[ Page 5987 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

An Act to Establish an Institute of Native Indian Languages for British Columbia (Bill

M204). Mr. Hanson.

Introduction and first reading –– 5987

Oral Questions

College funding. Mr. Lauk –– 5987

Mr. Hanson

Mr. Lockstead

Job training programs. Ms. Sanford –– 5988

Ms. Brown

Gas poisoning at Can-Cel plant. Hon. Mr. Heinrich replies –– 5989

Urea formaldehyde in B.C. schools. Hon. Mr. Smith replies –– 5990

Ministerial Statement

British Columbia Arts Festival.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 5991

Mrs. Dailly –– 5991

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Human Resources estimates. (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy)

On vote 118: direct community services and administrative support –– 5991

Mr. Hall

On vote 121: community projects –– 5994

Ms. Brown

On vote 122: GAIN programs –– 5994

Ms. Brown

On vote 124: building occupancy charges –– 5994

Ms. Brown

On the amendment to vote 124 –– 5994

Ms. Brown

Division on the amendment to vote 124

On vote 125: computer and consulting charges –– 5995

Ms. Brown

On the amendment to vote 125 –– 5995

Ms. Brown

Division on the amendment to vote 125

On vote 125: computer and consulting charges –– 5995

Ms. Brown

Mr. Nicolson

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

On vote 76: minister's office –– 5996

Hon. Mr. Rogers

Mr. Skelly

Mrs. Wallace

Tabling Documents

Agreement between British Columbia Place Ltd. and Canadian Pacific Ltd. (Marathon Realty).

Hon. Mr. Rogers –– 6012

THURSDAY, JUNE 4, 1981

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the House to welcome two visitors in the gallery today: Mrs. Rose Mytko of Richmond, and Mrs. Anne Reddick of Surrey.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, seated in your gallery today is none other than Mayor Michael Harcourt from the city of Vancouver. I would ask the House to make him welcome.

MR. DAVIDSON: Mr. Speaker, visiting with us today on the floor of the Legislature is a very good friend of mine, who is here with his wife, who is in the gallery — Dr. Julian Amos, who is, among other things, the minister for primary industry, the minister for the environment, minister for water resources, forestry and fisheries for Tasmania. I would ask the House to give this member of the Labour Party a very warm welcome to British Columbia.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, seated in the gallery this afternoon is a past member of the House of Commons in Ottawa, who served as a Member of Parliament for some time. He was also a very well-known open-line host in the province of British Columbia; he is now an independent businessman. I would ask the House to welcome John Reynolds.

MR. SPEAKER: I recognize the hon. member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. LAUK: I rise under.... Could I just have my standing order book? I want to refer to the actual number of the standing order.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it standing order 8, hon. member?

MR. LAUK: It is standing order 8, Mr. Speaker. Thank you. Obviously one can perceive that that is the proper standing order. I'm delighted the Speaker agrees with me. "Every member is bound to attend the service of the House, unless leave of absence has been given him by the House." The reason I point that out is that a breach of the standing orders has been taking place over the last several days that I wish to see corrected.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the first member for Vancouver Centre has on previous occasions reminded the House of standing order 8. I think we would remind the hon. member again, as we have so many times before, that attendance in the House is considered to have taken place if the member is present in the precinct. The Speaker is powerless to determine from this vantage point whether or not that has taken place.

MR. LAUK: On a new point of order, Mr. Speaker, I know that standing orders as set out here in this red book apply to this Legislature. I would like to know what group of standing orders applies to the legislature presently underway in the city of Vancouver.

MR. PASSARELL: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Please state the matter briefly.

MR. PASSARELL: I raised this question of privilege on June 1, 1981, and I seek the same consideration that was granted the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) on May 29, 1981, eight days after the petition I presented in this House on May 21, 1981.

My question of privilege is that the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing accused me of misleading the House with the Windy Bay petition. He has not tendered an unqualified withdrawal or apology.

If Your Honour finds that I have a prima facie question of privilege I intend to move the following motion: that a special committee of privilege be appointed to consider the matter of the remarks of the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing made in this House on May 29, 1981, that the member for Atlin misled the House upon presentation of a petition, and that the said committee report its findings to the House — the said committee to be composed of eight members to be named by the special committee of selection — and that the committee so appointed have the following powers: namely, to have all the powers and privileges of the Legislative Assembly under the Legislative Assembly Privilege Act.

MR. SPEAKER: This matter appears to have grown out of a matter which we dealt with yesterday. We will take this under advisement to see whether there are new facts that have arisen and will bring a decision to the House.

Introduction of Bills

AN ACT TO ESTABLISH AN
INSTITUTE OF NATIVE INDIAN
LANGUAGES FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA

On a motion by Mr. Hanson, Bill M204, An Act to Establish an Institute of Native Indian Languages for British Columbia, 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.

Oral Questions

COLLEGE FUNDING

MR. LAUK: I have a question for the Minister of Education. The effect of government funding policy at Cariboo College has been a shortfall of $845,000 and an announced cut of 13 full-time faculty positions. Has the minister decided to take steps to increase the funding to Cariboo College to maintain services at the 1980-81 level?

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, the funding increases for that college were something in the neighbourhood of 19 percent. It is virtually impossible for all colleges which undertake new programs, as this college has, to carry out all its old programs in the same way it did the preceding year. That means that colleges and college boards who are sovereign in the matters have to decide what their funding and program priorities are. The result is that in some cases some colleges have not been able to carry out all their existing programs.

[ Page 5988 ]

The member opposite also knows that the funding of colleges — the allocation of funding for colleges — is done by three councils, and that they allocate the funds that the Legislature appropriates. They give those funds to the colleges through the councils and that produces the global budget. The minister does not have funds available to supplement those budgets. But in the case of Cariboo College and some others who have come to see me, I am meeting with the boards and representatives of these colleges and examining the budgeting procedures that were used. The member well knows, Mr. Speaker, that the funding allocations are done through three independent councils.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. It is clear, from talking to the three councils to which the minister has referred, that they say that they haven't got enough money to allocate according to their responsibilities. The buck has to stop somewhere. I'm asking the minister: if your councils — they're your councils, as you appoint them — are of the view that they do not have sufficient funds to adequately budget for all colleges and their requirements in the province, has the minister decided to take emergency steps to provide adequate funding?

HON. MR. SMITH: I generally communicate with the councils directly, and not through the first member for Vancouver Centre. A 19 percent increase in college operating budgets, which the Legislature appropriated this year under my estimates, is one of the largest increases in post-secondary education in North America.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Education regarding Camosun College here in Victoria. One effect of the underfunding of the colleges is the possible elimination of 15 to 20 faculty positions, mainly in the second-year transfer programs. In view of the fact that our participation rate — the number of people attending post-secondary education — in British Columbia ranks sixth in all of Canada, and in view of the essential role of Camosun College, what action has the minister decided to take to redress this problem?

HON. MR. SMITH: Certainly not to appropriate the decision-making role of the board of Camosun College.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: At Malaspina College there have been cuts of 12 full-time-equivalent positions and 10 support positions. Has the minister decided to make funding available to restore these 22 jobs at Malaspina?

While I have the minister's attention, I might remind the minister that one of those positions that have been cut is an instructor for the mentally disabled people. This is the year of the handicapped. I would think that the minister would pay special attention to that particular program.

HON. MR. SMITH: I think it's my day, Mr. Speaker.

I understand that a delegation from Malaspina was going to present that information to me. I'm not aware of the last piece of information about that position. I'll look into that.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Education. The effect of government cutbacks in the colleges is that essential programs to provide skilled people for British Columbia are being lost. For example, I've raised Cariboo College — the carpentry program with 200 students has been cancelled; welding and electronics have been cut back by 20 percent; the correctional officers' program has been cancelled. In view of the findings of the Ministry of Labour critical trades survey that millwrights, heavy-duty mechanics and so on are in short supply, has the minister decided to take steps to provide funding for expansion of college programs that allow unskilled British Columbians to take advantage of the job opportunities predicted by the government for projects like northeast coal?

HON. MR. SMITH: The answer to the question, Mr. Speaker, is yes.

MR. LAUK: If yes, what steps is he taking today to meet the requirements?

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, the details of those steps will be laid before the assembly in due course. I think my friend opposite knows that a specific sum of money was appropriated for critical skills training by the Legislature and will be earmarked for new programs. There are new programs being developed in the various colleges that he, in fact, has mentioned. There are initiatives that have been undertaken this year, not just through my ministry but also through the Ministry of Labour, to address critical skills shortages. That is something that we have been aware of for some time.

MR. LAUK: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. It is clear then, by the minister's answer, that he is starving the current programs in colleges by saving money in his little giveaway fund. Has the minister decided that, rather than give predictable budgets to colleges, he is going to reserve funds, so that he can personally, at his own discretion, give out grants like Marie Antoinette?

MR. SPEAKER: The question is argumentative, particularly in its preamble, but the germ of a question is there.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, the member, as usual, is intoxicated with the exuberance of his own verbosity.

JOB TRAINING PROGRAMS

MS. SANFORD: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Mr. Ron Basford advises that excluding apprentices and the salaried journeymen who will be in supervisory positions, the northeast coal project will be short between 920 and 1,200 skilled people by 1984. At a time when half of B.C.'s unemployed are between the ages of 15 and 24 and are unskilled, can the minister confirm that the programs undertaken by government to alleviate that problem are totally inadequate, and that the government will continue its policy of importing skills from elsewhere on an as-needed basis?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I believe the figures to which the hon. member refers arose as a result of some research which I had done by people in the Ministry of Labour. We identified that there is a shortage in specific areas. It's acknowledged, and no one is going to deny it. The program which has been put in place has provided a substantial increase in apprentices. As a matter of fact, it's working out to be about 100 a month. Right now the critical shortage of seven specific trades was identified at about 1,400 when the

[ Page 5989 ]

study was conducted. Over half have been on the program which was introduced. Prior to September 1, the date on which it went on stream, there were something in the order of about 520. I don't want to be pinned down on the exact number, but it was certainly over 500. We're moving in that direction.

I think you will also find that the second phase of the critical skills shortage studies indicates that by 1984 there will be a substantial shortage — something in the area of 4,000 to 5,000. That's something which we are addressing. I think we've met with some success. Frankly, I thought that maybe that matter would be examined during my estimates.

MS. SANFORD: Can the minister confirm that the present program is totally inadequate in that between 920 and 1,200 skilled people will be required by the northeast coal project by 1984?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: There are a number of areas from which tradesmen will come. One big problem we encountered was that there has been almost total reliance on offshore skills. We are addressing that problem. I think you will find that it will have been answered when those mills come on stream.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Sure, there's a shortage now; I don't deny it. To the member: do you think that we train 1,000 or 1,200 tradesmen and then suddenly go out and look for work for them? That was the whole purpose of the program.

AN HON. MEMBER: You can't do it by firing instructors.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MS. SANFORD: The minister posed a question to me. He wanted to know if I think that so and so and so and so. I'll let him know what I think. I think his program is totally inadequate.

MS. BROWN: My question is to the Minister of Education. Graduates from the community health-service worker program usually find employment at Tranquille, in Kamloops. As a result of inadequate funding by the government, this program has now been cut by 50 percent. We have been advised by the personnel department of Tranquille that they are presently placing advertisements in Ontario for staff. Has the minister decided to take steps to restore full funding to the community health-service worker program at Cariboo College?

HON. MR. SMITH: That is one of the programs at Cariboo College that I will be reviewing with the board of that college in the next week.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Yesterday there were a number of questions asked by the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) and the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard). I wonder if I can have permission to answer those questions.

MR. SPEAKER: Please proceed.

GAS POISONING AT CAN-CEL PLANT

HON. MR. HEINRICH: The first question was: "Can the minister confirm that 49 workers have been stricken by some degree of sickness....?" We're referring to the pulpmill in Prince Rupert. Mr. Don Vinoly of the boilermakers' union, who was contacted today, confirms that since April 2, 1981, approximately 49 workers who are members of his union have sought medical attention as a result of inhalation of noxious gases. The company reports that since March 21 there have been 66 reported cases of illness related to gas. Of these, ten required some sort of hospital attention.

The next question asked was: "Can the minister confirm that there are only two meters in operation, and that they are not manned constantly?" The answer is that the mill has ten Bendix-Draeger gas-monitoring units, of which four are in use at any one time while the others are being regenerated. These meters are ready every hour around the clock. In addition, the mill has and utilizes hand meters for gas testing. I am told that by the pulp industry this standard represents very extensive monitoring, certainly more than meets the WCB requirements.

The third question was: "Can the minister confirm that several of the workers stricken by gas found it necessary to fly to Vancouver for treatment?" Of the ten workers who required hospital attention, three were kept overnight for observation. All reported hospital attention took place in Prince Rupert. However, since most of the boilermakers who booked off the job are from the lower mainland, and since most, if not all, returned to the Vancouver area after they booked off, it is possible that some of them may later have sought hospital treatment there. That is what the union advised them to do. None found it necessary to fly to Vancouver expressly for treatment, as the question implies.

The fourth question was: "Is the WCB taking action with respect to methyl mercaptan?" The WCB has been testing this and other pulpmills in British Columbia for methyl mercaptan over the last two years. Before that time there was no appropriate testing method for the gas. The WCB has visited the Prince Rupert mill five times in the last two years — three times in the last two months — testing for methyl mercaptan. They report that there has been no reported overexposure to methyl mercaptan in the last couple of months. Acceptable levels for methyl mercaptan were reviewed by the WCB a year and a half ago. As a result of a thorough literature search, public hearings and input from all parties involved, the acceptable level was set at three parts per million. The previous level was 0.5 parts per million. This compares with the acceptable level in the U.S. of ten parts per million. In sum, the methyl mercaptan has been recognized as potentially dangerous for some time. The levels have been carefully monitored, but there have been no real incidents of exposure.

The other question was: "Can the minister also confirm incidents of asbestos poisoning on the same job site, which were reported to the WCB?" No such incidents of asbestos poisoning occurred. The mill is in the process of modifying its number 4 recovery boiler, which dates from 1965. In the process a fair amount of asbestos was removed from tubing at the bottom of the boiler. In the course of its inspections of the mill, the WCB became aware of the asbestos and reported it to the people at the mill. On May 22 the board issued a compliance order for cleanup of the asbestos. The mill immediately hired a local contractor to undertake the cleanup.

[ Page 5990 ]

WCB inspections on May 24 and May 25 determined that the cleanup was unsatisfactory and that the process was creating more hazard than it was alleviating. A new contractor — Power Vac from Richmond — was hired, and they recommence cleanup procedures as of today, June 4. I'm told the job will take ten days. Meanwhile workers have been instructed to wear breathing apparatus and protective clothing when working in the affected areas.

Never did the asbestos levels exceed permissible concentrations. However, once the presence of asbestos became apparent a number of workers did notify the nursing station that they had been exposed. They apparently did so for future reference.

Mr. Ron Dennis, inspection supervisor, and an industrial hygienist have gone to Prince Rupert today to investigate the progress of the asbestos-cleaning. They will also be observing gas-testing for chlorine, chlorine dioxide, hydrogen sulphide and sulphur dioxide. Mr. Dennis will be reporting to the board, and also directly to me, when he returns on Monday.

The union's response to the whole problem was not withdrawal of services. Rather, they advised workers that they are not required to work on a worksite they deem unsafe. After a visit to the mill by Mr. Don Vinoly and other union representatives on May 3, and discussions with management, it was agreed to give the boilermakers a temporary layoff while the company undertook corrective procedures. Workers returned to Vancouver. The crew flew back to Prince Rupert on May 25. There was a further gassing incident on May 29. This resulted in another temporary layoff of two weeks' duration. This was agreed to by all parties. The union suggested to mill management that additional monitors be hired, that a qualified person be set in supervision of them and that the shop steward be included in arrangement to make the place safe.

The company now plans to: (1) double the staff of gas monitors, thereby increasing the frequency of readings; (2) assign two senior technical people to inform workers about what's going on and keep a check on the gas situation; (3) engage Dr. Leach of the B.C. Research Council to do a complete gas analysis of the mill, including gases other than those they now monitor; (4) engage Chemetic, the firm which designed and installed their gas-burning system to do a thorough check; and (5) retain a member of the local medical community to keep a check on gas conditions and workers' health.

Emergency training and procedures to cope with gas are now in place for all crew in the mill to guard against worker exposure. Alarms and sirens are also in use.

MR. LEA: I ask leave to make a statement.

Leave not granted.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, may I have leave to answer a question which was asked of me on June 1?

MR. SPEAKER: Was it in question period?

HON. MR. SMITH: Yes, it was.

MR. SPEAKER: Please proceed.

UREA FORMALDEHYDE IN B.C. SCHOOLS

HON. MR. SMITH: On June 1 the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) asked me if there had been other examples of urea formaldehyde in the schools that have been brought to my attention. He asked me more specifically if the school board in Kamloops was notified that ten of the kindergarten demountable classrooms in that district are insulated with urea formaldehyde, and what I was doing to protect the welfare of students.

In looking into that, it appears that those ten demountable classrooms used as kindergartens were all tested by the public health inspector and that no findings of urea formaldehyde gas were found in any of those structures.

MR. LEA: I rise on the same point of order that I raised yesterday, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday I pointed out to Your Honour that every time we ask leave on this side of the House to make a statement, the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) says no. I would like Your Honour to consider this.

After the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) made a statement today in regard to the health and safety for workers in my riding in the pulpmill in Prince Rupert, I think it could have been assumed by the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing that I was going to make a statement in regard to the minister's statement. What is happening, Mr. Speaker, is rather than using this Legislature for the benefit of the people of this province, in my opinion, the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing is using it for cheap political games. That's all he's doing.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I ask you to privately see the minister and ask him whether he intends to do this for the term of this parliament. If so, we cannot waste our time.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, when leave is requested, it is because of a desire to seek unanimous consent of the House. Whenever unanimous consent is denied the standing orders provide for no powers for the Chair to determine why leave is denied. It simply means that one member, for any reason and for reasons many times known only to himself, wishes not to give unanimous consent. As a result, no statement can be entertained at that time.

Had the member wished to respond to a ministerial statement, he would have been able to make a response by right. But when a minister simply answers a question taken as notice in question period, that right does not exist.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I understand that your hands are tied by the rules and that you have to adopt what you're doing in the House. What I'm asking Mr. Speaker to do is to somehow or other review that specific rule with whatever is the appropriate committee, so that there can be fair play in the House and so that the people of the province can be served. I believe that if it's allowed to remain the way it is, then we can see what happens to a rule that was set up for a specific purpose and is being used for a different purpose.

MR. SPEAKER: An adequate remedy is available to the member for exactly that purpose. A substantive motion can be placed on the order paper with a proper motion to have it committed to a committee, as he suggests.

MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, what we've got here, in my view, is a circumvention of the practice of the House, namely question period. What is happening here is that in an attempt to make question period more meaningful, the cabinet members have asked and received permission of the House to make lengthy statements answering questions asked during question period outside of the question period. That has always been given. We've agreed that we shouldn't use up a great deal of time in those lengthy answers. But once that permission is given and an answer is given by a cabinet minister, that precludes a supplementary.

[ Page 5991 ]

That's what the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) and I find offensive: the chance to immediately question that minister on a piece of information that he has brought to this House. The remedy is very simple. Either we're going to have all the answers during question period or question period will be destroyed by this government. It’s as simple as that. That's what this government is leaning towards. That's what's behind their move. I want to serve notice on this House that everybody realizes that's the game this government is up to.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a ministerial statement.

MR. SPEAKER: Please proceed.

BRITISH COLUMBIA ARTS FESTIVAL

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I make this statement on behalf of the Premier. Before making the statement I wish to introduce some special guests in the gallery who are here for the purpose of participating in this important announcement. I ask leave.

Leave granted.

Interjection.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I'm sure the member would not want to deny me the opportunity to introduce some guests in the gallery who are associated with this announcement, because they are fully familiar with who these people are and who they represent. They are Mr. Norman Young, chairman of the British Columbia Arts Board; Mr. Gary Rupert, president of the Association of B.C. Drama Educators; Mr. Barry McDell, president of the B.C. Music Festival Association; Anne Marsh, president of Theatre B.C.; Robin Wood, principal of the Victoria Conservatory of Music; and Wally Leigh, vice-president of the Greater Victoria Community Arts Council.

Every member of this House knows that this province is most rich in almost every possible natural resource, but one resource, the talent of our artistic community, is certainly one of which we are justly proud. On behalf of the Premier I'm pleased to say that in an effort to further promote that talent I am announcing the first British Columbia Arts Festival, a major showcase of provincial talent sponsored by the province, aimed at stimulating enthusiasm for and participation in the arts at the community level and providing an opportunity to recognize the contributions made by our citizens in the artistic community.

This festival will be unique in Canada. Its development is a reflection of the quality of the arts in our province and the contribution it makes to all of our lives. This first British Columbia Arts Festival will be held in Kamloops in June 1982. It will feature performances in music, theatre, dance and the visual arts, with participation from every region of the province.

Mayor Latta of Kamloops has given his assurance that his city will do everything possible to set high standards for future host communities, and I know personally that Kamloops has all of the right facilities to help make this first British Columbia Arts Festival a tremendous success. In essence, Mr. Speaker, the festival will do for the amateur arts what our British Columbia Games have done for amateur sport in British Columbia.

Although it is a major undertaking and requires the assistance of hundreds of volunteers, the result will be a celebration unparalleled in our country. The government is very grateful to the artists and the volunteer organizations who worked for many years to bring the arts community to the point where a festival of this kind is justified. The festival will be a culmination of their efforts and will involve them in providing a prestigious stage for displaying the very impressive results of talented British Columbians.

I might say, Mr. Speaker, that this new program sponsored by the province in no way will intrude on the present festivals of these various societies which take place; we only want to ask them to coordinate in one place and at one time, to have one exciting activity take place in a festival of the arts. So there is a great deal to be done before June 1982, and if all aspects of the amateur arts community participate in the festival, it is estimated that some 100,000 British Columbians will be involved. I have every hope that this unique project will become an annual event — an ongoing opportunity to foster and promote the interest and talent of our people,

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the official opposition I want to say to the Provincial Secretary that we're very pleased to hear of the proposed festival. We also want to add our congratulations on the work being done by the B.C. Arts Board. I think there have been many athletic festivals in this province — which we all endorse — but I think too often we have forgotten about the importance of the arts. I think we all know that the measure of civilization of a province and its advancement are really determined a lot by the attention that's paid to the arts in it. I want to assure the Provincial Secretary that the NDP opposition will be glad to cooperate in any way they can to make this a successful festival.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCES
(continued)

On vote 118: direct community services and administrative support, $85,100,643.

MR. HALL: Mr. Chairman, just before the lunch hour we were about to discuss the review and the comprehensive audit that had taken place over the last 12 months in the ministry's operation, particularly in the delivery of the income assistance program. The operation that takes place is using the expression "the income-assistance environment." The fact that this audit is the first comprehensive audit of its kind and one which will no doubt be examined throughout the length and breadth not only of this country but in many of the Commonwealth parliaments.... The public accounts committee was fortunate in having expert testimony coming from people who in effect lived in the ministry's ambit during that audit and who have now left the employ of the auditor-general, have gone back to the private sector and are doing other kinds of works, but who came back to give testimony to the public accounts committee. In the report by the auditor-

[ Page 5992 ]

general we're finding a number of serious criticisms of the administration of the income-maintenance program. I want to tell the minister that there was general agreement in the committee with the word picture that was put forward by my colleague the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi). That word picture from the minister's memory was an inverted pyramid of some $750 million based on the shoulders of this mythical — but at the same time real — financial assistance worker representing the minister's line staff. The problem is to distribute the $750 million in the income assistance program as properly as it can humanly be done.

What we found is that more and more money is being spent by more and more people and more and more mistakes are being made. There's been a human inability to establish criteria to measure the efficiency of the program. Only now after this comprehensive audit — I'm very optimistic about the future — would it be possible to start to look at sensible criteria to establish parameters and benchmarks that we can measure from one year to the other as to how we are performing in terms of our administering one of the most important ministries of government.

Let's look at some of the salient criticisms that were made. One dealt with the quality of information that comes to this Legislature. If we're to believe in what we're doing at the moment — that is, voting money — one of the most important things.... I'm not too sure whether the Chairman and I would agree that this sometimes boring exercise that takes place in the middle of an afternoon here has got the relevance it should have; certainly it does not to visitors who pop in from time to time. The kinds of money that are going through this budget of $7 billion are now — Mr. Chairman, you'd be surprised to know — reaching $3.7 billion of simple transfer payments without the kind of audit other than audit for rectitude and correctness or any other kind of audit going on at all. It's escaping the kind of scrutiny that I think the Canadian public is asking for.

The first criticism simply says that the minister's procedures for measuring efficiency do not provide management and the Legislative Assembly with reliable and complete information about the efficiency of the administration of the income-assistance program or the effectiveness of the control system. That's the first criticism and one that those of us who've had offices and have tried to maintain some kind of contact with the community have been worried about for years.

Criticism number two is that the ministry is going to have to devote further substantial effort to ensure the effectiveness of operating control mechanisms supervision, written guidance to personnel, training, audit, quality control and implementation of accounting and control systems for payment. Again there is a cry for improved training and improved control. It's something that I mentioned in my comments to the minister on her salary vote. I'm sure it's true to say that those of us who receive calls — both personally and through our constituency assistants — have the impression from people asking for advice and for direction in the welfare field that this is a frequent problem.

A third criticism deals with the amount of income assistance which is paid in error because of mistakes on the part of either employees of the ministry or on the part of claimants. The ministry often uses this error rate as an indicator of performance. Another ministry performance indicator is said to be too general to be useful in analyzing the overall efficiency of the program. The very criteria the ministry uses to establish its own control features is said by this comprehensive audit to be not at all useful. In other words, you've got to throw away the book and start all over again looking at what we should erect as the benchmarks or the signposts as a control feature. We are, as I say, giving more and more money to people in the form of allowances without any of these kinds of realistic measurements taking place.

The fourth criticism was touched on by the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam, who noted that the minister could also provide information in its annual report which would assist the Legislative Assembly in gaining insight into the minister's performance — historical information covering several years, comparing and analyzing resource utilization. It goes on to talk about what the annual report could or should do.

May I depart for one second by pointing out that I am erecting a table at the moment to show that we have 20 ministries with annual reports. I want to show the House when we received those annual reports, how we receive them after the estimates are dealt with and how we never get an opportunity to look at the annual reports before the estimates come before the House. In my view, we're treated in a cavalier fashion in this House by the House Leader (Hon. Mr. Gardom) or somebody in terms of the production of annual reports.

In actual fact, rather than assisting legislators to do their work, there are road-blocks put in the way. I make no charge against this ministry at the moment. I'm not saying that this ministry is part of that report. As I said, I will depart from my thoughts on this, but I will talk about annual reports at another date. I think that if we're going to do our job properly, we have to have information. I can't understand why information isn't tabled the way it's supposed to be and the way it always was as long as I've been in the House. It should be done properly and in time for estimates. We should be able to read the annual report, get on with analyzing estimates and come up with proper contributions when we're on our feet, armed with facts and figures given to us by the minister's office. What's going on is shoddy behaviour, in my view.

Going back to this ministry, in the comprehensive audit these auditors found that the extent.... This is one of the most serious criticisms because it repeats what I said the other day. The report says: "We found that the extent of day-to-day supervision...is not consistent from one district to another." When I said this the other day, the minister came back at me a little later on and asked why I didn't phone her up and say this. Why didn't I give her some examples? Why didn't I send her a letter? I use my colleague's word — she "querulously" asked me why I hadn't given her this information.

I didn't need to give her the information. She's had auditors working in her own department. This book has been available to her for some time. I'm sure she knows that the story varies from Coquitlam to Surrey. I don't think she's the minister she really is unless she knows that. She's been around. I don't want her to try and kid me by saying that the fact that I haven't sent her a nice, little note — a little, perfumed billet-doux — to tell her that I think the decisions in Surrey are a little bit tougher than the decisions in Coquitlam is why she didn't get on to it. I think she knows that. That's borne out by paragraph 8.145 on page 71 in the comprehensive audit by no less a personage than Erma Morrison. She points out that the extent of day-to-day supervision is not consistent, nor are the manuals consistent, nor are the day-to-

[ Page 5993 ]

day decisions consistent. That's been one of the problems. Go back to the word picture that my colleague from Maillardville-Coquitlam produced in the first place — having this $750 million inverted pyramid based on the shoulders of the one financial worker, who has the job of administering this program.

We pretty well had total agreement in the committee, and we got a great deal of agreement from the senior staff in both the office of the comptroller-general and the ministry.

I'm not going to take up the time of this committee and deal with electronic data processing. I think it's in a mess. I will say not much more than that except that I think most of the electronic data processing plans are in a terrible mess. I think most of the B.C. Systems Corporation advice that this government has had in the past two or three years has been bad. And I think that when we come to the votes and the discussion on B.C. Systems we'll again review the auditor-general's report as it affects the ministry. Let me say, however, that the electronic data processing section of the comprehensive audit of this ministry only confirms our suspicions, and we'll deal with that later on.

"Accountability for costs related to developing projects was unclear, particularly when the B.C. Systems Corporation became involved." That is one of the better sentences quoted from the report. I wouldn't be too tough if I said it was a mess.

One other thing I'd like to to say about the report is a personal note, not one that's shared at all by ministry officials or the auditor-general herself. It's something that I take exception to. There was a large discussion about the fact that, although there is a tremendous amount of money expended in the form of social assistance payments, although we've got all these problems of accountability, and although we've got all these problems of poor control, there has been and continues to be an assumption of fraud. I don't know whether I'm overly sensitive. I certainly don't want to see anybody defraud anybody. I don't want to see anybody tell untruths and get away with it; I don't want to see anybody get what they're not entitled to. In this report we debated why that assumption was made. It was made in a different way, and I think we're tackling it from two different points of view. The comprehensive audit was looking at it from a point of view of controls, from the hard, cold idea of bookkeeping. I think some of the MLAs on the committee were looking at it from a more humanistic point of view. Nobody was questioning for a second that there should be controls. But I certainly question the basic assumption that somehow there is an attractiveness about fraud. I think the word "attractive" was used in the report, which I found to be a little unfortunate. We examined that part of it. We talked about materiality. We talked about what is allowable or what amount of discrepancy is understandable that could be occasioned by mistakes, fraud or honest error. We were told it was a certain percentage; yet, according to the last figures received from the ministry, it's less than that materiality figure normally contained as being significant by auditors.

Similarly, when we look at tables of the very claimants who have appealed decisions against the ministry, we find — and it's to somebody's credit — that most of the decisions are in favour of the claimant. That's the other side of the coin. It would appear to me as though — and I'm using the words to describe my argument in a silly way — the minister was defrauding the claimants. The last two significant studies of any consequence are from the Vancouver Resources Board and from the U.K., which showed that underpayments equalled overpayments. Now I don't suggest for a second that we satisfy ourselves by saying that as long as it balances at the end of the day — Jones got a dollar and Smith got $10, and they both should have $5.50 — everything's okay. I do say that there seems to have been this assumption. I find it unattractive.

Lastly, may I say to the minister: what it does show in this whole report is that the training required — and we've looked at the job descriptions for financial workers and social workers — for the people on the job shows, I think, that we've got to really put the emphasis on training, recruitment and administration, making sure that we've got the very best people to do this exceptionally difficult work.

Many of the MLAs whom I've spoken to — both in committee and privately in our own caucus and, from time to time, in the government caucus — have become a little bit bothered that sometimes our offices, which are supposed to be extensions of our presence here, are becoming extensions of Human Resources offices. I really do feel that that should not be.

I'm also bothered by the tremendous number of applications I see coming through for courses, books or work to do with welfare rights. That's a symptom of the system not working too well, and a symptom of the underlying problems which this report touches on. I think it is a very important day when a comprehensive audit of a ministry comes down. I think it establishes a benchmark — one which I think, as I said this morning, the ministry is to be congratulated on. It gives us a benchmark to work on, but there are very significant and serious criticisms. However, I would not be fair if I didn't say, having seen the listing of the recommendations, that the ministry has agreed to meet the vast majority of the demands of the auditor-general. If I hadn't said that before, I certainly want to say it before I sit down. That augurs well for the future, no matter what the stripe of the government and no matter what the name of the minister. It augurs well for the future of the underprivileged, the dispossessed, the poor people and the unfortunate people who are temporarily out of pocket — as they say in the old country — together with the permanent lists of the people on social allowances.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I want to very quickly respond to the member who has just taken his place. I appreciate his comments on the innovative new auditing procedures.

I really want to make some objection to a statement he made in almost lumping our ministry in with that group of people who have been describing income-assistance recipients as fraudulent. Of course this ministry has constantly said that the people who take income assistance in the province are an ever-changing group of people. We have proven by research in our ministry that 30 percent of those people who would apply for income assistance today will be off income assistance within three months — all on their own. A further 30 percent will be off income assistance in the following three months — all on their own. We have constantly said that our system is based on trust. And it is. We have constantly said that we cannot put a system into our administration which is based so very much on the auditing improvements — one that the member was perhaps suggesting — that it would take the humanity out of the system. We hope that will never happen. But this business of "fraudulent" recipients is one that our ministry doesn't support and people in this government do not support. There is no evi-

[ Page 5994 ]

dence to say that there is extensive fraud and there is no justification for saying so.

I also want to have you read —I will not quote it in full — page 54 of the report of the auditor-general, where the auditor-general herself recognizes that the operating environment of income assistance poses a major challenge for executive and personnel. But it also gives credit, in the second paragraph, to the managers in our headquarters and in operating locations who "have taken major steps to administer their programs more efficiently by introducing computer-based systems, adopting a more formal approach to allocating resources among regional and district offices and implementing certain organizational changes."

I would also like to ask the member, who has a very keen interest in this subject, to please take a look at page 91, where our ministry agrees to the reorganizing of our staff to provide and establish a strategic planning branch for all the management of the ministry. If also says, further, that work is already underway to develop a comprehensive operational plan.

Until my predecessor in this job, the first member for Surrey (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), who is now the Minister of Municipal Affairs, put controls into the ministry in terms of an inspection program, some kind of accountability was very much lacking in that area. I'm pleased to tell you that I think that system is a good system of prevention. It has worked well in that regard.

I appreciate the member's concern. We all share the concern for improved control at all levels, at all times. We're all working towards that. I would like to assure the member that that's happening in this ministry.

Vote 118 approved.

Vote 119: services for families and children, $103,554,638 — approved.

Vote 120: health services, $72,947,243 — approved.

On vote 121: community projects, $26,409,217.

MS. BROWN: A question about interim funding for community groups such as the Victoria Rape and Assault Centre. The ministry has made a commitment to handle their interim funding until their funds come through either the Ministry of the Attorney-General or the Ministry of Health. They are a couple of months behind. They haven't been paid, and their workers haven't been paid. This is a hardship on them. Can we get some idea as to when that interim funding is going to come through?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I'd be pleased to look into that for the member.

Vote 121 approved.

On vote 122: GAIN programs, $467,150,397.

MS. BROWN: Just a couple of questions. The special dietary allowance of $20 a month and the pre- and post-natal diet allowance of $25 a month have not been increased for some while.

Also, I'll add my comments to those of the member for Surrey (Mr. Hall) concerning the auditor-general's report. It dealt specifically with this vote, and the findings were that the ministry was in chaos and its administration was incompetent. I would like specifically to draw attention to and read into the record page 54, 8.57, page 55, 8.60 and 8.61, page 56, 8.69 and 8.7, page 57, 8.72, 8.73 and 8.76, all of which support the statement I have just made about the chaos and incompetence.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I will not accept the last statements made by the member, because I have worked with this ministry for almost two years now. I am very proud of the administration and management of this portfolio. I want to say that the auditor-general's report, like all reports, and justifiably so, is to point out any improvements that can be made. I think there are enough statements in that auditor-general's report that statement for statement we can match them with any the member for Burnaby-Edmonds would like to pull out of that report to try to discredit the people, management and administration of this ministry. I do not accept that. In fact I don't think I've ever worked with a better group of people dedicated to serving the people of British Columbia in not only a humane but a very efficient manner. We're pleased to work with the auditor-general, and we will continue to work with the auditor-general. We volunteered to work for this kind of accountability because of the reputation the deputy minister in this ministry has for good organization and good management. I won't accept those kinds of comments, on behalf of my staff, and I hope if the member has an opportunity to speak again to this vote she will apologize to the staff in that regard.

MS. BROWN: I want to quote from the auditor-general's report, 8.56:

"We have concluded that while the ministry has certain basic information to base its resource allocation process on, until such time as a number of key areas are substantially strengthened the ministry's procedures for measuring efficiency will not provide management and the Legislative Assembly with the reliable and complete information about the efficiency of the administration of the income-assistance program or the effectiveness of its control systems." I do not believe the auditor-general uses the word "substantially" lightly.

Vote 122 approved.

Vote 123: special programs for the retarded, $60,615,917 approved.

On vote 124: building occupancy charges, $21,601,000.

MS. BROWN: I would just like to move a motion, Mr. Chairman, that vote 124 be reduced by the amount of $4,032,000.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment appears to be in order.

On the amendment.

MS. BROWN: The only reason that I'm reducing this vote is because I'm returning it to last year's figure.

[ Page 5995 ]

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, I would say that of all the workers in the government those who work in the Ministry of Human Resources perhaps over the years have had a need, if you like, for quarters that at least receive those whom they serve in a very humane and effective atmosphere. This vote that you have before you, which will be voted on and has been increased by just less than $4 million this year, is a vote which will see the upgrading of some of our offices and places to accommodate people who will require privacy. They will not have the privacy now because of the growth of our services and our communities. It also adds space for those clients we serve — the very clients that the member for Burnaby-Edmonds says I hear once a year from — in terms of giving privacy to single parents with their children, and to senior citizens who come in and ask about services, and to those who don't get involved in actually being recipients but who come into our offices to inquire on behalf of others.

I also have a very strong commitment to make sure that those of our people who are very hard-working and dedicated in the work that they do and who give very much in terms of their own output and commitment and in personal involvement in their jobs should have a good place to work. I really would recommend that both sides of the House would vote for the total amount as it's in the estimates today.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 21

NAYS — 27

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

Vote 124 approved.

On vote 125: computer and consulting charges, $6,458,500.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I would like to move another motion, that vote 125 be reduced by the amount of $1,094,500.

If it's in order, I briefly want to say two things.

On the amendment.

MS. BROWN: Last year this minister received from this House permission to spend $5,364,000. As of January this year — ten months — she had spent only $2,954,554. Even if she continues at the same rate of spending, she will not be able to spend more than about $3.6 million. Therefore I find it unreasonable that she should be asking for an increase of over $1 million, especially when the auditor-general said in paragraph 8.226 of her report: "Accountability for costs relating to developing the project was unclear, particularly when the British Columbia Systems Corporation became involved.... " Also paragraph 8.78 says: "Our audit showed that there have been significant procedural deficiencies both in the initial decision-making process and in the controls used to manage the project" — in talking about computers.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: A few minutes ago there was some discussion on control, efficiency, accountability and responsibility in terms of the income assistance vote as well as others. I think there is no question that the computer aids, which can be used so effectively in this ministry, will pay tribute to the very thing that the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) asked. The reduction of this vote — I can certainly get the details on the expenditures — is not serving the best interests. I would support an increase in it, because I know some of the plans that our ministry has in this regard.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 20

NAYS — 25

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

On vote 125.

MS. BROWN: Before we close this ministry, I just want to register my disappointment at the fact that the government, in its traditional way, has used this ministry, which is supposed to be dedicated to the service of people, to hide and to overpad its accounts and to put money aside which should have been used for services to people. Instead of that, the money is being hidden under computer and building occupancy charges. As a result of that, the opposition has been

[ Page 5996 ]

forced to introduce motions calling for the reduction of over $5 million in this ministry.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. member, we are on vote 125.

MS. BROWN: As in all other ministries, we recognize that the government is deliberately padding its accounts. We are appalled that the government would have used the Ministry of Human Resources to carry on that despicable act.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, on vote 125, the member for Burnaby-Edmonds reduced the vote because, in her words, we have not spent the vote. She is now, in these words she has just given to the House, accusing our ministry of padding a vote and underspending dramatically. I didn't think it was important at the time, but I think, because this member will perhaps go outside and say erroneous...

Interjection.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Are you getting more than seven people at a meeting, Mr. Leader of the Opposition?

Mr. Chairman, in this vote 125, computer services are for family and children's services. The ministry's in-service management group is developing a computer program for such things as the tracking of children who used to get....

MS. BROWN: That's not true. You're padding the vote.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Well, this member for Burnaby-Edmonds, who is supposed to be the critic for Human Resources, doesn't even know what is going on.

MS. BROWN: I know what you think you're going to do with it.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I guess the child-abuse registry....

Interjections.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, do you think you could get the House in order?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members. I think the cross-debate has gone on long enough. We each have an opportunity to speak in this debate. Right now the Minister of Human Resources has the floor, and other members will be afforded an equal opportunity.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, on vote 125, the member is accusing the ministry of underspending, and the development in phases.... The money required is built up when the staff require it and then is spent at the time the program is put in place. That is why the $2 million that the member mentioned earlier in this vote has been spent in January. There will be another expenditure when the other plans are in place, as is common in votes of this kind. It does not mean that we are underspent — as she would like to leave that impression with the House — by some $3 million on this vote. Those things which this addresses — the tracking of children, the child-abuse registry and the various other programs in our ministry which serve the family and children's services — are very important for this vote. I would like to ask the House to pass vote 125.

MR. NICOLSON: For the benefit of the minister, last year this House voted in good faith for almost $5.5 million. At the rate at which it is being consumed, it is now revealed that the money asked for was way in excess of actual need. Yet this year you're asking for another huge increase. What you're really asking for this year is an increase of about 80 percent over what is actually going to be spent. That is padding. There might be a few new worthwhile projects going on in there, but they're not going to add up to millions of dollars. That's the difference we're talking about — padding the books so you can create a surplus.

Vote 125 approved.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT

On vote 76: minister's office, $218,076.

HON. MR. ROGERS: In order to prepare myself for this year's estimates I took the opportunity of reading the remarks that were made last year at the conclusion of my introductory remarks. As my critic has been the critic for Environment much longer than I have been the Minister of Environment, he always informs me, and in fact my predecessors, that he really doesn't want to hear, once again, of all the programs we're undertaking in the ministry. He'd really rather we get on with the nuts and bolts of it.

I want to start off with some of the programs we've highlighted in the last year, where I think we've made some excellent progress and where we're working towards trying to solve those environmental problems we've had with us for some time.

Perhaps the program with which we've had the most success is our program on the Fraser River. The Fraser River Task Force, which in this year's budget has been made a permanent task force, had an excellent success rate in its six months of operation last year, culminating in over 75 charges being laid against illegal operators on the river. At the same time the Fraser River Estuary Study, which is a joint federal-provincial study, is going to try and determine what the best and safest environmental uses of the entire estuary are. This particular attack is on the area of the province which has suffered the most environmental damage in the past and is subject to the most abuse.

I get reports from helicopter pilots that have been chartered by this ministry and by federal Fisheries. We work closely together with them and the environmental protection service of the federal government. They have found a remarkable number of violators that they knew were there before, just because of the amount of people looking. There are some strange repercussions. One of the companies that is involved in waste disposal in the lower mainland has had to buy a couple of new trucks, because he's got some new customers that weren't going to come his way without a little persuasion from this ministry. We've made some good progress there, and there's still a long way to go. Because the task force will actually end up being a permanent force, we anticipate having a much closer control on any of the work in the ministry.

Mr. Chairman, the two gentlemen who are coming into the chamber now are Ben Marr, who is my deputy minister

[ Page 5997 ]

and needs no introduction, and Gary Watson, who is the legal counsel for British Columbia Place. They will be assisting me as we proceed through these estimates.

I'd like to briefly talk about the Habitat Conservation Fund. I recently announced that Dr. McTaggart-Cowan had agreed to head up the Habitat Conservation Fund, which, along with the $1.25 million which is made available from the Crown Land Fund, will be involved in land acquisition of critical wildlife habitat in various areas throughout the province. The first several pieces of property have been identified. I had hoped the first one would be available and actually purchased before my estimates. We give a list to the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing once that list has been approved and they go about the business of acquiring that land. I'm told that at the present time they're in the final stages of negotiation. The first one, the Redfish Creek property, is in the constituency of Nelson-Creston, and in which the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson), who is here, may be interested. It's a small piece of property but one that's highly critical. That was the one that was identified by our ministry as being most critical, and those are the kinds of things we expect to do with this one.

In addition to that there is an impost fee of $3 we put on this year's fresh-water fishing licences and also the hunting licences, and that will be used for a habitat enhancement fund. Those funds, along with the funds from the habitat conservation fund, will be used in working in areas of the province where, with a relatively small amount of money and a concerted effort by local game clubs and people within the ministry, we can make an enormous difference in terms of habitat enhancement.

On the fishery side, with today's headline in the papers it is a little distressing. Members may be interested to know that the provincial government has been raising a chinook in their Loon Lake hatchery, which was opened up not very long ago. I just recently spoke to the head of the fisheries department and I'm advised that this particular tragedy is caused by the cottonseed oil which is apparent in the fish. It only attacks one of the species of the salmonid, and that is the chinook; it doesn't affect the trout, but nonetheless it has had a devastating effect on our one hatchery that's involved in salmonids and also the joint SEP for hatcheries as well as the federal hatcheries. I point out that Roméo LeBlanc and I, who have now met six times in the last year, recently opened the Puntledge Hatchery in Comox on northern Vancouver Island. Hopefully, when they get through this problem with food, we will have a big increase in their production. We will be opening two other hatcheries this year. One is the Site 1 hatchery, which I will be opening at the end of this month. This is a project totally paid for by B.C. Hydro, and they should pay for it. But it's being operated and administered by the fisheries branch of the Ministry of Environment. And there's the Loon Creek Hatchery, which used to be an interim hatchery. I stopped in to see and officially reopen this hatchery about three weeks ago.

There is still a massive increase in the fishing effort in the province, and no matter how many fish we turn out there seem to be more fishermen. I suppose it's a function of more people having more time off, or more people just finding out about the joys of going fishing. We continue to produce the same number of fish or increase the number of fish, but the number of people who are angling, and their effort, has gone up substantially. I'm advised that the average fisherman catches 1.2 chinook a year, and some people are as productive as 300 a year. I'm not quite sure that I even got my 1.2 last year, and I'm going to endeavour to get at least one this year, having purchased licence number 00002 after the federal minister bought licence number 00001 when we recently opened Puntledge.

Interjection.

HON. MR. ROGERS: No, I just have a fishing licence, Mr. Member.

Recently, at the suggestion of the marine resources branch, I have approved an oyster demonstration farm in the Baynes Sound area where we will be constructing a demonstration farm for people wanting to get into the industry to learn some of the new techniques that are available in terms of raft culture and line culture. If we are successful in doing that it's my intention to restock some of the public beaches. The last natural spatfall that occurred in British Columbia was in 1958; consequently the oysters which appear on the beaches of British Columbia are mostly getting on in years and are very large in size. Unless we have remarkable weather conditions we won't have a recurrence of that, so it's our intention to start stocking some of the public beaches with new oyster seed collected in Pendrell Sound and oysters raised at our demonstration farm.

The provincial emergency program had an extremely busy year, starting off in November with the floods in Bella Coola; and the floods that took place throughout the rest of the province over the Christmas period; and in this last year, Squamish, Pemberton. Hatzic Prairie, Hope and others — areas in your riding as well, Mr. Chairman. I think we have done an excellent job, considering the times we find ourselves in, in dealing with people who have just been flooded out. I had the unfortunate experience of going through at least a few dozen houses where the water was up to the windows. I don't know what the government can do to help people in the immediate time after the flood, other than the things we did do. In the long-term process, we have started a program within the ministry to try and identify all the floodplains in the province. To that end, my colleague the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hyndman) is working with the real estate boards, because we find that while the same house may be flooded three or four times, it very seldom has the same owner three or four times. We think that if the real estate industry is as good as they say they are, they wouldn't mind having their agents informed of where the floodplains are so that potential buyers at least know the danger they face when they purchase a home on a floodplain. I think it should be a mandatory feature, so that the buyer knows of that particular danger.

In addition to that, we are doing a survey of all the areas in the province that are subject to flooding and which can be protected by riverbank protection. Obviously a very substantial amount of money is involved in doing riverbank protection, but we think it is very worthwhile. Loading rip-rap onto the sides of riverbanks is not a particularly attractive program in terms of public image, but in terms of protecting peoples homes and lands I think that in the long term it's very necessary. I don't know how, with all the other problems inherent in government, you can go and ask for $200 million or more to do the riverbank protection program. I can think of a whole host of other people who would find other ways of doing it, but one of the things we have not known in the past and that we are trying to determine now is the scope that we

[ Page 5998 ]

have to look at. It virtually hits every area of the province, and I would hope that when the report is brought forward to cabinet it will be favourably received. There will have to be a five-, seven- or ten-year program. It certainly couldn't be done any quicker than that. There aren't the skilled people available to do it, and of course the budget amount is substantial. But we have areas where we can almost predict the flood is going to come. It's not pleasant, but I think government has an obligation to do it. The federal government has been somewhat cooperative in certain areas, but they have decreased the amount of dollars on the Fraser River and also extended the time, which in essence, with inflation, has done the same thing.

I'm sure there'll be a lot of questions during my estimates on the Cowichan estuary. The Cowichan estuary study recommendations are currently being implemented and coordinated through Ken Lambertsen, who is with the assessment branch of the ministry and now has a storefront office in the Duncan area and whose job it is to go ahead with those recommendations. There are still difficulties with the Cowichan estuary. I'm sure there will be more detailed questions as we go along. If there was ever an estuary that had every possible player from the CNR to the National Harbours Board, the Coast Guard, the provincial government, lumber industries, the federal Fisheries, the native people and the local people that are concerned, it's the Cowichan. Mr. Lambertsen is a very competent individual. I hope that with his expertise and with the efforts of the rest of the people in government, we can finally resolve that problem.

I note that in last year's estimates there were a whole host of questions on Quinsam coal. I would like to talk just briefly on Quinsam coal and what the status of the Quinsam coal situation is. You will recall, Mr. Chairman, that that is the coal-mine proposed on the Quinsam River not very far outside of Campbell River, which in last year's estimates was a project jointly proposed by Weldwood of Canada and by Lusgar. During the last year Lusgar dropped out of that particular consortium, and it was carried forward by Weldwood through the stage two process of the coal guidelines steering committee. They have recently been informed by me, as the chairman of the Environment and Land Use Committee, that their stage two recommendations are not acceptable because of studies that were inadequate and also because of the fact that they had failed in one of the stages of the stage two guidelines: the one that requires them to have local interest and participation. It's fairly clear to anyone who has been to the Campbell River area that the particular coalmine there is in an area which is considered to be — and is — extremely sensitive environmentally. They're not prepared to let it proceed until such time as all environmental questions are answered. Certainly there are a number of them that haven't been answered.

Western Mines is one again. Dr. Furnival was in my office this morning. That's the latest meeting that I've had with Western Mines. As members may know, they have proven up substantially new ore bodies and would like to expand their mines. They've been instructed by the ministry to examine new areas of tailings disposal. In 1966, when the mine was first proposed, disposal of tailings into the lake seemed to be a reasonable sort of thing to do. It's no longer considered a reasonable sort of thing to do. In addition to the fact that they wish to expand their mine, the mine certainly isn't playing out by any means. I've forgotten how many millions of dollars' worth of ore they have left to get out of the mine if they wish to get it out. So we are insisting that they go through the mines guideline steering committee, which will require public hearings and all of the other things that go along with that. I'm advised by Dr. Furnival, who heads up the consortium at Western Mines, that they have dry-land tailings disposal and enclosed water system already in the design stage. They are doing some work on it. I wish they'd started that three years ago. I'm sure other members may wish they'd started it even sooner than that. Nonetheless, that's where we are, and we are making progress there.

I'd like to update the members on the Skagit River situation. I still maintain my position that I would be thrilled if the one thing I could accomplish as the Minister of Environment is to see that the Skagit River Valley situation was finally put to rest. Last fall we did make public all of our correspondence between Seattle City Light and the provincial government and submitted our findings, including all of our correspondence to the IJC just prior to the defeat of Jimmy Carter. When Ronald Reagan was elected I thought that the IJC might have gone unnoticed, as it's a fairly minor committee in terms of the committees that the President of the United States has to deal with, but that was not to be the case. In fact, all of the American members, including the longtime Republicans who were members of the IJC, were sacked by the incoming President. At the present time, they do not have a chairman or even any American committee members. Really, the Skagit is on hold, as it has been for so long. I suppose having it on hold is positive because it certainly means that the inevitable is not happening, which I hope is not the inevitable. In fact, I think that our case is pretty good and looks pretty strong. Certainly we have no difficulty getting all sorts of support in the United States and on this side of the border. It's one of these things that's certainly not national in scope and one where we think there is excellent support for our position of saying that things shouldn't have been flooded in the first place, and no further flooding should take place into British Columbia. The power that would be generated there is relatively cheap power, but it's also relatively minor. When you consider that the urgency in 1942 was because of the bombing of Pearl Harbor, and they still haven't built the dam, I think that urgency has more or less passed.

Trapping is one item that was brought up last year. We have an update. I'm pleased to report real progress. This year at the Wildlife Federation convention I was able to pass out the rewards, made possible through the lottery grant, for humane traps developed by inventors; one was from New Brunswick and the rest were from British Columbia. The federal-provincial humane trapping committee will be meeting next month in Edmonton and will be making recommendations. It is my hope and expectation, and I think that of most members of the committee, that following that meeting there will be a substantial reduction in the number of legal devices used in trapping wild animals in this province. I think all members would greet that with thanks. The trappers have been most cooperative, as have the people who developed the traps. There still remains some difficulty with the dog species — wolf, coyote and others — for which they haven't been able to develop a satisfactory alternative trap, but it has been developed for almost every other species.

There are now just over 100 conservation officers. Three-quarters of them have now gone through the Justice Training Institute in Vancouver, which has been of great assistance to them in their jobs. I think there are one or two more courses yet to go through the institute. The training has really improved their effectiveness in the work they do regularly.

[ Page 5999 ]

Lastly on the Ministry of Environment, assistant deputy minister Geoff Simmons, who is known to almost everybody in this House — to anyone who has ever had to deal with flooding — is retiring on June 30 after 27 years of service; that, added to his wartime service, brings him up to a pensionable age. I know that members will join me in wishing him well in his retirement. He is presently going through the process of passing his duties on to others in the ministry.

About 90 percent of my personal time is spent on the Ministry of Environment; about 10 percent of it is spent on the other thing for which I'm responsible, B.C. Place. I cannot table documents in committee, Mr. Chairman, but at the close of this afternoon's committee session I will be tabling documents relating to British Columbia Place and our agreement with CPR and Marathon.

The project was very much in the embryo stage when it was announced here last year. In the last year we have made remarkable progress, which has, I think, been pretty well covered in the press and on television. We came to an agreement with Marathon Realty for the transfer of land on the north side of False Creek. After going to a contest period, the board announced that Phillip Barratt, a Vancouver consortium, coincidentally the same consortium that built the Coliseum in Vancouver, was awarded the design contract. They have designed a 60,000-seat amphitheatre for Vancouver. This particular structure is a parabolic ellipse in shape. I think it will serve all the many facets for which it is intended.

Of the companies that bid on the construction of the project.... In view of the difficulties incurred in other stadium constructions not only in this country but also in the United States, we decided that we would go for what is known as a guaranteed maximum-price contract. The contract was awarded to Dillingham Corp., which coincidentally is an offshoot of the company that built Empire Stadium in 1953. Anyone who has been to Vancouver recently can see that the work has already started. In fact, we have had some difficulties. The difficulties have been about environmental matters, which I suppose is just as well, because we were able to get onto them right away. The project is underway. The Premier laid the foundation stone two weeks ago. I think it's something which we can all be proud of.

The remainder of B.C. Place is still in the planning stage. We have to determine how much land is required for Transpo '86 and how we want to develop the rest of the property. The board of directors of B.C. Place and I feel very strongly that we would like to address the most urgent problem in Vancouver and make housing for people. When you are describing housing it's very difficult to put labels on it; as you drive around, you can't look at a house and say that it's a social house or that it's this or that kind of house. We describe it as housing for working Canadians — it's certainly not exclusive housing, by any means — to include a portion of what is best described as social housing.

At the present time there is a good working relationship between the people at B.C. Place and the people in the city of Vancouver at city hall. I'm advised that our president met with the mayor recently. I think things are working out quite well in that regard, although I'm sure there will be some questions on that.

So, Mr. Chairman, with those few brief opening remarks, I would welcome the comments of my critic opposite — didn't we have an enjoyable time on the Royal Hudson? — or anyone else who cares to participate.

MR. SKELLY: I appreciate the minister's change in tactics, strategy or whatever — at least a change in performance in his introduction. Last year he walked around the ministry and kicked the tires, and that was about it. Since we've changed Ministers of Environment so often in this House — and we haven't changed the critic yet, as far as I know — I've heard that speech so many times before that I actually criticize the minister for giving it.

The minister mentioned a trip we both took to Squamish last Sunday, and I saw the minister take part in an axe-throwing contest. I figured that maybe I should bring two axes into the House; we could set up some targets and we could settle these estimates between myself and the minister within about 30 minutes. I'll bring that up in caucus tomorrow and get right back to you, Mr. Chairman.

Before I get into the estimates themselves and the material I have prepared on estimates, which should take up about 28 hours of House time, I want to say that I just received a phone call from Greenpeace — and I believe the minister has also received the same phone call. It says that on Saturday a steamship will be arriving at Fraser Surrey Docks, the MV Pirella, which is scheduled to unload 149 tonnes of uranium yellow cake from Brisbane, destined for Port Hope, Ontario, by way of the Canadian Pacific Railway. The uranium was loaded in Brisbane. Because of a labour strike in that area — the longshoremen in Australia refused to take part in the loading of uranium, as the minister may be aware — and as a result of a work stoppage, the ore was loaded secretly into 12 containers containing thirty-three 45-gallon drums of uranium ore.

The minister is aware, as I am, of the number of accidents that have taken place on railways recently and especially of the danger of transporting anything like that on the railway system that we have through the Fraser Canyon. I am wondering what action the minister plans to take either to halt the unloading of that uranium ore or to prevent the transportation of it through the province of British Columbia to Port Hope, Ontario. Mr. Chairman, this province has a moratorium in effect on uranium mining. I believe the reasons for that moratorium are valid and that in order to protect the health, safety and environment of people in this province, we should not mine uranium in this province. The same, to my mind, applies to the transport of uranium, and especially the transport of uranium from other countries. We shouldn't be imperiling the people of this province and endangering the environment of this province with the problems of the Australians. As far as I'm concerned, the minister should take action immediately to have the Pirella diverted from British Columbia ports and not to have that uranium transported across Canada.

I have recently been made aware of the fact that uranium refined in Canada is shipped to countries such as Argentina, which has an abhorrent record as far as human rights are concerned, to Rumania and even, in fact, to the Soviet Union, who supposedly is our enemy in defence terms — and here the Canadian government is shipping processed uranium to the Soviet Union. I am asking the minister now, Mr. Chairman, what action he plans to take to have that uranium shipment diverted from British Columbia ports and to prevent the shipment of that uranium across this province.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Well, Mr. Chairman, I must admit the message from Patrick Moore has only come to me as well. I might remind the member that uranium substances come

[ Page 6000 ]

under Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. We do not have in this country a manifest system for the transportation for hazardous goods. It's one of the things that has been a joint federal-provincial problem for a long time, and the current federal regulations require that they be shipped in a container which doesn't leak. I would suppose that kind of regulation — that it doesn't leak — should apply to almost every container. It hardly seems adequate. There is no escort required or anything else. I will undertake this afternoon, after estimates are through, to contact the federal people who are responsible for it. But I'm not sure that there is any power that the provincial government has to interfere with the port activities of this province, nor that there is any power that I have to prevent a railway or, for that matter, a federal agency from doing these things, as far as I know. As I said, the matter has just come to me so perhaps if you'd like to continue with other things in the meantime, we'll deal with this later.

MR. SKELLY: No, I didn't expect that the minister would be able to take action immediately based on information which he and I have just received. But I am concerned that this kind of thing would be allowed to happen. The province has a stated policy with respect to uranium mining. That policy should apply across the board to transportation, to storage and to everything. I don't think it's sufficient to excuse the way those substances are transported in this province by saying that the federal government has jurisdiction in this case. There are many areas in which the federal government has jurisdiction, and this province has challenged that jurisdiction to the extent of withholding taxes due to the federal government on natural gas. What I'm asking is that the minister take the strongest possible action to prevent the transportation of this substance into British Columbia by ship and across British Columbia.

Mr. Chairman, I had planned to approach the question of the minister's estimates in fairly general terms to begin with — policy terms and budget terms — and then to go into specifics as time moves on.

First of all I'd like to discuss the issue — and it is an issue of the Social Credit policy with respect to environment. As far as I'm concerned, the government has a lack of understanding for environment. This is reflected in its lack of concern for environmental issues. It's also reflected in the status of this minister within the cabinet. I'm not criticizing the minister personally on this but the status of the minister's office within the hierarchy and cabinet. As far as we can determine from this side of the House, this is definitely a junior minister and ministry. We would like to see the policy of this government changed to elevate the status of this minister. I'm not referring to the person occupying the office. I wouldn't do that. I'm referring to the status of the office itself. It should be elevated from a junior status to a more important position within the hierarchy of ministries.

I think one of the problems with the Social Credit environmental policy is that their other policies are in such a shambles. For example, on this side of the House we can't see a comprehensive industrial strategy which this government has for the province of British Columbia. When you talk to officials from B.C. Hydro or the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, they seem to be waiting for companies to develop ideas in the province. Somebody thinks they can set up enough capital to develop a methanol plant or somebody has made some statements that there are enough natural gas reserves to ship liquefied natural gas to Japan.

Almost out of a rumour mill, industrial developments are kicked around in the province. Whether they're aluminum smelters, methanol plants, LNG plants, fertilizer plants or pipelines, there's no real comprehensive industrial strategy for the province. This, of course, weakens the minister's ability to handle the environment of the province. Without an industrial and development strategy for the province, of course, there can be no sensible environment policies.

There's also no sensible energy strategy for the province. What came down to this Legislature and to the public of British Columbia last February is really no energy policy at all. Nothing has been done in a straightforward way to implement even the few policy statements that were outlined in the booklet with the sun setting on the province of British Columbia. Very little is available in the way of a comprehensive strategy, as well, in the province. This makes it extremely difficult for the Ministry of Environment to operate within any kind of comprehensive framework.

As we see it from this side of the House and as the public sees it, the industrial policy and the energy strategy of this province is very much the same as it was back in the 1940s and 1950s, when such fiascos as the Skagit Valley agreement, the Industrial Development Act, the Kemano II agreement and even the Wenner-Gren fiasco were entered into by previous Social Credit governments and also by the parties that ultimately made up the Social Credit Party. It seems that whoever takes a look at an area of resources in the province, that area is considered by the government to be up for grabs. Anybody who has any kind of pie-in-the-sky or vague notions of developing that gets a good hearing from the government. They get a hearing from the government, it makes the news and they set up committees within cabinet and the civil service. That seems to be the way that industrial and development policy in the government is developed. It's kind of a catch as catch can, ad hoc system. As far as we're concerned on this side of the House, it hasn't really changed since the 1940s and 1950s. As a result, without those kinds of policy statements reflecting in industrial development and energy policy, there can be no sensible environment policy in the province. In fact, there isn't.

My first question to the minister is: what has he done to really enunciate an environment policy for the province? I realize that he is working with a fairly difficult group, which has limited understanding of terms like "environment" and "ecology." On that side they don't seem to understand the definition of the word environment as it relates to living things, or of the word "ecology" as it relates to the relatedness and the interdependence of living things with their environment.

In fact, the Socreds almost define as negative anything that has to do with environment. Any time I make a speech across the floor about energy efficiency or environmental policy, I take a look at the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) and he starts to turn beet-red, his nostrils flare, he snorts and blows and starts pawing his feet. He looks like a Kentucky senator getting into a field of cornflakes. He begins to shout at me: "You're against everything, you commie pinko!"

MR. CHAIRMAN: There's a lot of colour here. Perhaps we could get back to vote 76.

MR. SKELLY: We're dealing with an understanding of the environment. Unfortunately, that's the kind of thing that

[ Page 6001 ]

the minister has to deal with in his own cabinet — that basic lack of understanding of and lack of concern for issues of environment and ecological relationships. The result of this attitude in the Social Credit cabinet, as epitomized by the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development, is that we have made some severe and serious mistakes over the years with respect to the way we've treated environment and environmental policy.

As a result, we have an inadequate view of what constitutes the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Environment. We have an inadequate assessment of what the values are of the resources that come under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Environment. We also have a vague and inadequate rule of law in this province with respect to the environment. I'd like to cover each of those things individually.

I've made the suggestion before, but I think this is the first time I've made it in the Legislature. What are the fundamental things the minister should be concerned about? I listened as the minister was making his introductory remarks to find out if the minister was really going to give us a comprehensive kind of policy analysis and tell us what his ministry has done in the last year and what they plan to do in the coming years to implement this policy.

I couldn't even find a basic understanding of the kind of cohesiveness of the department. He went from the provincial emergency program to the diking program to acquiring habitat to the Cowichan estuary. It was a scattergun approach. It was even less cohesive than walking around the department and kicking the tires. What we were looking for on this side was a more comprehensive approach.

MR. SEGARTY: The do-nothing strategy.

MR. SKELLY: Similar to the policy followed by the member from Cranbrook (Mr. Segarty) in his treatment of his riding, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to discuss the resources that the minister is dealing with. In my opinion, and I believe it's the opinion and policy of this party, environment concerns itself with three basic resources. They're what we call the life-sustaining resources: clean air, pure water and productive land. Without any of these basic life-sustaining resources, life could not exist or continue on this planet. They are the most important resources any government or minister is called upon to deal with. In terms of the fact that they sustain life, they are the most important resources in this province. That's why I'm concerned that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland) or the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) may be considered a senior minister to the Minister of Environment.

We can always do without forest exports. We can always find other industries. We wouldn't like to. It would totally disrupt the province, but we could do it. We could always do without mining or probably even without energy, as the present government looks at it. It would be extremely difficult, but we could survive. But without pure air, without pure water and without productive land, that's it — it's all over. That's why I'm concerned.

When the Premier first set up the Ministry of Environment back in 1976, out of the former Ministry of Lands, Forests and Water Resources, it was probably the best thing that he ever did in his administration with respect to environmental jurisdiction. He combined jurisdiction over air, land and water in one ministry. Unfortunately, I suppose, after that the Premier began to take his own advice. He took jurisdiction over lands away from the Ministry of Environment and placed it under the jurisdiction that is incompetent to deal with it even as a real estate operation. With that stroke the Premier totally undermined the effectiveness of the Ministry of Environment. We're concerned about the lack of jurisdiction over productive land. I know the minister has some difficulty even managing his ministry under the present circumstances, but what we require in this province is combined jurisdiction over those three life-sustaining resources. Jurisdiction over Crown land should be restored to the Ministry of Environment. It's an absolute necessity.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll remind the hon. member for Alberni that we are discussing the administrative actions of the Minister of Environment.

MR. SKELLY: The second thing I'm concerned about is the value that we attach to those life-sustaining resources. It's a basic principle in the marketplace that every free enterpriser on that side should understand. An undervalued resource ends up being misallocated or wasted. In this market economy that we have, if you underprice one resource with respect to another and there's a question of choice involved where someone in that marketplace can select one resource over another, he'll definitely take the undervalued resource. That results in a misallocation or waste. Every free enterpriser should understand that basic fact. I'd like to ask the minister a simple question: what do we sell water for in this province? For industrial use or domestic use or energy use. We know that the minister recently raised the price of water to B.C. Hydro and other energy utilities such as West Kootenay Power and Alcan. So we know that there is a cost attached to the energy use of water. What the government is basically doing is selling that kinetic energy — the difference between the energy value of water up here and the energy value of water down there — and attaching a cost to that characteristic of water. But what about the life-sustaining value of water, Mr. Chairman? What cost does that sell for in the province of British Columbia?

Here's an example. When Amax sets up a mine in Observatory Inlet in the northern coast of B.C., it dumps tailings into the inlet. I don't think we're questioning in this House or anywhere in the province that the dumping of tailings degrades the marine environment to some extent. I think the argument is about the extent. Even to the extent that Amax degrades that environment, what do they pay to the people of B.C. for the loss of that life-sustaining characteristic of those seawater environments that have their life-sustaining abilities degraded to that extent? What does Utah Mines pay for the tailings they dump in Rupert Inlet on the north side of Vancouver Island? From reports that have come out of that area we know that Utah Mines has degraded the marine environment in Rupert Inlet and far beyond Rupert Inlet on the north end of Vancouver Island. What does Utah Mines pay for degrading the marine environment of the province of British Columbia on Vancouver Island and for reducing its life-sustaining capability from its potential before Utah Mines came along to its potential life-sustaining capability now? As far as I can determine from my research, the cost is nothing. They are required to pay nothing for the life-sustaining capability of the marine environment of this province. It appears to me from that statement that it's the policy of the Social Credit government to allow polluters to

[ Page 6002 ]

degrade the seawater environment of this province free of charge to reduce that life-sustaining capability. That's what I'm concerned about.

What about the freshwater resources of this province? The minister talks about the Fraser estuary and how he's set up a task force to enforce the Fisheries Act, the Pollution Control Act and other statutes in the Fraser estuary. But enforcement is the tail-end of the problem. When everybody has done the damage, then you can go in and make sure that they only damage to the extent that they should have or you can charge them for going beyond that.

Let's go back to the first principles. What does the city of Kamloops pay for dumping its sewage into the South Thompson River? How much does it cost the city of Kamloops to buy a permit to degrade the life-sustaining capability of the Thompson River by dumping its sewage in there? How much does it cost Weyerhaeuser to dump something like five, seven or nine times as much into that river to degrade its life-sustaining capabilities? And remember that that river is a part of one of the most productive fisheries systems in the world. According to the minister's own studies and reports, it produces $86 million, wholesale landed value of fisheries, in this province every single year it flows. And what does the city of Kamloops or Weyerhaeuser Corp. pay the people of this province, who own that common property resource, that water, that fish? What do they pay for the right to degrade that river's life-sustaining capability, to degrade its ability to produce that value of fish each and every year? As far as I can determine, they pay nothing, Mr. Chairman.

What does the Greater Vancouver Regional District pay to dump sewage into the Fraser estuary? What do they pay in exchange for their permit to degrade the tremendous life-sustaining value of that estuary? It's immense; it can't even be quantified. Estuaries are where we all began, Mr. Chairman. I mean, those are some of the richest life-producing areas on the globe. Each and every one is precious. What does the Greater Vancouver Regional District pay? What do private dumpers pay? What do they pay for landfill sites that leach toxic chemicals into the river? What do they pay to degrade the life-sustaining value of fresh water in this province? They pay absolutely nothing.

Under Social Credit, I don't believe that we charge enough for our forest resources. Under Social Credit, I don't believe that we charge enough for our mineral resources. I certainly don't believe that we charge enough for our energy resources, and I think the Social Crediters agree with me on that — that not enough is being charged for our energy resources in the province — and they would like to see Canada raise the price of petroleum to the world price. So they don't believe that we charge enough for our energy resources either. In their ad hoc policy that they developed last February they say that we should charge the replacement cost for our energy resources to the extent that we're able to do that and still satisfy the consumers, without causing problems for the consumers.

I believe that when you don't charge enough for the resources — for example, for northeast coal — you're betraying the electorate. You're denying the people of this province the revenues that could be used to provide goods and services, government services such as health care, hospital care and the social services available from Human Resources. It's a betrayal of the electorate if you undersell or underprice those commodities, because you're depriving the people of the province of those goods and services. But for this province to underprice life-sustaining resources, Mr. Chairman, is criminal. It should not be done at all, because you're depriving future generations of their ability to live and to enjoy the environment to the extent that we do now. By underpricing those resources you're wasting them; you're causing them to be wasted at a greater and greater rate.

So, Mr. Chairman, I've committed myself in estimates this year, as a result of negative criticism from Social Credit to make only positive statements and suggestions to the minister. The first of my positive proposals to the minister in these estimates is this. I'm asking the minister about charging the full value of these life-sustaining resources to those who would degrade the value through pollution-control permits or through other means. What is the minister's position with respect to that policy? What is the minister's opinion with respect to the present values being charged for life-sustaining resources? In my opinion, the cost of those resources should represent to the government the cost of rehabilitating those resources over time.

To the extent that we lose the life-sustaining capability of the sea water at Amax, say, or Rupert Inlet, or of the fresh water in the Thompson River and the Fraser River, as a result of the granting of those pollution-control permits, we should charge the life-sustaining capability lost over time and use it either later on, as they do in reclamation for mines, or use it to purchase habitat elsewhere to mitigate for the losses in those rivers — if that's possible. Remember that we're talking about life-sustaining resources.

If we charge an adequate amount for those resources, let's look at the possible implications. The implications are this. Say you told Amax that you are going to charge them $50 a gallon for the life-sustaining capability lost as a result of their tailings dumped at Observatory Inlet in Alice Arm. It would change the economics of tailings disposal to this extent. It might make land disposal of tailings economically more attractive to the company, because now you're charging the full value of the sea-water resource. It will change the economics so that Amax will then make a choice. "Before we were getting the sea water for free. Now we have to pay the full value. Now the land disposal of tailings looks much more attractive." The economics change because we're charging the full replacement value of the resource.

What about in Kamloops or greater Vancouver? We look at a sewage disposal plant such as Iona or Annacis Island, the Kamloops sewage disposal system or the Weyerhaeuser system. If we said, "For the damage you do to the Thompson River under this pollution control permit we're going to charge you the cost of rehabilitating that river to its original life-sustaining potential," then Kamloops and Weyerhaeuser will say: "Oh, the economics have now changed. It's now more economic for us to go to land disposal of sewage or effluent from the industrial plant." It changes the economics and it changes the quality of the choices those companies have to make in the marketplace.

What the minister is doing by underpricing life-sustaining resources is forcing companies, cities and individuals to make choices which pollute and degrade the land, water and air in this province. By underpricing those resources you're forcing people to make the wrong choices with respect to the environment. I'm asking the minister to simply change the price, thereby changing the economics, changing the quality of the choice and developing a better system of pollution control which will force industries, municipalities, communities and individuals to make better choices with respect to pollution.

[ Page 6003 ]

The same applies to sanitary landfills. I can recall writing to the city engineer in Vancouver five or six years ago and asking him:

"Why are you applying for land down in Burns Bog or somewhere, where it's obviously going to cause problems? It's got a high water-table, it's in a deltaic area, and there could be flooding problems. There are obviously going to be toxic chemicals washing out of the site into the river. Why don't you go to incineration or resource recovery? Why don't you go to some other form of solid waste disposal, where you could, in fact, recover the value of metals, paper and that kind of thing, the energy value of garbage, and even the composting value of garbage for soil conditioners, as they used to do in the Los Angeles sewage treatment plant?"

I got a letter back from him that says: "The government sells us land so cheap that we cannot afford to develop a system that is non-polluting." That's the key to this whole question I'm trying to raise with the minister.

The key to pollution in the province is that if we sell life-sustaining resources so cheaply that municipalities, individuals and industries cannot refuse, then you as a government are responsible for the creation of pollution in this province. I'm asking the minister to respond to a suggestion that we raise the cost of life-sustaining resources to encourage less pollution and better treatment of the environment.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Well, you make some very good points. But let's start off with first things first. When I became the minister, after having discussions with people in the waste management branch and in pollution control, the key issue, the one that was far more critical than others, was the handling of toxic wastes, the really critical stuff. Some of the toxic wastes we were handling were not manifested, and we didn't know where they were being disposed of. Some of them were being disposed in a non-approved method, and some were being disposed of without pollution control permits. It's been my policy, and therefore the policy of the ministry, that we attack the key points first — that is, the ones that give us the most susceptibility to environmental damage. You make a good point in saying we should charge for pollution control permits. I remind people that if by 11 o'clock in the morning they haven't personally polluted, they should consider something in their diet. We're all involved in it, whether we're in Kamloops, Alberni, Prince Rupert or anywhere else that we have to live. We all contribute to the problem. We're all part of it. Aside from personally polluting, we have people pollute on our behalf. People painting your car or whatever else they're doing are getting involved in it as well. So it's a global thing. I would like to suggest that you read the latest issue of Harper's magazine, which makes some interesting suggestions about how you charge people for permission to pollute. Perhaps you have read that article. One of the things that I have endeavoured to do is on land values specifically. We often hear the expression that land in the north in some cases is nothing but useless moose pasture. Well, if it's nothing but useless moose pasture, then what exactly is a moose worth? It doesn't cost us anything, other than the cost of a Fish and Wildlife biologist, to look after that particular piece of habitat. Yet when we're looking at alienating that land for a stump ranch or any other kind of development, since the land is not currently in regular use by man we dismiss it as being totally useless.

At my request my staff have been developing what this raw land is worth in its natural state, what it can support. We have never put a price on wildlife, and I wouldn't want to put a price on wildlife from the standpoint of selling the wildlife, but from the standpoint of establishing what that land is worth when we come to arguing whether that land should be alienated for other uses. Quite often someone goes to an area of relatively remote wilderness and wants to try his hand at something else on the assumption that the land is of no value the way it is now. Of course wildlife is immensely valuable, and people will pay for the privilege and pay substantially for it.

I have no quarrel with the suggestion that we should charge people for polluting. I have a little difficulty in deciding that we would charge people a different rate for polluting in different areas because of the area they happen to live in.

As you know, the Kamloops task force is mandated right now with the challenge of trying to find an alternative way of disposing of the effluent in Kamloops. On Kamloops, you're incorrect in one thing. The city of Kamloops' discharge and Weyerhaeuser's discharge in gallonage are close to being the same. The difference is that the Weyerhaeuser discharge has about ten times the amount of phosphorus, which is the main pollutant we are concerned with in the river. But that really doesn't solve the problem, because getting the phosphorus out just brings you to the next most common chemical in the river which we would like to remove. It doesn't just start in Kamloops. It would start at the very genesis of each and every one of the rivers, whether or not they happen to be ones that people are living along. I don't know where we could come to.

I can see charging for pollution control permits and charging on a poundage. It would certainly reduce our problems with sanitary landfills, because the cost of disposing of refuse through sanitary landfills is there. We do have a mitigation program in some areas. That mitigation program is in effect at Revelstoke right now. The hatchery I spoke of earlier at Site 1 is strictly a result of mitigation that B.C. Hydro is paying for. We haven't charged for that in the past. I don't think it's a bad suggestion.

We did raise the price for water for Hydro. I still think it's way too cheap. There were a few squeals when we raised it. We have a whole host of charges. You asked what we charge for water. You don't really want to know in specific dollars and cents; you want to know why we don't charge enough for it and why we don't insure it. The fact is that there is a whole host of rates, depending on who is using it for what — whether it's agriculture, food or anything else. It is probably our most precious resource. Judging by the fact that we're in the first week in June and having fresh deposits being made on our soil, we’re going to have some more of it. Nonetheless, it’s one we should look after.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

In most places in the world the philosophy of the government is to allow the waterway to be polluted and to purify the drinking water. We've never taken that stand. We've taken the stand that all the water should be pure and that we should purify the discharge. People who come to visit from Europe and other jurisdictions are astounded that we're still hanging onto this philosophy that all the water should be pure to drink and that you shouldn't have to purify the drinking water, other than to check that it's just tuned up to the last little bit. You

[ Page 6004 ]

don't have to go very far south of here — Los Angeles or someplace — to get a glass of water and you'll switch to Perrier or mountain spring water without any trouble at all, because they've allowed their water to get polluted to the extent that they have to improve it with purification programs. It's an expensive way to go. It's been going on in this province long before this government, your government or the government before that, as to just how water was managed.

Airshed management is another one. Have you read the article in Harper's? I can see exactly that. Several of the critical airsheds have come along and said, "That's the maximum we're going to accept and there's a price for it," bringing the levels down based on that. But there is some progress, you know. In Trail, Cominco is getting close to the grand opening of their major expenditure in reducing the smoke discharge in Trail. They've come down a long way from where they were in the past.

We're not really allowed to discuss legislation, but some of the philosophy is reflected in the Environment Management Act which is certainly before the House, which I don't have any trouble upholding. I might tell you that it's got great support in cabinet. You make me out to be a junior minister, but just for your own information — I know you didn't have the privilege of being in your government's cabinet — we don't have junior ministers that I know of. Nobody wears a tag. There's a chairman. Everybody gets to speak up and say their own piece around the table. I will tell you that out of cabinet — of course I can't say what happens in cabinet — I get the Minister of Industry (Hon. Mr. Phillips) quite exercised at times standing up for my side of the argument. I don't lose very many. I think there's an impression that it's me against everyone else in the cabinet.

MR. LEA: No, we wish that was the case.

HON. MR. ROGERS: That isn't the case at all. In fact, I think that our record in environmental awareness is excellent.

As to some of the things that you have said about planning, B.C. Hydro is a good example. They came out with that coloured brochure about a year ago with all the places in the province that they were looking at maybe developing a hydroelectric project. We could absolutely squander our entire budget playing "chase me Charlie" following B.C. Hydro's crews around to see what they were looking at. They're looking at thermal power here and a dam here and a dam there. We don't have the money in our budget, nor do we think it would be worthwhile. They look at all sorts of projects and get all the local people upset, and then they decide it's not economical. So we wait until Hydro comes forward with their application, as they have in Hat Creek and others, before we get involved. They seem to have more money to spend going out and doing some studies. We take them with the grain of salt with which they're printed.

I want to just touch on hazardous goods transport, because that was one of the things you touched on earlier. Ninety percent of the goods that are travelling from the province that are hazardous goods are not waste. Regretfully, we only have authority over hazardous wastes. Only 1 percent of the goods that are actually transported are ones that are classified as hazardous wastes. I have been working with the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) on the subject, and it's one of great concern. We just don't have a manifest system.

You mentioned transportation of the yellow cake. We don't know right now what's in every boxcar. In the open-top gondola cars it was coal or woodchips, but you don't know what is in containers or in tank cars. Often I don't think the driver knows what's in the tank car. He's just transporting the goods. In the case of transporting yellow cake, that's one that's been brought to our attention. You become more and more aware of this as you have to deal with some of the problems. I see trucks going along and I don't think anybody knows what's in them. I'm sure the shipper knows what's in them. Many of them are common carriers, and they carry some kind of a manifest system, but we don't have an adequate thing. I had a very unfortunate experience of losing a friend of mine who was flying a 707 that was carrying hazardous cargo that was improperly stored. Even in international transportation we don't have a sufficiently good manifest system for the transportation of hazardous goods.

One of the things the Americans have developed as a result of their crash in Boston was at least a proper labelling and transportation system. I think it's one of the things we really have to work on. Anything can be hazardous if it's in sufficient quantity and it's in the wrong place at the wrong time. Not only going up the Fraser but travelling anywhere through the province, any kind of a spill presents a problem for us. Through the provincial emergency program we have been endeavouring to train people what to do in those emergencies. That's really not the solution. The solution is to not let the problem occur in the first place. That's either to go to slow freights or whatever else happens to be involved.

You mentioned the Fraser. On a global picture I would agree with what you say. The greatest quantum leap we can do is to stop the people who are already doing things. Sure enough, with what we know now — hindsight being 20-20 — we could go back and stop a whole bunch of operations that were going on, but we don't have that privilege. The first thing I want to do is address the most toxic and the most hazardous ones and those that are operating without permit. We'll address those first, and then we'll slowly work our way back until we get that situation where we get back to where we should have been in the first place, or as close as we can be with man's interference. I think that's enough for now.

MR. SKELLY: I don't know how to respond to the minister's response, except that it left me in an even more vague position than before as far as my understanding of what his policy is or what his attitudes are with respect to the environment.

On the issue of who's a junior cabinet minister and who isn't, I don't think you can leave that up to the cabinet minister to decide. It's not whether you win the arguments or how you state the case. I suspect that I might even win a few arguments across the floor in the House today or tomorrow — maybe lose a few and win a few. But I don't think I'm going to get too many of the votes. I think you're going to get the votes. It's not who makes the case and how well the case is stated; it's who exercises the power and who spends the money. Mr. Minister, on that scale you're a junior minister. While I respect your ability to argue and debate, when it comes to spending money you're on the bottom of the heap. That's what it amounts to. It's not you personally; it's the environment, as far as I can detect from the attitude of this government, that's on the bottom of the heap.

As far as the policy issue is concerned, I realize that we have to take the most serious first. We have to see a whole

[ Page 6005 ]

range of problems and then take the toxic chemical problem and say: that's going to kill the most of us in the shortest possible period of time, so let's go after that. But I don't think you can do that exclusively. I don't think you can neglect the general policy issue.

You mentioned the Kamloops task force. I think this is part of the problem with this ministry. The Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) has a very comprehensive policy with respect to the operation of his ministry and the management of forests in the province of British Columbia. That policy developed out of a series of royal commissions over the years which identified the problems, allowed a great deal of public input and allowed companies, foresters and other resource managers to make representations. As a result, a comprehensive policy and a series of laws developed out of....

AN HON. MEMBER: You don't agree with them all, do you?

MR. SKELLY: No, I don't agree with them all. The minister probably doesn't agree with them all. But at least there is a policy in place. You can change it over the years. Where you feel it should be changed, you can increase the financing in that area. You can call another royal commission and even select your commissioner. Those kind of things happen.

For example, who did you call to be a member of the Kamloops task force? Weyerhaeuser, the city of Kamloops and with an independent chairman were called. Are they going to say: "Well, we recommend that we be charged more for dumping into the river?" Who are the major groups involved in the Fraser estuary study on the planning level? They are the harbour commissions, Council of Forest Industries and the major land and water users in the area. Are they going to jump out of the bailiwicks and say: "I'm going to look at this from a more all-encompassing point of view from the point of view of the province as a whole"?

If you really had the power and weren't a junior minister.... I realize this was done before your time. That person is now a radio announcer. He really went downhill. I just did a tour on the river with John Fraser, a former federal Minister of Environment, and some people involved in the Fraser River Coalition. I'm sure the minister has done the same thing. I'm sure the previous minister has done the same thing. But the people involved at the planning level on that study are people who have an axe to grind and turf to defend. As a result, I don't think that study is going to be as productive as some people hope. When you set up a study like that, I think the medium is the message. The people should have got the message right away. Okay, if they really wanted something done in the Fraser estuary, they would have appointed a royal commissioner — someone of the status of Berger, Lysyk or Dr. Andrew Thompson of the northern inquiries. If they don't want anything done, get the people involved who have the present turf and see what happens, if anything. I think that's what's going to happen in Kamloops. That's what's going to happen with the Fraser estuary. That study is going to grind on and on, as in the Cowichan, and probably come up nowhere.

I'm especially concerned about the Fraser estuary and the Thompson River, because that river is kind of a living artery of this province. More has to be done. I congratulate the minister for the efforts he's made to enforce the people who are presently polluting without permit and who are violating their permits. But more has to be done in a comprehensive planning way. What is required is to get beyond the bailiwicks and the turf of the present people involved in the conflicts and appoint a royal commissioner who has jurisdiction over all of them and who is outside and independent of all those conflicts that are presently taking place. If the people who set up that study in the first place wanted some solution to the problem on the Fraser River, then that would have been the mechanism they would have chosen.

If they were trying to deceive the people, and I feel they were.... I feel they were just trying to assuage public concerns and get that out of mind for a little while. I think that's what was happening with the Fraser estuary study. If they were really serious, they would have had a royal commissioner. If they're only moderately serious, you end up with somebody who studies the problem to death and it never really does get solved. My understanding of what's now happening on the Fraser estuary.... Instead of people getting together — and this was the original point of the study.... The concern was that 70 percent of the estuary is gone, and let's save the other 30 percent. Now all the people who have jurisdictions in the 70 percent want to divide the 30 percent among themselves. That's the real problem. We wouldn't have had that problem if we had had a royal commissioner. At least there would have been the other possibility. Instead, by appointing the people with an interest in the land in that area, we'll probably lose a good part of that 30 percent unless something is done by you, in conjunction with the federal minister. I haven't seen any move on your part to change the status of that study to give it royal commission status, rather than have the area studied to death, as is presently happening.

I'm concerned about the Thompson for the same reason: the people who have an interest in polluting are major participants in that task force. I don't think that anything good will come out of that kind of study. I don't think that an overall view can possibly come out of that study, and that's a concern. Mr. Minister, you set up that task force. My concern is that you did it for political reasons; you did it before the by-election. I understand the pressure that was on you, but the river is more important than that. I think you would have received greater credit from all concerned if you had set up a commission with higher status with royal commission status. Out of that I think we would have come up with a better solution, with more possibility of a solution to that problem.

I'd like to go on now to what I consider to be an important aspect of the administration. Again, it's an area that reflects the government's attitude towards the environment in this province — that is, the rule of law that we enjoy with respect to the environment; also the way that law is administered; also some of the things the government does with respect to the law available to protect the environment.

This House has a select standing committee on environment and resources. The last time it did any work or was assigned any terms of reference to do any work was in 1973. It worked through 1974 and made a report to the House in 1974; at that time it was called the forestry and fisheries committee. Under the previous W.A.C. Bennett government, it was also assigned terms of reference; it heard from the public, dealt with issues that were important to certain segments of the public, and came back to this House with reports that were, I'm sure, read and dealt with by the Ministry of Forests or Marine Resources or whatever. In most years since this government was elected in 1975 the commit-

[ Page 6006 ]

tee hasn't even convened to appoint a chairman. That's the attitude the government appears to have towards environmental matters. The committee hasn't even convened to appoint its executives. Other committees have been called: the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture in one year, but that appeared to me to be a payoff to a backbencher who was causing problems. It was called as a payoff. Another standing committee was set up under legislation to look into Crown corporations, and now it has decided not to look into them. I suspect the reason that committee was set up was to deprive the public accounts committee of the right to look into those Crown corporations, as they had been been doing on a year-by-year basis.

The reasons for establishing those committees — again, the medium is the message — are the wrong reasons. The committees of this House don't work. You know, we're often criticized on this side for making negative comments on what the government is doing; possibly it's because we don't have the opportunity to make positive comments. I can recall that when I was Chairman of the forestry and fisheries committee, a lot of people — some of them still sit on the other side of the House — who took part in that committee's function adopted a kind of problem-solving approach to resource management problems. The atmosphere in that committee — all parties — was very positive. I think that if you give members of this Legislative Assembly the opportunity to play a role, to solve problems of resource conflicts in this province, then they'll play that role. If you give them the opportunity to be positive, they will be positive.

I'm suggesting to you, Mr. Minister, that there are a lot of environmental items — resource conflict items — that could be dealt with by a select standing committee on environment and resources, yet you have referred no terms of reference whatsoever. I see no resolution on the order paper referring terms of reference to that committee. That committee hasn't worked even to the extent of calling itself together to convene and set up its executive. Mr. Minister, that's your failing. There are items that could be dealt with: we could be looking into environmental policy; we could be looking at the wildlife management act that you brought down in White Paper form; we could be looking at other problems. While you're concerned with toxic wastes and enforcement, maybe the select standing committee could give you a broad perspective on other issues, so that it will be easier for you to deal with them in the future and easier for you to understand what the public feels about those issues right now. That's a positive suggestion. I'd appreciate hearing the minister's response to it.

Another suggestion. When you look at environment legislation and environmental administration across the country, almost every single province or jurisdiction has an environmental citizens' advisory committee. A group of citizens are appointed to advise the government on how the environment is administered and how policy is developed, and to recommend policies to the government. This province is one of the only jurisdictions in Canada that doesn't have such a committee. It's written into the legislation of Saskatchewan, Alberta and almost every other province in this country. I believe Newfoundland was the last one to go before British Columbia — the book-ends of Confederation. We don't even have a citizens' advisory committee in this province to watch-dog the way the ministry handles its law and administers environmental matters.

There is a suggestion for the terms of reference of the Select Standing Committee on Environment and Resources.

Should we have an advisory committee? Should they appoint representatives to that committee in the same way that the auditor-general or the ombudsman was appointed? Those are suggestions for terms of reference. And yet it appears to me that no positive moves in this direction have come from the government since 1976.

The advisory councils of all the provinces meet yearly and then send a report to the Canadian Council of Resource and Environment Ministers. I suppose B.C. is now unrepresented. Before, the Environment and Land Use Committee secretariat — the ELUC secretariat, or the hard-luck secretariat, as they now call themselves — used to be B.C.'s representatives on the committee, even though they were not representatives of the citizens of B.C. They weren't a citizens' advisory committee; they were employees of the minister through the Environment and Land Use Committee of cabinet. That used to be B.C.'s representation on this national body of citizens' advisory groups. We don't even have that anymore. A positive suggestion to the minister then: what about an environmental advisory committee, like every other province? Let's get in line with all the other provinces at long last and appoint a citizens' advisory committee.

I have outlined problems that citizens and members of the Legislature have in dealing with this government on environmental matters. You can't approach them through estimates like this. The minister and the government can bafflegab any suggestion, and then it's lost in Hansard for years and years. You can come back the next year and do the same thing as environment critic — and believe me, I have a list of all the speeches I have made, too, and I can't count too many successes. I don't know if there is a routine for categorizing critics, but I suppose that makes me a junior critic. I win a lot of arguments, I suppose, but I don't get a lot done.

There aren't too many mechanisms that citizens have in this province to get through to the Ministry of Environment and to the minister — no legal mechanisms and avenues. Even those things that are set up under law, such as the Pollution Control Board, the Pesticide Control Appeal Board and even the courts — where citizens have access to the courts — are inadequate, because the government in its law has systematically denied citizens the right to effectively participate in environmental decision-making in this province. That's the problem.

The provisions of the Pesticide Control Act that set up the appeal procedure allow the board to set their own procedures. They can do it themselves, and they can change it from day to day as they see fit. They don't have to provide written reasons for their decisions; they don't have to operate on precedents, like the court system in this country or in the British Commonwealth. Citizens going before the Pesticide Control Appeal Board on the same issue from one year to the next can get two different decisions with no reasons given and no precedents taken and followed.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to read a letter I received from the secretary of the Pollution Control Board when I wrote to her asking what rights citizens have before the board, what the procedures are, what about transcripts, what about this and that. She writes back to me and says: "Notes on appeal procedures. The procedures for presenting appeals are basic and may be modified at the board's discretion." That's like going into a football game where they have the right to change the goal-posts or the rules. It simply is not the tradition of justice that citizens in this country are used to. Yet that is the practice under the environmental statutes of this province.

[ Page 6007 ]

This is from Mrs. Mitchell's letter to me, when I was asking her about procedures: "No formal rules have ever been enacted regarding procedures and conduct, but the board does follow, as far as possible, the rules of natural justice to ensure a fair hearing." Well, can you go as far as possible towards natural justice? It's either justice or it isn't. The procedures in appeal should be spelled out, and every citizen should be aware of the law that binds him when he goes into that appeal procedure. The same law should bind the appellant and the proponent, and nobody should have the right to change it between the time the hearing begins and the time the hearing is over.

Citizens going before the Pesticide Control Appeal Board or before the Pollution Control Board do not have the same rights as citizens in this commonwealth going before the courts. We don't have proper rules of evidence. We don't have proper rules of conduct in those tribunals. The citizens are denied the right to justice under the environmental statutes of this province. I'm making a positive and constructive suggestion to the minister. If you want people to conform with the law, go along with the law and respect the law, then you have to make the law fair. You have to provide natural justice — not natural justice insofar as it is possible. Citizens have to feel as they go into those tribunals that they are going to be treated justly and that they have the same rights as the proponents whose permits are being appealed.

I wrote to the Pesticide Control Appeal Board on the Okanagan Lake 2,4-D permits. They wrote back to me and said: "Look, there are certain things that you cannot challenge. The federal government registers pesticides, so you have to have some pretty solid evidence to prove that those pesticides were registered improperly or were so dangerous that they shouldn't have been registered by the federal government."

The federal government doesn't have to give evidence at that tribunal that the pesticides were registered properly or that they were safe. We know that some of the chemicals being used in this province were registered under falsified and fraudulent information. The company is under a grand jury investigation in the United States, and the president of the company shredded all the documents. He is being charged. Yet those pesticides are being used in the province of British Columbia. When we appeal their use — because it's too frustrating to deal with the ministry on them — through the Pesticide Control Appeal Board, we are told we cannot challenge the fact that they are dangerous chemicals, because the federal government has registered them. We are told that even though it was done with fraudulent information and on a fraudulent basis. That's denying citizens of this province the right to appeal and to be equal in law before that tribunal. We don't have the right rule....

AN HON. MEMBER: Hooker Chemicals.

MR. SKELLY: Yes, Hooker Chemicals has greater value attached to their citizenship than the average individual citizen in this province. Dow Chemicals' citizenship has more value, because of the way that pesticide control appeal procedure is set up, than the average citizen of this province. They don't have to give any evidence at all. They don't have to give any information at all. They can sit in on the pesticide control appeal as observers and watch citizens who have inadequate financing, who have done a tremendous amount of research, given the lack of time they have and the lack of knowledge of the chemical and judicial procedures....

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Citizens do a tremendous amount of work for the government of this province voluntarily. Yet Hooker Chemicals, Dow Chemicals, Union Carbide — their citizenship is valued by this ministry and by this minister above the individual citizenship of citizens of this province. They have greater rights before that Pesticide Control Appeal Board. That's not natural justice as far as I'm concerned, and this is my suggestion to the minister: those appeal procedures should be changed. You can do that by regulation to reflect the procedures available to all citizens of this commonwealth before the courts of this commonwealth — the rules of evidence, access to the courts, procedures of the courts, and that kind of thing. They should be consistent and justice should be seen to be done.

One of the attitudes of the ministry — and one of the reasons why the laws in this province with respect to environment are so vague — is the fact that we feel we can solve the pollution or environmental problems by cooperation. I'd like to outline an event that happened about 2,300 years ago, but it's just as relevant today. It has to do with cooperation. In about 400 B.C. — and this refers to this minister's administration — an Athenian fleet appeared before the gates of Melos, which is a small city-state on an island in the Aegean Sea.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: I'll provide a map for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland) after this.

The Athenian fleet outnumbered the Melesians by about ten to one. They said: "Well, you guys are going to have to settle with us or we're going to conquer you." The Melesians said: "Well, let's negotiate." That's the way we deal with people who would pollute the environment in this province. We say: "Well, let's negotiate. We don't want to pass laws. We want to deal with this on the basis of cooperation and negotiation." Back there in 400 B.C., when the Melesians said, "Well, let's cooperate," the Athenians said: "When these matters are discussed by practical people, the standard of justice depends on the equality of power to compel. In fact, the strong do what they have the power to do and the weak accept what they have to accept."

Mr. Minister, the law is a strong equalizer. It gives the citizens the same rights as the most powerful in our society. In a society like ours, where the powerful are extremely powerful and the individual citizen is in comparison extremely weak, the law must be extremely explicit in the way it protects the rights of the weak against the powers of the strong. One of the problems with environmental legislation in the province of British Columbia is that we as individual citizens in this province have a lower standard of citizenship and have fewer rights than the strong who are proponents of pesticide use, who are the manufacturers of pesticide chemicals and who are the polluters in this province. I am making a positive suggestion to the minister that we get better legislation to give citizens better access and at least the same rights before environmental tribunals as the strong.

It reminds me of the statutes they used to have against rape. A woman used to go into the police station and say: "This is a dangerous area of the city. What do I do if someone tries to rape me?"

[ Page 6008 ]

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Is this in 400 B.C.?

MR. SKELLY: No, this is just in the 1950s, when you were wandering the streets, Mr. Minister, were concerned about this and wanted to go and ask the police for protection against rape.

This is the way statutes were written in this country. They were so inadequate. Women were so poorly protected by those statutes that the only solution to the problem was to cooperate. Cooperation in that case is no answer, because what it means is you get raped. The statutes that protect the environment in this province are precisely the same kind of statutes. What we're asking the minister for is better protection for individual citizens. What we need is more explicit definition of the rights of citizens before those tribunals.

Having made those positive, constructive suggestions to the minister, I hope I can hear some positive, constructive agreement and a plan for action.

HON. MR. ROGERS: I guess we should start off by pointing out that British Columbia has a pesticides review board. Some of the provinces don't even have that. In some of the provinces they say: "It's been approved by Ottawa. Read the label on the box and use whatever you think is fair." We not only have the pesticides review board, but if people wish to appeal a decision, they can take it before the board from the branch.

But the kind of people who are going to sit and make sensible and thoughtful decisions on that board are not people who come from a legal background. You may get a lawyer who has a background that would be useful, but we haven't had one in the past. If people aren't satisfied with the decision they get from the pesticides review board and they feel that natural justice hasn't been served, they have recourse through the courts. People have taken that action. In almost every case the decision of the board has been sustained. I can't quarrel with the question of the courts.

There are some interesting things, you know. In terms of land mass and population, British Columbia is approximately 10 percent of Canada. We use approximately 3 percent of Canada's pesticides. We are probably the most restrictive province in the country. The last year for which we have records, there were 53,000 pounds of 2,4-D used in this province and 3.6 million pounds of 2,4-D used in Saskatchewan. We used about 1.5 percent of what they used. Admittedly, it's for an agricultural base. But if you look at where we stand on pesticides, this province has very strict regulations and very nominal use compared to other jurisdictions. I think 3 percent of the Canadian consumption bears that up very well.

You mentioned what other Ministers of Environment have in other jurisdictions. I am constantly reminded when I meet with my colleagues from other parts of Canada that none of us have the same kinds of jurisdictions. When the Ministers of Education get together countrywide, they're all going to be talking about K to 12 and what they have in post-secondary. The Ministers of Finance are going to be on the same terms of reference. When the Ministers of Environment get together and I start to talk to somebody about a problem that we have, they say: "Oh, we don't look after that in our province. That's looked after by Forests" — or Lands or Water or some other ministry. A lot of times the comparison isn't there. Last night I attended a reception which was put on for the government caucus. One of the speakers, who wasn't speaking at all about environment, used the word "environment" over 100 times. It has become sort of the global catch-all for the good guys. But if you get right down to the mechanics of the operations of the ministries, you find that many of them don't have the same kinds of mandates in their various jurisdictions.

You mentioned the Canadian Council of Resource and Environment Ministers, their citizens' advisory group and the fact that the secretariat used to always attend the meetings. John O'Riordan always attended on behalf of the secretariat; John O'Riordan, who is now with the ministry in a senior position, still attends on behalf of the ministry. So we still are represented there by the same expert people.

I take your comments on the citizens' group. That's something worth considering. I haven't given consideration to requesting that my cabinet colleagues call together the standing committee on environment, but that's a worthwhile consideration. If some particular item comes up that I think should be considered by that committee, I'll make that recommendation. I think it's worthwhile pointing out again that the word is so global in its use that if we had a meeting, unless we met on a specific subject, the committee could certainly meet forever. I'm not so sure that any of us, especially getting on this late in the session, really want to sit on committees just for the sake of sitting on committees.

The Fraser River boat trip. Yes, I went up the Fraser River. Some of the people I went up with were able to point out things that we've stopped and improvements that we've made. It's the only bright light I was able to see in it, because there's still a lot of work to do.

You talked about the Kamloops task force and having some of the people who are currently utilizing the river participating on the committee. Remember that Weyerhaeuser has a valid permit, and they could have said: "No, we don't want any part of you." We could have gone along without them. However, they do have some expertise, they do know what kind of volumes they're dealing with and there are other people involved as well. I don't think that Dr. Smillie's committee is necessarily emasculated by having the users on it. Sure, the users have their own biases there. On our Hazardous Wastes Task Force we have exactly the same thing. The meeting gets together, and do you know that the most constructive people there are non-users. SPEC is one of the non-users on there. SPEC and the people from the ministry get together and they say: "You've been asked to come here and contribute some of your expertise and not to expend your corporate position."

They're coming around to it. There isn't a great body of expertise out there that I know of that isn't involved in some way. Almost everybody who's an expert on the subject has some kind of involvement in it. You carry your biases on your shoulder. I think that in terms of committees, if you don't have the users involved, and you have the decisions being made by a third party — aside from putting fear and terror through the hearts of the users who may have a very legitimate case to make.... If you don't allow them to be part of the decision-making system, then you're really not doing them any kind of natural justice either.

This ministry was set up in 1975. I suppose other than title changes in other ministries, it's the youngest ministry in government. Sure, we don't have the kind of fully developed policies that you get in Forests, which has been around a long time, and others as well. But we're working towards that end. In terms of our legislative package, some of which is before

[ Page 6009 ]

the House now and some of which will be introduced next year and maybe later on this year, we're developing that sort of thing. Forestry has been with us and is something we've been aware of for an awfully long time. We're still in the fledgling state. The science is yet to be perfected. With that I guess we can continue.

MR. SKELLY: I haven't kept a count of all the positive suggestions I've made today, Mr. Chairman.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: Maybe we should do that. That's the first positive reply I've had though. Every constructive suggestion you make to this minister comes back with a long history of his attendance at government caucus receptions and what one Environment minister said about another. They're all excuses. As to my suggestion about referring terms of reference to the Select Standing Committee on Environment and Resources, at least he took note of that. On the suggestion of the citizens' advisory committee he took note of that one too, but said the ministry has representation. It's a group of citizens' advisory committees. Citizens: those people out there that vote for us every so often and who have the right, under a democratic system, to make suggestions to government, to comment on government policy and to do it in a formal way. They have that right in nine other provinces but not in British Columbia. Let me ask you something, Mr. Chairman. Can John O'Riordan comment on the ministry's policy in the same way that perhaps the ombudsman or the citizens' advisory committee in Saskatchewan or New Brunswick can? What if he attacked the government's policy? Look what happened when they did cartoons about certain ministers. The pressure not to comment negatively on what the government is doing is on that individual all the time. He is not a representative of the citizens of this province; he is an employee of the government of British Columbia. In fact we have no citizen advisory committee in this province as nine other provinces have. Why us? Why are we always the last?

The minister said his was just a fledgling ministry. That's no excuse. Excuse after excuse, but that's no excuse. We all know what happens with task forces. If task forces are such a solution why did we call the Bates inquiry? Why did we create a royal commissioner of inquiry? Why do we create royal commissioners for some things and task forces for others? The simple fact is that if you don't want the problem solved or if you want to sweep it under the rug, then you appoint an inquiry at a lower level, as the Attorney-General has done time after time. You can do it in-house and nobody knows what's happening. You don't need the users involved. They were involved in the Pearse commission as participants before the commission. They gave evidence and submitted themselves to cross-examination in public. It's the system of justice that we in this Commonwealth have enjoyed for hundreds of years, and yet with this kind of task force you set up we don't. What we need is an independent royal commission of inquiry.

You've talked about how the Ministry of Forests is an old ministry and has been established in this province for a long time. It's also had the benefit of three royal commissions analyzing what it's doing, what it should be doing and how it's being done. Because you're a young ministry it doesn't stop you from doing it right now and from saying that we should have this kind of examination. Are you saying that around this province nobody recognizes any problems with respect to the environment? Haven't you read the papers about Amax and the Thompson River and Hat Creek? Haven't you read the letters? Most people send letters to me — the same ones who send letters to you. We all get the same letters. As far as I can see in this province, there are tremendous problems with respect to the environment. Task forces and low-level, in-house inquiries simply are not solving the problem. They don't have the global look or the grasp of the situation that a royal commissioner could give.

What we need in order to develop a comprehensive environment policy in this province and a way of administering those life-sustaining resources is an office of the stature of a royal commissioner. You're saying that a task force here and a task force there can solve the problem. They can't even solve the problems that they've been empowered to deal with. I even question the motivation for setting up the task forces in the first place. They were to sweep the problem under the rug.

What this concern needs is a royal commission of inquiry. No other excuse is going to stack up. What we need is a royal commission, somebody we can all trust and who will look into the whole matter. You say you've selected toxic chemicals as a priority because they can kill most of us more quickly than other problems. I'm not even sure that's true. That's a subjective judgment that you've arrived at in some way. Maybe it is landfills. Maybe they're dumping more toxic chemicals into our waterways and into the atmosphere than all of the transport, storage and manufacture of so-called hazardous chemicals combined.

I say this all the time, I guess, but whenever other people go to Disneyland in California, I go and look at the sewage treatment plant. On Sunday, after we got off the Royal Hudson, I went to look at the Premier Street landfill site in North Vancouver. People were concerned about toxic chemicals leaching out of the site, and it's a serious problem. Yet you've come to some kind of subjective conclusion that toxic chemicals, as you perceive them, are the problem. I think we need a global view. We need an overall view, and we're simply not getting that the way the minister is running his department.

I would certainly like a more positive response to my suggestions to the minister than the kind of sloughing-off that's happened today and that happens every time a positive suggestion comes down in this House. The Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser), for example, goes around the province saying the opposition is negative. They're against everything. They even respond to the stimulus. Pavlov wasn't all wrong. Whenever the opposition makes a worthwhile suggestion, it's sloughed off. Excuses are developed. If that isn't negative, what is? What future does any opposition have? From what I gather throughout the province, you may be the opposition in this Legislature next time around. You may be standing across the floor from me in reversed positions. How would you feel about being in the same position? If this Legislature is to serve any function at all, at least there should be some positive response from the government to suggestions made by the opposition. This Legislature and this government right now simply has no mechanism to do that. The ministers won't accept positive suggestions, the ministers won't accept constructive criticism, the ministers won't listen to the public. It's one of the reasons why you're in trouble right now. The ministers simply will not listen.

Interjections.

[ Page 6010 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I will ask all hon. members of the committee not to interrupt the member who is speaking. I remind the member who is speaking to speak to vote 76 of the Ministry of Environment. I think then we can contain the committee and do the business we're supposed to do.

MR. SKELLY: Okay, what we're suggesting to the minister, Mr. Chairman, is that we need some positive responses from this government, and not the negative responses we are continually used to, whether it's the public or members on this side of the House — not the excuses that we're getting used to all the time from those members across the floor. We're tired of negative responses and excuses. We're tired of negative comments across the floor from the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips). What we're looking for are some positive responses from the government, and we're simply not getting them. And that's your problem at this point.

I've made a number of concrete, constructive suggestions to the minister. What about a citizens' advisory committee? Every other province has one. What about changing the procedures under the Pesticide Control Act and the Pollution Control Act, so that every citizen has the same status under those appeal systems as every other citizen? What has the response been from the minister? Well, some other provinces don't even have an act. It's an excuse. We know and you know that those procedures must be improved. In fact you've written in letters to my constituents that you're aware of the problems of those procedures. When is it going to happen? Is it going to happen after another season of dumping 2,4-D in the Okanagan Lake system? Is it going to happen after another season of spraying diazinon on people who are opposed to being sprayed, when that chemical itself is under question in the United States and has been banned in the United States because of fraudulent registration data? Are we going to go through another season and another season before anything positive comes out of the minister, because of the minister's suggestion that some other provinces don't even have any legislation at all? It's simply no excuse not to act. We would like some positive responses to some of the suggestions we give in this Legislature.

MRS. WALLACE: I have listened with much interest to the debate that's been going on between my colleague from Alberni (Mr. Skelly) and the Minister of Environment. I certainly have some problems trying to understand just where that minister stands when it comes to environmental matters. He always talks great. He stands up and gives us a lot of words, but when we take them apart there's just not very much meat in those words. Of course he's referred in passing to the Cowichan estuary.

I would like to refer the minister to one of his own reports — at least in a way it's his own report. It's a report that was prepared by the Canadian Council of Resource and Environment Ministers on October 4 and 5, 1978. It was prepared here in Victoria. One of his employees actually chaired that symposium, which did a review of shoreline management policies. They came up with some very interesting comments. They should be very evident truths, and yet they seem to be truths that are continually overlooked and ignored. I think it's worthwhile to quote very briefly from this document — the steering committee conclusion. These were Environment ministers from right across Canada, or representatives from ministries, that met here in Victoria.

In their conclusions on shore management they said: "Consideration of Canada's shores as a natural resource has been overlooked for many years." I think we can all agree with that. It's a very obvious truth, and yet we seem to tend to ignore it. They go on to say: "While various shore resource components have developed, little overt effort has been made to knit these activities together in a coordinated, planned way. Integrated management of resources in shore areas and of shores as a resource per se is essential. However, it is only recently that this need has become obvious." I think it's been obvious for a long time, but it is certainly becoming more and more obvious. It's also becoming more and more obvious that this government tends to ignore the obvious. An overall plan is something we just don't have in British Columbia, as far as our shoreline management goes.

The report goes on to say: "In recent decades shore areas have been subject to rapidly increasing demands for urbanization" — certainly that's a very obvious truth and one that should be evident to every member of this House — "industrialization, transportation and recreation. Pollution on some shores has led to problems such as widespread shellfish contamination...." Certainly that should be an obvious truth. We see signs almost everywhere we go saying: "Don't swim here. Don't eat the shellfish here. Don't do this here, don't do that here, because the water is polluted." Speaking of shellfish, the report goes on to say: "...the curtailment of a food source and an adverse economic impact on the locality and the region." Certainly those are obvious truths that continue to be ignored by this government.

It continues to say: "Poorly planned shore development in other areas threatens valuable marshlands, wetlands, wildlife habitats and estuary ecosystems, leading to adverse affects on the fishery resource, recreational opportunities and widespread economic implications." It's all here in this report. It's all consolidated as to what these problems are by the conclusions of the committee.

It goes on to say: "At the same time inappropriate development siting has proceeded without accounting for the risks from shore-related natural hazards such as flooding and erosion" — and, I'm sure, contamination, although it doesn't mention that specific one. This is a ministry report. This is the sort of thing this minister must be aware of. Not only is it just generally obvious, but here we have it written up in very neat and concise terms in a....

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you being positive?

MRS. WALLACE: Yes, I'm being very positive, Mr. Minister. I'm very positive about the environment, I can assure you of that.

The report goes on: "It's clear this situation requires nationwide attention."

AN HON. MEMBER: You're not going to read the whole report, are you?

MRS. WALLACE: I might, Mr. Member, if you keep interrupting.

"This, however, does not mean that a common national response either should be or can be adopted in relation to every shore problem. Because of the diverse geography of Canada each region of the country will require special plans and management arrangements which reflect physiological, ecological potentials...."

I would suggest to the minister

[ Page 6011 ]

that here is his own report telling him that he has to recognize the problem and do something about it. Certainly the west coast of British Columbia and Vancouver Island's east and west coasts comprise a local area where we should have a complete shoreline management policy. We should have a complete assessment.

One final quote from the report: "Senior governments must recognize that land-water resources and social management strategies cannot be applied separately and must be structured to account for the interrelated opportunities and constraints of the shore system." You can't piecemeal it off, Mr. Minister. You can't have a little study of the Fraser River and another study here of the Cowichan estuary, and something else going on at Hatch Point and something else somewhere else, and hope to come up with an integrated shoreline management policy. It just isn't going to happen. The minister has in his possession the document that tells him this in no uncertain terms, and yet he continues to ignore it. Always where there is a disaster situation or confrontation we find him rushing in to put out a fire, rather than getting on with the program of setting up an overall shoreline management policy.

I mentioned Hatch Point, and I would like specifically to ask the minister how he proposes to complete his environmental assessment study there by June 22, which I think is his first-stage deadline, with the end of June as the second stage. In fact, the study that was undertaken by the company, Chevron, prior to the public hearings and so on, indicated in no uncertain terms.... They said it was just a preliminary study. They pointed out certain things, but the one thing they said in there and that is very definite is that it would take several seasons — I repeat, Mr. Chairman, several seasons — to accurately assess the environmental impact of any possible oil spills or other contamination in that area. Several seasons! Yet this minister rushes in and promises to have out by the end of June a report that was just started. I don't think it was even started at the middle of May; I think it might have been started now, if it's started at all. That's just ridiculous, Mr. Chairman, in view of a report that was commissioned by the person who is really interested in getting into that site. Even that preliminary report indicated the requirement for a study to go over several seasons. That report too pointed out the very thing that's pointed out in this report in a more specific and particular way — that you couldn't assess Hatch Point without also looking at the Cowichan estuary. The minister has just got the one task force over, and now he's rushing into another one in isolation and going to come up with goodness knows what based on three weeks of study.

Certainly it took three years to come up with the Cowichan estuary task force report. There's a pile of appendices to this report about 12 inches high — a report in itself This report comes up with 12 recommendations. We spent three years and I don't know how many dollars.... I have had a question on the order paper for a long....

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: It's answered. I'm sorry I missed it. I shall certainly check it out. Perhaps the minister will forgive me for that; I missed seeing that. Very often one doesn't realize that those answers have come down. I shall certainly look for that answer before these estimates are finished. I do appreciate having the answer before the estimates.

It's rather refreshing to have an answer to a question from a minister before his estimates are up for discussion. So often we find ourselves in the position of discussing the estimates and then getting the answers to those questions, which we put on there legitimately for information we felt we required in order to deal with those estimates, filed after the estimates are through. So I compliment the minister if, in fact, he has filed that answer. I will certainly look it up. No doubt it will come up for discussion later during his estimates.

To go on with the recommendations, we spent however many dollars it was and we came up with a task force report, after some several years, that made 12 recommendations.

Interjections.

MRS. WALLACE: I hear some noises over here that indicate that they're looking for a motion to.... Who's the House Leader today? They're looking for a motion to....

Interjections.

MRS. WALLACE: They don't have one. Well, Mr. Chairman, if I start these recommendations it's going to take me right to 6 o'clock to finish them, I can assure you.

MR. SEGARTY: Why don't you just table the book?

MRS. WALLACE: Why don't you read it? It's already been tabled.

The first recommendation calls on somebody to initiate the implementation process. "Cooperative discussion should begin between the appropriate provincial, federal and local government representatives." Yes. Here we have a report that's taken three years, and the first recommendation is that we implement cooperative discussion between provincial, federal and local government representatives. Three years to study, and our first recommendation is that we start some more discussions. Quite a report; quite a recommendation!

"(2) That the flood control proposal described in chapter 16 be reviewed by appropriate provincial and federal agencies." Another study! Three years of study, and the second recommendation is for a further review.

"(3) In conjunction with flood-control studies outlined in recommendation 2, geohydraulic and benefit-cost studies be undertaken to determine the feasibility of diverting a portion of a river flow." Another study. Three years of studies to produce this task force, and the first three recommendations are for more study.

The fourth recommendation.... Well, would you believe it? It is that detailed design studies begin immediately. Another study. Three years to produce a report, and the first four recommendations are for more study.

You won't believe the fifth recommendation, Mr. Chairman. Do you know what it is? That further studies be undertaken in the estuary to determine the biotic community relationships. My goodness! It took three years to produce this task force report — three years and the first five recommendations are for more studies.

" (6) Biotic conditions within the existing log-storage areas be monitored."

What have they been doing for three years? What have they been doing? We've spent all the money, we've taken the time, we've delayed your friends in industry, Mr. Minister of Health, for a long time from getting on with what they would like to do there, because this has

[ Page 6012 ]

been held up. Now we're going to do more studies and delay even further.

"(7) The appropriate levels of government explore means by which specific standards for noise emission can be established." Another study. That's seven out of 12 recommendations, and they're all for more studies.

Does anybody want to place any bets on recommendation number eight? "That studies of groundwater be undertaken."

We're finally going to get to a recommendation that says something. "(9) That in accordance with the terms of the approval for construction of the Doman Cowichan Bay sawmill, Doman Industries Ltd. dedicate a 2.8 hectare parcel of land to the fish and wildlife branch, waterfowl management."

I have three more recommendations. I'll run through them very briefly. We've got one recommendation that actually recommended something: that Doman give some property to Fish and Wildlife. That hasn't happened yet. I don't know when this report came down, but it was quite a long time ago.

"(10) That we pursue the enhancement and recreational nature of the features to find out what would impose minimal adverse effects" — another study.

"(11) That consideration be given to the establishment of a general policy governing estuary uses and use of coastal waters for log traffic" — another study, but at least that one is getting into the realm of total shoreline management.

The twelfth and final recommendation: "That an ad hoc steering committee be set up to continue assessment of alternative sites."

Of 12 recommendations, 11 are for more studies. It took three years; I'll find out tomorrow what it cost us.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Divisions in committee ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Hon. Mr. Rogers tabled the agreement between British Columbia Place Ltd. and Canadian Pacific Ltd. (Marathon Realty).

HON. MR. CHABOT: In the ongoing saga of the point of privilege, I want to clarify some matters in this respect. On May 29 I rose in the House and said that the member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell), in filing a petition, had misled the House on the basis of a petition in which he said: "I have a petition from the residents of the Queen Charlotte Islands and the Western Canadian Wilderness Society. It's signed by 14,000 residents...." At the time on May 29 when I made the statement that he'd misled the House, it was on the basis that this petition was signed by 14,000 residents, and there are only 5,559 residents in the Queen Charlotte Islands.

I don't believe the member for Atlin intentionally misled the House. I've reviewed his comments, made on that same day in reply to my statement. Hansard, on May 21, 1981, states: "I have a petition from the residents of the Queen Charlotte Islands and the Western Canadian Wilderness Society." Needless to say, he left out the key sentence, which says: "It's signed by 14,000 residents." He goes on on May 29 in reply to my statement and says, "the total lack of ignorance of the Minister of Lands Parks and Housing." I suggest, Mr. Speaker, after having examined his reply to my statement, that he did not intentionally mislead the House in his original presentation of the petition. He just seemed to have some difficulty with the English language.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the minister then withdraw the accusation?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Yes.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Speaker, maybe I was too kind with the Minister of Lands, but in view of the circumstances and upon reconsidering the question of privilege that I raised earlier today, I would ask leave to withdraw that question of privilege.

Leave granted.

MR. HOWARD: On a question of privilege, yesterday I gave notice of a motion which appears in the Votes and Proceedings under the numerical designation of number 16. I would ask leave of the House to withdraw that notice of motion.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mr. McClelland moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:58 p.m.