Social Credit government in this province? We allow log dumping to take place in the middle of that oyster-growing area, over the objections of the Lands officials and the Ministry of Environment officials as well. What will the company do? They will bring in five acres of landfill — that's good for oysters you must admit, Mr. Attorney-General.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I won't admit that!

MS. SANFORD: In addition they're going to be dredging ten acres of the seabed in that area — that's good for oyster growing as well. I suppose. The Minister of Environment should not have allowed this to happen. He knows he has the support of the Lands officials and his own officials concerning this particular application but he lost out to the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot). He knuckled under. He gave way.

There are going to be six dump-truck loads a day of debris into the water in the Baynes Sound area as a result of this application. That doesn't help oysters very much. I have been in support of the oyster lease application on this particular area since January of this year. In fact, I've written to the minister indicating my support because there was an application for a lease for oyster growing in that particular area prior to the one submitted by Mac-Blo. But the oyster growers got shunted aside and Mac-Blo, thanks to the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing, received the right to dump logs in that particular area. It is an area which has been used over the years for log dumps and in the past there has also been coal dumped in that area. Finally, after eight years, the area was returning to its natural state so that oysters could be grown. But oh no, we're going to have more log dumping. Certainly there were alternatives available to the company. The Lands officials will verify that if the minister is not aware of it.

In 1976 or 1977 the provincial marine resource branch and the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans did a study on the existing booming in Buckley Bay. They indicated that the area was ready for oyster growing again. But that is not to be under this government, when we have this Minister of Environment taking care of the environmental concerns.

You might be interested to know that this morning the minister indicated: ''Well, they weren't very enthusiastic about this project but yes, I knuckled under." In addition, in his discussions with the Lands people on the particular issue he states: "We stressed our point reasonably well but, oh, yes, we knuckled under and allowed this particular log dump to go ahead over the preference of the oyster growers of the area."

The other interesting thing about this particular issue relates to a letter that I received from the Minister of Environment dated July 23 in which he states that the final decision was left with Mr. Chabot with respect to whether or not this oyster lease was going to be granted. Certainly that is understandable, but in the meantime the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing indicated to me that it was a joint decision made by the Minister of Environment and himself. This letter indicates that the decision was left with Mr. Chabot. The letter is dated July 23 and the letter states: "A joint press release from Mr. Chabot and myself is currently being prepared." The letter is dated July 23 but the press release making the announcement is dated July 9. You must be far behind in your department, Mr. Minister, with respect to your correspondence as well.

This press release is a sham. It parades under the guise of being an announcement about a moratorium. Really it is an announcement about the fact that Mac-Blo has been granted the right to dump logs in the Buckley Bay area. I think the minister knows that it is a sham. If I were the Minister of Environment I certainly would not have allowed my name to

[ Page 3626 ]

be associated with this press release in any way, shape or form. He has indicated to us that he's not happy about the decision. Why on earth would he let his name be placed on the press release making that announcement? It is a disgrace. Maybe he was ordered to. Do you think he knuckles under that much, that he would be ordered to allow his name to be placed on this press release? I don't know.

Very quickly I want to raise two other issues. One relates to an issue I have discussed personally with the Minister of Environment concerning the E&N Railway and the problems related to sprays. The minister was just dealing with pesticides. The herbicide sprays that are used along the E&N Railway are of great concern to people along the tracks. I think partly it is because of the fact that the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) was just mentioning. We have had so many bad examples of the extensive use of 2,4,5-T and some of the other products that are now prohibited in Canada. People are concerned. The minister may think that this product is perfectly safe and there is no problem with it and on and on but people don't see it that way. People are concerned and I say they should be concerned. The only thing I am asking is that the Minister of Environment come up with some way of informing the public when a company like the E&N intends to spray up and down the right-of-way along Vancouver Island.

I appreciate that the present laws do not require the E&N to make representations to government or to announce to anybody that they are going to be carrying out a spray program. But when you have people literally running up and down the tracks trying to chase the machine pumping out the herbicide, saying, "Please don't pump along my yard because I've just planted the garden, or because my well is near the tracks," then we have a situation that is intolerable, Mr. Chairman. I think that the Minister of Environment must come up with some alternative way of ensuring that people are at least informed that this spraying is going to take place.

One last issue that I would like to raise very briefly with the minister relates to the fish hatchery at Qualicum. I'm sure that the Minister of Environment is aware of the problems that have existed at the fish hatchery as a result of the logging operation that was done along the Qualicum River. No doubt he's had discussions with the federal Environment people. I know it's an issue that has been raised in the House of Commons on a number of occasions. At the moment there is a plan for a subdivision to go in along the banks of the Qualicum River which will further deteriorate the water quality in that river and have a possible harmful effect on the fish hatchery at Qualicum. There have been representations made to the minister or to the government with respect to the possibility of purchasing that land so that a subdivision can be prevented at this stage and further deterioration of the river can also be prevented.

HON. MR. ROGERS: I thank the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) for yielding the floor.

On the matter at Buckley Bay. Perhaps my words aren't strong enough. The meeting lasted for a couple of hours. Staff of the marine resources branch were there, as well as myself. I have no idea what the position of the lands branch staff is. We went there to listen to the proposal put forward by MacMillan Bloedel. We had reservations to start with. They were able to satisfy both me and the officials of the ministry that the program they had put forward and the proposal they made would be adequate and safe. On that basis, the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing and I made that release. I know it didn't meet with your particular approval; I'm not surprised about that.

The moratorium that was announced on any further releases — again, it is the one that was jointly released. We get about 300 to 400 letters per day in the ministry. I occasionally find that situation when we inadvertently.... The mail goes out.... That's just a problem that I guess is going to happen on a day-to-day basis.

I must point out that 2,4,5-T is one of those poisons which in Canada is only sold by permit. We don't allow the sale in British Columbia. We just will not allow a permit. But it's used in other jurisdictions. Because people have to come to us with permits, we just won't approve it, unless it's for a specific scientific purpose.

One of the things we are considering doing which will accommodate those people who have a problem with not just the E&N but other railroads is insisting that large corporations who wish to apply pesticides receive a permit. This would allow the farmers and householders to remain outside of the permit thing, but would bring into the fold, if you will, the CNR, CPR, BCR, Hydro, Hydro rights-of-way, and of course the E&N, as it's encompassed. So we're trying to find a way to say we have to know what they're doing, but at the same time not being overly zealous with the farmer, because it presents a problem. I think that's the kind of solution that we're going to find.

The Little Qualicum River. I was there and opened a hatchery the day after I was made minister, so I wasn't totally up to date on all the things that were happening. We are aware of the problem, but it is private land. It is either going to have to be a matter of expropriation, or again a question you could put to Lands. I've talked to federal Fisheries about it, and I'm aware of their concern. It's a joint federal-provincial project as far as the Salmonid Enhancement Program is concerned. I'm aware of that concern, and I thank you for it.

MS. SANFORD: Did the minister say that the government was considering purchasing or expropriating the land now being proposed for a subdivision? He did mention expropriation — I don't know whether he meant the land that I was referring to — to prevent further problems.

HON. MR. ROGERS: If I said expropriation, that's not the correct word. We're looking at purchasing the properties. But the problem is not in just those particular properties; it goes all the way up to the head of the river. However, the investment in that particular hatchery — actually, it's an enhancement channel, not a hatchery — is pretty fantastic. There's no point making all the investment in a SEP program if you're just going to chuck it out the window by having pollutants from farther up the river.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I am going to deal very briefly with three issues that I know the minister is reasonably familiar with. I would like to have some reply on record regarding these issues.

The first issue involves the proposed mining venture on Gambier Island. The minister has answered my questions on this matter previously in the House. The answer was yes, he does have in his possession studies that were carried out by his ministry and the Environment and Land Use Committee, the Howe Sound Committee, etc. So I know that the Minister

[ Page 3627 ]

of Environment is very, very much involved in this proposed mining venture on Gambier Island. The fact is that exploration work on Gambier is still proceeding. I have received literally hundreds of letters and a huge petition. I don't recall the number of signatures on that petition, although there are relatively few permanent residents on Gambier. There are 700 part-time summertime residents, plus the island is used by literally thousands of children over the summer months. For most of these people from the lower mainland it's their only contact with wilderness areas. They are sponsored by various church groups throughout the province.

The fact is, I feel that the minister is really not taking a strong enough stand in cabinet, because if by some miracle the exploration work proves up an ore body of high enough quality to operate and open a mine on Gambier Island, the mine will almost certainly proceed after the investment of literally hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars in that particular area. The Islands Trust has taken a very strong position against the proposed mine on Gambier Island. The Islands Trust, by the way, is not being supported by the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) in its efforts to stop the exploration work for a mine on Gambier.

I won't go through all of this mail I have and everything else, but I will quote one portion of the summary of the study, "Gambier Island Recreation and Visual Analysis Study," which the minister received around the end of February of this year. It says: "Gambier Island could be to the lower mainland what Stanley Park is to Vancouver." That pretty well puts it in a nutshell. If a mine on that very small, delicate, fragile island is allowed to proceed, that will be the end of another of the Gulf Islands here in British Columbia, particularly one that is located so close to a population of 1.5 million people in the lower mainland. Of course, there are literally thousands of boaters who utilize the bays and coves on the island as well, particularly over the summer months.

So I'm asking the minister now to take a strong stand in cabinet, because we know the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland) won't. He'll allow the mining and exploration work to proceed. So I'm asking the minister now to take a strong stand in his own cabinet. Stop the exploration work before those people who have already invested thousands and hundreds of thousands of dollars invest a great deal more money in a venture that may not proceed — that should not proceed, in my view.

I want to make it very clear and for the record that we on this side of the House are not opposed to mining — not by any stretch of the imagination — but somewhere there has to be a saw-off point. And where is that point? The Gulf Islands? Do we wreck them all with tunnels, mines and things, or do we preserve them for future generations? That's the question. I feel that the government has a very deep and grave responsibility here. I'm going to be raising this issue again in the debate of the spending estimates of the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. I've raised it under Municipal Affairs. But as the minister responsible for the Environment, perhaps the minister would just go on record with an answer to that particular question.

The other question I have is.... I won't go into a lot of detail again, but the minister is very much aware of the proposed Cheekye-Dunsmuir transmission line. It's going to have a horrendous effect on the environment. That line is now currently under construction. It will not likely be stopped in any event. So I'm not asking the minister to halt construction on a line when it is the responsibility of Hydro and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources anyway, but I do want the minister to recognize the effects that that line is going to have on the environment of theSunshine Coast and some of the Gulf Islands.

There is still a very strong protest movement. I believe it is quite a small group of people now, because the majority of the people on theSun shine Coast, although they were originally opposed to that transmission line, since the line is now under construction, have accepted the fact that the line is crossing it, that it is going to be going through that area. The protest group that is still working against this line is trying to point out to the public of British Columbia that aside from all the environmental problems such as the use of herbicides on the 500-foot right-of-way, the fact is that the government currently does not seem to have any control over B.C. Hydro.

There was a report called the Shaffer report which report suggested that the government, before proceeding with that particular transmission line, should carry on proper public hearings, a proper environmental study and proper financial analysis. None of those things were really done. There were no real public hearings. There were a number of public meetings. The minister was good enough to come into my riding several months ago and attend a public meeting. He handled himself quite well, I must admit. The end result is that the line is proceeding and it may not be justified. It probably isn't, not at this time, anyway. I am wondering if the minister could discuss, for the record, the proposed Cheekye-Dunsmuir transmission line.

Last but not least, once again we have a minister who is very much acquainted and familiar with one aspect of his ministry which is very vital to my riding; fisheries and mariculture. It just so happens in my particular riding that we have some of the best mariculture areas in all of the world, in my view, and certainly in all of British Columbia. We have one particular area called Okeover, near Lund, British Columbia. It is about 22 miles north of Powell River. It is probably the finest potential mariculture area in British Columbia.

Some months ago the ministry announced that they were going to construct an experimental mariculture station, which they finally decided to construct somewhere near Qualicum, as I understand it. That is an area that is being depleted; it is getting more polluted every year. Mariculture in that area is being reduced. They had the opportunity of putting that experimental station in Okeover — the finest area — where forestry have closed their operations. We have wharves and buildings. The whole thing is prepared and ready to go on-site right in the area. Yet the decision was made to construct that experimental station somewhere else. I don't know if this is correct; if not, the minister can correct me and I'm sure he will, but I am told that the reason they decided to construct that experimental station in an inferior location was that they had to take an extra ferry to get to the Powell River area. The minister shakes his head and I will accept his word on this, but the fact is it is one of the reasons I was given.

More than that, the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing — in this case Parks — is proposing a huge park. The mariculture people and most of the residents of the area are opposed to it. There were a number of public hearings on the situation. The regional district has come up with an approved plan — approved, at least, by the people affected — with five alternate sites for this huge, monstrous park that the Ministry

[ Page 3628 ]

of Lands, Parks and Housing is proposing. Yet it appears, although a final decision has not been made by the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot), that this park is going to go ahead in Okeover, a delicate area for mariculture, which in my view must be preserved.

I am once again requesting — as I have done by letter — that the Minister of Environment protect that area for mariculture purposes for future generations. That area will still remain open to the public. People will be allowed to boat, fish, have access to the water and all the rest of it. None of those recreational values will be precluded by the regional district proposal which has been approved by most residents in the area. But for goodness' sake don't let them proceed with this monster of a park. Stand up to the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing. Don't let him proceed with that park in that fragile area, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Chairman, starting at the bottom, I guess, in my notes, it is a demonstration farm, not an experimental farm. Because the great majority of the growers are in the Baynes Sound and Denman Island area, that is the decision we made.

The reason we wanted to do that is that that is the area, in the immediate term, of greatest increase in cultured oyster production. I took your argument and discussed it — because I know both areas reasonably well — with staff. But the problem is that while Okeover has a great future potential in terms of the people that are struggling to make it in the oyster business right now, we want to try to run a demonstration farm as close as possible to where they exist. Some of them aren't struggling. Some of them are doing very well, but others need more help and instruction. Since this is the only area in Canada where it is done on any kind of commercial basis, that is where we decided to locate.

We are currently working on an arrangement with the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing to have them turn over to us all the oyster leases and oyster lease areas in the province, because it really isn't an area where they have any expertise in any event; it is a pretty specified area. The thing Okeover Inlet has that other areas don't have is that it's an ideal area to go to tray culture and string culture, where the oysters are immersed in the water for a greater period of time. The oysters at low tide aren't growing, and that's the whole name of the game. I hope we can come to an agreement with Lands, Parks and Housing as to what goes into Okeover Inlet, because the highest and best use of it, with no question at all, is to go to mariculture.

That public meeting. I was hanged in effigy, but the meeting was really there to discuss the location of the line as it went between the Malaspina substation and where it crossed Agamemnon Channel. Subsequent to that meeting, a group of the citizens who were involved in that meeting came to see me. They said: "We think there is a dog-leg you could take around that small lake that's up on the top of a hill behind Sakinaw Lake." I made arrangements for them to meet with Mr. Nash of Hydro, and we've even managed to better refine it. As you will appreciate, the decision had already been made.

If there was ever a case in your riding for why the government's energy policy for complete justification needs to go through, that's the case right there, because of the great argument we had from members, from Carl Risingmore at one end of the spectrum — and I think you'd agree he's at one of the spectrum, whatever that is — to the other end. The cabinet had been convinced that the justification is there, and I concur in that, but I think the public needs to be convinced, and that's one thing the Energy Act is going to do.

The only Gulf Island I know of that it is actually going to cross is the one I think you were once a resident of, and that is Texada Island — well, and Nelson Island as well. There is no question that that is already in place.

Gambier Island. Remember that there was once a mine existing in the Gulf Islands, in comparatively recent times too. They had an open-pit mine on Saturna Island, Saturna Lightweight Aggregates, as little as five years ago. It went out of business because of the market. Your suggestion is that we don't allow people to go look in certain areas. We have never defined that area. We never did draw a line and say: "You can't look for minerals here and you can't look for minerals there." What we did say was that you can't look in a metropolitan area and you can't look beside someone's home. As you know, if a rancher from the Kootenay country has 1,500 acres and someone wants to go and explore on their property, under the Mineral Act that is there. That is the risk people take. I am sure the people who are looking on Gambier Island know very well that they take a phenomenal risk in not being able to meet the mineral mine guidelines.

I just can't find a way of retroactively coming along and saying, "You've looked but now you can't look anymore," because, among other things, I don't know which body of government would want to sit down and draw a line, saying: "These areas are now prohibited." We allow people to do it and we set a guideline. The mine guidelines are in place, and they have to meet those requirements if they put forward a proposal. So far they haven't put forward a proposal and, as you know, the odds are, in normal circumstances, about one in 1,000. The people in the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources are not very optimistic about there being any mineralization in this particular piece of land.

I have a conflict, because I have a cottage on the island immediately adjacent to it and I would very much like to be sure that there wasn't a mine there, but I can't give that assurance. They are going to have to meet the guidelines and the guidelines are very strict and specific. Nonetheless, we have to wait and hear what their proposals are.

I think that answers your questions.

MR. BARRETT: If there's no chance, why not tell them that and save them money?

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Just one quick point on the Gambier Island situation. There is no way you could compare the small open-pit operation on Saturna with the proposal on Gambier Island, which — if they proceed with the mining company's plans — would wipe out half the island right off the top, as you well know. There is no resemblance whatsoever. I want to be very clear on that.

As the leader of our party pointed out a few minutes ago, even should they find the ore values, which could happen — it happens every so often that somebody does find the ore values and a mine opens — how in the world are you going to stop them after? Here they are in the process of investing hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars of speculators' money at the present time. I suspect 90 percent of those dollars is going into office costs and what have you, but the fact is that should they find the ore values, how are you going to stop them then? The Islands Trust has attempted on numerous occasions, not only through the Save the Howe Sound

[ Page 3629 ]

Committee but through other agencies — through the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, and the list goes on and on....

For goodness' sake, I'm sure there must be a way. The Islands Trust has suggested ways the government might proceed, and it would save everybody a lot of trouble. There will be a minor revolution on the lower mainland over that area if that mine proceeds, and the seat currently held by the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) will be down the tube so quick you wouldn't believe it.

MR. HOWARD: What we are talking about with respect to this particular department is something far beyond the areas that the minister has dealt with in his opening remarks or subsequently. While we may not be able to perceive and see it here in British Columbia — because we're still a relatively young part of the world, young in terms of population and activity — what we're talking about in environmental matters and environmental concerns is the survival of mankind. It's in grave jeopardy, because we have not, in the past, paid proper attention to the environment in many parts of the world. I submit we are not paying proper attention to it here. Industrialized nations and others — Canada's a part of this — are dumping millions and millions of tons of chemicals, sludge, poisons and I don't know what else into the oceans off our coasts and in other parts of the world. By that we are destroying the foundation of the oxygen-producing micro-organisms in the ocean — phytoplankton. They are being destroyed because we are poisoning them off.

I'm told that probably 75 percent of the oxygen in the world is produced as a result of micro-organism activity within the oceans. It's produced and released from the ocean itself into the atmosphere. The other is produced as a result of plant activities in releasing oxygen at certain times of the day and carbon dioxide at other times. We're destroying that, and that's the foundation of life — oxygen.

There are many areas in the world where the timber has been removed and it's desert land. We can see in this province the results of a gradual removal of forest cover for other purposes. While we may not be able to perceive it, being too close to the trees to see the forest — or the reverse, whatever it is — nonetheless it is there. We are pumping into the atmosphere thousands of tons of chemicals that turn into acid rain. In the eastern part of the North American continent literally hundreds of lakes have been killed insofar as their life support capacity is concerned. We do it here in British Columbia. Cominco does it, Alcan does it, pulpmills do it, sawmills do it, the burning of fossil fuels does it.

We use herbicides and pesticides not on a basis of a concept to control their use, but to permit them to be used to certain levels. In other words, the so-called concept and foundation of pollution control legislation in this province is to permit pollution. We say we have certain tolerances, certain levels, and we'll permit it to be done up to those levels. In times of difficulty with respect to industrial plant operations we take the other course and remove the restrictions; we permit wide-open pollution to take place for short periods of time because of certain factors that exist. The environment and questions about our environment should be in the forefront of our minds with every department of government, which to me makes the present department and the present minister the single most important ministry in government, because we're dealing with the survival of mankind with it. We're looking at — and should be looking at — generations, many of them, henceforth, in the future, instead of just the one in which we live.

I, quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, don't think the minister has the degree of commitment necessary to be able to prosecute fully the philosophic and the ethical force required of a ministry such as his. I don't think he's serious enough about it and I don't think he's committed to the principle. He may be a fine technocrat and he may be a fine mechanic in terms of understanding the processes and what needs to be done, but in terms of commitment in the heart, in my own mind I don't think that he does.

What raises that question in my mind? Apart from the manner in which the minister answers questions during the question period, one single issue and item in the province, and that's the proposal by the Aluminum Company of Canada to further dam up certain rivers and to flood certain lands in this province, identified either by the Kemano II project or the Kemano completion project, whichever one wants to use in a definitive sense. But what we're talking about is Alcan's rights under a law passed by this parliament in 1949, I believe it was, and an agreement entered into between Alcan and the previous coalition government to give to Alcan the right for a 50-year period — as I understand it — to dam certain watersheds in this province and use the water for hydroelectric energy. We've had questions posed to the minister about that agreement, about the law of this province, about what I think is the moral obligation on the part of the minister to deal properly with that particular question and not to slough it off — as has been the case — either to other ministries in the cabinet to which he belongs or to another level of government. That is clearly what has happened, Mr. Chairman, from this minister in the manner in which he has dealt with the questions of the proposed Kemano completion project in this House. He treated it almost as if it's a joke, but it isn't. I think, quite frankly, ever since the Aluminum Company of Canada was able to make that deal with the previous coalition government, they're pleased as punch to find that they have such a friend in the minister and in this government, because I have seen or heard nothing to indicate that this government is going to do anything whatever to question the ethics of that 30-year old agreement, to question the content of it or to take action under the law of this province to preserve the integrity of our environment and to do something about the protection of fisheries.

I asked the minister some questions about this, going back a while....

Well, I suppose I could proceed, Mr. Chairman. It's all right. Whether the minister is talking to the Premier or not, we know his mind is made up on this matter.

To talk about the current responsibilities, on March 27 I asked the minister a question — and I'll paraphrase it — relating to the flow of water into the Nechako over the Skins Lake Spillway from the reservoir by Alcan, insofar as the protection of salmon was concerned. The minister said at that time that he didn't know anything about it, but he would speak to the comptroller of water rights and come back and give me a reply. He will recall that he subsequently did come back to the House and he gave me a reply. That was on April 10. He said to me in his answer that Alcan is doing fine, the sturgeon in the river are doing well and they're going to tag them, etc. I said to him: "Well, that's all very well and good, but I didn't ask you about sturgeon; I asked about salmon." The minister then said there must be some mistake with the Hansard people, because he took the word "sturgeon" from the Blues. I, thinking that might well be the case, went to look at the Blues and I found "salmon'' written there a plain as plain could be. In any event, the minister said on April 10:

[ Page 3630 ]

"I'm referring to the Blues; that's where we got the reference from. And if it was salmon, it was a misunderstanding by someone in Hansard," which of course it wasn't, but the minister said: "But I'll certainly get the answer for you." April 10 was two and a half to three months ago. There is no reply to that question, no answer and no attempt on the part of the minister to come back and say: "Here is our concern about the salmon."

Since that time we've had other activity by Alcan and subsequent questions have been asked about the minister's involvement in the preservation of fisheries and responsibilities to this government, and they've all been sloughed off. We asked the minister if he was aware of a thing called the Industrial Development Act. That's the act under which Alcan got that 50-year right. I asked the minister if he was aware that any agreement entered into under that act shall, as is provided in here, contain a provision for the protection of fisheries, as is considered advisable by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. The minister tossed that off to somebody else and said: "That's nothing to do with me; that's to do with somebody else." That prompts me to wonder what his concern about fisheries is.

I've had occasion, as I'm sure the minister has, to read through the Alcan agreement that was signed under that act. I'm of the view that that Alcan agreement could be challenged, because it contains in there no provision for the protection of fisheries, even though the Industrial Development Act says that any agreement under it shall contain it, as considered advisable by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

Obviously, in 1950 — or whenever that agreement was signed, and I can get the exact date of it if that really means anything; it's December 29, 1950 — the government of the day had no concerns whatever about fisheries, because they didn't bother to put anything in the agreement.

Obviously this minister today has no concern about fisheries either, because he knows full well that that same Industrial Development Act, administered by somebody in his cabinet, says that an agreement under the act may be amended if it was lawful to put in whatever the amendment seeks to do, if it was lawful to put that in the first agreement. And it was. I say to you, Mr. Chairman, that this minister and this government, even — and maybe particularly — in the absence of any reference to fisheries in that original agreement, have full authority and the right and responsibility under the Industrial Development Act to make the necessary amendments to preserve the fisheries.

What have we got? Silence. Why? Because this minister and this government is the best friend that Alcan's got in this province. They cosy up to them every way they can. They're not concerned about the environmental questions. They've given no indication whatever that there's any concern about that. I think that's an even more damaging indictment of the irresponsibility of the minister than was the case with respect to the earlier signatories to that agreement in 1950. One can excuse them, if one wants to — and I don't want to. But one can excuse the earlier signatories, the coalition government in 1950, for failing to put any fisheries protection in that Alcan agreement, because environmental matters were not a subject of tremendous public concern at that time. No one could look at that and say okay, that's why they didn't do it. But environmental matters are a subject of great concern at this time — tremendous concern not only all over this province, but all over this country, and all over the world, because the survival of mankind is involved in the protection of the environment. As long as this government goes along — in bed with Alcan, a lackey to Alcan — concerned about the social relationships which the minister's background leads him to adore more than anything else.... For him not to take action under that particular agreement, as he has the right to do under the Industrial Development Act, is disgraceful.

It's those sorts of things that lead me to believe that the minister does not have the necessary full commitment, on a moral foundation, to the preservation of the environment that I think he should have.

Let's look at some of the letters he writes. Let's compare them. His predecessor in office wrote a letter on November 22, 1979, to Mr. Jean J. Rivard, who is the executive director of the Native Brotherhood of British Columbia, about water rights and so on. I won't quote the whole letter, but I'll quote the minister's comments. He said:

"I can assure you, however, that the Ministry of Environment is deeply concerned with respect to the special privileges awarded Alcan some 30 years ago, in their water licence and special agreement, at a time when environmental concerns were overshadowed by a government policy of development in the British Columbia hinterland and isolated coastal areas."

The minister's predecessor said that the ministry had a concern about those special privileges. That's all well and good. Maybe if the Minister of Health had remained the Minister of Environment we might have had some action taken with respect to that. Maybe those concerns would have been translated into activity of a protective nature.

When I wrote to the current minister about the Kemano project, the first thing I had to do was wait about two or three months to get an answer, but I got a lecture from him. I don't get any expression of concern. I am told that perhaps I should raise those matters with his colleague, the Hon. R.H. McClelland. He took the liberty of forwarding my letter on to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. In an unsolicited comment, I might add, having nothing to do with the original letter I wrote to him, he then proceeds to act as the unpaid agent of Alcan and outlines to me the differences, by definition, of Kemano II and the Kemano completion project. In other words, he is doing Alcan's job for them in explaining that fine point.

Later on, his colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, saw fit to issue a press release about that self-same thing but I don't get any letter from the minister in response to my earlier correspondence with him. I don't get any answer from him saying, yes, he and his ministry are concerned about the ethics of a 30-year-old agreement and the special privileges and special water licence that was given to Alcan. No, I get a lecture, in effect, telling me: "I'm not interested in answering your question." I am entitled to ask: "I wonder why?" We know — because more than one minister in this cabinet has admitted and said it — that Alcan and the provincial government have been, and maybe still are, engaged in negotiations, although one minister preferred to call them discussions and another minister preferred to make a reference to a "presentation" made by Alcan. We know that there are negotiations that have been going on between Alcan and the provincial government — negotiations leading towards what? Leading towards the

[ Page 3631 ]

Kemano completion project or the Kemano II project, whichever words or phrase you want to use. Is that why the minister deigns not to bother to answer questions about this matter — because he and his government have made a commitment to Alcan that they can go ahead? The Premier seems to think that it's okay.

I'll give you a couple of conflicting items here. On February 4 the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources unveiled a provincial energy policy in which he declared that there would be no private hydroelectric development and that henceforth in the province of B.C. Hydro would have those exclusive rights to deal with those matters. He subsequently waffled and changed and switched around on that and got to this review process or whatever it is that is going to be contained within the energy bill that we will get some day.

Then on April 2 the very same Energy minister told the delegation coming from communities along that north line from Terrace, Smithers and Burns Lake through to Prince George — the area immediately adjacent to the proposed dam project of Alcan — who visited him here in Victoria that there is a moratorium on Alcan's plans to enlarge the Nechako reservoir. He also told them there wasn't going to be any inquiry under the Inquiry Act as well. He said it was a moratorium.

Then the Premier goes to Fraser Lake on May 24. There he spoke with members of the Nechako-Neyenkut society. The Premier said to them, in response to a question, that there is not and never could be a moratorium on the scheme. The Premier said that the Kemano development plan can go ahead any time the company wishes. As far as he is concerned, Alcan has the green light. On what basis does he put that? He puts it on his own intentions and desires and support and endorsement for the project, without regard to its consequences. He places it on the water licence issued and the agreement signed in 1950 which — according to Alcan, with no disagreement from the provincial government or this minister — gives to Alcan the absolutely exclusive, uninterrupted, uninterferable right to go ahead and build those dams that they contemplate building and to flood that land and go ahead and do whatever they feel like doing.

Why do you think Alcan is saying to the federal Department of Fisheries up until a day or two ago that the federal department could go jump in a lake? Why do you think they told Romeo LeBlanc that he's got no business asking Alcan to increase the flow of water in the Nechako River? Because Alcan has got this agreement in its hands and it's got the approval of this provincial government to go ahead and do what it likes in that matter. Alcan said: "We are above the law. We are the custodians of the environment." This company, Alcan, will decide, depending on God and the weather, how much water we're going to let out of that reservoir — not the federal Fisheries people charged with the responsibility of preserving fisheries, or the provincial government, having the authority and obligation under the Industrial Development Act to do something about it, because the provincial government has washed its hands of it.

Why do you think that Alcan said not long ago to the federal government: "You've got no responsibilities at all — no authority over us"? They turned to the provincial government, held out their arms to the Minister of Environment — figuratively speaking — and said: "Won't you help us? We turn to you to protect us from this big, bad federal government, who are out to protect the fisheries." It's a disgusting state of affairs when we see this year's coalition government embracing the decision of the coalition government of 30 years ago, without one whit of interest shown by the minister with respect to that matter.

Let me look at what is seeking to be done here. The Aluminum Company of Canada, pursuant to that water licence and agreement in 1950, say they have the right to build this extra dam, divert that extra water, flood that extra land and, if there is timber to be removed, have the Forest Service remove it at public expense. It's not Alcan who'll be required to remove it, but the Forest Service. Alcan says it has all those rights. Here is a company that is in possession of a spillway on the Nechako River reservoir — a spillway at Skins Lake — who are now telling the people of British Columbia, the federal government and provincial government: "It isn't any of your damned business what we do with that Nechako reservoir right now. We, Alcan, are going to decide what the waterflow in the Nechako is going to be. We're going to decide whether it's going to be 600 cubic feet a second or 6,000 cubic feet a second. We are the ones who are going to look at the rainfall and say whether it should be up or down and what the temperature of the water is. We are God." This is the company, exhibiting that kind of attitude to otherwise responsible governments here and in Ottawa, and particularly exhibiting that attitude to the people of this province, taking that attitude with a facility that they already have. Now they are coming along and saying: "We're going to go further and do some more damage."

Mr. Chairman, surely the minister himself can read in the cards and in the papers what's happening here. Surely the minister does not approve of that kind of activity on the part of a company — any company. Up until now he has indicated that he does (1) by sloughing off questions, ignoring them and saying they're somebody else's responsibility, and by writing lecturing letters instead of responding to the points in the letter, and (2) by refusing to carry out his responsibilities with respect to the protection of the environment — with respect to a fisheries matter and water levels. So far the minister has indicated that he has wrapped his arms around Uncle John Runkle and said: "Go ahead. You've got the licence. Here it is. It's carved in stone. It has the sanctity of law — the protection of the government of this province. Go ahead and do what you want." In my view, unless the minister can stand in this House or some other place and stand up to the Aluminum Company of Canada on behalf of the rights of the people of this province over concerns that maybe they didn't have 30 years ago.... Unless the minister is prepared to do that, then he doesn't deserve to be the minister. We would have been better off with his partner, the second member for Vancouver South (Mr. Hyndman), as the minister.

I say that there is an obligation. Yes, I'm serious about this. Yes, I feel bitter about this. Yes, I am trying to reflect the concern, the fear, in the hearts and minds of many people in northern B.C. who are concerned about this particular Alcan project. I'm trying to voice those expressions, and I think the minister has a responsibility — if nothing else, at least to his own integrity — to stand up and tell the people of this province where he fits into this scheme of Alcan's.

HON. MR. ROGERS: I must tell the member that 30 years ago when in this chamber members on both sides of the House discussed, debated — and it wasn't your party or our party; it was a coalition at this time — and passed this thing, I

[ Page 3632 ]

was a small boy. I lived in a faraway land, I did not know how to speak English, and I didn't know anything about it. I'm surprised you didn't manage to find a way to blame me for that as well.

Alcan has a contract; they have a contract with the government of the province of British Columbia. It was not a contract that, in light of 30 years' hindsight, it was a very wise decision to make. I think there would be nemine contradicente if we went into this House today and asked the question: "Was that a wise decision to make?" But it is a contract, and it's a legally binding contract. Are you suggesting to me that we cancel that contract on a moral basis? Because on that basis we might look at cancelling all contracts on a moral basis.

Since 1954, when the project was completed, Mr. Howard Debeck or his predecessor, as the comptroller of water rights, has had every single request made by the province of British Columbia to the Aluminum Company of Canada in terms of water dispersements over the Skins Lake spillway met. It wasn't until last week when the federal government of Canada, through Fisheries and Oceans, chose to ignore this existing solution, which has been satisfactory, and chose to take this route....

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order, I would simply indicate to the minister that there's a matter relating to House business that I have to attend. I apologize for leaving; I'll read what he says afterwards. I'm not leaving out of disinterest.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Thank you, hon. member. The commitment that the government has is one which I'm sure we all regret, but it's one that nonetheless we have to live with, short of expropriation. But the flows in the Nechako River have been maintained by the Aluminum Company of Canada at the request of the comptroller of water rights since the reservoir was filled in 1954. When the federal government chose to take another route and approach Alcan directly, the Aluminum Company of Canada, I presume — and I don't know — decided they were not going to accept that decision. I don't know why our comptroller of water rights was not allowed to sit in on the meeting between the Aluminum Company of Canada and the federal Fisheries and Oceans. It was over the strongest protests from me, the deputy minister and people on the staff. We have always been part of this program and I feel we should remain as part of the program.

Mr. Chairman, I must inform you now that since the matter is before the courts.... As you know, the federal government, Fisheries and Oceans, is taking the Aluminum Company of Canada to court over the Skins Lake spillway discharge. I think that my comments pertinent to that would be ultra vires and as such I'm not going to make any more.

The member did make some interesting opening statements about the global situation. I'm reminded that the automobile which we all have was heralded as an environmental breakthrough when it came, because the average horse produces 20 pounds of effluent every day. When the automobile first appeared in the major cities of the world everyone was thrilled about it. Sure enough, one of our solutions has turned out to be one of our more serious problems, and now there are people advocating we return to horses.

I recall being in the Middle East — when it was still safe to be in the Middle East — in Afghanistan and Iran, where they pointed to the goats on the side of the hill and they said: "This was once a very lush and beautiful country. Goats meant money, more goats meant more money, and goats ate all the trees." In terms of the member's global perspective on the environment I think that his points are very well made and documented. I think that on a fine-tuning basis we try and address those on a daily basis.

MR. LEA: The first thing I want to say is that nobody says that it's easy to protect the environment, especially in regard to industry. A few years ago there was a very good article in Fortune magazine about the problems with industry and environment. One of the problems that the industrialists who were quoted in that article put forward, I think, was a valid one. What if you are an industry operating in British Columbia selling on the open world market? The pollution controls that are put in place here cost money — nobody denies that — and you are competing with another company that is producing in a country that doesn't pay any attention to environmental controls at all. Therefore the other company can possibly produce that item at a much more economic price on the world market than you can. That creates problems. It costs money to address most of the problems that we deal with in regard to pollution. If it costs money it puts up the costs of our wares, and we have a problem with marketing. Nobody on this side of the House is stupid enough to think that is not the case. We have to put economy factors into the equation when we are dealing with the environment. But this government....

I'd like to relate just a little bit of the history of this government and Environment ministers, since they have been in power under this Premier. The first minister that was appointed was the member for Richmond (Hon. Mr. Nielsen), currently the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. When asked why he thought he had been appointed he said — not in these words exactly but to this effect — "Search me. I don't know anything about it. I don't know why I was chosen. I think it was a mistake." When they asked his executive assistant what he knew about the environment, he said: "What does anybody know? The environment's new, isn't it?" That gives you some idea of the kind of people the Premier was looking for to put in that portfolio.

While that same minister was in office he had a memorandum from another minister about an environmentalist from that minister's riding who may have been coming to see the minister. The memo said: "When he gets there, give him a kick in the ass."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw!

MR. LEA: That's what he said. I've still got the memo. If you want me to withdraw, I'll bring the memo.

That minister then turned out to be the Minister of Environment. His attitude towards an environmentalist in his own riding....

HON. MR. MAIR: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the memorandum which was stolen and in the possession from the member for Prince Rupert did not use the word "ass.'' I challenge him to bring it to the House to prove me wrong. I ask him to withdraw the remarks that he made in that respect.

[ Page 3633 ]

MR. LEA: I withdraw it and I accept the challenge. I'll bring the memo.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member did withdraw. I would like to point out that it is unparliamentary, according to Sir Erskine May, to put unparliamentary words by the device of putting them in someone else's mouth. I give that caution to the member and also a caution to the member that we are the 1980-81 estimates of the current Minister of Environment. The Chair would appreciate it if we could continue with his estimates.

MR. LEA: Then, Mr. Chairman, along comes the third Minister of Environment under this current Premier and this current Social Credit government. The minister has made noises that he's a bit concerned about salmon derbies and the kinds of fish that are swallowed up through salmon derbies. I think it's about 2 percent — it's about the same as one seiner setting the net once. That's about the cost to the resource of a salmon derby. He's concerned about that because it's nice; it sounds very liberally nice. But what's he concerned about? Not Kemano II, not the Kemano completion project — he wants to joke about that and talk about goats eating the grass of the hillside. He still wants to be nice. He'd like to make a few jokes; he'd like to skim his way through in a public image way, PR way and not be concerned about those things that really mean something to the environment or the conflict between fisheries and forestry in this province. Ask him about that and you get a nice little smile and a nice little story, but no concern. When you ask him about Kemano II, he says: "What can we do? Thirty years ago this House made an agreement that we're stuck with forever."

I'd like to just have the minister tell us what he really means about that. If 30 years ago this House made a contract or passed a piece of legislation — and just keep this in mind — that at this point in our history had the potential within the next 48 hours to destroy every living thing in this province, can't you see the nice minister getting up saying a nice thing and saying: "Oh, isn't it too bad, but do you want us to break contracts on a moral basis?" Good heavens, I mean let's not deal with morality. Let's deal with the law. Let's deal with the sanctity of contract. Let's not deal with whether that decision made back then, whether it was made with the best or worst of intentions, applies to British Columbia in 1980 and in the 1980s. Do we live with a contract that would kill us all? No, we don't. Would we live with a contract made 30 years ago that would kill every last salmon in this province? The answer is no. We're not that stupid. Of course we wouldn't. We would take measures to get rid of that contract and to bring some sanity based on 1980 morality standards and based on knowledge about the dangers of the biosphere that the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) pointed out. We wouldn't stand there making nice trite little statements. This minister obviously considers himself to be the buffer between the environment and the government he sits in, a buffer between the environmentalists and the industry he serves. That is what he is and what he does. That has been his record. It has been the record of this government, Environment minister after Environment minister, to take a cavalier attitude toward the environment.

When they set up this ministry, they set it up to do nothing and they've got the minister to do the job now.

They've got a minister that won't stand up for the environmentalists within his own cabinet. This one is the beauty of them all. Not only does he want to do the dirty work on behalf of industry, not only is he committed to do the dirty work on behalf of this government, but he wants to be loved, treated nicely, thought of as a nice guy, especially around those nice social circles he travels with in Vancouver. A nice, genteel guy, You know, when you sleep with dogs you get fleas.

HON. MR. MAIR: I guess you know that.

MR. LEA: You're darned right I know it. I've been sitting here watching you guys for long enough.

But, you know, they have a number of ministers over there that like to do that. They like to say: "Well, really I'm a Conservative. Really I'm a Liberal. I'm just here with these Socreds to save you from socialism. That's the only reason I'm here. I'll go along with the rape of the environment on behalf of Alcan and all of the industries in this province, but my God, think of me as a nice guy who used to be a Liberal. Deep down I still am. I mean, I go to Liberal parties. I just happen to go to Social Credit political parties. That's all I do. "

Mr. Chairman, this minister has not once, since being sworn into his office, made a philosophical statement that would let the people of British Columbia know what he knows about the environmental problems, and what he feels about some of the solutions that this society has to take in order to preserve our way of life, in order to keep our valleys, mountains. streams, forests in a pristine state as much as we can. He is committed to being in that cabinet. He is committed to wanting people to think of him as nice, but he's not committed — and I say that from his letters, his press releases, and from everything that he's done and said since he's been a minister, but more especially for the things he has not done.

Where has he stood up once in this province and said: "I'm committed to a clean environment. I'm committed to bringing industry into line, and making sure that this province remains the kind of place that we want to live in."? You say: "What about Kemano II?" He says: "Gee. whiz. They wouldn't let us into the meeting. Gee, whiz, they kept us out. Both me and the deputy we wanted to go, and some of the people from my department, but they wouldn't let us in, so we don't have any position. Our only position is that 30 years ago — and we all regret it — there was a commitment made to Alcan that none of us like today." You're right about that, We don't like it. But if you don't do anything in that government and especially in that ministry, you do like it, and you love it. You like it and you love it, because it fits in with your whole background.

Mr. Chairman, this minister has got to do more than stand up and tell little jokes and blame the federal government. He's got to do more than stand up and say: "Gee, we can't do anything about this contract even though it's harmful to our society, because after all, we won't judge contracts on moral grounds, only on whether they were made and the sanctity of the lawful contract."

Interjection.

MR. LEA: We thought that it settled a lot of things, but it obviously hasn't settled this minister and this government. They are prepared to do and say anything in order to protect

[ Page 3634 ]

the people they are the willing messengers of, the captains of industry in this province, in all things that would destroy our way of life. In the name of what? In the name of the bottom line.

Has this minister once since he's been appointed stood up and said he cares about the environment? Not to my knowledge. Has this minister stood up once and told us what he's going to do about keeping it clean or making things that are dirty clean again? Not once, to my knowledge. One member asks him about a pollution project. He comes back into the House and says: "Don't worry about it. I've got the chemical formula. This is what it is." The member says: "I wanted to know what you are going to do about it." "Oh," he says, "I didn't know that. I just thought you wanted to know what it was." That is the kind of commitment we get from this minister and this government.

The honeymoon is over. You can only go along so long winging it, hoping for the best — from his point of view — hoping that nobody will catch on that you don't give a darn, that you have no knowledge, nor do you care. I say that because there isn't anything he's done that proves he cares. There isn't anything he's said that proves he cares, and everything he hasn't done proves he doesn't care.

Today in question period, does the minister have any proof that the federal Minister of Fisheries told the logging company on Queen Charlotte Islands to go in there and destroy the salmon stream? No, he doesn't have any proof. But he and his government put a stay of proceedings on that court case just so a citizen of this province wouldn't have his day in court, taking in people who work for this government. What were the cries from that government when the supreme court said: "Section 33 of the Fisheries Act is ultra vires and therefore you can do things you couldn't do before to our fishing streams."? The Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) got up and said: "Gee, it really makes me happy." What did the Minister of Environment say? Nothing that I know of.

The honeymoon is over. From now on this minister produces and puts it out in front so everybody in this province can see it. We're going to make sure he does it. No more honeymoon; it's over. From now on, produce. Say something. Tell us your concerns about the environment. Tell us what your philosophic being is. Tell us where your soul is in terms of the environment. Tell us what you plan to do — not cute little jokes, not put-off letters, not put-off remarks, not laughs. We want action.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Well, Mr. Speaker, I won't start off with a joke. I never thought it was a honeymoon. I take exception to the remark which you made which said the ministry was set up to do nothing. You may be of the opinion that I do nothing, but there are 1,600 people on the staff who labour at great length and are very devoted. I think you owe them an apology, if to no one else.

Interjection.

HON. MR. ROGERS: What sort of stupid remark is that?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. ROGERS: The member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) asked a question and indicated he was going to come back. I was going to save my remarks on Kemano completion, or Kemano II — both words are bandied about. There is no commitment by me, nor by the government, that I know of, and certainly no deal by the Ministry of Environment, to allow any completion of Kemano — either Kemano completion or Kemano II — unless and until the officials of the ministry and I are totally satisfied as to the environmental concerns that affect it. I would caution and remind the member that we have in the past, in conjunction with Kemano, negotiated on the flows in the Nechako River to which he alluded.

The member made a remark about the cost of doing business when it comes to pollution. He's quite right. There are people who would set up an industry in this province because of our cost of energy, our location, and our raw materials, but because of our pollution control regulations and our strict standards wouldn't dare to try. If they are here, and if they can't cut the mustard, they have to go out of business, quite simply because of this: I am not prepared, nor is anyone in the ministry, to issue a permit to a business to compensate them for someone else's relaxed environmental laws. I don't think there's any indication that that's ever happened in this ministry, by the way, nor any indication that it's happened in government. There's no question that in the Third World countries, the developing world, because they're so desperate for jobs and for industry they're prepared to sacrifice the environment for those particular causes. I can tell you that no matter what the industry is, no matter how attractive it may be, if it is environmentally damaging to the province and if it doesn't meet the strict standards which we have, I'm not prepared to allow it to continue.

AN HON. MEMBER: For example....

HON. MR. ROGERS: There are lots of examples of people who come forward with approaches. They say: "What do you think of this approach?" and "What do you think of that approach?" I could go through my files and find letters from some of the people that have come to see me. I have told them it wouldn't be appropriate. Not only that, by our very example of being stringent and tough on some of the industries that are already here and tightening up on the regulations.... The point the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) makes is valid, but remember this. One of the major concerns of industry in this province is that.... I have never had an industry representative say to me or to anyone on the staff: "We don't like your environmental regulations." What they say, and I support them on it, is: "Let's make sure everyone has to follow the rules so that we are as strict with one industry as their competitors and treat them on the same basis." On that basis I am prepared to be tough and set a totally new standard for a whole industry, provided the whole industry can accommodate that particular standard and provided it is something that is reasonably attainable. I don't want to make exceptions for one industry and not the other, which causes economic hardship. The inevitable result of that is that an industry is shut down and people are needlessly put out of work. The rest of your comments, hon. member, I will take with a grain of salt.

MR. NICOLSON: First of all, the minister has said he is willing to be tough. I would like to know how tough he is willing to be concerning the ever-diminishing area of land left suitable for wildlife ungulates which are being alienated

[ Page 3635 ]

in this province and which are absolutely necessary and irreplaceable. Could the minister outline how tough he is willing to be and what his government's policy is toward Crown land, in particular Crown land suitable for wildlife ungulates? Could the minister answer that?

HON. MR. ROGERS: I missed some of your question because the House Leader was speaking to me, but one of the things you expressed concern about is what we are doing to stop the erosion — one of the things we are also doing is the recapture through the Conservation Trust Fund. In the particular area of the province you represent, the land base is so heavily committed now that the wildlife are constantly pressured. That is why we have these coordinated land-use programs that try to go on. I don't think I've answered your whole question, so you might want to continue.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, the reason I ask that question is that I have here a copy of a letter, signed by the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), to one of the previous Ministers of Environment, the current Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Nielsen). It says: "I would suggest, my dear colleague, that the policy of this government is to get Crown land into the hands of individuals, so that they can go ahead and do their thing."

In this particular instance, Mr. Chairman, I am referring to the ministry's file 0336753 — unsurveyed Crown land, Peace River district, which was alienated to a Mr. Edward E. Barnett of Chetwynd. I would like to draw the attention of the minister to this as an example of the lack of policy or direction of the Ministry of Environment, and the manner in which it leads to political favours to friends, interference and decisions being made under pressure from one cabinet minister to another. I would also like to draw this to the minister's attention because it is an excellent example in which a previous Minister of Environment succumbed to the pressures of one of his cabinet colleagues.

This subject land was about 388 acres in the Peace River district. I think it almost adjoins the Peace River, some distance out from Chetwynd.

I'd like to quote from some of the memoranda. A memorandum of November 7, 1978, from Mr. Walter Riddell to Mr. Alan Murray, Assistant Deputy Minister of Conservation, said:

"The Ministry of Environment has received a strong objection to disallowance of an application for an agricultural lease comprising approximately 388 acres of Crown land, more particularly shown outlined in red on the sketch attached. Although the subject area in total was less than 50 percent arable, it would be possible to confine the application to the west half of the parcels applied for, which includes most of the arable land, and qualify the land for disposition as an agricultural lease.

"In the disallowance of this application, the applicant was advised that the fish and wildlife branch strongly opposed this application because it had a higher capability for ungulates. The applicant has raised a number of points regarding the use of this land by ungulates, and I am enclosing a copy of this letter for your comments prior to drafting a reply for my minister. Incidentally, the local MLA strongly supports the applicant's contention that the agricultural values outweigh the wildlife values for the subject area. Your early reply would be appreciated."

The local MLA, I anticipate, would be the member for South Peace River (Hon. Mr. Phillips).

I'd like to read a few excerpts from this letter, as it indicates the danger of having these very valuable Crown lands being alienated without some type of legislation, similar perhaps to the agricultural land reserve.

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: When were you the minister? I think it goes back before you, Mr. Minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would all hon. members address the Chair, please.

MR. NICOLSON: Here is a letter addressed to your predecessor:

"The Honourable Jim Nielsen,
Minister of Environment,
Parliament Buildings,
Victoria.

"My dear colleague:

"Concerning these lands, I am in possession of a letter dated June 20, written to Mr. Edward Barnett, Box so-and-so, Chetwynd, in connection with the above file. The letter states that the land does not contain sufficient arable land to qualify for an agricultural lease, and also that the fish and wildlife branch strongly opposes the application because of low agricultural capability and higher capability for ungulates.

"On the night of July 4, I spent three hours riding horseback over this piece of property on which Mr. Barnett wishes to establish a cattle ranch. I must say that if this land is not suitable for agriculture, we should have no cattle grazing in any parts of the Cariboo, any of the Kamloops area, nor, indeed, in the Kootenays as well.

"On the landing question, without cultivation there was grass growing up to the horse's belly. Maybe I'm not much of an agriculturalist but, as I said, this grass is growing wild at the present time without any cultivation. Further, the man in Dawson Creek has already indicated to Mr. Barnett that that land is 50 percent arable. The land in the area is in an area of rolling hills to the east of the foothills, and most of the land throughout the whole Peace River area in the height of that range is indeed arable. Of course, we could get into a dispute on a technical level of whether 50 percent is arable or whether 50 percent isn't arable. The man wants to invest his dollars and take a chance, and I think he should be given the opportunity.

"Concerning the Fish and Wildlife strongly opposing this application, I would suggest that the only bearing this has on it is the fact it was turned down rather than the fact it may or may not be 50 percent arable. The whole area up there can support ungulates and certainly ungulates can and do live in this area in conjunction with all domestic cattle, so it's not really an excuse at all as far as I'm concerned.

[ Page 3636 ]

"If they want to preserve ungulates in the area, they'd better cut down on the hunting season. I was born and brought up in the province of New Brunswick, where there have been no moose and the area has been taken up and lived in for 350 years. When they cut out the shooting of moose, the moose population increased in New Brunswick. In Nova Scotia there is an overpopulation of moose, so don't give me any stories about land being needed to support moose.

"I would suggest, my dear colleague, that the policy of this government is to get Crown land into the hands of individuals so they can go ahead and do their own thing. I'm getting sick and tired" — he's saying this to the Minister of Environment, the now Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs — "of being continually frustrated by bureaucrats who sit out there on a flimsy excuse and deny right to British Columbians to own land. Can't any politicians around here make decisions, or are the bureaucrats running the government?"

Well, Mr. Chairman, I leave it to that member to answer his own question.

"I've been working on this application from Mr. Barnett for over 18 months. It's just been one excuse after another and I'm sick and tired of it. If you're going to let bureaucrats run the ministry, you don't need politicians like me around here. I would appreciate your checking into this so this application can proceed and we can allow Mr. Barnett to establish the cattle ranch if he wishes to do so on this land."

I anticipate that the minister of the day, having received that letter, passed it on to his deputy who, we must remember, in talking to someone else further down the line, said: "Incidentally, the local MLA strongly supports the applicant's contention that the agricultural values outweigh the wildlife values for the subject area."

The bureaucrat to whom Mr. Riddell wrote on November 7, 1978, responded promptly on November 28, 1978, and said:

"I have consulted with staff in the fish and wildlife branch on the matter and wish to confirm that we are in opposition to this application. The area applied for is in an area that has no agriculture. In fact, Canada Land Inventory classifies the lands under application as 35 percent class 7 — class 7 means totally unsuitable for agriculture; 50 percent class 5 — which may be suitable for forage; 15 percent class 4."

Mr. Speaker, when the ALR was put into effect, probably only 15 percent of this would even have been put into the Agricultural Land Reserve. This means that 15 percent of the land is suitable for the limited variety of intensive agriculture. These same lands are rated as class 3 for summer and winter forage for moose, as well as having a high capability for forest land.

"Because this land has a higher capability for forestry and wildlife than for agriculture, it should be managed for those resources. Mr. Barnett is correct in his observations that the moose population in the area has declined. However, this has been due primarily to succession changes. The logging presently taking place in the vicinity would improve the habitat for moose, and it is anticipated that within 15 years moose populations would double."

I'm not quoting all of it, but regional Fish and Wildlife biologists have been in frequent communication with Mr. Barnett regarding this lease application, and their reasons for objection. They indicate that regional staff of the Forest Service also objected to the application.

"My staff advised me that if Mr. Barnett were to apply for an agricultural lease along the highway between Chetwynd and Hudson's Hope, where land has already been alienated for agriculture, they'd be quite willing to consider it."

Well, that wasn't done.

Strangely enough, on November 28, 1978, the Canada Land Inventory information in that letter said the land was 35 percent class 7, 50 percent class 5 and 15 percent class 4. Somehow, in the month of December or January, a survey of the land was done and Mr. Riddell, writing back to the assistant deputy minister in charge of conservation, Mr. Alan Murray, said that an on-site inspection had been made and, lo and behold, the land turned into 70 percent class 3 for agriculture and 30 percent class 4. This is the type of thing and the type of alienation that is taking place at an accelerated rate. It is being done, not based on an assessment of lands and not in terms of looking at already alienated areas such as were mentioned between Chetwynd and Hudson's Hope which the ministry had already decided were suitable for further alienation and development for agricultural purposes, but it is being done under pressuring from cabinet ministers and MLAs and also from, I suppose, friends of government. I say that if we look after our resources, future generations will be able to enjoy wildlife ungulates not in a zoo or zoological garden, but in their natural state. But if we allow this ad hoc political type of unplanned development to proceed it is going to get worse and worse.

There is another area in my riding where very important winter range was alienated over the objections of certain agencies such as the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. Your local conservation officer was not even, to my knowledge, notified of it and yet this was another very strong area. I would hope that when you are written letters by members such as the member for South Peace River (Hon. Mr. Phillips) complaining about being sick and tired of bureaucrats and offering his expertise in terms of land assessment.... When we look at the mysterious way in which a land classification changes in the months of December and January up in the Peace River — an assessment done at that time of the year — I find it very disturbing.

The minister said that he's going to get tough with Alcan and so on. Well, we haven't seen evidence of this, Mr. Minister. I haven't seen evidence of your being tough in terms of the budget that you've demanded for the fish and wildlife branch. I see the fish and wildlife branch rolled into one little vote instead of in the form of an expanded vote. I see the Creston Valley wildlife management area getting no more dollars this year than they got last year, and that's no more than they got the year before and the year before that. In fact, you can go back to about the year 1973 and I think the vote was up to about $128,000 or so, and now it's only up in the $130,000 range. I don't see any example of the minister being tough.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

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

[ Page 3637 ]

MRS. WALLACE: I ask leave to introduce a bill.

Leave granted.

Introduction of Bills

GROUNDWATER LICENSING ACT

On a motion by Mrs. Wallace, Bill M124, Groundwater Licensing Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, earlier today the hon. member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Ree) rose on a point of order and informed the House that a select standing committee, namely on public accounts and economic affairs, of which the hon. member is secretary, purported to hold a meeting this morning during the sitting of the House. The hon. member and others sought guidance from the Chair as to whether or not the committee in question could validly convene itself without leave of the House.

Our ruling of the Speaker, recorded in the Journals of 1973, pages 193 to 195, quite clearly holds that without leave a committee has no power to sit while the House is sitting, and accordingly the proceedings of any committee doing so must be treated as a nullity. The authority for this ruling is to be found in Sir Erskine May, eighteenth edition, on page 626, and in the Commons Journals of Westminster, 1693-97, volume 126, on page 494. I also note in the fourth edition of Bourinot's Parliamentary Procedures and Practice, on page 466, that it is stated: "Committees are not permitted to sit and transact business during the sittings of the Canadian Commons without obtaining special leave therefore upon a report asking for such leave.'' This is in conformity with our practice, which follows the English procedure as it was prior to the adoption of standing orders which are not applicable to this House.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:03 p.m.