[ Page 3639 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

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

On vote 75: minister's office –– 3639

Mr. Passarell

Mr. Cocke

Hon. Mr. Hewitt

Ms. Brown

Mr. Mitchell

THURSDAY, JULY 31, 1980

The House met at 10 a.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Prayers.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, before calling Committee of Supply, and following my discussion with the hon. opposition House Leader (Mr. Howard), I understand that the Crown corporations committee will be sitting this morning. I have also received notification and a copy of the notice that next Wednesday the public accounts committee is proposing to sit at 10 a.m. The House is in session this morning, so I am going to ask leave that the Crown corporations committee be permitted to sit this morning. Should the need arise next week — should the House be in session next Wednesday morning — I will be making a similar request for leave that the public accounts committee be entitled to sit, and the government will be supporting that request. This morning, first of all, I request leave that the Crown corporations committee be permitted to sit while the House is in session.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I want to say how pleased I am to see that the government has seen the error of its ways and is now operating with common sense.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'm afraid it's just bad memory on the part of the opposition; it's no government error.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I therefore move, Mr. Speaker, the appropriate motion: that the Crown corporations committee be empowered to sit this morning.

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT

(continued)

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

MR. PASSARELL: I have a number of questions for the hon. Minister of Environment. The first of many questions concerns the Amax Kitsault project up in Alice Arm, and a number of special orders-in-counciI that were passed to allow this mine to proceed.

The entire environmental issue has to do with tailings — on-land tailings or sea disposal. Presently the federal-provincial governments have allowed Amax to proceed by dumping approximately one hundred million tonnes of mine waste in the ocean. This has raised a number of concerns, particularly from the Nishgas, who are inhabiting the area and use it for food fisheries.

Mr. Chairman, could you bring this House to order a bit?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, I'll try. Will all hon. members please come to order. The member for Atlin does have the floor, and it is quite unparliamentary for other members to be speaking or distracting from the member's debate.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Rod Robinson, who's the acting president of the Nishga tribal council, made the statement: "The share the company has offered us in the mine — our share — is death." The Nishgas know quite well that if this mine proceeds the environmental damage done will destroy part of their fishing, a livelihood that they have to depend on — particularly one community, Kincolith, that fishes in the Alice Arm area for their foodstocks. There have been a number of problems that have been related to this mine besides the Nishgas coming down and saying that their share in the mine is death. Yesterday morning the Nishgas have said that they are talking about a blockade. I don't particularly believe in any type of violence. In yesterday's Province Mr. Steve Berry told how they have the full support of Greenpeace, the United Fishermen and Allied Workers Union and the area residents in setting up a blockade. I don't particularly like to see groups having to go up against the government, whether it is federal or provincial, by using any type of demonstration, but the Nishgas are pushed into a corner. I have asked the hon. minister on a number of occasions what he can do about this mine and why they've been given a pollution control permit to allow 100 million tonnes of waste to be dumped into the ocean.

The bishop of the area, a very respected man in the northern part of this province, Bishop Hambidge — to the member for Kootenay (Mr. Segarty), I don't know if that's Irish — stated that the entire aspect of allowing Kitsault-Amax to go ahead with this project is morally wrong. This man isn't a radical; he is a bishop of the Anglican church. He and a number of people and organizations — particularly Project North, which is an inter-church organization — have written numerous letters to the Minister of Environment on this aspect, sending me quite often what correspondence they've received back from the hon. minister concerning environmental and pollution problems. Very few people have ever said that they've received anything worthwhile from the minister. I wonder at times if the minister is aware of the pollution control permit that the Ministry of Environment has given to Kitsault to proceed with this damage. The 100 million tonnes of tailings that will be dumped into the ocean, if the minister isn't aware of it, contain arsenic, lead, radium-226 and other poisonous elements. The mine says they wouldn't get into the business if they knew it was going to cause some type of environmental damage. But by the same token, when you ask the minister a question in the House he gets up and takes it on notice. When you give him a short snapper he says yes or no. I doubt if he really understands what's going on up there. I also wonder, if the hon. minister lived in the area, if he would allow his children to eat the fish and the sea life that the Nishgas are expected to eat, which have been exposed to this 100 million tonnes of tailings dumped into the ocean.

The president of Amax says that the whole problem right now isn't the 100 million tonnes going into the ocean; it is simply land claims that are the whole nub of the issue and not the food chain. This is the president of a major company preparing to dump 100 million tonnes of waste into an ocean

[ Page 3640 ]

and he says that the whole problem right now is land claims. Nonsense! He also goes on in a statement in the Vancouver Province to say that we feel the project is environmentally sound; otherwise we wouldn't be involved. The only reason Amax wants to dump 100 million tonnes of waste into the ocean is because it's a lot cheaper to put an exhaust pipe into the mine itself and just run this waste into the ocean instead of constructing tailing ponds. Then Amax comes back and says: "We've done a very in-depth report on this that we've submitted to the ministry so they've been able to give us approval."

This is the report. It is two and a half pages that Amax did on land tailing disposal saying that it is a lot cheaper to run it into the ocean. I suppose the minister has looked at the report that the mine itself constructed, and said: "Oh, a two-and-a-half page report, that's good enough for me; allow them to dump the stuff into the ocean."

Using the example of Utah Mines, which I wonder if the minister is aware of, and seeing the problems that they have had of dumping mine waste into the ocean, a 1978 environmental protection report stated that the tailings have spread across the ocean floor, affecting a highly productive region of the system. But still, Utah Mines dumped waste into the ocean, and as the only example of a mine that dumps waste into the ocean Utah Mines is a very poor corporate citizen.

I wonder why the minister has ignored the Nishgas. Is he afraid of them, Mr. Chairman? Is he afraid to face the fact that this mine might do some real destruction to their livelihood and society? He has continued in this House not to answer questions concerning this. During the opening remarks on the Environment estimates, the hon. member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) asked him about Kitsault, and in his reply he never answered the question that was directed to him either.

To shift, for the time being, to another mine and its environmental damage and consequences, the Placer development up in Atlin, the same type of token questions when asked of him receive a "yes" or a "no" or "I'll take it on notice," his usual procedure when you ask him a question concerning the environment. Environmental impact studies done by Placer Development state that approximately 500 pounds of uranium per day will be pumped out of this mine and put into tailings ponds. Numerous newspaper articles have attacked this project, and the minister has received numerous letters from concerned citizens across this province stating that they're upset with 500 pounds of uranium being stored per day in a tailings pond, and the minister has come and said that the decision will wait until the Bates commission decides. Can't the Environment minister make a decision concerning 500 pounds of uranium stored per day in a tailings pond on a mine life that will be 20-some years old?

I wonder what the motive of the minister is. Five hundred pounds a day of uranium are stored in a tailings pond that's made out of plastic-lined garbage bags that they're putting on the bottom. I wonder particularly if the minister would like his family to live around a tailings pond that contains tonnes and tonnes of uranium. The ministry and the government made a decision back in February not to allow the Blizzard company to withdraw 220 pounds of uranium per day, because it fell into the moratorium on uranium; but since that time the minister has more or less given an allowance for Placer to go ahead with their development to build a moly mine, supposedly, that will withdraw 500 pounds of uranium per day. Maybe to this extent the minister does not care that hundreds of residents will be living around this tailings pond containing tonnes of uranium. Maybe he doesn't care that people in the area, particularly the native people, would hunt and fish in the area, shooting animals that drink in the region that has been described by the Bates commission as having some of the highest levels of radon gas in the world.

If the minister was concerned enough he would go up into the area to see exactly and particularly what is happening to the environment in the area north of the Atlin community. I remember going into that area four or five years ago. You used to be able to catch grayling and other fish in Surprise Lake. If the minister was concerned, as Environment minister, he could go back there today and find out that there is not one live fish in Surprise Lake. Plus it is right on the migration trail of the caribou. They stop off and drink at that lake. Still the minister has the audacity, when asked a question in the House, to take it on notice.

I wonder when this minister will ever show concern for the environment. He is told exactly what to say at particular times. Maybe the minister is waiting for a particular study to be done by the company, saying that environmentally it is 100 percent correct to go ahead with dumping 500 pounds of uranium per day in a tailings pond. There is enough evidence that the Minister of Environment should proceed in some way to stop this mine from doing some type of uranium madness up in northern British Columbia. At times it appears that the minister is more concerned about dollars than people's health and livelihood. He could certainly make a decision concerning Placer Developments.

A third topic I would like to address to the Minister of Environment is the environmental impact of northern dams. I wonder whether the minister is aware of this issue in northern British Columbia. It has been reiterated in this House numerous times by myself. In the 1979 Hydro report concerning environmental damage done by northern dams, particularly on pages 20 and 21, B.C. Hydro states that any dam on the Stikine-Iskut would have a detrimental effect upon the migration of the salmon mainstream spawning, as well as the animals in the area, particularly the mountain goats — one of the last wild herds of mountain goats in the province.

Mr. Chairman, do you know what Hydro says they are going to do with these mountain goats for their environmental concern? When they build this dam, it is going to flood the region where the mountain goats live. Hydro says they are going to protect the animals, even though the Minister of Environment, at times, is unaware of the situation. Hydro has made a statement that they are going to buy a helicopter, fly down the Grand Canyon of Canada — where they are going to build this dam — with a sling underneath the helicopter, pick up the goats and take them to another mountain range. Rubbish! It would probably be easier for Hydro to go down with a couple of machine guns off the side of the helicopter and annihilate the mountain goats.

MRS. WALLACE: Probably kinder too — more humane.

MR. PASSARELL: That's probably right — than going down with a sling on a helicopter and trying to pick up mountain goats off a canyon wall.

Hydro also says the destruction of the mountain goats.... What does the minister do?

I brought up in this House a report on a northern transmission study. In the terms of reference, on page 28, it said

[ Page 3641 ]

not to contact certain groups of people in the area because it would be very negative for them to understand exactly what Hydro and the government are proposing.

It's been three weeks since that time. Why hasn't the minister gotten up and refuted the anti-environmental statements made by Hydro concerning the northern transmission study? They were very strong anti-environmental statements made by a Crown corporation, and the minister has the audacity, once again, just to sit there. I wonder at times if the minister is unaware or uncaring about lifestyles of people up in the north, particularly in this project, the Tahltans. If the minister is so unconcerned about the environmental damage done by these projects then maybe he should change his portfolio to something he maybe can relate to or enjoy — maybe, just as a suggestion, a portfolio concerned with downtown development or uptown fashion.

A fourth topic I'd like to talk to the minister about is Fish and Wildlife. Last year in the community of Fort St. James there was a statement made by a Fish and Wildlife management official that the ministry was looking at the possibility of a bid system concerning traplines that would, in a sense, cause the Ministry of Environment less paperwork but also develop a fur monopoly in the province of British Columbia. It would be very difficult for many native people — there are quite a few white people who are into the trapping aspect up in the north and throughout this province as well — to be able to bid against the Hudson Bay Company concerning traplines. That was done about 18 months ago, and the minister is relatively new in his portfolio. I wonder why he hasn't stood up and made a public statement condemning this aspect of a bid system. Also, what would be the minister's reward on something like that? Why would he be allowing management officials of the Fish and Wildlife to go around and start talking about bid systems? Certainly not to have his picture hung up in Hudson's Bay stores.

The other aspect of fishing is a statement made today in this morning's Province. The title is: "Indians Claim Rare Defence." Is the minister aware that four fishermen in northern British Columbia were arrested a few days ago? He doesn't appear to be. Just to go over it for the minister, four native fishermen from the community of Kincolith, approximately 80 kilometres north of Prince Rupert, were arrested by the Alaska state troopers in the Portland Canal last week. There were three boats and 5,000 pounds of fish confiscated. Their spokesperson, Mr. Tommy Dennis, stated that these fishermen should be protected by a 1794 treaty called the Jay treaty, signed between Britain and the United States. I wonder, without getting into too many of the details of a treaty that's 180-some years old, whether the minister has given any type of assistance to the native people up in the north who are fishing and are being charged and pushed around by Alaska state-troopers in some of the canals up north, even though he will get up and say it's the responsibility of the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans. They're still residents of British Columbia and they are providing livelihoods and jobs for residents in the north. I would certainly hope that the minister would be able to make some kind of a statement to help these native people who are fishing in the Portland Canal and being hassled by Alaska state-troopers.

Another concern I'd like to raise to the minister is regarding trophy hunting. I don't know if the minister has ever hunted himself. He might or might not have. I'm a hunter, but I dislike trophy hunting. To a certain extent trophy hunting keeps some people employed; it's a good tourist scam. But if the minister was ever concerned about trophy hunting.... If we go up into Spatsizi Park next month and see exactly what's going on, you would know that quite a few hunters come into our province of British Columbia and shoot an animal just for its head. If you've got ten hunters with you in an outfitting group — if they do go through an outfitting group.... Quite a few hunters who do come in hunt illegally and get away with it, because there are so few Fish and Wildlife officers in the north. The trophy hunter comes in and shoots an animal just to take its head so he can mount it in some community hall or over his fireplace, and he allows the meat to rot. If you're up in northern British Columbia back 50, 60 or 70 miles from the closest road and you've been flown in on a little plane, you don't particularly want to pack out 1,500 pounds of meat. So you take its head and allow the meat to rot out there. Then the ministry turns around and says there are too many wolves in this province. "We've got to annihilate the wolves — put a little bit of poison around" — poison that does more destruction of wildlife than just wolves.

That's a problem that concerns quite a few people in the north: trophy hunters. Most of us up in the north do hunt, but mainly for food, especially where there are not too many stores around. If you hunt you are able to pack in 1,500 pounds of meat, and it will keep you going all winter. We're not all fortunate enough, as some members are, to be able to afford certain things.

Getting back on the track, Mr. Chairman, I think the minister should look at the possibility of some type of strong legislation. I know we can't propose legislation during the estimates, but I certainly would have the minister look into the possibility of doing something about these head-hunters that are coming into our province and annihilating vast numbers of wildlife and allowing tons and tons of good meat to rot into the bush just so they can take a head back to their own country. It's criminal. I certainly hope that the minister would address himself to some of those problems that are of concern to many people in this province.

Another topic goes back to fishing. I didn't particularly like the statement made by the hon. Minister of Environment regarding sports fishermen in this province, talking about the cancellation of sports derbies. It's bloody ridiculous, Mr. Chairman. Sorry, I withdraw the word bloody. It's ridiculous that the Minister of Environment would go and make public statements condemning salmon fishing derbies when you look at the amount of foreign commercial fishermen off the coast of British Columbia that are scooping up millions of tonnes of fish. And he's got the audacity to say, once again: "We should do something about the sports fishermen, because they're taking too many big fish out." It's a derby that very many concerned sports people in this province enjoy, and I can't see why the Minister of Environment would make a statement condemning sports fishermen being involved in derbies.

Another aspect on fishing is that, as he's done in many instances concerning the environment, the minister has displayed a lack of interest in protecting native fishermen — as I reiterated earlier in my speech concerning the fishermen up in Portland — in our rivers and streams, by allowing forestry companies and mining companies to destroy spawning grounds. You've got to take a hard line, Mr. Minister, on some of these environmental damages.

Lastly, the pipeline. The minister has made statements previously that have definitely shown a lack of concern and

[ Page 3642 ]

interest in the whole pipeline aspect — a pipeline that will go thousands of miles across our province and down into the United States. He's said absolutely nothing concerning the environmental concerns of a pipeline. Mr. Minister, have you ever been up north? Just as he usually does, he turns his back and takes it on notice. I wonder if he's ever been up north. Maybe he'd come up there and see exactly what's going on — take an interest, to a certain extent, in his job; take a took into the environmental concerns of the people up in the northern part of the province concerning the pipeline. It's fine and dandy to say it's the federal government's responsibility. So often when a minister doesn't want to address something he says that. It's in this province that they want to build this pipeline — this steel wall.

You've done absolutely nothing. Why don't you come up into the area and talk to some of the native people — the Tlingit, the Kaska and the Tahltan? Find out how they feel and what type of environmental damage this steel wall will do to the livelihoods of native people up north.

I'm not going on much further, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to hear some answers to some of the questions that I've raised, and I believe that there'll be more time to discuss some of these things. I have some suggestions, Mr. Minister. I think you should get a little bit more involved with your job; look at some of the environmental problems happening around this province. I've given you some examples of some proposed and present projects that are going to have a drastic effect upon the environment of our province. Once you allow something like Placer Development or Amax to go in and destroy part of our environment, either through uranium or mine tailings, it's very difficult ever to have the environment cleaned up and have it go back to its present condition.

MR. COCKE: I note the minister isn't terribly anxious this morning to continue his filibuster, so we'll probably be seeing an entirely different attitude today than we saw yesterday. Yesterday he was all too anxious to answer questions. The member from the north, who has unique questions, asked questions today and the minister yields to this side of the House.

I have two or three areas I'd like to discuss. First and foremost, I've listened very carefully over the last two or three days, and I've listened to a minister tell us how terribly concerned he is over the environment. I listened to his partner, his colleague from Vancouver South (Mr. Hyndman), tell us how terribly concerned the minister was and how terribly concerned this government is and that they were the people who would really get things done with respect to the environment. I know the member for Vancouver South feels the way he feels because he has a pair of glasses that not only affect his eyesight but they affect his hearing and every other sense he has when it comes to Social Credit and what they do and don't do.

I just want to give you an example of the arrogance and stupidity of this government in terms of their dealings with the environment. There is a darling little place called McIntyre Bluff, up in the Okanagan. It is a very beautiful setting, and there is a 500-kilovolt B.C. Hydro line that is to come from the Kootenays down into the Okanagan. That is called the Nicola-Cranbrook transmission line, just in case somebody wants to define it. For some years, since 1976 specifically, Hydro has suggested that they want to put through this line.

HON. MR. HEWITT: It was before that — 1973-74.

MR. COCKE: Since 1973-74 — but they haven't had the right. I'm glad the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) opens his mouth on this because his constituents tell me he has been absolutely no help to them whatsoever in having Hydro change the direction. There's not a word from that member.

The minister will stand up in the House, I'm sure, after I'm through and will defend himself. But I have talked to environmentalists in the area; I have talked to interested people all over the Okanagan Valley. They are concerned. They are aware that what is happening here is just going to be another eyesore. There are alternatives; of course, Hydro offers very few. They say: "We like a straight line from here to there and, damn it, anything that's in our way can just pretty well suffer."

What does this government think of that country? I'll tell you what the now Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) thinks of it. She thinks it's "super" country because when she was Minister of Tourism not only did this particular area appear in Beautiful B.C. but the specific promotion card for the Okanagan is a picture of that exact area. There is McIntyre Bluff, there is Vaseux Lake, and that is where the line is going to go. On the back of this card it says: "Welcome to the Okanagan and the Similkameen, beautiful British Columbia, Canada." Tourism British Columbia printed this card. Neither Tourism British Columbia nor the Minister of Agriculture nor the Minister of Environment nor anybody else seems interested enough nor have seemed interested enough over the last four or five years to do a thing about changing the course of that particular line.

The decision was made for that line in December 1976. There had been discussions on it long before that but the final decision was somewhere in that particular area. There is no line yet. I suggest that we've had ample opportunity and time for ministers of the Crown and other government members, if they wish, to oppose this particular travesty. It is a travesty. It comes down from a beautiful bluff down into a beautiful farming area, then goes back onto the bluffs again. But isn't it ironic that this specific area that is about to be defiled is the very area that Tourism British Columbia shows for their depiction of the Okanagan Valley. It is a beautiful picture, but it is a beautiful picture that you won't be taking three or four years from now, because you'll have to go elsewhere.

Hydro has to be faulted for their arrogance, but a government that lets them get away with it, Mr. Chairman, really isn't worth the powder to blow it as far as from here across the street. We all know that the Cheekye-Dunsmuir 500-kilovolt line — it's been discussed by my colleagues, and I won't go over that again — is exactly the same kind of a proposition. It will go from point A on theSunshine Coast to Texada, to Lasqueti, to Vancouver Island, etc., etc., and that's it; it's going to go exactly where Hydro wants it to go. People can squawk all they like, but Hydro, very much the same as this new B.C. Place that we're setting up, is a law unto itself. It's about time that this government under this Premier who said when he first became Premier, or within a year or two of becoming Premier, that Hydro had to be contended with; that Hydro had grown out far too large, far too strong and far too callous; and that it was going to be a responsibility.... I'm certainly not quoting him exactly, but certainly the impression that he left was that this government was going to deal with Hydro. Have they dealt with Hydro, I ask you, Mr.

[ Page 3643 ]

Chairman? I've seen absolutely no evidence of it. If Hydro asks us for $750 million borrowing, they get it; if Hydro asks us — or tells us; they don't ask, they tell us — that they're going to put in the Cheekye-Dunsmuir line, that's what you get. If Hydro say that they're going to run a line across McIntyre Bluff, that's exactly what you get, and we get a whimper from this government, and less than a whimper from the member for that area.

Well, Mr. Chairman, there are other areas that I'd like to cover. I'd like to talk to you about the Bates commission just for a moment or two. Remember when the Social Credit declared a moratorium on uranium mining....

AN HON. MEMBER: Just before an election.

MR. COCKE: ...just before an election? They said: "There will be no more uranium mining for seven years, and then they went on to say that there was no need for the Bates commission any longer and so they would just wrap it up. Well, that was changed. Public opinion was such that the anger could not be borne by the Social Credit Party nor by the government. So what happened? They said: "Okay, Dr. Bates, come back from Australia, finish your report, submit your report, continue until you've finished your report." I've had long talks with a number of people that were advocates within this situation, not the least of whom were the Medical Association, and the Medical Association informed me that they are angry. They are angry for this reason: that the Bates commission report will be on inadequate evidence. The social impact, the environmental impact and the health impact evidence was not in yet when that Bates commission report was called off. In some cases 80 percent of the information has not even been given as testimony to date.

But, Mr. Chairman, I'll bet you that all the mining company evidence was in there and all the uranium interests' evidence was in there, but not so with the evidence that I think is very, very people-oriented, very people-concerned. As far as I'm concerned the government stopping it midstream the way they did was not only nonsensical; it was dangerous and stupid. This government can waste more taxpayers' money than any government in the history of this province and they display their ability to do that every time they take on a task. Imagine spending the hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars that it cost to put together this kind of a commission, and then stopping it midstream! Why not let them finish so that the report we get is finished, final and adequate? The report we're going to get is going to be a biased report — and biased on the wrong side, as far as the people in this province are concerned. I'm really sick about that, Mr. Chairman. I think that this government has got to be brought to answer for its mis-spending of money, and there can be nothing less.

Once having decided to go that route — and the only reason they decided to go that route was because they previously had supported uranium mining, obviously — of getting the information, putting it all together, then for heaven's sake let us have it all. Now we'll never know all sides of that particular issue.

I have one more touch to make in this particular area. I want to deal with my neighbour, the biggest sewer in British Columbia, and that sewer, of course, is the Fraser River. Mankind, in his infinite wisdom, uses watercourses wherever possible to get rid of his waste. The Fraser is probably one of the best examples of that in this country. We hear about how the reclamation of rivers in Europe — the Thames and in other areas — is going on. We find that it may be humanly possible to reclaim a river after generations. I suggest that we should start our reclamation early, before we have completely wrecked that river. We insist on pumping the sewage in, but even worse for negligence are the chemicals.

I've got a list in here as long as your arm, and this list was compiled by the Fraser River Coalition. They did a fine film with narration by Stanley Burke. It was the power of this that drove the minister to put together his sleuths — to, I presume, give CLEU a call, to ask whether or not they could get themselves involved. How do you charge people, etc.? There are a mass of companies here that are spewing out everything into that Fraser River from soup to nuts and a lot of chemical poisons — no charges, no permits to dump. Pine Lake Lumber, no permit to dump; B.C. Forest Products, no permit to dump — yet dumping they are. Marathon Realty — that outfit that we're dealing with now for B.C. Place, our $100 billion friends at Marathon — got pollution control branch approval for dumping 100,000 cubic yards of hog fuel. Do you know what they did? They dumped 500,000 cubic yards. Why should they conform to their own permit? No prosecution, nothing. This list has been available for months. You don't need a bunch of sleuths to go down there. All you need to do is just read the list that was compiled by the Fraser River Coalition and you've got lots of charges to be laid. Instead of that, I read in the paper we're talking to CLEU, who are out looking for heroin smugglers and so on. God bless them, they've done a super job. The minister now has a bunch of sleuths down there.

I'll tell you something. I'll pop some of these sleuths on to some of my fishermen's boats from Queensborough. They'll take them alone, and not only will they tell them where the pollution is coming from, they'll tell them what's in it. Do you know why? Those guys are worried. Those guys are saying: "You're killing our river." Fish come up and down that stream. They're not terribly worried about those old fish coming back up to spawn; they're tough and they're ugly. They're worried about the fingerlings, the result of the spawn — fragile little fish, coming down the Fraser River to go out into the gulf and finally out to sea, and come back as mature fish. That's what they're worrying about, because without them the whole thing is dead.

I really worry. I hear all sorts of talk from this government. There is no government that I have seen in history that uses PR any better than this one. They give an impression of work, and they don't work. They give an impression of interest, but they're not interested. They give a message of concern, but they're really not concerned. We see that particularly in the area of health. We see a whole department concentrating on a problem that we hardly have in this province — heroin. It's the same thing with each and every one of these government departments. We ignore the major issue and we put all our money where we look sexy.

The Fraser River is still in danger. They're still dumping logs. I'll say this for one good multinational corporation whom I've talked to for years, and that's Crown Zellerbach. They said: "We'll quit that practice." They had that huge mill at Fraser Mills, and they were bringing all these logs on dumpers. Naturally when logs are dumped in multi-tonnes at a time, bark goes to the bottom, deadheads go to the bottom and the whole bottom of your river looks like a muckbank. They said they'd quit and they did. Now they do dryland sorting. Good for them. But there are still any number of log

[ Page 3644 ]

dumps, and the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) will tell you that it just makes the bottom of the river look terrible. You go down that river in a fishboat with an echo sounder and the river has two bottoms, one the firm bottom and the other — five, six or seven feet higher sometimes — is all that muck, chips, rotting vegetation and bark. We have to be mighty concerned. That river is an absolute lifeline in this province. That is why I've always absolutely opposed any thought of a Moran dam. There will be a day when protein will be so significantly in need in this province that if we don't have our fishery, if we wreck it any more than we have, then we deserve everything we get. The trouble is that it isn't our generation that's going to suffer. It's the next generation that will suffer. It will be the kids of the Minister of Forests who sits there and smirks about a very important problem that we face. The biggest lifeline this province has is the Fraser River.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

This government brought in a Ministry of Environment. I said at the time to my colleagues: "I'll bet it's window dressing. I'll bet they're trying to tell us something that they're not going to do." So far that's what they've proven, as far as I'm concerned. This minister is new and that's why I haven't talked to him particularly. Let this minister prove that he is something more than his predecessors have been. They've been a disaster. They have not turned anything around in this province, as far as I'm concerned.

HON. MR. ROGERS: The member for New Westminster is certainly right on the one thing, that the Fraser River definitely is the lifeline of the province and perhaps the area that's the most widely abused in terms of the environment. That list of charges you produced and information that was brought forward by the Fraser River Coalition, whom I met with and was pleased to receive and talk to.... Subsequent to my appointing investigators from the ministry, the people from the Fraser River Coalition, who have worked in close harmony with us, have agreed that in many places where they said charges should be laid they were inaccurate and they had missed some themselves. I and the staff of my ministry have had great praise from them for the work we've done. Since that time in January we have laid charges against 12 companies. We have another 12 that are pending right now — information is before the regional Crown counsel.

What is more encouraging is that we have seen a remarkable clean-up as a result of the fact that our people are there. People are changing their attitudes. We have had numerous calls from industries along the river saying: "We've been doing this for a long time and now we'd like to stop doing it because we know you're cracking down on us." It is a carrot and stick process and I share your concern very greatly. As you know, that river goes by my riding as well and it is the worse piece of pollution in the province. The Westwater Research Centre at UBC have done all sorts of studies to indicate what the oxygen levels are and the rest of it. At the present time they are adequate, but that's not good enough for me. I'd like to see the river come back to what it once was. It was never a clean river that didn't have a lot of sediment in it — otherwise we wouldn't have the Richmonds and the Deltas — but it was certainly a river with a lot less pollution in it.

We can't continue to use the rivers of this province as a sewage dump. We always have. Man has done that since the very first incorporation of New Westminster in the province, the Sapperton area and the rest of it. I only hope that by this time next year when my estimates come up again the efforts we started this year will begin to show through in an even more effective way. There will be further announcements coming along about the Fraser. I really share your concern and I think it's been well documented.

You mentioned the thing on the power line. That went through the 20 different agencies it had to under the Environment and Land Use guidelines and came back and was approved by ELUC before I became the minister. I can appreciate your frustrations, as no one wants to have a power line through their property or anywhere near a beautiful place or place they live, but everybody wants to have electric light. It did go through the process. If the process needs to be changed, then maybe that is what we should change. We set down guidelines for Hydro and other agencies that want to do linear developments. If they're not adequate then we should change those.

The member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell) started off on the Amax mine at Kitsault. I'll try to go through it briefly. Because the provincial and federal government have a joint agreement on pollution control permits that all permits will go through the one window, we incorporate the federal and provincial regulations and enforce their regulations. The main problem at the Amax mine is to deal with federal fisheries, an anadromous fish, and I think the member would agree with that. The federal Fisheries department reviewed the requirements put forward by Amax for their discharge. They in fact modified their own regulations by order-in-council, and that was the decision of the federal government. We can find no quarrel with their particular findings, because they are the definitive experts insofar as freshwater fish are concerned. I'm told that the federal government is at this very time having a second look at it. That's fine, but the reason that we are involved in such a way is because we are the one-window approach. If they wish to change their regulations, then we'll certainly follow through with it.

Utah Mines. We have a joint federal/provincial study right now. Dr. Buchanan is our provincial representative on that. In some ways the tailings on the bottom of Rupert Inlet have proven, so far, to be a benefit, not just a negative factor. Certainly the eel grass grows a lot better. It's a little early to tell what the results of that particular situation are, but it's not nearly as bad as was indicated in the further situation.

The placer mining operation proposal for your riding has to go through the full review process, and if we're not satisfied with their proposal, they just won't proceed. It's as simple as that. We do have to wait for the results of the Bates commission report, because we have undertaken to do so. Just speaking briefly of Dr. Bates and his report, we asked him — I asked him in conjunction with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland) — if he had sufficient data to complete his report. He indicated to me that the cross-examination portion of it may not have been completed, but as far as he was concerned at that time he had the data that he wanted to complete it.

You talked about traplines, the trapping monopoly and putting traplines up for tender. I have attended both the mid-winter and the end-of-trapping-season conventions of the B.C. Trappers' Federation, and I'm in reasonably close contact with the pressman of the trappers' association. This

[ Page 3645 ]

may have been discussed at one time by some official, but it certainly isn't a subject which they've discussed with me. It may have been thrown out for public discussion — run up the flagpole, as they say — but it's certainly not something we're advocating and certainly not something that they've brought up with me.

In terms of your fisheries comment on the Indian problem where they're getting arrested by Alaska state people, quite frankly — I know you'll get mad at me when I tell you this — it's Intergovernmental Relations, the Ministry of Justice, and Indian and Northern Affairs. It's a federal/provincial problem much more than it is a provincial environment problem. I don't like it when our people get hassled, but if they're in another country and another jurisdiction I really can't go out and start complaining about it, because that's not within my jurisdiction.

Trophy hunting. By the way, you've asked if I've been to your riding. Yes, I have been to the northern part of British Columbia and travelled very extensively in it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Flying?

HON. MR. ROGERS: No, I haven't just flown over it. If I counted the number of times I've flown over it, I've been to your riding a lot more than you've ever been to your riding, because I used to do it once a week. I travelled extensively through northern British Columbia, but I don't send you a notice of my itinerary and I don't plan to do so.

I share your concern about trophy hunting, but the trouble with trophy hunting is that a lot of people are employed in trophy hunting when they use the guides and outfitters. They employ the native people and local guides and are a boon to the local economy. I particularly find it repugnant that people would go out and shoot an animal unless they wanted to take the animal home and feed it to the family. That's my personal thing. I don't particularly like trophy hunting, nor do I like trophy fishing, for that matter. I think it's great to catch one and take it home and eat it, and if you want another one.... But to fill your freezer up just because you happen to get into a good fishing spot, I don't find that particularly exciting. I've shot for upland game birds and I've done a little fishing, but I'm not a trophy hunter. Nonetheless, I have that responsibility and there are an awful lot of people who are involved in that. I don't know what makes man want to go out and shoot an animal, stuff it, and put it on his wall, but there are a lot of people who want to do that.

I think that answers the questions that I have so far, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, I want to make a few comments, first of all to the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke), who is a part-time constituent of my riding and has dealt extensively with the Nicola-Cranbrook transmission line and the fact that it impacts on the environment in the Okanagan Valley. For the record, Mr. Chairman, the first efforts started back in 1974 when B.C. Hydro attended the regional district meetings, held public hearings in the area, and indicated the alternative routes for the Nicola-Cranbrook transmission line. They started with mile-wide corridors and then narrowed down, after discussion with affected property owners and with regional districts, to where they made amendments to that transmission corridor to allow for people's concerns.

As I say, there were public hearings throughout the route through my riding, starting at the Okanagan through to Christina Lake, and I was privileged to sit in on many of those meetings. After 1975, when I became an MLA, I had the opportunity to take up the cause of those affected property owners and meet with staff members of B.C. Hydro. I can tell the hon. member that the stack of reports on the Nicola-Cranbrook transmission line is about that high — and that high, for the benefit of the text of Hansard, is about a foot. If ever a case was made for an effort by B.C. Hydro to ensure that they listened to and received agreement on a transmission line corridor, I have to say that this was one time that Hydro took into consideration the many concerns expressed by the people in the area.

Now the member for New Westminster talks about the beautiful farming area at the McIntyre Bluff. I know he's there periodically on the weekends, because he's got a little vacation spot on the south end of Skaha Lake. Where the transmission line crosses the Okanagan Valley there is no farming at all, and I think the member, if he recalls his words, will agree with me that it's basically scrub land right across the area. It's not to deny that the McIntyre Bluff is a very scenic area. It is a historical area. I can tell the member that in the meetings and discussions held in the regional district, amendments were made to the site for the line in the McIntyre Bluff area, and the final site selected was more expensive for B.C. Hydro to put in as opposed to their original line. So they did make adjustments. When it was all finalized, after the hearings and all the input, they had agreement with the regional district of Okanagan-Similkameen and with the various organizations that expressed concern in regard to that area. It only happened in 1979, I believe — maybe late 1978 — that on the scene came what was called the Save the Bluff Committee. They came on after all the agreements were made and after everybody concerned, knowing that the transmission line had to go across the Okanagan Valley at that particular area, felt that justice had been done. Sufficient, or considerable, public input had been made, and the final site was the best and least environmentally impacting site that could have been chosen. As I say, allowances were made by B.C. Hydro and extra costs incurred because of that site.

Mr. Chairman, in somewhat of a defence, being the MLA for the area, I think my part-time constituent, the member for New Westminster, should do his homework and shouldn't listen to the comments made at NDP coffee parties that I'm sure he attends in the area, from one group in particular who came on the scene very late. The Save the Bluff Committee didn't do their homework, didn't know what had gone on before, met in my office with me, and finally recognized that they weren't going to get support from the public in the area, because the public felt that they had been well treated and the decision made was fair and just.

One thing, Mr. Minister, that I'd like to discuss, which I'm amazed that the member for New Westminster didn't touch on, is Eurasian milfoil. He sits at the south end of Skaha Lake, and I'm sure he is as concerned as I am about the Eurasian milfoil problem in the Okanagan Valley.

Mr. Chairman, at the south end of the Okanagan Valley, which happens to be my constituency from Summerland on down, it is a major problem. I recognize that 2,4-D is what you could call a no-no in trying to control this weed, and I'd almost have to say that Eurasian milfoil has gone far beyond the control that could be applied with 2,4-D — possibly not in isolated areas, but the total problem is so immense that

[ Page 3646 ]

application of 2,4-D would have to be so substantial that it would have some serious environmental impact.

The Minister of Environment has a program in conjunction with the regional districts in regard to harvesting the weed. I recognize that that is cosmetic, in attempting to maintain the beauty of the Okanagan lakes, and they are doing a good job. That program is funded partly by the regional districts and partly by the Ministry of Environment. But the problem is major and all I'm asking at this point in time, as MLA for the area, is that the Minister of Environment continue that program and, if at all possible, expand the efforts in that area to ensure that the tourist attraction of the Okanagan Valley is maintained at the high standard it was in past years and is at present. The lakes involved are Okanagan Lake, of course, Skaha Lake, Vaseux Lake and Osoyoos Lake. They all have the Eurasian water milfoil problem. The major problem, I think, is Vaseux Lake, which is just a small lake. But as the member for New Westminster I'm sure knows, it is almost covered with Eurasian water milfoil. It's not just for the local residents I'd like this program continued and possibly expanded. I consider all those lakes in the Okanagan Valley as provincial assets, not just lakes for local residents. They relate to agriculture, to tourism and to the domestic water-users in the area. I recognize that there's no simple solution to the problem. All I think we have to consider is that they are provincial assets. I am asking the minister, on behalf of the people who have property in the area and the local tourist and agriculture industries, that we ensure that an adequate program is maintained in the future in order that the Eurasian water milfoil problem in the Okanagan is kept to a minimum.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for giving me the opportunity to make those remarks to the minister. It's not very often that one member of the cabinet gets up and raises an issue with another member of the cabinet, but I just wanted to take that opportunity to advise the minister. I support his program with Eurasian water milfoil; I hope he continues it and expands it if at all possible.

MR. COCKE: By the way, the little klatsch the minister talks about is a committee that was set up in 1976, which did a major brief and presented an alternative which the minister knows about. The alternative was a mile south of Gallagher Lake. The minister knows that as well. He also knows that the particular McIntyre Bluff mentioned in the proposal does drop onto farmland. As a matter of fact, it comes right down in the middle of a guy's meadow. Anyway, that is neither here nor there. Unless you've moved it in the last few months, that's where it was destined to be. As a matter of fact there is a picture of the guy's farm.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The Eurasian water milfoil problem strikes a nerve. Of course, I've spoken on it every year in the House and I deigned not to this year for obvious reasons. We've been flukey lucky, you know. It's bad but it's not as bad as it could have been. Certainly the 2,4-D did nothing. All you do with 2,4-D is kill it; it goes to the bottom, lays there and rots and provides all the nutrients for next year's growth. That is the dumbest way I've ever heard of doing anything. Harvesting — this is an entrepreneurial type of government. Eurasian water milfoil happens to be high in methanol. I don't know if you can get it all together and build a methanol plant and tap this marvellous source of energy, but I'll tell you — I've said it every year in this House — that if you want to control Eurasian water milfoil, bring in the predator that takes care of it; that is grass carp. Grass carp are vegetarians and they don't take care of the other fish too. What is the fishing industry in the Okanagan? There are no fish in there.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The hon. member for New Westminster has the floor. Will all other members please come to order.

MR. COCKE: The grass carp has been used satisfactorily and is now being introduced, of all places, into the Tennessee Valley, where they claimed they would never introduce it because it would harm the residual population. I know the minister is going to say that it might eat some vegetation that other fish would eat or somehow or other wreck the food chain. That grass carp is one heck of a fish. It grows to 70 pounds.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: My colleague wants me to suggest that you get long-legged water buffalo. But I suggest that we take a very hard look at grass carp because I believe that is the only way we're going to retain the shoreline of those Okanagan Lakes. It is just too bad that that stuff ever got in there, but it is obvious the growing conditions for Eurasian water milfoil there are such that there are going to have to be some very, very extreme methods utilized in order to control it. Grass carp will eat nothing else if there is milfoil in its environment; it will ignore any other plant life, and it only eats plants. But, Mr. Chairman, I don't think we've taken it seriously.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I certainly would like to support the recommendations of the member for New Westminster about the grass carp, although I must confess I wouldn't be too happy swimming around with 70-pound fish swimming beside me.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, they're harmless; they don't eat people.

MS. BROWN: Even if they are harmless, I think I would be a bit nervous that the fish might think I'm some Eurasian milfoil or something and take a nibble out of me.

HON. MR. MAIR: I can see why; the resemblance is striking.

MS. BROWN: Oh, yes, this is what I would be worried about. But anyway, anything that could deal with Eurasian milfoil, I guess, is worth a try.

What I would like to talk about, Mr. Chairman, to the minister again, is the Fraser River, because I really believe that it's too vital to us in this province to be dismissed just with a couple of sentences from the minister promising to make further statements in September and remarking on the change in attitudes of the people who have been polluting the river down through the ages. Now as you know, Mr. Chairman, the minister issued a press release in February in which he assured us that he was going to take very serious steps to

[ Page 3647 ]

enforce pollution control on the Fraser River estuary and that all complaints were going to be investigated and there were going to be charges laid against violations and they were going to be dealt with appropriately, because the Fraser River was really in serious jeopardy. As George Manuel said, the Fraser River is not just dying, but dying at such a tremendous rate that, unless the government did something about it, he was certainly prepared to take the issue before the United Nations.

We heralded the minister's commitment to do something about the Fraser River and sure enough, the report was completed, and as the minister says, a number of complaints were investigated and to date 12 charges have been laid. But I haven't heard anything about any of those charges, Mr. Chairman, in terms of what's happened to them, whether there have been any convictions or whether there have been any penalties. I think it's great that charges are being laid and I think it's great that attitudes are supposed to be changing, but the pollution continues, and unless there are some really serious convictions made and these companies dealt with in a very firm way — and I'm not talking about penalties where they can pay the fines out of their petty cash; I'm speaking about serious penalties and convictions and ways of dealing with the companies — then the pollution of the Fraser River will continue.

And it will continue because of the minister's actions as opposed to his word; because of course the first thing he did after the report came down was to disband the committee. Now we find that there is one officer, Don Thatcher, I think is his name, left who is supposed to continue the work that was being done by the team. Now, that's not a very auspicious indication of the minister's serious commitment to clean up the Fraser River. No matter how powerful and how wonderful Mr. Thatcher is, I doubt that simply by himself alone he's going to be able to deal with it. I certainly hope that unless the government comes to grips with it Mr. George Manuel carries through on his threat and takes the whole thing before the United Nations, because the Fraser River is, as the minister himself said, too important and too vital to us to be treated in a simple way.

Specifically I want to deal with the north arm of the Fraser and that part of it that touches on the South Burnaby area, which is my riding, the Burnaby-Edmonds area. One of the real problems that we have, Mr. Chairman, is the Stride Avenue dump. The Stride Avenue dump, because of its location and because of its proximity to the river — it's not that close but because it's on the top of a hill everything leaches out and leaks into the water — continues to pollute the river. I think one of the findings of the Fraser River Coalition which was submitted to the minister certainly indicated this and told in some detail about what the Stride Avenue dump was doing to the river. It talked about low levels of leachates which flow from this closed dump affecting the water quality in the drainage ditches used for irrigation etc. I'd like to know what, if anything, the minister is doing in terms of dealing with the municipality as far as the Stride Avenue dump is concerned. This other thing about this dump, of course, is that it's so close to all of those incredible market gardens that we have in the area where green vegetables are grown that are just washed and eaten. I wonder about the impact of the dump on the gardens too.

There are a couple of companies that have been polluters. One in particular is the Belkin company, which I know is one that was brought to the minister's attention; an investigation was done and a charge laid. I'm curious to know what's happened to that, because Belkin, which is supposed to be dealing with recycling and helping us clean up the environment, was, as a matter of fact. pouring PCB into the Fraser River, contributing to its pollution and the destruction of the quality of the water.

As the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) said, that North Arm is the worst part of the river. It's one of the most polluted areas of the river, and I certainly have not seen any indication that the change of attitude which the minister commented on is reflected in any way in terms of improving the quality of that particular area of the Fraser River.

The other thing brought to the minister's attention, of course, was the whole business of wood wastes. There's still quite a lot of natural land bordering on the Fraser River in the Burnaby area. Most of that land is owned either by MacMillan Bloedel or Canadian Forest Products, and of course Belkin has some of it. The municipality itself has only developed a very small part of that area at the foot of Byrne Road as a park. The rest of the land needs to be reclaimed, and certainly the dumping that's going on and the garbage, wood chips, barks and this kind of thing that's continuing to flow into the river need some serious attention from the minister. It's just not enough to say that charges are being laid. I want to find out what's going to happen, because we still have no indication that they're going to be dealt with in any serious way.

The final area, in terms of garbage flowing into the river, has to do with the storm sewers. Again, I know that was brought to the minister's attention. It's just beginning to come to our knowledge the real damage that these storm sewers do in terms of helping to accelerate the flow of pollutants into the river. It's not going to be possible after a while for anything to live in the Fraser River unless the minister does more than just have one person supervising that particular area, does more than just promising to make further statements in September, and does more than just lay charges without doing something serious in terms of penalties.

So if the minister would deal specifically with the North Arm of the river where it touches on Burnaby — the big bend area of the river — with those specific points; the Stride Avenue dump; the three companies, but primarily Belkin, which has been pouring PCB into the river; and the whole pollution caused by the storm sewers, as well as the garbage from logs, barks, log salvage and that kind of thing.

HON. MR. ROGERS: I touched on some of these points earlier in committee when the member wasn't here, but I'd like to go over some of the things she brought up. The 12 companies that have been charged — the charges are now before the courts. I have no idea, nor do I wish to influence or try to influence, what the decision of the court will be on these matters, nor do I wish to influence what the penalty will be. I have personal hope that it's a real discouragement for people to continue doing it. There's no point having a fine with people pleading guilty and paying the fine every day as opposed to cleaning up their act. I think we all share that. None of these matters has been resolved yet before the courts, so you might wish to address that to the Attorney-General.

Storm sewers. You're quite right, one of the main causes

[ Page 3648 ]

of toxic materials getting into the river system is the storm sewers. Automobiles which still burn regular gasoline deposit the tetraethyl lead on the roadway as they drive along and that gets washed off and goes down the storm sewers. We can actually monitor a considerable increase in the lead content in the river after we've had rain. For example, we've now had about 12 or 14 days of relatively good weather. If we had a heavy rainstorm in Vancouver today or tomorrow — I hope we don't have one this weekend — that lead would come off the roads. It's sitting there now. It would come off the roads and go down into the storm sewers, and it's very measurable. It's an area that has been seriously neglected in all the municipal systems. Well, not all of them, because some of them have a joint system that storm sewer runoff goes through the municipal treatment plant where these things can be recovered. Once again, when we have a heavy rainfall, many of the sewage treatment plants haven't the capacity to handle the great volume that comes when we do have a tremendous amount of water coming down. But you're right about that.

The group of people that I disbanded — it's not disbanded; they've been given some summer holidays — were from all over the province. They came down, left their families and lived in motels down here. We may not reconstitute it in exactly the same form. I'm waiting for a recommendation from the team leader as to what particular form we'll reconstitute it in. But I certainly don't think it's fair to ask people to leave their families for five months at a time and come down and life in a motel and do this kind of investigation. But they are specialty people that we need for this work, and all but one of them comes from outside of the lower mainland.

MS. BROWN: It's not fair to ask people to leave their families for five months at a time?

HON. MR. ROGERS: Well, we do it.

MS. BROWN: Right.

HON. MR. ROGERS: However, they don't have the privilege that members have of going home to their constituencies on the weekend or seeing their families.

Interjection.

HON. MR. ROGERS: No, my children have come to visit.

The member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke), who has left briefly, asked about Eurasian water milfoil and the use of grass carp. Just let me remind members that it'll grow up to 12 feet long and it grows two inches per day. Mechanical harvesting is strictly cosmetic. It does nothing. In fact, it may tend to encourage the spread of the thing by chopping it up into little pieces. If there was a controlled environment, in which case we could try using the Chinese carp, and if the federal government would allow us to import some of the fish which they will not allow us to do....

MS. BROWN: Oh, not Ottawa again.

HON. MR. ROGERS: They're banned now in 21 or 22 states.

Well, you know, someone took a rabbit to Australia and they meant well, and it turned out to be a bit of a disaster. I'm not going to be the one who brings the rabbit to British Columbia in terms of the Eurasian water milfoil.

HON. MR. MAIR: They took two rabbits.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Well, yes, I guess they took two rabbits to Australia.

MR. MITCHELL: I'd like to bring three items to the minister's attention. I imagine he is aware of the problem of 2,4-D spraying along rights-of-way. The particular right-of-way that I would like to discuss today is the right-of-way of the B.C. Hydro line from Sooke to Jordan River.

An application was made by B.C. Hydro for permission to spray this line. I would like to review the application, the type of questions that are asked and the lack of enforcement and any serious studying of these applications prior to a permit being issued.

The application was submitted to the Ministry of Environment from B.C. Hydro on March 14. I would like to go over some of the figures and statements made in the application. It was for the spraying of 2,4-D along the right-of-way between Sooke and Jordan River. The total area, according to the application, was for 320 acres. They stated that the treatment area within that application would be for 200 acres. The land was described as being public and they were going to use 2,4-D Ester, which is sold under the trade name of Guardsman. The carrier was to be diesel fuel.

In the application, Mr. Chairman, they stated that they would be using 1.2 pounds per acre. The manufacturer's recommendation for this particular product is 7.5 pounds per acre used in an aerial spray. According to the manufacturer's specifications, the aerial spray is the most effective and the most uniform, as far as controlling the spraying or the amount covered.

I'll go through the whole application and then we'll review the lack of facts. The product was going to be dispensed from a back sprayer, and the type of application would be on vegetation.

The part that really gets to everyone who lives in the area is this section 6 of the application. where they request water information. "Are water bodies — examples: rivers, lakes, streams or wells — within 10 metres of the proposed treatment area?" The answer given was no. Throughout that area, Mr. Minister, there are many rivers that cross this line, including the Sooke, Marniel, Tugwell, Jordan, Muir — they go on and on — which are being sprayed. The next question is: "If yes, are these water bodies or wells used for domestic purposes?" No answer was given. "If yes, are these water bodies or wells used for irrigation purposes?" Again no answers were given. "If no, what is the estimated distance to the nearest water intake or well used for domestic or irrigation water purposes?" The answer given was 500 metres, which, for a lot of us who still think in feet, is 1,640 feet.

The application was made and it was advertised in the local paper. This is one of many applications that are submitted throughout the province. Normally there is not the technical input by local people that was given in this particular case. In so many cases, the permit is granted without a proper study of the application.

But what actually does it mean? It stated that they were going to spray 200 acres with 1.2 pounds per acre. From studies made by competent people who live in the area, less than 25 acres needed to be sprayed. The total amount of spray

[ Page 3649 ]

that was applied for in the permit was 240 pounds, For back-spraying it is approximately 10 pounds per acre. What they were applying for was enough to do a proper spraying. According to the manufacturer's specification, the amount of material requested was sufficient for the area that actually needed to be sprayed — not the inflated figure of 200 acres that was presented in the application.

If you are going to make an application and you're going to deliver 2,4-D, there has to be some type of reasonable control in the delivery of that spray. The type of back-pack that they were prepared to use was one of the very common back-packs for spraying gardens. It was not something that completely controlled or monitored the amount of spray that was given. There were no controls on the air pressure. There were no controls on the flow from the nozzle. It varied by the pressure pumped into it and the amount sprayed out by the applicator.

Later on, when objections were made to the application, when studies were made of the particular application and some of the facts given in it — the manufacturer's recommendation for aerial spray was 7.5 pounds per acre — they were found to be unrealistic, for 1.2 pounds per acre. When they studied the location of the domestic water intakes in the area.... There are many intakes, but three of them I will bring to the minister's attention. One was 60 metres from the area sprayed, where the application said 500 metres. Another was 130 metres, again within the 500. This was only one small section of one river. Throughout that whole area there are homes of every type, and cottages and logging camps, that are taking water from these water bodies. It was stated in the application that there was no domestic water use in that area.

I feel this is where the minister and his department must give a certain amount of leadership. When an application has numerous false statements made in it, I think it is the responsibility of the minister and his department not only to enforce it, but also to check it out prior to its being submitted. If an application is given, it should be checked out before the advertisement is put in the local paper. This should be the responsibility of the minister. Once these falsehoods are brought to the attention of the department, I feel that the ministry should enforce the Pesticide Control Act that we have. Section 22(d) says: ''A person commits an offence who intentionally makes a false statement to or misleads or attempts to mislead the administrator, board or another person in the exercise of powers or duties under this act." When this information is brought to the ministry's department, I feel it is the minister's responsibility to enforce that act, not to tell those people who are attempting to monitor what is going on in their locality to go out and take private action. If we have an act and it is controlled by the ministry, I think he has a responsibility to monitor, check and enforce it. This is the leadership we feel the minister must accept. We feel that maybe he is making a step in the right direction when he brings in his group from all over the province to monitor the Fraser River, but there are other areas in the province that need to be monitored. Once B.C. Hydro realizes that you are going to check every application, that you are going to check the facts and understand what the manufacturer recommends in a particular product — that when the manufacturer says 7.5 pounds per acre and an application comes in for 1.2, it is just not realistic.... If you are going to do a job, you are going to do it properly.

Not that I am trying to dump on the minister, but I would like to read a part of a letter he sent to me in return for my concern on this particular application. I know that as a minister he has certain responsibilities, but it says here, talking on 2.4-D: "This committee wholly believes that the use of 2,4-D in the rather limited areas near Sooke would not result in any adverse effect to the natural environment, man or animal." This is the part that really bothers me: "I hope you will realize that where manual means of control have been attempted recently in British Columbia, they failed because men no longer enjoy performing physical labour." In British Columbia we are building highways, mining coal and building a whole industry. To say as a kind of cop-out that people are not prepared to perform physical labour, and this is why we should use poison in an area of domestic water intakes, is wrong. If there are certain people who are not prepared to work, if a contract is given out to clear it manually and if people are hired who are not prepared to work, then it is the responsibility of the person who takes that contract to lay that group off. There are people in British Columbia who are prepared to work. There are youth out there who are looking for jobs. To say, as a cop-out, that people in B.C. are no longer prepared to do manual work is an insult to the people of British Columbia.

Again, Mr. Minister, I think the responsibility of your ministry is to get people working to protect our environment and make sure the intakes to my water system — my water system.... My water system is also in part of that area that they are going to spray — if I ever get out there in the summertime.

Another issue I would like to bring to the attention of the minister is the need of interpretation from his ministry of what a freshwater lagoon is, what a tidal lagoon is, and what is the intent of the environment and sewerage act where it says that you cannot run septic tanks into non-tidal waters. I believe I have spoken to you about this personally. I am referring to the area known as Weir's Lagoon in the Metchosin district. This particular area is a lagoon that is near a residential subdivision. It is in a non-shooting area. Your ministry has issued a conditional water licence on that lagoon. From my information within the ministry, water licences are never issued on tidal waters. Water licences are issued on freshwater lakes, streams and other bodies of fresh water, but never on tidal waters. So the natural interpretation is that if it is in an area that has a water licence, then the water licence would be on a freshwater lagoon.

From correspondence with many members within your department. the best that anyone said of that particular area was that it was a modified tidal lagoon. The Sewerage Disposal Act states — it's quite specific — that any septic tank built near a non-tidal water body would have to be at least 100 feet from the water. It didn't say "from a modified tidal area '' it said that it has to be 100 feet from a non-tidal water body.

When the regional board, the health board and the citizens came to your ministry, your ministry would not give the leadership or a positive interpretation of what a body of fresh water is. I feel that responsibility rests on the minister's shoulders. I feel that the minister and his ministry must take some leadership in protecting the environment. It must accept the responsibility of giving assurance to those people who are living in an area that has freshwater lagoons, freshwater bodies, that when development comes in the laws don't change. When one group has to build its septic tanks 100 feet away from the body and then someone else can come in, make an application and say it's tidal, when all the facts show it is a freshwater lagoon and it has a water licence on it....

[ Page 3650 ]

The best that any one person within the whole ministry would say was that it was partial or modified tidal, which doesn't qualify for tidal. These are some of the questions I would like the minister to answer.

There is one other question. If he is going to get up, I would like him to bring to the House the particular program he has for the environmental protection of the Vancouver Island marmot. I know that you have made it an endangered species. Now that it is on the endangered species list, has there been any thought of bringing in any regulations and fines to protect that animal and to study its current habitat and see how many we have now? I am hoping that before we get through your ministry's estimates you can bring to the House your particular plans for that animal.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Chairman, on the problem raised regarding the use and application of 2,4-D, I'd have to look at the details of that. If it is possible that the spray can be done at one pound per acre and not seven.... I don't understand what definition of "aerial" they are applying. Is that a commercial package designed for helicopter application, or do they mean spray application? If the member would like to bring those details to me, I would personally look at them.

I must admit that Weir lagoon is a difficult situation. It is partly fresh water and partly salt water. We've had a lot of correspondence over that particular thing. The Ministry of Health has been involved. I will undertake to give it a second look.

The Vancouver Island marmot is one of four species that we put on the endangered species list. The biggest problem that we have with the marmot, I guess, is that people now want to go and have a look at it. That's part of the problem that we had with them in the first place. If people would leave them alone, they would do quite nicely on their own. They do suffer, of course, from natural predators, but human predators are the ones we would most like to control. So far we haven't come to grips with how we can draft legislation to stop people from harassing endangered species, but it is something that I would like to work on.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, I have a number of important things that I want to deal with with the Minister of Environment. I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair,

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

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:04 p.m.