[ Page 3651 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Ministry of Finance Act (Bill 49). Hon. Mr. Curtis.

Introduction and first reading –– 3651

Livestock Act (Bill 50). Hon. Mr. Hewitt.

Introduction and first reading –– 3651

Tabling Documents.

Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development annual report, 1979-80.

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 3651

Oral Questions.

Pathology Services. Mr. Cocke –– 3651

Disposition of Crown lands for B.C. Place. Mr. Macdonald –– 3652

Projected resource revenues. Mr. Stupich –– 3652

TIDSA funding for Terrace Slumber Lodge. Mr. Lea –– 3653

Fire safety in rest homes. Hon. Mr. Williams replies –– 3654

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

On vote 75: minister's office –– 3654

Mr. Mitchell

Mr. Hanson

Mr. Hall

Mr. Lorimer

Mrs. Dailly

Mr. Gabelmann

Mrs. Wallace

Mr. Skelly

Mr. Segarty

Division on vote 75 –– 3667

Votes 76 to 81 inclusive approved –– 3667

On vote 82: Creston Valley wildlife management –– 3667

Mr. Nicolson

Votes 82 to 84 inclusive approved –– 3667

Committee of Supply; Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development estimates.

(Hon. Mr. Phillips)

On vote 134: minister's office –– 3667

Mr. Lea

The House met at 2 p.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today we have two ladies visiting us from Vancouver: Kathy Huettl, secretary to the president of ICBC, and Claire McCormick, secretary to the chairman of the board. They are here to see how the Legislature works. I ask the House to bid them a warm welcome.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, last Saturday a very momentous event took place. My charming secretary, Linda Brandie, was wed. I am pleased to advise you that this afternoon in your gallery are her mother and father, Glad and Jim Brandie, from London, with their friends, Claire and Jim Dartnall. Perhaps the House would welcome them.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery are two young men from Toronto who are seeing Canada, Mr. Simon Parker and Mr. Alex Ross. Mr. Alex Ross's father is the notorious Alexander (Sandy) Ross, a British Columbian who was an editor of Maclean's magazine and is now the editor of Canadian Business. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

Introduction of Bills

MINISTRY OF FINANCE ACT

Hon. Mr. Curtis presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Ministry of Finance Act.

Bill 49 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.

LIVESTOCK ACT

Hon. Mr. Hewitt presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Livestock Act.

Bill 50 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, yesterday the hon. Leader of the Opposition sought a ruling from the Chair as to whether or not the House could properly proceed with a certain bill now on orders of the day for second reading. It should first be observed that any discussion of the content of the bill on the order paper is generally not in order during other proceedings in the House. Such discussion, if allowed, would offend the rule of anticipation. See May's sixteenth addition, page 404; Beauchesne's fourth edition, page 148, clause 5.

In raising his point of order, the hon. leader quoted from the nineteenth edition of May at page 754, under the heading "Matters Requiring the Queen's Recommendation — Moneys to be Provided by Parliament." This reference confirms the necessity of any measure which provides for the appropriation of public revenues being initiated by recommendation of the Crown. This is a fundamental principle established some 250 years ago in the British House of Commons to the effect that financial bills and resolutions must come to the House by message recommending the same. This constitutional requirement is imposed on all legislatures of the Dominion of Canada by section 90 of the British North America Act, and on British Columbia by section 10 of the terms of union by which British Columbia became a province. It reads as follows: "It shall not be lawful for the House of Commons to adopt or pass any vote, resolution, address or bill for the appropriation of any part of the public revenue or any tax or impost to any purpose that has not been first recommended to that House by message of the Governor-General in the session in which such vote, resolution, address or bill is proposed."

This principle is incorporated in our standing order 67, which provides: "It shall not be lawful for the House, to adopt or pass any vote, resolution, address or bill for the appropriation of any part of the public revenue or of any tax or impost to any purpose that has not been first recommended to the House by message of the Lieutenant-Governor in the session in which such vote, resolution, address or bill is proposed."

The bill in question was introduced on a message recommendation from His Honour the Administrator on July 29 last, in conformity with standing order 67. Procedurally, therefore, the House correctly has possession of the bill. The merit or otherwise of the method of appropriation of public revenue contained in the bill is for the House to make a determination upon in due course. Any legal question arising during the passage of a bill has been ruled to be one for the courts and not for the Speaker. I refer members to Speakers' Decisions, 1916, volume 2, page 22.

Hon. Mr. Phillips tabled the annual report of the Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development for the 1979-80 fiscal year.

Oral Questions

PATHOLOGY SERVICES

MR. COCKE: The Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair) gets his pencil out.

I would like to direct a question to the Attorney-General. As a result of a major dispute between the pathologists and the chief coroner, virtually all the pathologists in the province have submitted letters of resignation, to take effect tomorrow. What steps has the minister decided to take to settle the dispute and restore pathology services to the coroners' service of B.C.?

Interjections.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I understand that the boxes are full but the bottle is empty. That is not the answer to the question, Mr. Speaker.

I am aware of the problem on which the member for New Westminster has addressed his question. For the past several days the matter has been the subject of discussions between the Deputy Attorney-General and officials of the ministry, with the coroner and pathologists involved. I am expecting a report on the matter this afternoon or tomorrow and, if necessary. It is my intention to intervene directly in this

[ Page 3652 ]

dispute. This morning I was advised by the chief coroner that the suggested withdrawal of services will not, certainly in the short term, interfere with the discharge of the responsibilities of his office.

MR. COCKE: I am delighted that the Attorney-General realizes the gravity of the situation and has decided to intervene. There has been tremendous chaos in this service for some time. Mr. Speaker, when the minister intervenes, I wonder whether or not he might iron out a number of differences that appear to be growing in the service.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Is that a question?

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: I asked a question, Mr. Speaker, and these little turkeys over here from the north are having difficulty.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, prior to putting your question, I must ask if you will....

MR. COCKE: Yes, I withdraw "turkeys."

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you very much.

MR. COCKE: I would ask whether the Attorney-General would look into the whole question of dissatisfaction across the service.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I'm aware of the expressions of dissatisfaction there have been in the necessary reorganization of the work of the chief coroner and his branch, and I wish to assure you and the members of this House that this is of great concern to me and has been a subject of continuing discussions between the chief coroner and me. It is our intention to ensure that we have in this province the highest possible standard of performance from all those persons engaged in work which devolves upon the coroner's office, and we wish to ensure that there is no improper dislocation of the services required to be provided by a large number of people in order to see that the work is done adequately.

DISPOSITION OF CROWN LANDS
FOR B.C. PLACE

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Attorney-General. In the light of the fact that the British Columbia Place Act, which has been introduced, does not make any reference to the disposition of Crown lands, and in the light of the statement of the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers) that tracts of public lands of British Columbia are being appraised with the object of giving them to the CPR in exchange, I ask the Attorney-General, as the chief law officer of the Crown, whether the government has decided that this matter will be brought to the Legislature — rather than a misuse attempted of the provisions of the Land Act — for specific authority from the Legislature for the disposition to a private corporation of what will amount to vast acreages of the public lands of the province of British Columbia.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, I must comment at this time that we seem to be very fast approaching an area that is very difficult for the Chair to define, bearing in mind the anticipation rule that we have. I will allow the question, but I must ask members to bear in mind the fact that we are referring to a bill that is presently on the order paper. I appreciate the very skilful way in which the question has been worded.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: It is not my intention either to offend against the rule against anticipation in debate. I would simply say to the hon. member that in the discharge of the responsibilities of the corporation responsible for B.C. Place, it will be required to comply with all of the laws of this province, the same as any other organization or citizen.

MR. MACDONALD: Just a short supplementary question. The question is whether the government will.... It isn't B.C. Place. It's the government that's preparing to make a disposition of a great many acres of the public lands of the province of British Columbia. Will the Attorney-General assure the House that this disposition will receive legislative authorization before it takes place? Has that decision been made?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: With respect to the disposition of Crown lands, they will be governed by the laws of this province.

PROJECTED RESOURCE REVENUES

MR. STUPICH: I asked questions earlier of the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) that he did not take as notice but indicated he would answer by the end of the month.

Can the minister now confirm that revenues from BCPC are estimated to be down some $300 million from the forecast tabled in this House on March 11?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Before this afternoon is out I will be tabling and presenting to all members the quarterly financial report.

MR. STUPICH: Previous quarterly reports have not indicated whether this kind of information will be available; that is, whether the revenue for the first three months indicates what will be the revenue for the total year. Is the minister telling us that the question I asked — whether or not BCPC revenue in the course of the whole year will be down $300 million from what was forecast in the March 11 budget.... Is he telling us that that information will be available in the first quarterly report?

HON. MR. CURTIS: No, Mr. Speaker. The quarterly report deals with the first three months of this fiscal year, as the member for Nanaimo knows. There is, however, an outlook section contained in the quarterly report, and I believe that has been the case in previous quarterly reports introduced since this government established this unique and regular reporting mechanism. With respect to an outlook regarding revenues from the export of natural gas, that is the very nature of the problem which is being faced in the United States, Alberta and this province. It is extremely difficult to forecast what the demands will be six months hence or before the end of the present fiscal year.

[ Page 3653 ]

MR. STUPICH: As I understand it, the specific information I have asked for will not be in the quarterly report. So I am once again asking the Minister of Finance if he can, from all the knowledge available to him about all the things he has talked about, tell the House whether or not revenue from BCPC in the current fiscal period will be some $300 million short of what was estimated just four months ago.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I already indicated, when the question was put previously and again today, that I don't believe I can confirm or deny that. I will assist the member in the course of the balance of this session and members of the press who inquire from time to time. That is about all I can do at this particular moment.

MR. STUPICH: I have another question, which was asked previously — again, I had the indication it would be answered in the quarterly report. Can the minister confirm that BCPC sales are now down to half the level of sales of last year, measured on a daily basis?

HON. MR. CURTIS: As I indicated, I am going to produce the quarterly report in just a matter of minutes. The member then would have not just an answer given in question period, but he would have all the information that I think may assist him to ask further questions in subsequent question periods.

MR. STUPICH: The member for Nanaimo will not have an opportunity to ask such questions of the minister until Tuesday next. What I am asking now is whether or not the Minister of Finance, in answers to questions asked by other people who will have other opportunities, will tell the citizens of British Columbia whether the sales are down to the level I indicated in my question.

Interjections.

MR. STUPICH: The minister is indicating he will not answer that question in the event that it is asked by someone else between now and Tuesday next.

I have another question. Can the Minister of Finance advise whether stumpage revenues are down — not by any specific amount — from the level predicted in estimates presented in the House on March 11?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Again, the root of the problem which we face in British Columbia today relates to the export of natural gas, so the question with respect to stumpage revenues.... Again, the quarterly report will show that we are very close to budget expectations.

MR. STUPICH: We are making real progress here. I believe I heard the minister say that stumpage revenues will be very close to the forecast. Will that will be indicated in the quarterly report? Does he believe the quarterly report will indicate that natural gas sales are close to the budgeted figure?

HON. MR. CURTIS: No.

MR. STUPICH: I thought you said "as with."

HON. MR. CURTIS: No, that wasn't what I said.

MR. STUPICH: Okay, the information with respect to gas sales will not be in the quarterly report.

MR. BARBER: Give a straight answer.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, at all times I attempt to give straight answers. Sometimes the questions are a little convoluted. The last question of the hon. member for Nanaimo dealt with stumpage revenues only, and I answered the question.

TIDSA FUNDING
FOR TERRACE SLUMBER LODGE

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Tourism. Has the Slumber Lodge in Terrace — Slumber Lodge, as I understand it, is owned largely by Argus and Conrad Black — received any provincial funding through TIDSA?

HON. MRS. JORDAN: I believe the member is aware that at this time TIDSA is under the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips).

MR. LEA: Is the minister telling me that she has no responsibility for TIDSA — none?

MR. HOWARD: Why don't they give you that, Pat?

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development: did the Slumber Lodge in Terrace receive any provincial funding under TIDSA grants, low-interest loans or a combination of both?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, the TIDSA program is administered by a joint federal and provincial group. The answer to the question is yes.

MR. LEA: On what basis was funding provided for the Slumber Lodee in Terrace?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the member's question, there are criteria for TIDSA loans. They are standard criteria that we use for every loan that we make. They relate to the individual application and not the total company. I am sure that the member, knowing the north country, would want to see tourist accommodation in Terrace.

If the member is concerned, as I am sure he is, about Slumber Lodge being partly owned by Argus Corporation and related back to David Radler, a member of the British Columbia Development Corporation, I'd like to inform the member....

MR. LAUK: What was that?

Interjections.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes. Well, let's lay it right out on the table, Mr. Speaker.

At the time TIDSA approved the loan, Argus Industries did not own Slumber Lodge. The deal was completed before Argus took over. However, for the information of the House

[ Page 3654 ]

and all British Columbians, Argus doesn't own Slumber Lodge even now. Argus has 1,100 minority shareholders and at the time of the TIDSA approval — that's the time of the disbursement of funds — Argus owned 51 percent. They now own 67 percent. In other words, there are 1,100 minority shareholders in the Slumber Lodge operation.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In answering the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) a few moments ago, I indicated that stumpage revenues were pretty close to forecast. I would not want to mislead this House; that is not in fact the case. I'm sorry that, in my haste to answer the question, I did not give the correct information.

I now ask leave to table the British Columbia quarterly financial report for the first three months of the fiscal year 1980-81, April to June.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, may I explain that copies of the report are being delivered to the offices of all members within the next few minutes.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to respond briefly to a question posed two days ago in question period by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke).

Leave granted.

FIRE SAFETY IN REST HOMES

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: He posed a question with respect to certain concerns which had been expressed by the Hospital Employees Union to the fire commissioner with regard to practices in fire safety in some health delivery establishments in this province. I wish to advise the member that the representations from the Hospital Employees Union were received by the fire commissioner. There has been communication between the fire commissioner's office and the union, the union suggestions are being considered now and arrangements will be made to meet with the hospital union to discuss their proposals in a way in which the regulations and practices may be improved as a result thereof.

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. MITCHELL: Just prior to adjournment the minister said he was not clear what I meant when I talked about aerial spraying. In my conversations with an agent of one of the manufacturers, he explained that the most efficient and economical way of spreading X number of pounds of 2,4-D over a given area was by aerial spraying, in which they could monitor the spray, speed of the plane and acreage covered. It was at this rate that they came up with a figure of 7.5 as an effective spray for this particular product while spraying for alder. He stated that to do it by a hand-pack and by hand-spraying, without the control of the speed and the delivery, you have a higher rate needed to do the same job. This is what I meant by aerial spraying being the most effective from the manufacturer's point of view.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, I think perhaps you should bolt the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) into his place. There are others who are going to be speaking on this side. It will save him the effort.

I think probably the largest file that I have accumulated as a new member in this House is on the portfolio of the Ministry of Environment. More is happening in that area in terms of chemicals and other toxic materials and so on, and my filing cabinet is bulging. But today when I was thinking about what Icon wanted to talk about to this minister in this House the thing I have chosen is what I believe to be of the utmost concern to my constituents. It is the most long-term chronic environmental problem over which this minister has responsibility; that is, the pollution of the marine waters adjacent to Victoria by domestic sewage. I don't want this solved for myself or just for my constituents. I want it solved for all the people of British Columbia because this is the capital, the showcase, the tourist centre of our province. But we have over 12 major domestic outfalls between Pedder Bay around from the western communities through to Sidney and the Saanich peninsula.

I'd like to take this minister on just a brief tour of what we have in place at the moment. Pedder Bay Marina has an outfall; so do Pearson College, William Head prison, Esquimalt Lagoon — which is a proposal — Belmont Park, the dockyard, Macaulay Point. To give you an idea of the size of these outfalls, Macaulay Point is licensed for 12 million gallons a day, presently only operating at about threequarters capacity. Further to the east is the Clover Point outfall. The permit is for 13.8 million gallons a day, presently operating at about six million gallons per day. My point is that the pollution we are experiencing now is not even the full volume of what is going to be happening in the very near future. Continuing on from Clover Point we have McMicking Point, which operates without a permit under this minister. It is what they call a registered outfall. It discharges around the high-water mark in one of probably the most expensive residential areas in British Columbia, adjacent to Oak Bay. Further on we have the Finnerty Cove outfall, operating at around two million to three million gallons a day. This is also a registered outfall; it operates without a permit. It also does not extend far enough and the pollution is surrounding all the waters adjacent to Victoria. Further to the north, central Saanich has an outfall, as does Bazan Bay and Sidney. What I have outlined to the minister is that these are domestic, not industrial, outfalls. We have a number of those as well.

The Sooke area, central Saanich and north of Sidney are unsewered areas. They have septic tank fields and they are looking in the future to sewers which will possibly mean three additional outfalls. There are drainage ditches and storm sewers.

What I am trying to indicate to the minister is that we have a very chronic degradation of our environment here in the greater Victoria area that must be addressed seriously by this minister. We want it done soon and we want to see the

[ Page 3655 ]

leadership that was called for by our debate leader from Port Alberni. We want to see some leadership and action.

I don't want to have the minister stand up and read out the list that I just read him. I want him to tell me what he intends to do. I want him to tell me what he intends to communicate to the Capital Regional District, that he is going to exercise some authority, that secondary treatment is going to be a reality in this area — it is going to be located in one of a number of areas, possibly the Trial Islands, possibly Macauly Pint, possibly another area — and that he is going to go to the member for Saanich, who is the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), and he is going to demand an appropriation so that he can hold his head up in his portfolio, so that he can turn and stand in good stead to the people of this part of British Columbia and say: "No longer am I going to stand in my ministry with the responsibility for the quality of water and allow this tragic degradation of our environment here in southern Vancouver Island."

This is not just an environmental issue. It is a health issue. It is a social and psychological issue. As I said earlier, we have a capital city that relies on tourism. It is an administrative centre. It is a place where people come and retire. We have a large number of young families moving into Victoria and we have the tragic situation of people being unable to take their children unattended to any of the beaches in Victoria without fear that their children are going to put their hands in the water and contract some disease like hepatitis. They cannot, in good conscience, leave their children unattended. As a representative of the people of Victoria, I must stand up and say to you that you are not providing leadership. Today I want you to stand in your place and give the direction to the Capital Regional District that secondary treatment is going to be a fact of life and that you are going to demand it and it is going to come about.

Mr. Minister, I am aware that secondary treatment costs money. It could cost between $60 million and $100 million. My colleagues in Victoria, Esquimalt, Oak Bay and Saanich surely must have their phones ringing off the hook from concerned people who really want a quality-of-life question addressed in a serious way.

I know it's going to cost money, but our priorities are clean water. We are not asking for an Annacis Island bridge; we are not asking for a B.C. Place, and most certainly not for a tunnel. We are not asking for monuments. We are asking for the kinds of things that my colleague from Port Alberni talked about the other day. We want clean water, we want clean air, and we want productive land.

Mr. Chairman, what I want from this minister is for him to contact the Capital Regional District. Tell him that the time has come; the crossroads are here. We can either go one of two directions. We can keep building outfalls, extending them, spending millions and millions of public dollars on what is not the solution but the problem. We can try to keep extending these out and degrading our marine environment when, in fact, we must turn the comer and go to a secondary treatment process.

It is a regional problem. It is not a problem that can be resolved by any municipality on its own. Perhaps Macaulay Point is going to work for a while. Perhaps Clover Point, if extended, is going to work for a while. But in actual fact it's a regional problem and it is a regional degradation that is occurring.

Let me give you a little background, for example, on the comedy of errors that occurred on the Clover Point outfall. The original design specifications called for a pipe that would extend 6,700 feet. In actual fact, what was constructed was a 600-foot pipe. In other words, it was 10 percent of what it was originally intended to be. Now an additional $3.4 million — possibly up to $7 million — is going to be expended on Clover Point alone to take it out 2,800 feet from the point of land — less than half of what the original design specifications called for.

What I am trying to illustrate to you is that if at each one of these outfalls additional taxpayers' money is expended on modular units, more pipe and more construction, then this is just leading us down the garden path. Mr. Minister, what I am asking you to do is to sit down with the Capital Regional District and say: "Under my authority we are going to have to take action." In consultation with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, whose ministry the Sewerage Facilities Assistance Act comes under, and also the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), who happens to be a minister representing constituents in this area and who is in charge of the purse strings of this province, you should negotiate an arrangement so that a secondary treatment facility could be amortized over a considerable period of time so that the taxpayers in this area could afford to make up for some of the neglect and mistakes that have been made over a large number of years.

This is what we want. It's a quality of life question. We want it addressed now. We want leadership from you. You know, Mr. Minister, in the United States they no longer permit outfalls discharging into the marine waters. They just don't allow it. Here we have an antiquated system that is not serving the residents and is resulting in a deterioration of our environment. It is something that is having an impact beyond our economy and beyond our recreational attributes. It is something that we have in the highest priority, and I want you to address it.

I really want you to take these remarks seriously and not get up and give us your glib performance that has characterized your role as the Minister of Environment so far. We will pay our share. The residents of this area realize that there's going to be a cost but we're prepared to pay it. I think that local leadership are recognizing that this is the way the public wants to go. Now is the time to do it, and I ask you to do it now.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Chairman, the member makes some very good points. You are probably quoting from the same document that I have in front of me. You are fully aware that this problem goes back a very long time; the active file, if you like, starts in 1965. It's interesting to hear you say, speaking on behalf of the taxpayers of Victoria, that they are prepared to pay their share. The regional district people don't feel that that's the case at all. Nonetheless, Macaulay Point is working well at the present time. McMicking Point is on trial and Clover Point, as you quite rightly pointed out, is violating its permit.

We have an agreement with the Capital Regional District that Dr. Ellis, a biologist from the University of Victoria, is doing tests to determine whether or not the extended sewage outfall system in Victoria is going to work. I have no doubt that at some time — I don't know when; I wish I could say sooner than later — Victoria will ultimately have to go to secondary treatment. The cost of $50 million to $60 million in today's dollars is just a ballpark estimate.

We have been in contact with the Capital Regional District, as you suggest; we have consistently been in contact with them on this matter. They think that there are alterna-

[ Page 3656 ]

tives. Because they think so and because their people feel so strongly, we have made this agreement to do a test with Dr. Ellis, whose opinion I trust you respect as an independent individual whose opinion should be treated with nothing but the greatest sincerity.

In the meantime, I think we are going to have to settle for the proper extensions of those sewage outfalls. In the long run they will be required, whatever happens in terms of secondary treatment. It's not a waste of money. They will still be part of the system in times of high flow. But there is no doubt in my mind that at some time the Capital Regional District will have to address it. There were problems, as you know, when they tried to build a pumping station in south Oak Bay to pump sewage around, to put it through the outfall. The local resistance got pretty heavy and the Capital Regional District people backed off. It is an ongoing problem. I wish it were a simple one to solve, but it isn't.

MR. HALL: Mr. Chairman, I want to echo again and again the fact that most of the members have got large and extensive files on this ministry, at the head of which is this new minister. In fact, we often find contained in these files in historical and capsule form some of the great political debates of the last 15 years: Western Mines, Buttle Lake, Utah Mines of Port Hardy, Roberts Bank superport and others. Many of the things that were predicted at the time of those debates and at the time of those developments have actually come to pass.

I'm not suggesting for one second that the minister, had he been in the House at the time, would have taken any different position than the position I took. I don't know that. He wasn't here and I don't know which party he was in then. I don't know what his position was. But let me assure the minister that the position that this party took about pollution and about the environment at the time of those debates has been proven. I just ask him to accept that as a fact.

I give him the benefit of holding his views and his portfolio sincerely and honestly, hoping to do a first-class job. But I want him to understand that those fights of the last 15 years that we have conducted on the floor of this chamber on every one of the environmental issues, those arguments that are put forward.... Unfortunately they are not recorded in Hansard, because we didn't have a Hansard. But look through the cuttings in the library and you will find that in those large efforts of the day the environmental issues were first borne in this chamber by the then member for Alberni, John Squire. He was the first person in this chamber to talk about the modern pollution problems. I mention those items just to give you an idea that some were true. My file is still full of some of those details.

As this particular estimate draws to a close, I want to deal specifically with my constituency of Surrey. I want to suggest to the minister that he is developing a habit — and I say this to him kindly — of taking questions as notice, not responding to the worries of the members of this House and in effect hoping that the problem goes away — the problem being either the questioner or the problem the questioner is dealing with. Well, let me tell you, Mr. Minister, neither one will go away. The member won't go away and the problem won't go away. Sooner or later we're going to have to grapple with it. Sooner or later we're going to have to come down to the facts and get the thing ironed out and get something going about some of the problems we've brought to your attention. I know that half of the problems we've given to you from this side of the House you don't have full jurisdiction over. But I think it's fair for me to say that you have not been as forthcoming as you should have been and you have not been as strong as you should have been with our federal officials in Ottawa. If you have been, you have neglected to seize the opportunities that the opposition has given to you to prove that, in that you have refused — not on one occasion but certainly two occasions with me personally — to either inform me or inform the House what you've done by tabling documents.

Let me deal with specifics. For instance, what I am worried about — as I'm sure my colleague, the first member for Surrey (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), is — is the growing fact that Surrey appears to be inadvertently becoming what may eventually be the new Love Canal of British Columbia. You may say that's alarmist talk or demagoguery at its worst. The fact of the matter is that already in 1980 we've dumped in Surrey two lots of radioactive material and we've got storage plants for PCBs already, none of which has really been authorized by anybody that I can find, other than private companies without certificates. I feel they should have certificates by virtue of the dangerous nature of that kind of material. I may be technically incorrect in saying that, but that's the way I feel.

Let me tell you what Hydro has reported on the storage of polychlorinated biphenyls: "Interim storage of PCB waste at the B.C. Hydro Surrey stores complex is within a specially designed and constructed building." It goes on to describe the building, the space, the storage, how many floors there are, what the floor area is, what the future development of that building is going to be, how many drums can be stored there and what the current inventory of these PCBs is. When I asked you this question some time ago, you indicated to me that you were fairly confident that this was just a temporary problem.

The current inventory of PCB waste at the storage building is listed here. It includes three 45-gallon drums, one 5-gallon pail, one 45-cubic-foot bin, three, 45~gallon drums, two capacitors, three more capacitors, and it's growing all the time. The report says: "In general, we're instructing the major generators of PCB waste to send that material to Surrey. Disposal of PCBs in the U.S.A. continues to be closed, and our Surrey PCB storage building approaches its capacity. We may arrange for storage of these wastes at the Kinetic Contaminants facility in Alberta." Oh, I'm not going to hold my breath until they arrange that we're going to truck these things to Alberta. "The liquid PCB may be trucked away from Surrey next time they have a truck in the area," which raises a whole new series of problems. What are our standards about shipping dangerous cargo over the border into Alberta?

The report continues: "There are no PCB destruction facilities currently available in Canada, nor for that matter in the U.S.A., that would accept landfill of some PCB contaminated materials, even if the border were open." I agree, that's the problem.

I'm not going to thrash around saying you're at fault by not having one. I'm not going to make that attack. I might do that in the heat of the moment sometimes when I get angry, but it is not fair for anybody to blame you for that at this particular time. What we're trying to find out is what we can do about getting some facility and having some input from our community, finding out, on a rational basis, where the correct place should be, and not in that area. I know you may

[ Page 3657 ]

say: "Everybody wants one of these things, but not in his backyard." That's the problem, but there surely has got to be a better area than in the fastest-growing place in British Columbia.

Interjection.

MR. HALL: Okay. We'll share it together. The western borders of Langley and the eastern borders of Surrey.

"The handling of PCBs by B.C. Hydro is generally in accordance with our safety-engineering department's practice. " I'm sure it is. I'm not suggesting for a second that Hydro handles it dangerously. The point I'm making is that we've got to work on this thing together, I think that by not allowing the members the full amount of information you have.... I think we can be of assistance in this, and I'm suggesting to you, Mr. Minister, that this is a first-category, red emergency problem, and if the apparent delay continues then we're going to be in serious trouble.

The second one is the Bates commission. I'm going to have nothing to say about uranium mining. That's been said. Other members have dealt with it. But I am going to point out to you that in March, in view of the doubt expressed by Dr. David Bates that the commission would be unable to fulfil its promise to Surrey residents that it would study radioactive wastes in Surrey, I asked what advice you could give your own government, and what measures could be taken to solve this problem. No answer.

Marc Lalonde has been advised by his Atomic Energy Control Board that the federal-provincial task force on radioactivity has been actively pursuing the determination of a site for this material within the province of British Columbia on the basis that industrial waste should be disposed of in the province deriving the commercial benefits from the process which produced it. Having initiated contact through the B.C. Deputy Minister of Health, officials of the AECB are currently awaiting a position statement from the province.

When I asked you what position you had, you wouldn't tell me. You wouldn't table documents; you wouldn't give me any idea of the response you'd made to the atomic energy people at all. I have to wait until I get letters from MPs in Surrey–White Rock and Fraser Valley West before I find out what is happening in our east-west connection.

There are two dumps of radioactive waste in Surrey — one in Ambrow Way and one near Bridgeview. I would now like to say again, Mr. Minister: what has the government's response been to Marc Lalonde regarding the target removal date and regarding a policy on the determination of a site for radioactive material as suggested to you and confirmed in these letters from Marc Lalonde to various federal members? The files are full — as you know — of material, and you said to me when I spoke to you on March 20 that the province had no intention of letting the matter lie idle. We wait for your further response.

The last two questions deal with pesticides. Again in Surrey we had a particular problem in which there were two areas of activity that were requested of you, both confirmed and supported by myself. I was also joined privately by the first member, the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm). One was to cease all private and commercial use of 2,4-D in the province until your department had conducted an investigation into it. That's a sweeping step, I agree. It's a very heavy step to take, one which would need some thought, to say the least, but one which I think the evidence now compels you to do, one in which I think I've been supported by the other member for Surrey, and one in which I was supported by the Surrey municipal council.

The second point is that somewhere along the line, as the Minister of Environment, you should offer some protection to those people whose areas are going to be sprayed — if not from the material themselves, then in the form of notification. I think it's absolutely absurd in this day and age of communications for us to see whole areas of our townships subjected to spraying at a minute's notice. Last year we had the whole question of spraying blackberry bushes down the beaches and the railway line in White Rock. This year we've got condominium tenants in townhouse developments having their lawns and play areas sprayed by absentee landlords with 2,4-D at a minute's notice. It seems to me that everybody should be entitled to some notice that that's going to take place, so they can get out of there if they want.

Forgetting for a second about the chemical itself, let's say that the Dr. Strangeloves of the world have won. Let's say that the scientists have won. Let's say that we are forever now going to be slowly but surely chemically bombed to death. Surely we must have this last chance of getting out of it. I think that the Minister of Environment has a responsibility to insist that when that kind of activity goes on we're entitled to notice. His rejoinder may be that if I'm in a private home on my little 60x100 lot in Shaughnessy I can't do anything about my next-door neighbour who's going to do something about his cabbage white moth or something. I don't know that.

I want you to do something about the 474 people who wrote me a letter. I want you to do something about all those people who went up and down the Great Northern tracks. I want you to do something about those people who were really terrified about that spraying of the fruit. And I want you to something about your poor colleague, my good running mate, Bill, when he gets a headline that says all he can do is phone. If you don't understand the health, the environment or the chemistry of it, then may I implore you to understand the politics of it — that if you're going to save him, you're going to save me, and if you're going to save me; then you're going to save him.

Whatever was happening in 1979 either began or stopped in Surrey, Mr. Minister, and you're stuck with it. So I'm saying that that's got to be attended to.

I'm not going to get into the big issues of copper, lead, zinc or the leg-hold trap. I've got my small-bore hunting rifle out now. I'm not looking at 2,4-D. I'm not even going to comment on the fact that Knapps nursery is selling diazinon. I just want those four problems looked into: two dumps of radioactive material in Surrey, sprayed out of our lives in Cloverdale, blackberries on the Great Northern tracks. I've had it up to here.

You're a new minister and I don't think.... I mean this sincerely. I can tease, trumpet around and get blustery, but I think that the tendency you have of taking these questions as notice and not coming back is not going to serve you well. I've been here a long time. I don't want to lecture either. I want you to be much more forthcoming, as I think we need a minister in this job. We've needed one for a long time. We needed one when we were in government, and I was the one who felt we should have one right away. We needed one. We're going to need one with some ideas, fists, backbone and decision.

[ Page 3658 ]

HON. MR. ROGERS: With your cabbage white moth, might I suggest that if you plant garlic in the same vicinity, one row apart, or if you plant onions or leeks, you will solve the problem without having to use any chemicals.

In a more serious vein....

MR. LEVI: That was in Vander Zalm's column last night.

HON. MR. ROGERS: I don't read Vander Zalm's column. Some of us manage to get our summer vegetables in without fertilizer, too.

Surrey, the Love Canal and your Love Canal and algae. I think the whole world has come to know the Love Canal and an excellent program done by one of the American networks called "The Killing Ground, " which described that situation. I don't think it's appropriate to describe the situation in Surrey — certainly with the PCB storage — as similar to that, but I do understand your concerns.

First of all, it's our garbage, and my ministry has to deal with our provincial garbage. It would be nice to say that we could put it on a boat and ship it away somewhere, in which case the boat would sink and come back on our shores in any event, or that it would go away to somebody else's property. Once again, who wants a garbage dump around their place? That's precisely the problem we face.

There is an organization, a private corporation in Edmonton, that has nothing more or less than precisely what you describe in Surrey with B.C. Hydro. They have a warehouse near Nisku. They have drums in storage. They have no disposal. There is no disposal anywhere in the United States. Incineration was tried for a while, but that's proven to be unsatisfactory. This chemical, which has been around since the 1920s.... I want to tell you that great efforts are being made to find ways to dispose of it.

One of the things that we did do was to get together at the western meeting of the Canadian Council of Resource and Environment Ministers and try to hammer out a plan for one facility that would be adequate for western Canada because of the problems. There was a press release that I put out; maybe you didn't see it, but we asked for an advisory committee to be set up to recommend steps that should be taken by the Ministry of development to develop safe and acceptable methods of disposing of hazardous wastes in British Columbia.

The following organizations have been asked to nominate people to sit on this committee, which will take up where the joint federal-provincial study on hazardous wastes is leaving off: Ministry of Health, Ministry of Transportation and Highways, Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development, Ministry of Municipal Affairs, Council of Forest Industries, British Columbia petroleum association, the faculty of applied science at UBC, SPEC, Union of B.C. Municipalities, Mining Association, Paint Manufacturers' Association, Canadian Manufacturers' Association, Canadian Chemical Producers' Association, federal Minister of Environment and the Greater Vancouver Regional District.

I have invited all of those people plus the federal government to come together and address this common problem. One of the difficulties is that we have very hazardous wastes, like the radioactive wastes you talk about and the PCBs, and then we just have straight ordinary liquid industrial wastes, which are hazardous or not hazardous, but they all require disposal, and we really have never had a proper inventory of what these matters are. I've said earlier in the House that greater Vancouver has got a solid waste disposal system for inert solid waste. There's not an awful lot of that around. They have a liquid waste for domestic sewage — for what goes down the sewer line. That system, like the system in Surrey, is not designed to handle oily wastes, PCBs or anything else that's thrown down there. They just go right through the sewage system. So we have to find and develop a way to do that. I have asked this task force to do that, and I must admit I'm getting an excellent response from the people who are involved.

You said you'd like to make suggestions. If you can come up with a suggestion on a place for the storage of pesticides, herbicides, or contaminated liquids anywhere in this province where you can find local people ready to accept it.... It is a provincial problem. It is our garbage, and I think we really can't go on blindly saying that if the border were open we could ship it to the United States. Some time the people down in Seattle are going to say: "Why are we allowing Canadian garbage to go through the middle of our city in a tanker truck at 11 o'clock at night down Interstate 5?" They'd be very right in saying that. Well, that border has been closed, in any event, for PCBs, but not for all substances. But we have to address that, and it's to that end that I have struck this group to do that very thing. We've just tried to get a global group of those whom we thought would be interested. If there are other groups that have been missed we'd certainly be prepared to include them.

I said in the House the other day, when we were discussing pesticides earlier in my estimates, that we're going to consider — and are considering in the ministry — requiring linear developments: that is, requiring private companies like the Burlington Northern and the E&N railways and others to get permits and to publicly announce when they're going to spray. It's difficult enough to do it on a private property-to-property basis, but these thin linear developments, which are almost always railways or power lines, create no end of problems and concern for everyone along the way. Even if the work that they are doing is perfectly safe and harmless, I've noticed that people have a tendency not to trust railroads or their public relations departments. In any event, the ministry and I are working on a program where we're going to require that they apply for a permit to use pesticides in their own private properties.

On the radioactive wastes that you have in Surrey, I have talked to M. Lalonde, I've talked to Mr. Roberts; I have had correspondence with them. They've been pressured. When Mr. Roberts came out to Vancouver he and I personally went on a tour of the lower Fraser Valley by air, because we wanted to look at some of the river problems, which were just as pressing as the problem you face, and he was well aware of it that night. In fact, he went out and spoke to the Liberals in Surrey. I wasn't sure they had that many of them, but anyway, he went out to speak to them and he faced that very problem. So it's not going away as quickly as I would like to see it go away, but on the other hand, it's not being neglected as much as you'd like to think it is.

MR. LORIMER: I want to talk a few minutes to the minister with reference to the fishing industry in this province. First of all, I acknowledge that the fishing industry, to a large degree, is the responsibility of the federal government. But the province certainly has a stake in that industry and has certain responsibilities. My position is that those

[ Page 3659 ]

responsibilities are not being carried out properly by this Minister of Environment.

You know, 50 or 60 years ago, the oceans, creeks and lakes in this area were full of fish. These have substantially disappeared. We can see in the papers month by month that certain areas are being closed for fishing and certain fishing periods are being reduced and so on. A lot of that is caused through the inactivity and the activity of provincial spheres of influence.

The mining and forestry industries are causing a great amount of damage to streams in some areas of this province, and to the habitat in which the salmon are trying to spawn and in which the trout and inland fish are trying to live.

The minister, during his term in office, and the government itself, have basically shown a disregard for the fishing industry. In my opinion, the fishing industry should be one of the major industries of this province. It's one that provides food, and in the long term will be of much more importance than the logging or mining industries. I think that we should make sure that this industry is nurtured and nurtured carefully so that in the years to come this industry will be back as a lively industry in the province once again.

[Mr. Kempf in the chair.]

The Riley Creek experience is an example of the reckless ways in which different industries look after their own affairs to the destruction of the fishing industry. This is the minister — whose estimates are before us — who has the responsibility to make sure that other interests in this province and other ministries, in carrying out their operations, protect and look after this other resource. My position is that this minister is failing to do this. This minister has been asked a number of questions in question periods. He has taken most of them as notice. I suggest to him that he is afraid to give an answer that he would like to give because he's afraid he's going to get into trouble with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland) or the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) — somewhere down the line he is going to be in trouble.

I believe this minister should be one of the strongest ministers in this cabinet. He should be able to take an overview of the situation. He's really got no empire to build. His main project should be to see that the different industries live side by side compatibly. He should be the one to direct what should and should not be going on, as it affects fish, wildlife or whatever. In my opinion, this minister has failed miserably to do this. I know he's only been in the portfolio for a reasonably short time, but it is my hope that when these estimates come forward next year we will see a different situation, that we will see that the creeks in the province are protected, that logging functions are not destroying creeks, rivers and lakes, and that road building operations and so on are making sure that the dirt they move and dump does not affect the streams and lakes of this province.

I spoke earlier, in the estimates of the Minister of Forests, with reference to the Brandywine Creek area and the apparent destruction of that creek. That is only a small creek; it is a small thing. But I am suggesting to this minister that this is not the only case in this province where this sort of thing is being done by the mining, forestry or other industries and affecting areas in which this minister should have a special interest.

I want to make sure this minister is not a loser when it comes to competing with the other ministers in the cabinet. I want to see that minister be a strong minister, to tell the other ministers where they have to take corrective action and make sure that this is done. He is the one the people of this province have to rely on to make sure this resource is protected, encouraged and will live on forever.

MRS. DAILLY: I am going to bring up a subject which I've brought up for a number of years with the former Minister of Environment, unfortunately without too much success. That is the subject of leg-hold traps. I don't intend to take a great deal of time, because I know that our critic for the ministry will also be speaking on the matter. I just have a few simple questions to ask and points to make for the minister's attention.

I note that on June 23, 1980, there emanated from this minister's office a news bulletin which announced that the Ministry of Environment had allocated $8,000 to educate trappers in the techniques of humane trapping, skinning, pelt-handling, etc. That is commendable. On the other hand, I thought it was very ironic that the Ministry of Environment in the Social Credit government, which has been sitting on this whole matter of helping to find a humane leg-hold trap, has found money to teach humane trapping. My first question to the minister is: how on earth can you teach humane trapping when you don't have a humane trap? That is the first point that I want to bring to the attention of this minister. I want to ask him for a progress report on what has happened to the development of the humane trap which we have heard so much about, which this ministry says they have committed themselves to. After all, this government has been in office for five years, and from what I can see we're no further ahead with the development of a humane trap than we were when they first took office. I hope the minister will be able to tell me I'm wrong when I make that statement, but all my facts, the reading I've done and my discussions with the people I've met with seem to point to that very sad fact.

I have some specific questions. I'd like a general progress report on the provincial committee that was formed to find a humane trap. I'd also like to discuss with the minister the $100,000 from the lottery fund which was allocated to help find a humane trap. Out of that $100,000, I understand that $25,000 was sent to the federal committee, which has been sitting for years and has a million dollar budget, yet still hasn't produced a humane trap. Yet $25,000 of the $100,000 was given to this committee which apparently has not performed its function despite the money it has received.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I want to ask again about Mr. Gabry. Mr. Gabry, I think we all know by now, has been a pioneer in developing and working on a humane trap. Mr. Gabry has improved on his old 1974 model and he needs help with the new model he has. Yet I don't know if the provincial government or ministry or committee — whoever is handling it at this time — has assisted Mr. Gabry in testing his new humane trap. I'd simply like to know what's holding up the development and finality we're all waiting for — an announcement in this House that a humane trap has finally been tested and will be put into use in our province.

MR. GABELMANN: Yesterday the minister lied to me in response to questions.

[ Page 3660 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I'm sorry, you'll have to withdraw that remark. Imputation of false motives is unparliamentary and cannot be allowed.

MR. GABELMANN: It is true, but I will withdraw it. I intend now to prove the charge.

Yesterday, quoting from the Blues, the minister made a number of comments responding to questions I had raised about Hernando Island. I am going to read from the Blues: "The reason I told my conservation officers not to go in there and poison the animal was because our guidelines specifically state that we do not use poison against wolves or any other animal in this province until all other methods have been tried, including having a conservation officer go in there and shoot the animal if it is in fact a problem animal."

He went on later, in a subsequent response, to say: "On Hernando Island I called off the poisoning, not the conservation officers." A few lines later he says: "The only poison that existed was in Williams Lake at that point." He then says: "There was no way I called off the conservation officers."

Very clearly yesterday in the House the minister said to me and to the House that he called off two conservation officers who were on their way to Hernando Island, not calling them off their investigation, he said, but calling them off their poisoning.

Let me just go through the facts of the matter as they are. The report reached the RCMP office in Campbell River at 5:15 on Tuesday, May 6, of an attack on Hernando Island. The next day Mr. Larry Killam called the minister's office and talked to Donna Hall, the minister's secretary. That same day, Wednesday, May 7, Mr. Killam talked to the RCMP in Campbell River and suggested to the RCMP that the charge was likely baseless. Until that point the RCMP had decided not to investigate the charge. When they were informed by Mr. Killarn that a false charge might have been made, the RCMP decided that in fact they would investigate. On Thursday, May 8, the RCMP officer was with two conservation officers at the helicopter pad in Campbell River when they were asked by a phone call to the helicopter pad area not to go to Hernando Island. There was no poison on the helicopter. There was no poison in their possession because, as the minister stated, the poison was in Williams Lake. They were told by the minister not to go. The minister was responding to a request from, not someone in his department, but an old friend.

According to Constable Peter Attrell, who was due to fly to Hernando on May 8 with the two officers — whom I won't name — to investigate the authenticity of the alleged attack on May 6, the two Fish and Wildlife officers were waiting for the aircraft at Okanagan Helicopters, Campbell River base, when they were told by telephone not to go. No statement on the withdrawal procedure has been issued to date and all inquiries about the incident were being referred to the minister's office last week. The office was notified of the alleged attack by island shareholder Larry Killarn, who said last week: "Rogers is a friend of mine, and a large number of other people on the island."

Very clearly ministry staff were on their way to the island together with an RCMP officer; very clearly they had no poison in their possession, because the poison was in Williams Lake. No procedures had been developed, because the authority to poison wolves had only been granted two days earlier and the procedures were not in place. Yet they were called off. The minister says they were called off because he was unwilling to poison the wolves. I've quoted from Hansard to demonstrate that that's what the minister said yesterday. In fact, what happened is that the officers were called off. They were unable to conduct an investigation — which is why they were going over there — because of the minister's interference based on a phone call from an old Vancouver Club friend.

As I said initially, I can't say again that the minister lied to me; I'm not allowed to say that, so I withdraw that in advance of saying it. Nevertheless that's what happened, and I have just proven it.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: Horse what?

Mr. Chairman, I have withdrawn that term, but that's in fact what happened. Whether we call it a white lie or a Nixon tactic, or what.... What he was doing was absolutely untruthful, and that's a fact, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: I will call all hon. members to order, and remind all hon. members that we can debate the administrative actions of a minister, or of a ministry, but we cannot make comments about the integrity of another hon. member. That is most unparliamentary, and I'm sure all members are aware of that. I'm satisfied that the member for North Island has in fact withdrawn any imputation of dishonour against another hon. member.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Well, Mr. Chairman, perhaps I can clear up some misunderstanding. If the member will bear with me, I will go through the sequence of events as they were reported to me.

At the time that the matter was first reported to me, we were in a cabinet meeting. I received a note saying: "A woman has been attacked on Hernando Island and we are dispatching poison to dispatch the wolf." At that point I said: "Under no circumstances will we do so." A member of my office staff phoned the conservation officers in question and said: "You are not to go." That's quite correct; he did say they were not to go. My directive had been about using poison, not about them not going. There was some confusion among the staff, however; they were phoned back in relatively short order and told: "There is nothing wrong with the conservation officer going, but we will not use poison." And we didn't use poison.

Now you may wish to call me anything you like, but that's the matter as I understand it. Whether or not I personally know someone who lives on that island, and whether Mr. Killam, who chooses to call himself a friend of mine, interfered or phoned the Mounties.... Mr. Killarn phones police officers all the time, I think you'll find, if you....

MR. GABELMANN: He phoned your office. He phoned Donna Hall.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Yes, he may have phoned her as well. He may have phoned all sorts of people. But I don't take instructions from Larry Killam, or from anyone else.

The member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) asked

[ Page 3661 ]

about the leg-hold trap — and she has left. I was going to tell her about the leg-hold trap.

MR. SKELLY: We've seen a demonstration before.

HON. MR. ROGERS: You've seen it before, yes.

MR. SKELLY: Garde used to do it when he was in opposition.

HON. MR. ROGERS: But he stuck a pencil in it. You see, the leg-hold trap isn't.... These are almost out of date now. Very few leg-hold traps are still being used. They are used on some species of animals. They are approved for use with what they call an offset jaw. This is what they call a long-spring trap, and the offset jaw is one where the animal, if its foot is trapped, is held — but it's not in pain and the skin is not broken. As you saw, I stuck my hand in the trap and my fingers are not bleeding or gushing. But this thing is still a fairly crude instrument.

We have been going on a very, very extensive program of trying to find a new trap. The trappers themselves have been the ones who have worked the hardest on this particular subject. They have developed what are called humane traps. When you kill something, then the definition of "humane" means how quickly you kill it. I appreciate that if you don't believe in killing anything in the first place, then there's no such thing as a humane trap.

The concern is that we have a trap like this being used to catch the animal which wasn't the target species. Obviously, if you catch a very small animal in a trap like this, the animal's foot or hand is going to be very adversely affected. First of all, these traps are now not mounted on a chain of this length — which is about 50 centimetres, I guess — and this, if staked, allows the animal to travel in a fairly broad arc. The animal — especially if it's of the dog species, like the coyote and the wolf — will stay very close to where it's trapped, provided its paw is held firmly; they won't wander around. Nowadays, instead of having the swivel on the end of the chain, they have the swivel mounted on the bottom of the trap, a short chain and an offset jaw. A trap like this is boiled in water and then drawn up through a layer of wax that exists on top of the water. It would be set for a coyote. This trap would be set in a field, in a burrow, in a hole where a coyote would be probing. It is covered with a thin layer of wax-paper and then a layer of dust, and then the area is surrounded with coyote urine which would attract the other coyotes. They stake the area so it's identified.

This is what the trappers are working on when they still do use these traps. It's difficult to understand how other species get caught. They do occasionally catch whisky-jacks in traps where the trap is baited with, say, a piece of beaver meat or something similar, because the whisky-jack is a friendly and very brave little bird, and it tends to go out and go after the baits.

The trappers themselves — and I've been to both their recent conventions — spend the majority of the time discussing humane trapping: how to do it the best way. A former conservation officer, Jack McKill, is devoting his time to trapper education. We have had excellent response from the native communities throughout the province. In one particular school in the province, humane trapping is the course to take — obviously it's not in your constituency or mine; it's actually in the constituency of South Peace River — and we offer it in conjunction with the school district in that area.

The trappers that I have met — and they've invited me to go on a trapline, which I would like to do this fall — to a man are people of the wilderness. They are not cruel or inhumane people; they are people who live out in these remote areas and work very, very hard. I think they're at peace with nature because they have to come back and do the same trapline the next week. They very seldom carry large guns with them, and they have no dreams of going off and shooting a trophy animal. They make a living with trapping. I could say a lot more about them; I'm very impressed with their efforts.

Now the federal-provincial Humane Trapping Commission, which is made up of people from the SPCA, people from the Trappers' Association and concerned citizens' groups, have unanimously supported the recommendations and the conclusions of the federal-provincial committee. They have a very extensive program of testing traps and new schemes. Barry Saunders, who is the provincial trapping advisory officer, has been down to Ontario to see the government of Ontario's new trap that they've devised, which is a foot-operated trap set off by a pan. They think you have to have some instructors, so we sent two people down; the president of the Trappers' Association and Mr. Saunders went there to see this particular project. At each of the meetings of the trappers — and obviously, just by the very nature of the business, they are a long way away from each other — they all come together with yet another better idea of a more humane trap.

This group of people does not take the criticism and the concern of people like you lightly; they take it very, very seriously, and I have given them as much encouragement as I can to come up with a humane trap. They presented me with this particular trap, I guess, as a memento of going to one of their conventions. I didn't know much about trapping when I got into this ministry. It's one of those things which I was quite concerned about as a backbencher. Lots of people express concern, and you and I have both seen lots and lots of letters about it. Well, before I condemned them, before their day in court, I went to see what they were doing and I was very much impressed. I would suspect that this particular type of trap will probably be extinct in two or three years, but I can't give you that guarantee. Its use is very restricted now; it's not a particularly good trap to aim for most species that the trappers are aiming for. In most cases they use as humane a trap as possible. If we had the kind of effort in other areas in the environment that the Trappers' Association is putting into solving their problems, we'd really go a long way.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, when this government introduced a Ministry of Environment, I was a bit suspicious that it might simply be a ministry that would prove to be a bit of a red herring, a ministry that would be a sop to the growing public opinion expressing concern about the environment and take off a bit of the pressure to do something. My suspicion has now become my conviction; that is exactly what this Ministry of Environment is all about, and the choice by the Premier of ministers to fill this post indicates to me that that was the reason for establishing a Ministry of Environment. First we had a minister who said he knew nothing about the environment; then we had a minister who did nothing about the environment; and now we have a minister who is a glorified bureaucrat, a technocrat who likes to display his trap and tell us how he can catch his fingers in it, who talks about measuring the heights of diving boards,

[ Page 3662 ]

who talks about naming streams — he hasn't named any after himself yet, but I assure you, as soon as he finds one big enough he probably will.

I don't believe he has any concept of what his responsibilities are. Being the Minister of Environment — or what it should be — is being a minister in charge of the one most critical area that's facing British Columbia, Canada and the world today. It's truly a matter of life and death, because what we do about our environment today is going to dictate whether our children and our children's children have an environment in which they can even exist. Instead we get leg-hold traps and diving boards. We get permits to pollute and court cases that are going to crowd the courts of this province for years. I know one case in my constituency that started in 1976 and it hasn't been resolved yet. There's been one adjournment after the other, finally a hearing, then an appeal, and the pollution goes on. That's the kind of minister that we have: one who is obsessed with these kinds of piecemeal projects — nothing that's really getting to the root of the problem. That's what is concerning us here on this side of the House. Instead of being a minister who is prepared to grasp the nettle and do something about it, he hides behind technicalities, reports, numbers, figures and gimmicks. That's not the answer to protecting our environment. This minister is so able to avoid the real problem and hide behind any little pretence, any little gimmick that will take him out of answering the real questions or facing up to the real problems.

Not too many years ago those people who stood up for the environment were considered hippies, queer or negative obstructionists. But that has changed, and somehow that government hasn't realized that has changed, that the real need is there now, that action has to be taken now and that you can't put it off. Somehow, some way, we have to jog those people into realizing that if they don't take some very strong and adamant steps now, the time is going to pass when they can be taken. The ecology is in the balance. Some people think it's past the point of no return. I think there's still hope here in British Columbia, but not with this minister and not with this government. That's why we're concerned about the environment in British Columbia. It is a matter of life and death, and to put a matter of life and death into the hands of that minister — that bureaucrat, that technocrat — is akin to putting a loaded revolver into the hands of a six-year old.

MR. SKELLY: Just following along on the lines of the speech made by the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace), it's remarkable to me how insensitive the Social Credit government and its Ministry of Environment appear to be to the concern expressed by Canadians and Americans in North America, and in Europe generally, about the condition of the environment in which they live, and the condition of those life-sustaining resources which I mentioned earlier: pure air, pure water and productive land. Gallup polls that have been done across this country, across the United States, throughout Europe and around the world have indicated that up to 70 percent of the subjects of those polls were concerned first and foremost with the quality of the environment in which they lived, and by quality of environment I mean the quality of air, water, land and the life-sustaining ability of the environment. In spite of those surveys and in spite of that overwhelming public opinion in its concern with the environment, what our government does in British Columbia is to appoint a rookie minister to a junior ministry. That's the level of their concern about the environment, and that's what concerns us over here on the opposition side.

I've listened to this debate ranging over the last three or four days, and listened to members, on our side of the House predominantly, stand up in the House and express their concern about environmental issues. The reason why so many people have spoken on this side is, as they have said, that their files are crowded with letters and expressions of concern from their constituents around the province. The largest percentage of the mail we get on this side of the House relates to environmental issues, and I would say that's the predominant concern of people in the province of British Columbia.

What's going to happen to the Peace River Valley when Hydro floods it at Site C? What's going to happen in Alice Arm when mines are allowed to proceed there and dump tailings into the arm? What is happening with Buttle Lake and the quality of our drinking water and the quality of water in which fish have to survive? What is going to happen to the races of salmon that are going to be wiped out in the Nechako River unless the minister takes firm action to get water of a certain temperature released from the Skins Lake spillway? Thousands of people from every single comer of this province are writing to the minister and members of his government and being frustrated, or writing to the opposition in the hope that the opposition can do something which the government refuses to do.

Your ministry is more than a service to other government departments. It should be more than a junior ministry. It should be more than a rookie minister. It should be one of the most important ministries in the Social Credit government. Look at other governments in comparison. Under the previous Social Credit government, Agriculture was considered a junior ministry. Nobody paid much attention to it. In real terms the budget went down year after year and you appointed junior ministers to that portfolio. When the NDP came to office it became a senior ministry and we appointed a capable minister to that office, and many things were done in agriculture which would have put agriculture in a sorry position today if they hadn't been done. Now Agriculture has been demoted and given a junior minister again and agriculture is suffering in this province as a result.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would all hon. members come to order. I would remind the hon. member for Alberni that we are on debate of vote 75, the estimates of the Minister of the Environment. Our standing orders do not allow us to discuss whether or not a member should be in cabinet or not, and of course it is a general rule of this House that we do not make personal allusions towards a minister during the debate of his estimates.

MR. SKELLY: What I was referring to was the importance of a ministry and how the importance of that ministry should reflect the importance of the environment as it is felt by the citizens of the province of British Columbia and in fact people around the world. Citizen and environment groups are getting tired of politicians of both stripes, mine as well as yours; socialists in Europe as well as Christian Democrats in Europe. It doesn't really matter, because nobody seems to be addressing the issues. They are forming separate, very strong

[ Page 3663 ]

environmental groups — the Green List in Germany, the Green Ban in Australia — all over the world. Sweden is a perfect example of the problem. Unless politicians do something about it, that movement is going to grow until it destroys politics as we know it in the province or country today. These political parties assembled in this Legislature do not seem to reflect the concerns of the people about environment and the wishes of the people to correct the problems which they see in the environment.

One of the things that happened to this ministry — it is not the fault or the responsibility of this minister — is that it was broken up, Lands was taken away from it. There is very little you can do about that, but it is very critical that Lands be considered a part of an environment ministry. Unfortunately Lands were taken away and given to a patronage ministry so that the lands could be dispersed into private hands. That is unfortunate.

The second member for Vancouver South (Mr. Hyndman) a short time ago talked about the conservation trust and congratulated the minister for setting up the conservation trust. This ministry had within its jurisdiction a very short time ago the greatest conservation trust that any ministry anywhere in the world could ever have hoped to have been blessed with. That is jurisdiction over the Crown lands of the province of British Columbia. They had the greatest conservation trust and they blew it. Now they are given a token amount of money to try to buy some of it back. You congratulate the minister for that? That is insane. We had the biggest, greatest conservation trust that any province or jurisdiction could hope to have and your Premier blew it in order to give that land away. I don't congratulate you at all for the conservation trust. I don't blame you for the fact that Lands was taken away from the ministry. It is the Premier's fault, and unfortunately you have to live with a ministry that is an abortion, when you consider the three most important common property resources that an environment ministry should deal with: land, air and water — those life sustaining resources. It is absolutely impossible to get along without land. I realize the problem you're dealing with, the burden you have to bear as a result of a silly decision that was made by the Premier of this province. It leaves the ministry absolutely crippled. If there's one thing that should be done by this government if it wishes to keep a suitable Environment ministry — one that can do its job well — it is to restore jurisdiction over Crown lands to that ministry as soon as possible, because without Crown lands the ministry is crippled.

But what is the minister doing? In his public statements, is he going out and saying this? Is he asking in cabinet for restoration of some or all of the Crown lands of the province? I don't mind seeing certain sections of the land under Crown ownership taken away and used for housing, agriculture and industrial development. Certainly a great deal of land could be taken away, land that's more suitable for that use than it is for, for example, wildlife habitat, protection of water supplies or fisheries and spawning areas. Why did they take all the jurisdiction over Crown lands away? It's ridiculous. It cripples the ministry. Yet the minister seems to have very little to say about that. In fact, he seems to have very little to say about the direction of his ministry. What are we trying to do? What is the overall policy of our ministry? In which way are we headed in this province with the Environment ministry?

Occasionally you hear the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) talking about a commercial fisheries policy for the province, or the Minister, of Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan) talking about a tourism strategy for the province. They are good things. But we don't ever hear from this ministry about an overall environmental policy for the province. What do we want? What do you want? If you have an idea of what you want, some objectives in mind, then we can understand what you're trying to do to set out to achieve those objectives. But we simply do not have, from this minister or his ministry, any kind of consistently stated objectives as to what we want the environment of the province of British Columbia to be like and what we're doing to move in that direction. It's this lack of direction and, seemingly, a lack of interest on the part of the minister in developing a policy direction for his ministry that has us concerned.

One of the problems that came out in the debate today was the kind of ad hockery of the ministry. Some people are concerned about the hoary marmots, some people are concerned about wolf bites on Hernando Island, and some people are concerned about this and some people are concerned about that. There seems to be no consistent set of problems that this minister is dealing with.

One of the problems that was brought up today was the problem of the sewage system in the greater Victoria area and the problem of pollution control in general. It doesn't seem that this minister has taken any innovative approach in that area at all. What are other areas doing? A couple of years ago I went down to Los Angeles and took a look at the Hyperion sewage treatment plant down there. It's right on the end of the runway at LAX; you've probably been over it a number of times. In that plant they're turning sewage into methane. They use the methane to generate electricity in the plant and they sell excess electricity to Southern California Edison. They used to turn the sludge in that plant into fertilizer and sell it throughout the state of California. Unfortunately, with the cheap price of B.C. natural gas, the fertilizer plant had to be shut down, because derivatives of natural gas were being used for fertilizer and they simply couldn't compete, although that sewage system, in converting to fertilizer, was doing the environment and people of California a longer term service than natural gas ever would, and a cheaper service in providing fertilizer than natural gas ever could over the long term. Yet it's shut down now, but it's still on site and probably will be revived when the price of gas goes up.

What alternatives have you looked at? When I hear you talking about the sewage system in Victoria and saying that those outfall pipes are going to have to be extended in any case.... When have sewage outfalls ever solved the problem anywhere? They solve the visual problem, because, based on the old engineering adage, I suppose, that the solution to pollution is dilution, they spread the sewage so far out that nobody can really see it; it isn't really that evident. That is not the ultimate solution to the problem of disposing of sewage.

The second member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) asked the minister to convene a task force to look into the sewage problem in the greater Victoria area. I suppose we got into a problem of defining our terms. By a task force he didn't mean the SWAT force that the member has in the lower Fraser Valley to go out and prosecute municipalities for not keeping the beaches clean. What he was referring to was a group of people who could go out and work out a solution in consulta-

[ Page 3664 ]

tion with the Capital Regional District, the municipalities involved and the waste management branch to work out a solution to that problem. Go to California and take a look at what they're doing with the Hyperion plant. Maybe go to other parts of the world and find out what they're doing with pollution problems. Let me put it this way: if the state of Oregon and the city of Portland and all those small towns along the Willamette River in Oregon can turn that river from an open sewer a very few years ago into a recreational river now where people can swim and boat without any fear of health problems and where edible fish are now coming again.... That was done with assistance from the state, the federal government and the industries along the bank. It was no threat to industry because none of those industries closed down, with the exception of one factory, which was about to close anyway because it was too old and unproductive. Those things are possible here in British Columbia if we have a minister with initiative, interest and concern about the environment, and the willingness to do battle with his own cabinet to make environment, clean water and summer recreation on the beaches of Victoria priorities. We are capable of doing it. The technology is there and, if the government decides and restructures its priorities, the money is there also, so it is not a question of money.

When you look at the Thames River and the city of London years ago, the stories of the pea-soup fogs, and the fact that you couldn't fish in the river and that it was an open sewer from one end to the other.... I remember one time in 19731 went to a Commonwealth parliamentary conference in London and we were taken out on the terrace at the House of Commons. The British MPs boasted to us about the cleanliness of the Thames River and said that occasionally they could come out of the terrace now and go fishing in the Thames River. For years and years that had never been possible because the river was so filthy. The government decided and had the initiative, and their Minister of Environment had the interest and gumption and concern to get up and do it, and they did it.

It is not a question of lack of money, it's a question of gumption, interest, concern and initiative. If you don't have it, don't make excuses. Just quit and let somebody who has it take over.

The second member for Vancouver South (Mr. Hyndman) was talking about the courageous statements you've made against fishing derbies. Again it is a band-aid, ad hoc kind of approach. The management of fishing and fishery in this province certainly leaves something to be desired. You can't pass the buck all the time to the federal government, because the main problems in the fishery in this province are problems that stem from the way we manage our common property resources on land. If we abuse fish habitat, if we allow people to drag logs through fish habitat, if we don't severely punish people who destroy fish habitat, cancelling chinook derbies isn't going to solve the problem. It is simply a band-aid solution to a symptom that's way down the line from the actual cause. We have to deal here with first causes.

I remember a few years ago I stood up in this House and presented a petition — which was delivered to me, to the Leader of the Opposition and to the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) — in the Legislature expressing the concern of thousands of fishermen and people dependent on the fishing industry about the way the industry was being managed in British Columbia and calling for a complete royal commission inquiry into the management of that industry, including the protection of habitat. We see a royal commission into the management of the logging industry in the province. Every ten years we were supposed to have one of those, and that's a good thing. I think we should re-examine in full public view anything we do, any major industry in this province, through royal commissions to see if we are doing the right thing and to see if our goals are being accomplished. What was the result of the presentation of that petition? I suppose it's sitting on a dusty shelf in the Clerk's office like they always do.

What was the government's response? There was no response at all. Doesn't the government feel, in view of the actions it has to take in speaking out against individual fishing derbies and talking about catch-and-release programs on rivers on Vancouver Island because of the declining stocks of steelhead...? Doesn't the government see that there's an overall problem that the government should be analyzing on a royal commission basis and dealing with on that basis in full public view? You simply don't solve the problem by those band-aid approaches.

You have to deal with first causes, and the first cause is the decline and destruction of fish habitat. When the first minister came out with his statement — I gather without consulting his Minister of Environment — that British Columbia should take jurisdiction over fisheries, I was 100 percent in support of that statement. We should have total jurisdiction over the fishery in this province. It has not been well managed by the federal government. One of the reasons is the continual conflict they face with the provincial government over constitutional issues.

We had a debate at another Commonwealth Parliamentary Association regional conference — and I'm sure the second member for Vancouver South (Mr. Hyndman) will realize that — when I stood up and suggested that B.C. do precisely that: take jurisdiction over our fishing resource. Another member added some information to that statement: the fact not commonly realized that of the ten provinces of Canada eight are maritime provinces. Only two, Saskatchewan and Alberta, are landlocked provinces. Strangely enough, those are the two that have the oil resources. It would be a great division, a fair and equitable division, of the wealth of this country if the federal government turned over jurisdiction for the fisheries resource to each of those maritime provinces.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

As the present ministry is structured I'd be scared spitless to see this minister responsible for the total fishery of the province of B.C., especially since he shares his cabinet responsibilities with a number of people that I don't think should go near waters inhabited by fish, because of their lack of respect for that resource. But I certainly think that we should have total responsibility for the fisheries resource.

But what has the minister done, and what has the minister said? Does he feel that a royal commission should be struck to took into this resource? It is one of the major sources of income and employment in the province of British Columbia. It is one of the most sensitive and critical areas of habitat — the rivers and the waters of the province of British Columbia, how they're managed, treated and polluted. Does the minister not feel that these should be the subject of an

[ Page 3665 ]

intensive royal commission of inquiry, and that objectives should come out of that royal commission that should be followed by this government?

When I look at the operation of the Pollution Control Board or the waste management branch it absolutely amazes me. First of all it amazes me from the point of view of some of the people you deal with — for example, oil refineries. Any company doing business in the United States that trades shares on a public exchange is forced to disclose statements of material fact to the Securities and Exchange Commission. As part of that statement they have to disclose the violations that they've been convicted of. If you want to know the criminal record of the company you're dealing with, they have to post it in the back of their Form 16 so you know exactly what kind of criminal you're dealing with. Here's the name of one that does have a refinery here in British Columbia and is licensed to pollute here, All over the world it has refineries. There are four pages of pollution control offences and convictions: emissions in excess of limits, sulphuric acid plant in violation, emissions in excess of limits, loss of 200 gallons of jet fuel into a river, oil spill, spill of 100 gallons of diesel oil, violation of permit, oil spill, spill of 40 barrels of crude, violation of permit, oil spill, oil spill, oil spill, oil spill.

You're dealing with companies that have consistent records of violating pollution control statutes all around the world, and you grant additional permits to those companies right here in British Columbia. Why aren't they forced to disclose statements of material fact here? If they have a consistent record of pollution control violations, of destroying the environment and the quality of water, air and land, then they shouldn't be allowed to operate here at all. Would you invite convicted criminals into the province of B.C. to practise their trade here? It's ridiculous. Yet we don't even keep records; the only records we have, the only statements of material fact that must be filed along those lines, we can get from the United States of America. Yet these people, with a record of conviction like that, have a pollution control permit to operate in British Columbia. I'll bet if you went through their files you'd find that they've been operating in contradiction of their permit a number of times.

The minister could do in the Victoria area what the former Minister of Environment — the member for Richmond (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) — did in the case of Penticton. At that time Penticton was applying to increase its effluent into Skaha Lake. The minister overturned the Pollution Control Board permit. He said: "No way, You'll have to find a land disposal system." What you should be doing is demanding that these municipalities look at alternatives, and assisting them, but where is your interest? It's not enough to stand up in the Legislature and to explain and rationalize it away. It's a way of getting around doing the actual job that has to be done. But it's simply not enough for a Minister of Environment in this government to do that. We're looking for action. The people in Victoria and the tourists want to swim at those beaches. They know that the technology is available to clean them up. It simply isn't being done, because the minister seems to) lack interest in it.

The minister talked a little about the Fraser task force. I think the minister should be congratulated for what he has done in that area. I think SPEC should be congratulated for drawing the fact to the minister's attention in the first place — the Fraser River Coalition. Whether they were right or wrong in the evidence they submitted, at least this minister took action based on the evidence they submitted and set up that SWAT force. I think you should be congratulated for that. It was a good deal.

But that ministry needs much more enforcement capability. You mentioned, in response to one of the members down here, that you're now getting more phone calls from people asking how they can conform with the legislation. I think that's a good thing. But it only came as a result of the minister taking action and prosecuting offenders. Companies tell you time after time that they will do as much as the law demands, and that's the limit to which they will operate. But if the law isn't enforced, they'll laugh at it. I'm pleased that the minister has taken a step in the Fraser estuary to enforce the law, to set a standard of obedience and compliance which companies now appear to be conforming to. That's why those calls are coming in. But you have to carry a big stick, and you have to use it. And I'm pleased to see that you did in the case of the lower Fraser Valley.

We need much more of that. We need it here in Victoria. We need it up-Island in Port Alberni, where the pulpmill there has been in consistent violation of its permits; your personnel have come up there and talked to them to try to get them to change their emission levels. What's needed are orders and charges, and the full weight of the law has to be brought to bear against those polluters.

Mr. Chairman, I see that my time has expired. I would like to wind up by saying this to the minister: we really cannot support the vote for this minister's office. We don't think enough has been done. We don't think the minister has shown enough interest in his ministry, and we don't think the minister has enough concern about the ministry and about the resources which he is here to protect. Until we see that evidence of concern we simply cannot vote for this minister's office.

MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to participate in the debate of the Minister of Environment. It has given every member of this Legislature an opportunity to help this minister establish policies and priorities for the environment as we move into the 1980s.

I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the first member for Vancouver South on becoming Minister of Environment. I believe it to be one of the most important, if not the most important, ministries of government in the 1980s.

In the Kootenay area we are fortunate to have an abundance of natural resources. We're also fortunate to have the most spectacular scenery in all of British Columbia. We boast the highest wildlife population in all of Canada. We're also fortunate to have coal and logging companies operating in southeastern British Columbia that have demonstrated their willingness to protect the natural environment.

There are three coal companies operating in southeastern British Columbia at the present time. There are three mines under construction, I have great faith, Mr. Chairman, that there will be long-term employment opportunities and continued job security for British Columbia workers and their families in southeastern British Columbia. The region will continue to be a reliable supplier of our natural resources.

There has been a lot of talk in recent years about the possible construction of a thermal coal plant in southeastern British Columbia to utilize existing waste coal from companies operating in the region. While the construction of such a plant would generate approximately 2,000 jobs costing $500 million and create approximately 300 or 400 permanent jobs when the construction phase completed, I have some

[ Page 3666 ]

major concerns with respect to this project. Air quality is a major concern of mine. The high walls and narrow valleys in which Sparwood is located make it highly susceptible to atmospheric variations and, hence, severe air pollution. The poor quality of waste coal may necessitate washing before consumption. Then, of course, there is the pile of ash that is left behind from the burning coal which also has to be managed.

I would hope that modern technology and techniques might be applied in the design and construction of this plant and that all questions relating to environmental protection will be answered before this plant is given the green light in the Elk Valley. Along with providing long-term employment opportunities for British Columbia workers and their families, we must also protect the great outdoors which is so dear to the hearts of the many people living in that region. There has got to be a lot more to working in coal mines than working, sleeping and eating. People don't come to the East Kootenays to make a stake and move back to the coast. They come to the region because they enjoy the security of their job, but more than that the natural beauty and environment.

One of the most serious problems in the East Kootenays at the present time is the greatly increased access to wilderness areas. The hinterlands where wildlife cannot be assaulted by hunters or picnickers or snowmobiles get smaller and smaller each day. Increased public access through logging and mining roads previously closed to anyone but hikers and horsemen has resulted in the steady decline of several species of wildlife and valuable winter range.

If you really want to see a sad state of affairs, there is an Alberta mining company that works in Galloway in my constituency. They have just pushed an exploration road all over the face of Bull Mountain. Bull Mountain is a critical wildlife wintering area for sheep, elk and deer. It is also prime grizzly bear habitat. This road has already done irreversible damage to the area. I am told there are plans to continue the road access across the face and around the back of the mountain. This road would penetrate a vital area of Bull Mountain. In fact, it is a sanctuary for all types of wildlife. The company has also carved roads all over the face of the Lizard mountain range and is now defacing Bull Mountain as fast as it can. The present Wildlife Act should include protection of wildlife habitat which would include exploration roads.

The people of the East Kootenays have expressed concern over the erosion of recreational values in the Elk Valley and the Flatheads due to proliferation of road access. I would like to see a management plan for the recreation and conservation resource which would include a program of access control. This plan could be made in conjunction with resource industries operating in southeastern British Columbia, along with the East Kootenay Wildlife Association. Clearly, present levels of resource management will be unable to deal adequately with the impact of future coal-mining projects. A resource planning program for the coal fields is required in the Elk and Flathead drainages of the area, if the areas are to be maintained and if outdoor recreation demands are to be accommodated.

During the last provincial election campaign I supported the East Kootenay Wildlife Association's stand for the establishment of a heritage fund for the preservation and development of wildlife habitat. The East Kootenays has key wildlife habitat areas that deserve immediate attention. Bighorn sheep herds are by no means common in British Columbia or in any part of North America. The first priority, therefore, must be the restoration, conservation and maintenance of bighorn sheep populations in the East Kootenay area, such as on Sheep Mountain and the east side of Columbia Lake. These are key wintering areas for bighorn ungulates and are key breeding, lambing and calving areas.

There is also a need in the East Kootenays for an intensive grizzly bear inventory study. The East Kootenay Wildlife Association feels that there is an urgent need to improve the information for the management of this important big game resource. I hoped that this project could begin in 1980. This apparently was impossible. However, I urge that we pursue this project, perhaps in the 1981 budget. I would appreciate learning more on the status of that in the near future.

The forage resource has increased substantially over the last few years in the East Kootenays to the benefit of agriculture and wildlife. I was pleased to get the minister up to tour some of those other projects last year. The coordinated planning program has also forced a climate of cooperation between wildlife and cattle interests that is essential for the enforcement of long-term resource management. I would certainly like to see the continuation of this program through the years.

Another area of concern in the East Kootenays, because of the demand for outdoor recreation — and I was pleased with the minister's response in this regard and, indeed, the government's response in not allowing the construction of a new townsite north of Elkford in the Kootenay constituency — is that we should establish a program to enhance our lakes and streams in the East Kootenays. We must have an extensive program of restocking and an inventory of what we have and how we're looking after it. Sixty percent of the fish from the Bull River hatchery leave the region. The fish hatchery is not operating at maximum capacity, Mr. Chairman, and one more staff member could bring this up to capacity. This would be of benefit to the region, because we could restock our lakes and streams with rainbow and cutthroat trout.

There is great pressure on the lakes and streams in the East Kootenays because of our close proximity to Alberta. This is causing serious problems, and I wonder if we couldn't consider the possibility of establishing a two-price system for freshwater fishing in British Columbia. The present rate is $5 for a resident to fish year-round, and I wonder if we couldn't have a non-resident status there where it would probably cost $10 a year or something like that for non-residents to fish in freshwater streams and lakes.

Interjection.

MR. SEGARTY: There is currently a two-price system for hunting licences in British Columbia.

I agree that the province of British Columbia, Mr. Chairman, should acquire jurisdiction over salmon and commercial fisheries within the 200-mile limit from the federal government, with the latter retaining responsibility for enforcement of the 200-mile limit and participating in international negotiations such as presently done in matters of international water negotiations. Funding of the Salmonid Enhancement Program should be continued on a shared basis by the federal and provincial governments.

There is another area of concern to me, Mr. Chairman, and it was recently brought to my attention by an accident prevention officer of the WCB, Mr. Gerry Salmon of Cranbrook. Gerry advised me that the only way to dispose of

[ Page 3667 ]

PCBs is through incineration, and there are no facilities currently in Canada to dispose of PCBs. PCBs used to be shipped to the United States for incineration. This is no longer possible because the United States has imposed a border closure on all waste materials going into that country. This closure became effective on June 1, 1980, and since that time PCBs in Canada have been kept in storage areas. This is causing a severe hardship in the workplace, and I wonder if the Minister of Environment perhaps could take some leadership in British Columbia and establish an incinerator for the disposal of PCB, perhaps at a central location in western Canada, and get into some sort of cooperation with the federal Ministry of Transport to provide some regulations and standards for the transportation of dangerous chemicals across British Columbia and Canada.

Mr. Chairman, those are some areas which are of concern to the people of the East Kootenay region of British Columbia. I don't expect an answer on them now, but I would like to hear from the minister later on.

Vote 75 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 28

NAYS 23

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Chairman, I ask leave of the committee to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. BARBER: In the precincts today and shortly in the gallery is a very good friend of mine. He was formerly a city police officer. He was at one time the sergeant-at-arms of the board of directors of Victoria Cool-Aid. He is currently an RCMP officer in Grande Prairie. His name is Peter Lund. I ask the House to make him welcome.

Vote 76: general administration, $3,157,388 — approved.

Vote 77: resource and environment management, $54,802,563 — approved.

Vote 78: Environment and Land Use Committee secretariat, $1,312,446 — approved.

Vote 79: Provincial Emergency Program, $1,663,822 — approved.

Vote 80: Salmonid Enhancement Program, $2,000,000 — approved.

Vote 81: Flood Relief Act, $10 — approved.

On vote 82: Creston Valley wildlife management, $131,468.

MR. NICOLSON: I point out to the minister that this thing hasn't increased for about the last half a decade. Does the minister have any good reasons for that?

HON. MR. ROGERS: On the Creston Valley area? It will by next year because we've added some more area to it. But there hasn't been a big request for an increase from them.

Vote 82 approved.

Vote 83: building occupancy charges, $5,958,000 — approved.

Vote 84: computer and consulting charges, $1,908,045 — approved.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF INDUSTRY
AND SMALL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT

On vote 134: minister's office, $187,509.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'm actually proud and humble to be able to ask for this small amount of money to run the minister's office. As the members of the Legislature know, I have a relatively small department run very efficiently by very, very devoted civil servants. I want to tell the House that I'm certainly proud of the members of my department who have, during the last year, at the drop of a hat, forgone their weekends, worked overtime, for the good of the economy of this province. Regardless of what we read in the papers and what members of the opposition say, I know the economy of British Columbia is indeed fairly healthy. I know that all the members of the Legislature, including those of the opposition, are very interested in the economy because they want opportunities for young people who are growing up today. During my estimates I certainly look forward to members on both sides of the House giving me some very positive suggestions as to how our department can indeed improve on the economy in this great province of ours. As I said last year, I look forward to those suggestions. Suggestions that are made to this ministry certainly do not fall on deaf ears.

I have tabled the annual report of the ministry. Rather than take up time to go through all the different divisions of the department I'm going to suggest that the members on both sides of the House read this report, because this year we have outlined all the different divisions of the department; what they do, what their function is and some of the results. I

[ Page 3668 ]

know the members will take that report home tonight and that it will be one of their priorities as bedtime reading material because, as I said, it does explain how the department functions and what we try to do. Certainly I look forward with great anticipation this afternoon to having good positive suggestions and good deliberations on my ministry.

MR. LEA: We have some questions that we'd like to ask the minister. The first questions I have to ask relate to northeast coal and the proposed development. I would like to bring the minister's attention to page 79, item 5 of the report of the Royal Commission on the British Columbia Railway, volume 1. In this report it says:

"Northeast coal. Involvement of BCR in the northeast coal development project should not be undertaken except with assurance of traffic sufficient to recover all capital and operating costs. The decision to route this coal traffic via the port of Prince Rupert ensures that BCR's long-term role will again be no more than that of a feeder line to CN. In such circumstances there appears to be no benefit to the province in BCR's involvement unless the railway is assured full recovery of all costs. Should use of any route from the coal fields directly to the CN line prove feasible so that routing over existing BCR trackage would be unnecessary, the commission recommends that BCR avoid involvement in northeast coal development."

The policy statements that have been made by the minister and government seem to fly in the opposite direction of this recommendation by the royal commission. I would like to ask the minister to outline for the House the costs involved that would ensure this House that flying in the opposite direction from this recommendation by the royal commission is indeed sound. Would the minister then tell the House what it is, the costs, and what new factors have arisen in the minister's and government's minds to make this recommendation invalid?

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I certainly appreciate the sincerity of the member's question. I understand the recommendations of the royal commission. I know that all members of the House would like to see this great economic development take place because it will provide many hundreds of millions of dollars, additional taxes and employment. I'm quite happy to inform the House that it is not the intention of northeast coal development to have the British Columbia Railway build the actual spur line. The intention is to have the spur line from Anzac to Tumbler Ridge built by what will basically be a new company. That company will be funded by borrowings and partly by taxpayers' dollars.

Once the Anzac spur line is built, then the BCR will be given running rights over the new spur line. There is some cost involved to the British Columbia Railway. They say it will be $30 million to upgrade the 77 miles from Anzac to Prince George. This is about $168,000 per mile higher than what the CNR is asking to upgrade their line from Prince George to Prince Rupert. However, on the Prince George to Prince Rupert line, part of their upgrading, naturally, has to be to haul grain.

I might add that there has also been a lot of controversy about the cost of building the Anzac line. It's really amazing to me that to open up an area which not only has reserves eight million tonnes of coal, but indeed is one of the hottest spots in the petroleum industry.... There is also lumber in their area. Really, all we're having to do to open up this vast new inland empire is to build a 77-mile spur line. Seventy-seven miles, in the opening up of our country, is not a long spur line to build.

The amazing part of this whole situation — and I think we've hired the best engineers to look at alternate routes that are possible — is that we have to have less than nine miles of tunnels. Two of them are about 2.8 miles and one is about 3.5 miles. It's the cost of building those tunnels that really blows my mind. It is $150 million. That is the highest cost estimate we've had. That means that we start the three tunnels separately and we come in from both ends. The tunnels could be built more cheaply by starting at one end and just having one camp go through to the other end, but because of time constraints we have to do it the expensive way. As I say, it just blows my mind that the tunnels cost that much.

In 1962 the federal government built a 400-mile spur line from Grimshaw, Alberta, to Pine Point to haul ore out from that area. At that time that 400 miles of rail line cost approximately $80 million. Today we're looking at building a 70-mile spur line, as I say, into a new inland empire where the resources are already there, known and proven, in guaranteed tonnages. It really is, in the public's eye, such a huge expenditure of funds. But someday, whether now or later, in order to get those resources out of that area we have to build that 77-mile spur line.

AN HON. MEMBER: What's the total cost?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: The total cost at the present time is estimated at $315 million.

As I say, the spur line will be built by a separate company which will be formed so that we don't disrupt the fragile balance or cash flow of the British Columbia Railway. They will recover their costs of upgrading the line through the operating costs of hauling the coal. The recovery of the cost of building that spur line will be through a surcharge, which will be charged on the price of coal. Again, everybody seems to think that the cost of building that line should be recovered within 15 to 20 years. If you take the present contract of 7.5 million tonnes a year and work it over 20 years, or even if you give them the benefit of the doubt and take 10 million tonnes a year, what we're talking about is recovering the full cost of building that spur line with 0.4 percent of the reserves of coal in that area.

As you know, in any new development there's always a certain amount of controversy around it; certainly there are objectors to having us develop a new northern transportation system. There are certain people who don't want to see a new bulk-loading facility in Prince Rupert and there are certain people who don't want to see the Canadian National Railway upgraded, but the development of northeast coal and the contracts that are in the offing would be the nucleus of opening up that whole area, improving the economy of the Peace River area, Prince George, Terrace and Prince Rupert, and giving Canada another bulk-loading facility which will assist us with overseas markets. Everybody says: "Well, we're digging our natural resources out of the ground and we're shipping them and we're shipping energy." As you know, the coal in northeastern British Columbia is coking

[ Page 3669 ]

coal. It's a commodity that is used in the making of steel and there is no known process at the present time to convert it to energy.

MR. LEA: The minister said that the total cost would be $315 million, and of that, $150 million would be for the approximately nine miles of tunnel. The minister has said that the $150 million for the tunnel part of it is the highest cost that's coming in from engineering studies that have looked at it.

I'd like to ask the minister whether the CNR, when they looked at the building of the spur line and the tunnels, came up with figures which were somewhat higher. As I understand it, they wanted a $9 per tonne surcharge to do the spur line, and the provincial government wants $4 per tonne. The $5 shows up again at tidewater in the two different prices — $20 to $25, approximately. Could he tell me whether $9 is a correct figure from the CNR? If it isn't, what is the CNR figure?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: To answer the hon. member's question, the CNR looked at the Anzac line — I hope the member will listen to what I'm saying — and projected our 1979 cost estimate of $185 million into 1983. The CNR have basically said that for every $100 million that they put into capital investment — either upgrading or for equipment — they have to have a $3 return. At that $3 return they're talking of writing off the total cost of whatever money they put into it over a 15-year period. In other words, they want all their money back in 15 years, plus a 20 percent profit on their operation. I must say, Mr. Chairman, that no development in this country has ever taken place with that immediate return. If we had had that attitude years and years ago, let me tell you, the St. Lawrence Seaway and the Pine Point Railway would never have been built; indeed, the British Columbia Railway would never have been extended from Quesnel to Prince George. The spur line into Mackenzie would never have been built; indeed, the British Columbia Railway would never have been extended into the Peace River country.

With the high costs today, inflation certainly, any project is very difficult to put together, but having the attitude that you must recover your costs and make a profit is not really being a development railway. That's where we seem to be running into some difficulty, because it makes no difference to the Canadian National Railway board of directors sitting back in Montreal whether northeast coal develops or not, or whether there is employment in British Columbia, or whether we have another port. What they're looking at, naturally, is the bottom line. If they can't make their 20 percent profit on it, if they can't get their money back in 15 years, they say: "I'm sorry, we're not interested.''

Unfortunately, that's not the way this country was opened up. If we took that attitude we'd have to wait for a war. The Alaska Highway was built by the Americans during the war, because there was a war on. It's been of great benefit to western Canada and British Columbia since then. But if we sit back and take the bottom line, I'm afraid there would be no development in western Canada. Some people back east seem to think that because Ontario has developed, why do we need any further development in the west? Unfortunately, I don't happen to agree with that attitude.

MR. LEA: Would this $4 per tonne surcharge retire not only the whole debt but the interest and the capital required?

Over what period of time are we talking about, and what would it retire? At the end of this time that I'm asking for, would it pay off the money that's borrowed or invested in there, plus the interest required to pay it off?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: My ministry has worked out various scenes on a sliding scale. The surcharge — it's an increasing surcharge — is based also on 7 percent of the price of coal. But it's based on certain tonnages. I'll just give it to you in broad general terms, based on the tonnage contracts that we have. Approximately 50 percent of the capital cost of building the spur line would not be retired at the present tonnage. If you increase the tonnage and you get more money from the surcharge because of increased tonnages, then it retires more of it. But we've based it on about 20 years. I hope that answers your question.

MR. LEA: So is the $4 just an arbitrary, almost plucked-out-of-the-sky figure? Could it be $2 or $6?

I'd like to ask the minister now about the mining companies, the producers, that are going in there. They're talking about investing a lot of money. They could put their money in the bank, or they could put it in a lot safer place than a risk capital venture, and they'd be able to realize a safe return. Obviously, if they're going to risk some money, before doing that they're going to want to know what their return is on invested equity. They'd obviously want to know what percentage they could hang on to after taxes, based on invested equity. What sort of percentage are the coal producers looking at? What sort of realization do they want on invested equity after taxes?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: First of all, I want to say that the member is perfectly right. Freight rates have historically been set on what the market will bear. In opening up coal mines in British Columbia, you realize we are about 400 miles further from tidewater than the Australian coal mines are. I think it's a credit to our independent coal producers in Canada that they are able to compete with a very high freight rate, which, in essence, really says that our coal mining companies in western Canada and British Columbia are much more efficient than they are in Australia. I think that's a credit to them.

With regard to the profit of the companies, let me say this: everybody is concerned about the coal companies ripping off the people of British Columbia. I told the coal companies, I'll tell this Legislature and I'll tell the people of British Columbia: first of all, I hope they are very profitable, because if they're not profitable they're not going to keep their coal mines open, they are not going to be able to pay their employees and bills, and they're not going to be able to stay in business. We certainly don't want the area opened up unless some mines are profitable.

I have some difficulty in telling you the exact percentage rate of return the coal companies are expecting, but I would say it's a normal rate of return for investing that kind of money. What people seem to be concerned about is that the coal companies are going to make a fantastic, usurious profit on this deal. I want to tell you what I've told the coal companies. I've said: "I hope you make a profit. As a matter of fact, I hope you make a fantastic profit, because as soon as you make a fantastic profit, and the first annual report comes out and you've made a fantastic profit, or a usurious profit, or you're ripping off the resources, do you know what this

[ Page 3670 ]

government is going to do? We're going to increase the coal royalty, make no mistake about it. We want you to make a fair return, we want you to stay in business; but the very minute that you take the natural resources of British Columbia and make more return than the people of British Columbia are going to make, or than the workers make, make no mistake about it" — and I've told each one of them — "you can rest assured that that coal royalty is going to go up. We will not stand by and see you make what you call excessive profits out of the natural resources of British Columbia." I've told them that, and as I say, I'm saying it in this Legislature, I've told it to my colleagues and I've told it to the coal companies. "You go ahead. You've got to make a fair return."

On this whole northeast coal development the government will invest — and I'm talking very round figures now — approximately half a billion dollars before one tonne of coal is moved. Private investment has to be in the vicinity of $1.2 billion. Who's really putting up the big risk? We're making a big issue about putting up a lot of taxpayers' money to develop a new project that will create thousands and thousands of jobs, and in the long term return about $2.5 billion in profit over the 30-year contract of the mines.

I can understand this because, as I say, there's certainly opposition to everything. But with regard to the mining company profits, if they're excessive and if we can stand it we'll certainly increase the royalty on coal. I have no doubt whatsoever that by the year 1990 the price of coal is going to increase. The price of thermal coal has doubled in the last two years, from approximately $20 a tonne to $40 a tonne, and I anticipate the price of thermal coal will rise to world oil prices in the very near future. So as the price of coal goes up, the royalty must go with it.

MR. LEA: I suppose there are two ways we can look at this deal. Whether the producers can go in there strictly on their own hook, making the entire investment, and realize a profit.... I guess they don't feel they can, so they are asking for some help from government in order to pull this off. The minister says they're going to be investing approximately $1.2 billion, but he says he doesn't know exactly what their return is going to be on invested equity after taxes. Surely the coal companies know what they require to go in there and do that. Has the minister never inquired of the coal companies as to what sort of return they are looking at?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I have a little difficulty advising the public on the rate of return of a company, because it could influence the stock market. As I say, they are going to make a nominal return. Yes, they have told me; but that is told to me in confidence. I have a little bit of difficulty. I am satisfied that the rate of return they are anticipating is not usurious.

Let's get one thing straight, Mr. Chairman, through you to the member. When you are saying to me that the coal companies are going to the government and asking for help, that is not really the problem. The costs of mining the coal are the responsibility of the coal company. You can rest assured that the Japanese buyers are going to be checking their mining techniques and so forth, because they don't want to get into a situation where they are relying on a particular coal company for supply of coal and have them go broke. So they are making a standard return on investment.

The problem is that the freight rate in the northeast must be competitive with the southeast. That's where we have the difficulty with the steel companies, because freight rates in Canada for movement of coal have increased approximately 20 percent per year over the last five years. If you project that on into the interior, say the price of coal is $100, the railway transportation companies are going to be taking $75 of the increase. That's where the problem is. We have difficulty in Canada, because our coal mines are so far inland, in competing.

If you look down the road to the future, I don't think the eight billion tonnes of coal are going to stay there forever; they are going to have to be developed. I guess that you could liken this to the building of a power dam in British Columbia. It seemed like a lot of money at the time, but had we not built them then it would cost us billions and billions of dollars today. I look at the W.A.C. Bennett Dam and that power structure. I remember when it was being built; I was here as a backbencher. The cost of it was projected at $800 million — a lot of money! Today we are building Site 1, which is really nothing but a tea kettle compared to the major dam development, and it is costing, I think, in the vicinity of $1.5 billion.

The resources are there. We've got initial contracts to get the project underway. I'm saying that the sooner we do it the better. If you leave it another ten years, then the cost of those tunnels is not going to be $150 million; it's going to be $350 million.

MR. LEA: The minister said that he has been told by the coal producers what they are desirous of in their return on invested equity after taxes. For argument's sake, let's say that it's 15 percent — not unheard of in petroleum companies; most of them look for that kind of figure. It depends how we come to the 15 percent, Mr. Chairman. For instance, in order for those coal producers to realize a 15 percent return, what do we have to do as the owners of the resource? Can they realize this undisclosed amount of return, without subsidy, in one or more forms?

It seems to me that the people who own the resource, that is the people of British Columbia, should have some idea — in fact, they should know, and they should know in this Legislature — what the deal is. There should be no deal until this Legislature, representing the stockholders, the citizens of this province, knows what the deal is. After all, it is our resource.

The minister says he won't disclose the figure. I would like to ask the minister whether this desired return that the coal producers want could be realized without subsidy dollars from governments.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I think we are getting into a philosophical discussion here, because there are no subsidy dollars to the coal companies per se. Historically, if you are going to open up an area, it is the government's responsibility to provide services to people and, indeed, to build a transportation network — highways and railroad. That has been historical.

We've got this thing built up that we're subsidizing the coal companies. In essence, we're not subsidizing the coal companies at all. We're providing the normal services that we provided to the pulpmills in Prince George when they went in there. We provided a railroad for them; we provided the services to the people who were going to work in the mills. Where do you see a subsidy in that? We, in northeast coal are doing a normal governmental function by providing

[ Page 3671 ]

a transportation system and services to the people who work there. If we were to put four pulpmills in Chetwynd, we wouldn't go to the pulpmills and say, "How much are you going to pay to upgrade the British Columbia Railway from Chetwynd to Prince George?" would we? No, not at all. As I said, when we extended the railway from Quesnel into Prince George, we didn't go to the proposed pulpmills — there was nothing firm there — and say: "How much are you going to pay as surcharge to haul your lumber out of Prince George?" Indeed, that is why the British Columbia Railway has been successful in British Columbia. It has been used as an economic tool.

Again, I want to say that when we talk about the great debt burden of the British Columbia Railway, it is very small in terms of the economic stimulus it has given to the overall province. We talk about the loss. In the last three years the railway has just about broken even. Let's put the operation of the British Columbia Railway in perspective and let's talk about lower mainland transit, for instance. Let's talk about the ferry authority. Let's talk about a number of things. In other words, let's not just take the British Columbia Railway, which has been a great economic development stimulus to the province of British Columbia and has created many thousands of jobs, which in turn provide the tax base to provide the education, health services, Attorney-General's department and all the social services that we provide to the people of British Columbia.

We have to have a growing economy in order to maintain the tax base, so that we can keep British Columbians enjoying the social services they enjoy today. Without it, I'm afraid, there'd be no tax dollars down the road to provide those services that we enjoy today, and then we'd be in trouble. It is a responsibility of this government — and it would be the responsibility of your government — to ensure that the economy is strong. It has been very difficult, historically, to tax a loss. There really is no subsidy, per se, to the coal companies.

MR. LEA: The minister is making it philosophic. I am not arguing whether or not there should be a subsidy; I am trying to find out whether there is. I'll accept the minister's argument. He said no; he said that all the transportation is something that is being paid for by the taxpayers. So it should be. I won't even argue that point.

Let's go past that and look at this $1.2 billion that these coal companies are going to be investing. There are many ways to get a subsidy. For instance, who is building the townsite? Are there going to be tax credits for building that townsite? Are there going to be quick write-offs in this deal, write-offs that are drawn up especially for this project and are not in the broad policy spectrum of government at the present time? Who is going to be paying for the townsite?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Let me assure the member that there are no special deals being made. The normal development will apply.

With regard to the townsite, as far as I'm concerned, I wish the laws of British Columbia would allow us to say to the British Columbia Development Corporation: "Look, here is a piece of land. You go ahead and develop it and you're on your own to make a profit." I think it could be done; we could develop a townsite. But I've discussed this with the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), and in order to have the sewers and water programmed it must be done through the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. I'm sure that if the British Columbia Development Corporation were given the acreage as raw land and told, "You develop a townsite there," it could be done very easily with just the normal programs we have now. I'm sure the British Columbia Development Corporation, in the long run, would come out making a profit after the sale of the land.

All I'm saying is that there are no special write-offs or giveaways. The normal programs that are in place apply.

MR. LEA: I take it the minister is saying that the cost to the people of Canada or British Columbia or a combination of both is that the taxpayers will be paying for all the transportation and townsite infrastructure. The $1.2 billion that the companies are investing is for mine sites only. Is that true?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, basically yes. I'm saying the general program will apply, and it's the same as the development of the port of Prince Rupert. The federal government is billing the port of Prince Rupert, and the throughput charges on the port of Prince Rupert will be what the market will bear. Freight rates are basically what the market will bear; they have been historically. So what I'm saying is that when you talk about your transportation rate, if you're trying to develop a formula where the cost of transportation and today's costs are going to pay for the tonnage that goes over, it just won't work, and if you consider that a subsidy, that's your thinking and not mine. I don't consider it a subsidy, because, if you want to look down the road 10 or 20 years, the railroad we build today at a cost of $315 million, 15 years from now will be worth $1.5 billion or somewhere near that figure.

I could get into a discussion with you today saying that we should have built this — and we should have — 15 years ago. If we, had built this railway 15 years ago, it probably would have cost $50 million or $60 million; we would have gained a great deal on our capital investment. I think that goes for all services, because if you want to look back, the word "inflation'' was practically not in the Canadian language in the year 1962; it wasn't until the settlement of the St. Lawrence Seaway wage scale that inflation started to take off. Inflation is a problem all over the world today. I don't think it's going to get any better; I say the sooner we get on with building up our province.... When you look at a population of 2.5 million people in this great province of ours, we're still a pioneering province, and unfortunately we're late in our development and we're stuck with inflationary costs.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, so the $1.2 billion — approximately, I suppose — is going to be invested by the coal producers in the coal site only, in the mines. How much a tonne do those coal producers have to get in order to realize the undisclosed desirable amount of return on their invested equity, not including the freight rate or the surcharge for building the rail line or the townsite? How much do the coal companies have to get a tonne in order to make their disclosed to the minister — profit, after taxes?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Let me put it to the member this way. If the coal companies went to Japan under the present terms and conditions and said the coal f.o.b. Prince Rupert is

[ Page 3672 ]

$80 a tonne, do you know what the Japanese would tell them? They'd say: "We'll pay you $75." If the coal companies went and said they could mine that coal f.o.b. Prince Rupert at $70 a tonne, do you know what the steel companies would tell them? They would say: "We'll pay you $65." In other words, as I tried to explain, it's the freight rate which is so high that is precluding the sale of this coal. That's really where we're at.

You talk about what the coal companies have to have for their coal. I can try and get that figure, but I'm reluctant to disclose that because those are negotiations between the steel companies and the coal companies. As I tried to explain a little while ago, if we think that the coal companies are going to make a tremendous profit, after their first year, when we see their financial statement, we'll move in. That part of it doesn't worry me.

But I do want to explain to the member that we're talking about a project with about a $2.5 billion investment. Private investment of that will be $1.955 billion, or 78 percent; federal about $24 million, or 1 percent; provincial about $487 million, or 19 percent; regional $44 million. That's the total cost. So you see that the private sector will be putting in 78 percent of the total investment.

MR. LEA: As I understand it, the B.C. surcharge for the Anzac line and $16 a tonne equals $20 at tidewater. This is the figure that's been given to the coal producers by the B.C. government — that it would be $20 a tonne for freight at tidewater. Is that correct?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You're very close. I haven't got the exact figure with me, but I think it's 20-point-something, of which about $16 is for operating the actual cost of hauling the coal and the other $4 is a surcharge.

MR. LEA: Now I get back to the question I asked about what the coal companies have to get themselves. Let's take that $20 and put it aside, and say that's something that we won't deal with with the coal companies. It might affect the market, it might affect the Japanese buying the coal, but it's got nothing to do with the coal producers. They have to realize so much per tonne in order to get back a return on their investment of $1.9 billion. So obviously it's of dire importance to the coal companies to know exactly what they need to get per tonne — and I'm sure they do.

Where we split philosophically is that I do believe that the people of the province own the resource, and we can tell very easily — we shareholders in this resource — exactly what's going on if we add up two things: the $20 for freight and the amount the coal companies are going to get per tonne from the steel companies. We look at those two figures. We know then what the Japanese are offering, and it's accepted, and we know beyond a shadow of a doubt whether there are any hidden subsidies somewhere. I think we have a right to know, as shareholders. So it's of utmost importance, I believe, that we shareholders know what the coal producers need to get a tonne. I'll go along with the minister and say that possibly for stock market problems it would be inadvisable to tell us exactly what the percentage of return on invested equity is going to be after taxes, but the price per tonne doesn't give us that information. All it lets us know is whether we're being skinned, or if there are hidden subsidies that we don't know about. And I think we have a right to know that. So we're not letting any secrets out of the bag in terms of the stock market or manipulations of that kind. All we're doing is letting the people of this province know exactly what's going on.

So I ask again: how much per tonne do the coal producers need in order to realize their desired return on a $1.9 billion investment? I think we need to know that.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I thought when we started this debate that we'd basically get down to the different philosophies, and all I want to say is that if you look at the taxes that Kaiser Resources has paid to the province over the last two or three years, I think that probably the shareholders of the coal are getting a fairly decent return. You may have to take a look at it, but there you are. These companies are public companies. They have many, many shareholders. What they have to get in return will be negotiated between the individual coal company and the individual steel company. We know what the return to the shareholders through the royalty is. We also know that a 15 percent mining tax is on all coal mines as well as hard mineral mines. All I am saying is that when these companies put out their financial statement, if they are making too much profit — or if we feel they are, or indeed the government of the day feels they are — that is when to move in.

You are talking about hidden subsidies. We've talked about subsidies so much that we are building up that there is a subsidy in the mind's eye. There was a subsidy when the southeast was opened up. CPR subsidized the freight rate for a number of years, thank you very much. They are getting a great return today. As a matter of fact, coal is probably their most profitable haul.

So I don't have any difficulty with the companies making a profit. The price that it costs them to produce at the mine will be negotiated between the steel companies and the coal companies.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, I have no argument with the coal companies making a profit either. But I do have a concern about the shareholders, the people of this province, not being skinned. We know a pretty firm fact: $20 for transportation, including Anzac — a retirement of surcharge. Suppose the contract came in with the Japanese saying they'd buy it for $77 and the coal producers agreed to sell it for $77; but the coal producers need, say, $60 a tonne in order to break even or to make their desired return. Add up the $20 and the $60 and you get $80. If we see a deal signed for $77, we know that $3 is missing somewhere — three inexplicable dollars. It would have to come from somewhere. Does that mean that the companies are willing to take a loss? If they're going to get, say, 15 percent on their invested equity by investing in this risk venture, and the $3 brought it down to 12 percent, which they could possibly get at the bank, why would they do it? It wouldn't make any sense.

I think we've come to the crucial part here. In order for British Columbians to know whether or not it's a good deal.... I don't think it's good enough, Mr. Chairman, to say you'll know later; I think they want to know before. I think before this deal is signed the people of the province would like to have a chance to examine it in their Legislature. I think they have the right to that. Now I ask again, because I think it's a serious, serious question. Only by getting this figure from the minister on how much a tonne the companies need in order to get their desirable return — or they could put it in the bank and get it.... We have to know, because I don't believe that the coal companies are going to put out risk capital to get bank interest. It just doesn't make sense; it's not

[ Page 3673 ]

good business, and I think they are sound business people. So how much a tonne do the coal companies need?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, let me try to explain it to the member this way, because he's a little bit off in his assumptions that if the Japanese pay $80 a tonne for coal, the difference between $80 and whatever they're going to produce it for is going to be paid by the steel companies. It's not so. The problem is — and I tried to explain a moment ago — that if the coal companies said: "We can sell you that coal at $80 a tonne at the present time with the freight rate...." I guess what I'm trying to say is that the problem in the sale of the coal is not the cost of producing it; the problem is the cost of getting it from the mine to the port. It doesn't matter what the cost of the commodity is — and let me assure you of this. As a matter of fact, I think the Japanese are quite willing to pay a bonus for northeast coal. But the Japanese don't look at the f.o.b. price entirely; they're looking at the freight rate, and if they pay a higher freight rate in the northeast than they're paying in the southeast, they know that next year — bang! That's why the trouble we have is in the freight rate, not in the cost of producing the coal.

I can understand your reason for saying that the coal companies are going to rip us off. Well, I'm telling you that if the coal companies are ripping us off, then we're going to increase.... Governments are powerful. We could move in and increase the royalty or the mining tax. We have the end say. The problem with the situation is the freight rate, and they are two different commodities. There's the cost of producing the coal at the minehead, and there's the cost of getting it to Prince Rupert and on board ship. That's where the problem is. If you think that the coal companies are going to go over there and say: "Well, look, you pay us $80 per tonne for your coal...." No. There are two different costs in that tonne of coal when it's on board ship in Prince Rupert. They are very distinct. One is the cost of producing the coal at the mine. I've told you there will be no subsidies; a normal program will apply, but no subsidies. The other is the cost of getting the coal from there to Prince Rupert.

There's the problem. Certainly there is no way that coal companies are going to invest billions of dollars and project a loss. It wouldn't be bankable. You wouldn't put your money into it; neither would any bank or anybody else. They'd put it in the bank and be satisfied with straight interest rates.

MR. LEA: Well, until I asked this question, I had a little cooperation, but now there's no cooperation. The minister's trying to tell me that if I went downtown in Dawson Creek to buy a car and they said it was $5,000.... I guess I'm talking about yesteryear....

HON. MR. CHABOT: Plus freight, he said.

MR. LEA: Right. Plus freight. You don't ask plus freight. You ask how much the car is. They say: "It's $5,000." I say: "Well, it's not the price of the car that worries me; it's the freight." I mean, I don't think the Japanese particularly care where the cost comes in. The market's a pretty unfeeling thing. What they want to know is how much per tonne they have to pay for coal. If they wanted to know something else, it would be idle curiosity. They're concerned about freight only as it affects the price of a tonne of coal. That's the only reason they're concerned about the freight.

But we know — we now have this from the minister — what we can put into the equation as a constant: we have $20 at tidewater at this point, which will be the constant for the term of this contract, or for the foreseeable future. So the Japanese know it's $20 per tonne for the freight. Now if that affects the price of coal to the point where they can't buy it, then they won't buy it — unless somebody's going to meet the cost of the freight rate in some other way.

We get back to the crucial question. Do the taxpayers, the shareholders, know whether there's any hidden costs? It's been disclosed: $20 a tonne — $16 for freight rate and $4 for the surcharge on retirement of the debt for the Anzac line, which is an arbitrary figure. Now if that's an arbitrary figure, then the realistic figure may have been $12 a tonne for the surcharge. So we can see that the government could manipulate a subsidy within.... Not the coal companies, but the government, who desire a deal just as much as, or for other reasons possibly more than, the coal companies. So this $4 a tonne may be completely unrealistic. The minister admits it's arbitrary. The only way we can nail it down is to find out how much per tonne of coal the coal producers need in order to realize a return on their investment. If we don't know that, we don't know anything about the coal deal. As far as we're concerned and as far as the citizens of this province are concerned, we're going into it blind.

The minister says don't worry about that; if it turns out later that they're making too much money, we're powerful, we governments, and we can tax them down the road. It seems to me that we deserve to know beforehand what we're going to be taxing. It seems to me that's a fair question, and I ask for the third and final time for the cost per tonne that the coal companies need at the mine site in order to retire the debt that they're going to have, for this $1.9 billion. How much per tonne of coal? The ex-Minister of Mines says: "Write them a letter and then we'll find out." For the third and final time — I'm not going to belabour the point — how much per tonne of coal?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I know that the member who asked the question is in business, and I give him a great deal of credit for more intelligence than shows in the statement he just made. I really mean that, because freight rates on a commodity such as coal are all-important, and there is a definite breakdown. When you are talking about a car, you buy a car anywhere and the price of the car and the servicing is one area, and it is usually right on the invoice; freight is another. Freight is more in western Canada than it is in Ontario. However, be that as it may, when you are talking about commodities such as coal, the freight rate, my friend, is all-important.

I will tell you and tell you again: the Japanese are not going to pay a higher freight rate in the north than they do in the south. That is where we have the problem. I don't care whether the price of coal produced at the mine.... If the Japanese want to pay a premium for the coal producers, for northeast coal to get it opened up, that is fine. I think they will pay that. As a matter of fact, I know they will. But they have told us — you'll have to take my word for it — that the freight rate at the present time in the northeast is too high. As I've told you. historically freight rates set by railway and trucking companies are based on what the market will bear. The market won't bear the freight rate we're asking. It has nothing to do with the price of coal at the minehead, I assure you.

[ Page 3674 ]

When you are in negotiations — I know the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) has done some negotiating — competing against other coal companies in the world, you're not about to divulge the price of your commodity. Freight rate is a different situation, but when you're negotiating against other companies.... The costs of one mining company may be different from the other. Maybe they're going to make a little more profit. Maybe one company can do it a little more efficiently; that happens to be the private enterprise system. Maybe they can do it a little more profitably. As I say, I am very proud of Canadian coal companies because, although we have to transport the coal an additional 400 miles to tidewater, we are able to compete in the total price. That is where it's at and I know that the member for Prince Rupert will understand what I'm saying.

MR. LEA: When I talked about hidden subsidies, earlier the minister admitted that the $4 surcharge on Anzac was an arbitrary figure. It could have been plucked out of the air; it was nothing, because it's not based on anything. It is based on nonexistent projections into the coal fields in the future over an undetermined number of years. Therein lies the mechanism that could be used for a hidden subsidy. The minister says that the freight rates are all-important. The question then becomes: if the coal producers are going to get what they require a tonne in order to get their investment, and if the freight rate is truly the problem, then the freight rate is the area where the government can give hidden subsidies.

Would the minister agree with me that if the government desired to do it, they could use that sliding, arbitrary figure in the surcharge in order to do it? Who'd be the wiser? It is based on out-of-the-air figures. If the government were desirous of giving a freight rate subsidy that doesn't appear to be one, could it not be done in the amount of the surcharge per tonne of coal?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I can't buy your argument. I told you at the very beginning that the theory you are basing your argument on is not what has been historic in Canada. We build highways and railroads and infrastructure to open up an area. There is not only coal in that area. It is one of the richest petroleum areas in North America. There will be lumber mills in the area, and certainly there is a great potential for tourism. Let's not paint ourselves into the comer where every time we build a highway or extend a railroad we try to pay for that infrastructure, which will receive added values as the years go by. Let's not paint ourselves into the area where you look at one particular project to pay for the total infrastructure. That isn't the way the country has been built. As a matter of fact, we wouldn't have a province or country today if we took that narrow view of having each project pay for the total infrastructure. It just won't work.

MR. LEA: In the first five years of operation, what is the projected tonnage per year?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: The projected figure is 7.5 million tonnes a year.

MR. LEA: That $4 surcharge brings back a revenue of approximately $30 million per year. The $315 million to build the Anzac line at 12 percent is something like $37.8 million a year just to pay the interest, without retiring any of the capital. Just looking at that, I can see a $7.8 million subsidy in the first year of operation. That is a subsidy. That is what I was talking about. That is the sliding scale that can be used in this surcharge. In order to nail it down, we have to have the price that the coal companies require at the site per tonne of coal to make their investment pay. There is a subsidy right there: a figure grabbed out of the air, $4. If they needed a bit more it could have been $2. If they didn't need as much it could been $6. The minister admitted that. It's an arbitrary figure plucked out of the air.

The question I asked the minister was that if the government were desirous of giving a subsidy, the surcharge is the place where it could be done; am I correct?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You see, Mr. Chairman, what the member has done is narrow this down to the small parochial view. I discussed with you in the beginning that we have to build a rail line. I want to tell you that you would never build any extensions anywhere today if you tried to take that particular view. I happen to be of the view that once that rail line is in there it is going to tap an area with 8.3 billion tonnes of coal. What you are telling me is that you want 0.4 percent of the total reserves to pay for building the railroad. That is exactly what the member is telling me. Why should you make 0.4 percent of the total coal in that area pay for building the entire spur line?

I ask the member why he would take that particular view. Here we have him again saying that the commodity and the price of the commodity is the only benefit. I think, Mr. Chairman, that the member forgets the thousands and thousands of jobs that will be created in this province and the thousands and millions of dollars of spinoff. Both my ministry and the private sector have pointed out that in 30 years the return to the taxpayers in all forms from employment, purchases, mining tax and royalty is something in the vicinity of $2.5 billion. Yet the member is trying to say that this is a subsidized program.

I'll tell you, it's not a subsidized program. You're looking at a commodity and you're wanting a very small percentage of that commodity to pay for the total infrastructure. I'm telling you that this is a very narrow view. I look at the other spinoff — employment and taxes — that this will create. I'll tell you, if you call it a subsidy, I don't adhere to the same economic philosophy you do. I'm saying this is a good deal for Canada and indeed it's a good deal for British Columbia. I think we're taking a very, very narrow view if we start looking at a 15-year projection. My heavens, if we would have taken that view when we were building this country, the country indeed would never have been built.

MR. LEA: What the minister is saying.... I think the minister has got it mixed up. I'm the socialist; you're the free enterpriser. I think he's got the roles a little mixed up.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not a practising socialist!

MR. LEA: Well, definitely the minister isn't a practising free enterpriser. The minister keeps coming back to saying that the cost of the coal is no problem. It doesn't matter how much it costs for the company to produce the coal at the site. It doesn't matter a dam; it's the freight that's the problem." Does that make sense? It doesn't make sense. The Japanese, I would imagine, are interested in how much a tonne it is going to cost.

I'd like to ask the minister another question. Does the minister know that there have been low-interest loans made to the Australian participants by the Japanese buyers?

[ Page 3675 ]

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman — through you to the hon. member — the answer is yes. I think the scene that the hon. member for Prince Rupert is going to try and present.... Let me maybe give him a bit of information. The low-interest money that the Japanese are putting into Australia is basically for the development of thermal coal, because, as you know, there's going to be a demand in Japan when they replace their oil with coal. They've been here; they've been talking to us. But they're looking at purchases of tens of millions of tonnes of thermal coal from Australia in this decade. We will probably sell them some millions of tonnes of thermal coal, but nothing in the proportion that Australia will be selling them. They're switching their oil-fired electrical generating plants over to coal. That is basically what the Japanese investment in Australia is for — to ensure a supply of thermal coal.

The member might be interested in low-interest money from Japan, but I would not want to see the scene developed where, with a small investment of X number of dollars at a low interest rate, we allow the Japanese to come in and set the price of coal or have a say in the running of our affairs. I think it's all right for them to invest in the private sector, because ultimately, as I say, governments are powerful. They have the say in what taxes people will pay. We do that right here in this Legislature. So that's just one thing that I want to caution the member on. I think that's the scene he was going to try to present to me.

MR. LEA: I guess there's no use beating a point over the head. The minister has said that he's not going to let us know how much a tonne of coal is at the site — how much the companies need in order to get their investment. So we'll move on.

I'd like to ask the minister why it is that under his ministry the Slumber Lodge in Terrace received moneys from the TIDSA program, and two local business groups in Prince Rupert — local British Columbia groups — applied to the program and were turned down.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, as I stated, there are guidelines for the TIDSA program. Those guidelines and the criteria for obtaining a loan are available to the member. If he hasn't taken the time to obtain them for himself, I shall certainly see that copies are sent to him, even in finite detail, if he wants them. These guidelines were developed jointly between the federal people and my own department, and they must apply. I think I explained in question period....

It's a good political trick; the member is trying to establish that we made a loan to Slumber Lodge, and I know that the motels or hotels that applied for TIDSA grants in his area have been turned down. It amazes me that the member hasn't come to my office and sat down with me, on behalf of those people in Prince George, to argue the case. They've been turned down for some two or three weeks now. I know if it were my riding and motels wanting loans had been turned down, I'd have been in the minister's office — like I used to go the member's office when he was Minister of Highways, and on bended knee plead for money for highways for my constituency.

I'd be happy to sit down and even bring in the TIDSA people who make the decision. Let's sit down and argue it. If the member and the people who have made the application to TIDSA can put up a case and can change our minds, based on criteria that are laid down — not on political pressure; we wouldn't stand for that — I invite the member for Prince Rupert to my office. We'll call in the people who made the decision. Let's sit down and argue the case for them and see, based on the criteria, if we can make a case. They're telling me that there's a tremendous demand in the summertime for tourist accommodation, but in the wintertime that demand isn't there.

Maybe we can tell them about the great coal development, and the development of the great port of Prince Rupert, which will bring tourists there to look at it while it's being developed, to watch the grain being loaded on the ships, and to watch the construction of the coal port, and the elevators. Maybe we can put a case to the TIDSA people that this is going to be a great tourist attraction, and the tourists are going to flock there in the wintertime. I'd be most happy to sit clown with the member and listen to him plead his case.

MR. LEA: I'm very glad to hear that. You see, Mr. Chairman, I went to the wrong minister, and she thought she was in charge of it too. I went to see the minister, and I said: "Who administers TIDSAT?" She said: "It's jointly administered by me and the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development." So today, naturally, I asked the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan), because I'd already given her forewarning that I'd be bringing it up, and she got up and informed me that she no longer has anything to do with it. I was a little surprised, and I just want to let the minister know that he is chastising me for nothing. I was working on behalf of my constituents. I just didn't know that you'd cut out the minister from the Okanagan. She didn't know it either a week ago, but I guess she does now. I guess she just learned about it after I raised this point. Anyway, I'm going to take the minister up on his offer.

I'd like to ask one final question before closing time. Would it be all right if I brought the participants from Prince Rupert who've applied for the loans when I meet with you and the TIDSA people?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I must certainly inform the member that the Minister of Tourism and I work closely in administering the TIDSA grant. She works....

MR. LEA: She works on one side, and you work on the other.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: No, no. We work together on setting policy, and the people in my department do the actual looking at the applications.

I would like to sit down with the member first of all. Prince Rupert's a long way away. Before you bring your people in, let's you and I sit down and talk.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

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

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

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:02 p.m.