[ Page 6033 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Alleged cutback in homemaker service. Mr. Cocke –– 6033

Mr. Leggatt

Mr. Nicolson

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

On vote 76: minister's office –– 6035

Mr. Skelly

Mr. Gabelmann

Mr. Kempf

Mr. Passarell

Mr. Nicolson

Mr. Barber

Mr. Levi

Tabling Documents

Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources annual report, 1979.

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 6057

B.C. Hydro annual report, 1980-81.

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 6057

MONDAY, JUNE 8, 1981

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. KING: In the gallery today visiting the Legislature are Mr. and Mrs. Melvin Koski, formerly of Revelstoke, and Mr. and Mrs. Ed Warwick. They are from the fair city of Coquitlam. I ask the House to extend a warm welcome to them.

MR. HALL: In the members' gallery this afternoon we have visiting us Mrs. Carol Langford, who was nominated a week ago to be a candidate for the New Democratic Party in the Surrey provincial riding in the next general election, whenever that election takes place. I'd like the House to welcome her.

Oral Questions

ALLEGED CUTBACK IN HOMEMAKER SERVICE

MR. COCKE: I'd like to direct a question to the Minister of Health. In view of the fact that a survey conducted in February of this year by the B.C. Health Association — incidentally, those results were confirmed by a survey that we did — revealed that there were 1,616 long-term-care patients occupying acute-care beds, which the minister described as a "jam-up".... Assistant Deputy Minister Jack Bainbridge has now confirmed that in-home care has been slashed by 35 percent. Can the minister advise the House why he is exercising this foolish cutback in this vital area of health care when there are almost no hospital beds to accommodate long-term-care patients?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, the question contains considerable argument, but the minister may wish to answer,

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, the member for New Westminster has the advantage of having information that is not generally available, in that when speaking with Mr. Bainbridge this morning I did not hear him say that the homemaker service — if that's what the member for New Westminster is referring to — is being slashed by any percent. From a budget point of view, the homemaker service is being increased by 44 percent this year.

Mr. Speaker, if the member for New Westminster is referring to a program that is not generally known as the homemaker service, then perhaps we're speaking about two difference things, but if the member is referring to the article which appeared in the Province this morning and which quoted Mr. Bainbridge, then I believe it's the homemaker service. The budgetary estimate for that service is increasing from approximately $38 million last year to about $52 million this year.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, the minister should advise the people who are running the program; the cutbacks are across the province. As a matter of fact, the member for Peace River....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. We must have a question.

MR. COCKE: I have a preamble first, and that is in answer to the minister's balderdash.... Anyway, could the minister advise what appeal a long-term-care patient has when denied necessary long-term care?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, there is a procedure whereby a person who believes he requires this service can make application to the person responsible in the region. If such a client feels that his service should be expanded, or if he's been advised that that service is being terminated, then there is nothing to prevent that person from contacting the administrator who is responsible for the program. Failing that, if he receives absolutely no satisfaction, there is certainly nothing improper in that individual citizen's asking his MLA to try to assist.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, that minister should also look at other members of his staff. Isabel Kelly, when asked, was reported as saying that wages were the cause of the cutbacks.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask another question, however. I understand that there was a meeting this morning between the long-term care office and the homemakers from greater Vancouver to discuss a 30 percent cutback. Given the fact that there were 111 long-term-care patients in acute-care beds in St. Paul's, 196 in VGH, 80 in Burnaby General, 50 to 60 in Lions Gate, 30 in the Shaughnessy Hospital, and 40 long-term-care patients in the Royal Columbian, can the minister tell the House how he can possibly justify any cutback in services which are designed to keep patients in their own homes? And don't say there isn't a cutback, because there is.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Well, Mr. Speaker, the member for New Westminster may believe that a person who is receiving homemaker service would otherwise be in an acute-care hospital. That is not always the case; in fact, it is infrequently the case. Many of the people who are receiving these services require a degree of care or attention, and it varies. As many different procedures may be followed as there are clients, of whom there are in excess of 21,000. If the 21,000 people receiving homemaker service would otherwise require acute-care beds, then we would be faced with a very grave crisis in the province of British Columbia. The two are not directly related, although there are some citizens who would otherwise require additional and more intensive care.

It is difficult to relate to the suggestion of the member for New Westminster that there is a cutback across the board when the budget increase is approximately 44 percent. I don't know whether the member was speaking with Mrs. Kelly; I don't know where he gets his quotes from.

The entire program of maintaining citizens' requirements varies from the homemaker program to acute care and intensive care. There's a direct relationship on varying levels, but one does not necessarily replace the other. The homemaker service has increased significantly over the past years. At the beginning of 1978 there were 3,569 people receiving the service. Currently there are approximately 22,000.

Mrs. Kelly was referred to, and a large portion of the increase in costs is related to the wages of people who work in that area. The average cost per hour paid by the provincial

[ Page 6034 ]

government to agencies who employ homemakers is approximately $10 an hour. The amount paid to the people who are working varies between $5 and $7.50 per hour. The range of rates paid to the agencies would be in the neighbourhood of $7.75 to $11.50 an hour, depending on their personal circumstances and whether driving or other services must be provided. In individual situations, as is necessary, each of the clients is subject to reassessment at all times. It is the assessor's responsibility to determine what level of service each client requires. It's an impossible situation to try to evaluate 21,000 people on a regular basis: monthly, weekly or so on. An effort is made to reassess the needs. In some instances the hours provided for a client will be reduced and in others they will be increased.

MR. COCKE: I gather the minister has changed the original policy, because homemakers were touted, to begin with, to keep people out of facilities. Since we have been informed that each of the districts has received letters informing the homemakers to cut back service, has the minister decided to tell the people at the local level that the letter is to be ignored?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I presume the member will table that letter.

MR. LEGGATT: My question is on the same general subject. I'd like to be a little bit more specific with the minister. He's indicated that there's a budget increase. He's estimating something like 44 percent. I wonder if the minister could advise why the Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows agency has issued a list of prohibited activities to their workers. Those prohibited activities are as follows: no transportation; cut-back food preparation, emotional support, home repair and vacuuming. Vacuuming seems to be too much for this service.

Has the minister taken any steps with that particular organization to reinstate the programs that they have specifically cut back in response to what the minister tells us is a budget increase?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The needs of the individual client are investigated by people within the Ministry of Health. The purpose of the program is to assist people who might otherwise not be able to maintain themselves at home. Frequently it is to assist the spouses of people who cannot maintain themselves at home. The primary purpose of the program is to assist people with respect to their health. It's not a nursing program; it's a homemaker program. Frequently it involves light house duties to assist single individuals who may have a problem in maintaining their homes. Frequently it is to assist spouses by providing them with an opportunity of getting away from the home for a matter of a few hours maybe once a week, or the better portion of a day.

The duties vary. We have had reports that the duties include such things as car washing, which we don't consider to be appropriate. There have been other situations reported to us where the dealers include cutting the grass, which we feel is not as appropriate as it should be. The member mentioned vacuuming. I'm not sure to what extent vacuuming is required. I'm sure that each of the clients of that agency does not require someone to do their vacuuming for them. It's certainly not the intent.

One of the problems is determining what precisely the client requires. Some of the clients simply require someone to visit them on a regular basis because they're suffering from loneliness as well as some other problems associated with their health. It's impossible to set a program which would be appropriate for every one of those 22,000 individual people. The homemaker agencies attempt to provide the service which has been identified as being required by the assessor. I don't know what Maple Ridge intended to provide to their clients. I presume they provide what might be required by each individual client. They may cut back on their program in order to maintain their budget. They may cut back by way of hours or number of clients. They're expected to maintain themselves within that budget.

I hope the members across this House realize that through taxpayers' dollars, the Ministry of Health is providing a level of service to more than 21,000 people which otherwise they simply would not have, for various reasons. It's an excellent service. It's providing for the needs of a large number of people. It is not perfect, nor would it ever be expected to be perfect. It's costly and extensive, and it's working, despite some of the minor complaints we're hearing.

MR. NICOLSON: I guess I have what the minister would consider a minor complaint from the Ferne and District Homemakers Service, which has had to cut the number of hours of service by 22 percent in the last two months. Budget restraints have resulted in a further 20 percent cut in the hours of service ordered by the long-term-care office. In view of the largess of the minister's estimates, has the minister reconsidered the level of funding which is offered to the Fernie and District Homemakers Service?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I obviously don't have the list of what might be offered to that particular society, but each of these societies, agencies or whatever has the opportunity of reviewing its budget with the coordinator or administrator in the area. Within the Ministry of Health we find that despite approximately a 44 percent increase in the funding, we still cannot provide all that is expected and demanded of the program. Our assessors in the field are attempting to determine where this money would be best spent. It's not an easy job. It's a difficult one, in that you are dealing with people who are in various levels of need. We expect the agencies who employ the homemakers to provide the services, to be cooperating with our coordinators and administrators to see that the best possible level of service is maintained.

I would suggest a 44 percent increase is not a minor matter. We're speaking in excess of $50 million a year for this specific program. It is growing, perhaps faster than was originally envisaged. We're attempting to keep pace with it, but we do anticipate individual situations where the clients feel that they are not receiving the service they either expect or demand.

HON. MR. SMITH: May I have leave to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today is a constituent of mine, Mr. Michael La Brooy, and his mother from England, Mrs. Christine De Saram. Mrs. De Saram's

[ Page 6035 ]

father was a former Attorney-General and later a chief justice of Ceylon. I would ask the House to make them both welcome.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, the minister wished me to table a document. I am tabling a letter from Isabel Kelly to an administrator in the north, indicating that the entire increase in the budget is going to be consumed in increases in salaries.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT

(continued)

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

MR. SKELLY: I have just one question to begin with. There's a bit of confusion in the Okanagan basin today about the continuation of the 2, 4-D program in Okanagan lakes. I gather the minister is aware that I was going to ask the question, because he's received a number of telegrams, letters and phone calls himself.

Apparently the minister stated on a television show on the weekend that if there was not unanimous agreement among the local governments in the Okanagan Valley with respect to the remaining 2, 4-D permits, the permits would be off. Originally the ministry set a deadline of May 31 for that unanimous agreement. I would like to know if the minister would now confirm that the 2, 4-D permits for Wood Lake and Kalamalka Lake have been suspended or withdrawn.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Maybe I could clarify what I said for the member. I haven't been in my office this morning so I don't know how many phone calls or telegrams I've received. On the assumption that you've received copies of all of them, perhaps you could fill me in later on what my morning's correspondence is.

We're only talking about the program involving our attempt at eradication of the weed. In jurisdictions where there are a multitude of regional districts involved — for example, part of the Kalamalka Lake is in the Central Okanagan Regional District and part of the lake is in the North Okanagan Regional District — we were not prepared to apply for or use 2, 4-D or, in fact, the whole package, where the regional district or local municipal council is opposed to it.

In a situation in Vernon, you now have the North Okanagan Regional District, the city of Vernon and the Okanagan Basin Water Board in favour, but the Central Okanagan Regional District is opposed. That doesn't stop the city of Vernon or the North Okanagan Regional District from applying. But the ministry is not prepared to make application unless there is unanimity among the locally elected bodies.

MR. SKELLY: The minister will then confirm that the permits for Wood Lake and Kalamalka Lake are still in effect, and that the 2, 4-D programs for those lakes will go ahead, regardless of the opposition of at least the Central Okanagan Regional District.

HON. MR. ROGERS: That's incorrect. They're in a state of suspension now. Unless the Central Okanagan Regional District wants to have this program in their jurisdiction, it won't be done in their jurisdiction.

MR. SKELLY: When Mr. Buchanan originally advised the local governments by letter — I believe sometime around May 1 — he said that if unanimous agreement was not received by May 31, then the permits would be cancelled. May 31 has now passed and unanimous agreement has not been achieved among the local governments in the area. Will the minister confirm that those permits will now be cancelled?

HON. MR. ROGERS: They're in a state of suspension right now. They're not being used. I won't confirm or deny whether or not they're cancelled. That's just the word I choose to use on it. The program is inactive. It will not proceed until such time as there's unanimity among the people involved.

MR. SKELLY: Apparently the ministry has also tied the diver-dredge program to the use of 2, 4-D in Kalamalka Lake and Wood Lake. Is the ministry not prepared to proceed with the diver-dredge program, which I understand doesn't require pesticide permits, and if not, why not?

HON. MR. ROGERS: The answer is no, we're not prepared to. It's a total package. It's an all-or-nothing thing. There's substantial risk involved for these divers. The program is virtually futile without the follow-up of using AquaKleen, and we're not prepared to continue on that basis.

MR. SKELLY: For how long, then, will the permits remain suspended — until such time as the Central Okanagan Regional District has been persuaded by the ministry to go along with the 2, 4-D program? Or are we to believe that the programs will not continue in 1981?

HON. MR. ROGERS: They may or may not. I would think they might be persuaded by their own constituents. They're not to be persuaded one way or the other by the ministry. The facts have been stated, so they know what the facts are. It's as simple as that.

MR. SKELLY: The facts are from the point of view of the ministry, Mr. Chairman.

In debate on Thursday and Friday the minister talked about the appeal procedures under the Pesticide Control Act, and he mentioned that the question of natural justice in those appeal procedures had been examined and upheld by the court. Is there a report on that court decision that the minister could table with this House?

My understanding was that subsequent to the pesticide control appeal held in the Okanagan Valley in 1978, the opponents of the permits sought to have the permits overturned because the Pesticide Control Appeal Board displayed bias, and they obtained a temporary injunction from the courts in the area. They only had half a day to prepare the case and to examine something like 50 hours of tapes of the Pesticide Control Appeal Board proceedings. They were given access not to transcripts but to the verbatim tapes of the appeal. Only on the question of bias of that particular hearing was the injunction thrown out. The minister really has no right to claim that the procedures of the Pesticide Control Appeal Board have not been challenged based on natural

[ Page 6036 ]

justice, but only on the bias of the appeal board at that particular hearing.

I wonder if the minister has any records of court cases which have upheld the procedures of the Pesticide Control Appeal Board. I would appreciate it if he would table those in the House, because we haven't been able to locate them. As far as we're concerned, in the statements issued to appellants in this most recent Okanagan lakes program the board has biased itself in favour of the federal government registration agencies and the proponents of the pesticide program. I'd appreciate it very much if the minister would table any records or reports he's received on this case which uphold the procedures of the Pesticide Control Appeal Board. Do you have those reports?

HON. MR. ROGERS: It's a little awkward to answer this particular question, because when I discussed that on Friday I was speaking on a global basis, not on this particular case. Any of the decisions made by the appeal board can be tested in the courts. I hope I didn't mislead the member on Friday by implying that it was to do with Eurasian milfoil and the 2, 4-D case in the Okanagan Valley. Decisions of the Pesticide Control Appeal Board have been appealed in the courts, and I'm sure if we want to we can find an example. Of course any of the decisions they make now are still open to appeal.

MR. SKELLY: That is quite different from what the minister said on Thursday and Friday.

In questioning on Thursday and Friday we also talked about alternatives to Eurasian milfoil harvesting. One of the suggestions dealt with by the minister and by me was the availability of the white Amur grass carp. Apparently there's a hybrid variety that's been developed in Arkansas that doesn't reproduce in lakes in northern climates; for example, Okanagan Lake and other areas. While it is true that at the present time these are restricted from importation into Canada, according to people we've contacted in the United States it's not true that 42 of the United States have banned the importation of these hybrid grass carp specifically. Apparently nine states have recommended in favour of using the carp, six have no regulations one way or the other, about ten are definitely opposed and the rest fall somewhere between those positions. The operator of one carp farm says that even Ronald Reagan has the grass carp on his farm in the state of California, even though the state has legislated against it down there.

Regarding the use of Aqua-Kleen chemical, it's my understanding that Aqua-Kleen was not registered in Canada prior to the interest expressed in the chemical by the government of the province of British Columbia. As a result of the interest of this government, the chemical was brought into Canada, registered in Canada and even registered for use against the label restrictions on the chemical. I'm asking the minister to take another look at this hybrid white Amur grass carp, which apparently does not reproduce in lakes in this northern climate and which could be of some value in eradicating the Eurasian water milfoil. I suppose there are some small lakes in the province of B.C. or in the Okanagan Valley where enclosed tests could be done and controls could be established. I'm wondering if the minister is willing to give that consideration, given the fact that the information he had previously about the white Amur grass carp hybrid may or may not be true.

HON. MR. ROGERS: The statement I made — perhaps you saw the television program about the 42 states — had to do with the importation of Chinese water carp. I'm not aware of any restriction on the hybrid. I don't believe I made that statement. If someone assumes that I did, I stand corrected. I'm not aware of any at all. Yes, I've asked my staff to look at it, because I think it's something we'd like to put in a test situation and try out.

On Aqua-Kleen, I'm going to have to find out where and when, to go back into the history of that. I don't have it at the top of my head, but I'll find out for you.

MR. GABELMANN: I appreciate the Chair's recognition of me rather than the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf). I'll explain very briefly to the member for Omineca. I'm just out of bed for an hour or so because I need to make some comments during these estimates. I should very briefly explain to the committee that I had an ear operation late last week. The effects of ear operations leave one a little seasick. I still have an equilibrium problem and a hearing problem at the moment. For that reason I intend to be very brief this afternoon, because I do want to go back and go to bed.

Interjections.

MR. GABELMANN: One of the handicaps — or should I say disabilities — I have at the moment is that until this clears up, I'm almost totally deaf as well, so I couldn't hear the comments of the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams). I'm not sure that's necessarily a disability. If I suddenly have to head for the railing, it's because of a feeling of nausea.

This afternoon I want to very quickly make a couple of comments. The minister knows that the environment in general is an issue that north Islanders treat with some concern. I think the latest edition that I have of the Campbell River Upper Islander is an example of the way in which people on northern Vancouver Island see environmental issues. There are five stories on the page. Three of the stories, including the top three stories, are concerned with the environment: Buttle Lake, Kingfisher Park and wolf poisoning. The other two stories are on housing. I think that represents fairly the concerns that the people have in that constituency. The other paper in my riding, the North Island Gazette, has Port Alice and its air pollution problems as its major story this last week. That's fairly typical in my riding. So the minister can probably see why I was determined to make it in here today to make some comments.

One of the concerns that I have about the way in which the Ministry of Environment operates is that it doesn't see itself in the role that I think it could see itself. It sees itself as a permit-issuing ministry. It could in fact be a wealth-creating ministry in this province should it decide to focus its approach on the question in a different way, and in a way that I would urge. We have the potential to produce a great deal of food in this province in our coastal waters. In many ways it probably should be our major agricultural effort in this province: the production of food through not only fishery but the shellfish industry and related industries along the coast. We don't seem to have the kind of effort, energy and promotion of that approach to the coastal environment that I think is properly a responsibility of the provincial Minister of Environment. We do have some feeble efforts at the federal level with their salmonid enhancement programs and their involvement of the community in those programs. We even

[ Page 6037 ]

have the Vancouver Sun now involved in a kind of promotion program involving the public. But we don't have anywhere near the kind of involvement of the provincial ministry that I believe should be occurring. We could be producing an immense amount of food protein on this coast. I think we have a responsibility in the world to do that. That requires two things from the ministry. One, it requires an activist approach towards developing, encouraging and promoting that food fishery. Two, it requires some efforts to make sure that the environment which would sustain that food protein is protected in a way that allows it sustenance.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

This year we have the curious situation in and around Desolation Sound, including Cortes, Redonda and all of the islands in and around that area, of there being a ban on shellfish harvesting during the whole summer period — longer than the summer; it must be about a six-month period — primarily as a result of the pollution caused in those waters by pleasure craft. It strikes me as being a terribly perverse way of approaching those kinds of environmental problems that we close down the shellfish harvesting in that area rather than closing down the use of sewer systems on these pleasure craft that dump their raw sewage right into the water. We really must very quickly put an end to that kind of pollution of valuable waters, not only from an esthetic and environmental point of view but also from a sheer dollars-and-cents point of view of trying to encourage the kind of industry that could occur in these waters.

I'll leave the whole question of promotion of an industry at that. Perhaps in subsequent estimates in future sessions we'll have an opportunity to develop that further.

I want to speak very briefly about Quinsam, coal. The question has been canvassed thoroughly. I understand that it was canvassed last week by the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) as well as the minister. I just want to reiterate what I've said on other occasions: there is no way that there will ever be an open-pit mine in Campbell River. I've tried to say that to Weldwood and to Weldwood-Luscar. Luscar, to their credit — maybe to their sense of smart economics — have pulled out of that proposal. All of us need to say very clearly to that company: you've spent $5 million or so now; don't spend any more money, because that project is absolutely not going to be allowed to proceed. There is no way that we can consider open-pit coal-mining, particularly mining a coal as rich in sulphur as that particular mine has. We've just go to say no to them.

I appreciate that the minister might want to rely on the coal guidelines, which are not even precise technical requirements, but rather just — as they're called — guidelines, and want to allow them to attempt to prove that they can do it. There isn't anyone in Campbell River who believes they can do it. I don't believe there is anybody in this House who thinks they can do it. Why doesn't the minister just say to them that the odds of them ever getting that permit are so slim that they should give up now and allow the community to get on to some other efforts and put its energy into so many other areas that would be more productive than continuing to fight that very absurd proposal by Weldwood of Canada?

On Buttle Lake, the major story in the last issue of the Campbell River paper was the Buttle Lake story and the fact that the federal minister, Rom&o LeBlanc, wants to stop the dumping of tailings into that lake. I appreciate that the ministry has asked the company to provide alternative suggestions as to how they can resolve that tailings problem. I think the time has come to put some deadlines on their activity and to tell them basically and frankly that beyond a certain date — a reasonable date, but not too far in the future — there will be no water-dumping of those tailings.

In another part of my constituency. Rupert Inlet, we have evidence that water-dumping of mine tailings is just not the way to go. The Waldichuk report, while it reaches a number of differing conclusions, indicates that some very serious damage is happening in Rupert Inlet in Quatsino Sound as a result of the dumping of Utah Mine tailings into Quatsino Sound. That's very evident. Even 10 and 12 miles down the inlet you can see evidence on the shore of what the tailings are doing. The level of heavy-metal poisoning in those waters now appears to be quite alarming.

I would urge that the minister tell all of these concerns the two in my riding in particular and others besides Amax that may occur as time goes on — that we want to find other ways of disposing of these tailings and not disposing them into water, whether it's salt water or fresh. I just want to say that while the pressure isn't on to the same extent up at Port Hardy at Utah Mines as it is in Campbell River, one day people up there are going to wake up to the fact that they have a serious problem on their hands too.

I guess estuaries are a major concern in any coastal riding. I appreciate that much of the decision-making about estuaries ends up in Lands, Parks and Housing, but I just want to say that it is so much an integral part of the food fishery on this coast that the ministry is going to have to take much tougher and stricter measures and implement tougher guidelines about the use of estuaries than now exist. I appreciate that we're beginning to reclaim some of them — we're beginning to reclaim the Campbell River estuary — but at the same time we're beginning to lose parts of others, like the Salmon River where Mac-Blo intends to alienate part of the estuary.

While I'm on the subject of estuaries, the decision, I hope, will soon be made between Environment and Lands, Parks and Housing about the Robson Bight.... Okay. I appreciate the minister is nodding his head and probably will comment on that afterwards. I just want to say that while part of the decision-making is also in Lands, Parks and Housing.... I may touch on that; it's difficult to avoid that in the discussion of Robson Bight.

There have been proposals not only for an ecological reserve at Robson Bight — and therefore the prevention of a log dump, a bundling and sorting area there — but for a provincial class A park on the lower reaches of the Tsitika River. I should tell the House, Mr. Chairman, that I'm not absolutely persuaded that that's a good thing. I suspect that what we might have in that area, If we do create a park there, is a different kind of destruction of the whales in Robson Bight. I'm concerned — and I hope the minister can make some comments about the problem we're going to face this summer with the number of people going in in pleasure boats, just to have a look at Robson Bight. The publicity that that area has gained will probably do as much damage to the whales as some other activities might have done. For that reason I look with some concern upon the proposal that the area be developed into a park, because should that happen, it would only encourage a greater number of people in the area. We perhaps need to leave the area to the whales and lead people to some other areas. So I would suspect that the best

[ Page 6038 ]

answer is that there be an ecological reserve along the foreshore extending out into the salt water, back far enough inland to protect the buffer of trees, and that no logging occur on the river itself that would affect or change the quality of the river and the estuary and the saltwater area, but that no further development of any kind — whether it's industrial or park — be allowed to proceed.

If I was feeling up to it, Mr. Chairman, I would talk for some time about ELUC and what I see as a very bad decision of the government to phase out the support staff of the committee. I'm not going to take much time on it, but a very classic example of why we need ELUC exists in my constituency. It relates to the Tahsish-Kwois river system and the integrated resource study that is now going on in that area concerning future use of that particular watershed. Unfortunately the committee that is studying it, while it's a public committee, is sponsored by the Forest Service. We find in these situations that rather than having a combined group sponsoring a study of a resource area like this, one of the component groups — one of the possible users — ends up organizing and sponsoring the study. With all the good intention on the part of that ministry, that leads naturally to a public view on the part of many people that the study's conclusions themselves will be biased because one discipline is involved in the decision-making. I think it would be just as absurd to have the fish and wildlife branch head up the study of the Tahsish-Kwois as it would be to have forestry. It doesn't make sense at all to me; it should be a multidisciplinary group under the auspices of ELUC, and its staff support should come from ELUC itself. At this point I won't say more about that particular issue, because there is a publicly based group, including forest companies, the public and what not, involved in looking at how to develop the Tahsis-Kwois. I put myself on record before, and I will again, that in this particular case I think the wildlife, recreational and natural values exceed the forestry values in the lower reaches of that river system. I trust that the committee will come up with those conclusions, and having got those conclusions, the government will then take the required action to ensure that that particular watershed, at least in its lower reaches, is protected from clear-cut logging.

The only other thing I'll talk about is the section of the ministry that is responsible for river maintenance. We had some very disastrous floods, particularly on December 26 last year, six months ago. In particular, one classic example was where ten or twenty times the number of dollars were spent after the fact than would have been if it had been prevented before the fact. I don't have my estimates book in front of me, but I think the figure for river maintenance is about $400,000, or some minor number of dollars that can't even begin to deal with the kinds of river-channel maintenance required. In this fiscal year we should be spending I literally several millions of dollars on river maintenance, not only to prevent property damage but, more importantly, to prevent damage to salmon spawning-grounds. This past winter we have wiped out millions of dollars worth of commercial salmon, in many cases as the result of an inadequate maintenance program for these rivers.

The clearest example that I'm aware of is the Oyster River, which is the boundary between the ridings of Comox and North Island, where the entire spawn for this year was probably wiped out as a result of the flood. If a minimal amount of money had been spent to scour the channel in one particular spot, we could have prevented all that flooding; we could have prevented the major dollar loss to the province and to the federal government — it's a 50-50 thing, if I remember correctly. With some maintenance money ahead of time we could have prevented it. I fail to understand why the minister has been unable to persuade his colleagues, particularly on Treasury Board, that dollars spent ahead of time on river maintenance are dollars well worth spending. I'll leave it at that, Mr. Chairman. I would welcome the minister's reply.

HON. MR. ROGERS: First of all, I think I know what you are going through personally and physically. I'll try to be brief, so you can get out of here. I went through something similar myself.

Last week we talked briefly about aquaculture on the coast and what our mariculture potential is. What probably gives us the most potential are oysters, scallops and other shellfish that we can grow here. We have excellent natural oyster seed-raising areas in Pendrell Sound and Homftay Channel. We have taken over from the federal government the monitoring for the spatfall prediction in that particular area.

The oyster industry has tended to attract some people who think it's an easy way to make a living. It's a good living, but it's a very hard living. Consequently we have had a lot of people start and fail, which is unfortunate. We in the ministry wanted to be able to give some assistance to new people starting out so that they would have an idea of how much labour and capital and how long a lease they need to tie up in order to get a return on their efforts. It has to be an individual enterprise or a small collective operation. Looking after oysters requires an enormous amount of work. The seed only falls in areas with relatively high water temperature and relatively low salinity. That's why it only occurs in these two natural areas. It's easy enough for us to do. If we take in the cultch, we can transport it from there to just about anywhere on the lower coast and bring it out.

I should point out that the shellfish ban that took place last year was more the result of red tide than pollution. I guess that's a point you may wish to debate with me or others. Pleasure-craft pollution is a thing that the Americans have tried to come to grips with. In the United States they now have a law saying you have to have a marine pump-out toilet on boats in inland waters. There are two pump-out stations in all of Washington state right now — one in Seattle and one in Friday Harbor. I wouldn't know how many hundreds of thousands of boats there are that don't.... But two stations couldn't handle them. So the rule is being unenforced north of the Astoria lightship, which is really ridiculous; but that's the status right now.

Clearly, it is one of the things which has to come; holding tanks should become a must for pleasure craft. Montague Harbour in the lower Gulf Islands is not fit for swimming in the summertime, not because of what nature put in there, but because of the number of people who, on any given evening, discharge not only human effluent overboard but also the grease from the cooking and everything else. It all floats to the surface, especially in confined waterways. Prideaux Haven in Desolation Sound is a good example of an area where there is so little flushing action in the water that it becomes permanently contaminated. Tenedos Bay is the same way. Von Donop Inlet on Cortes Island has very little flushing action. And there are many others — Squirrel Cove, again on Cortes Island. We see this up and down the coast in these concentrated areas.

[ Page 6039 ]

Last year I took the opportunity to send out a booklet, printed by the ministry, to the commodores of all the yacht clubs and boating clubs we could find listed in the province. It pointed out what can be done environmentally and some things which can be done in terms of limits on oysters and shellfish. Most people don't even know there is a limit. I won't say it fell on deaf ears, because they all received the copy very nicely. The next time I was out on my boat I noticed someone with a bucketful of clams and a sackful of oysters. The postings don't seem to matter. People pay attention when somebody dies from eating contaminated shellfish, but they don't seem to pay attention to the regulations. The suggestion you made last year about producing a proper sign for oyster leases — I believe it was you who made it — has resulted in us producing pretty good quality signs which don't fade. They are distributed to the oyster lessors. As you know, we're building an oyster demonstration farm, and one of the things we want to do within the ministry is raise some seed ourselves and start stocking some of the public beaches which are currently understocked.

Quinsam coal and the guidelines system. You know, having the right to say no also implies that you have the ability to say yes. I would have no difficulty saying to somebody: "No, that's not acceptable." But on the other hand, if somebody came to me with a project and I said, "Yeah, that's okay," then I'd be open to all sorts of criticism for not having put them through the test. Sometimes in the corporate world there is not an awful lot of common sense. There's an awful lot of business sense and looking down the financial sheet, the balance sheet, and all the rest of it. There's not much sensitivity, but you can't engender that in people. Some corporations have it, and others don't.

I'm sure you might be the first to get up and say: "How dare you, as the minister, stand up and give your blanket approval of this project just because you happen to like it." You may applaud me giving a rejection; but I think, if you follow my argument, you see that if I gave approval to a project which subsequently turned out to be of horrendous environmental emphasis, although it hadn't looked that way at first glance — yet the minister would already have said yes.... You know what that would be worth: borrowing money on, doing contracts for, and all the rest. I don't want to put myself or whoever succeeds me in this portfolio in that position, and I don't think you would want to either. I know what happens. People go a little further down the line than we would like them to go, and maybe talking to someone like a Dutch uncle would save him problems. That's a discretionary thing that they have to figure out, and it's part of the business world.

Buttle Lake. Well, my conversations with Dr. Furnival continue, and I have now gone through the entire thing from the very first instances to the hearings held by the board in the early 1970s. I'm trying to bring myself up to date on it. However, the alternative suggestions are in right now. They know they have to get out of the lake. They also think they have a system for recycling most of the water that they are going to use on an internal basis. I'm not sure I can put a timeframe on it yet, because I don't know about ordering equipment and the rest of it. But it's not behind the covers by any means. It's something they know they have to proceed with. I've also advised them that I would be very disappointed if there was any further capital expenditure on their particular operation, without having it specifically geared to cleaning up this problem. They have proven up new ore and we have insisted that they go through the metal mines guidelines steering committee as would a new mine. The people of Campbell River had faith with us on Quinsam coal, and I think if we go through this system Buttle Lake mine shouldn't have to shut down at all. I think what should happen is that they should just have to spend the money required to make sure they minimize this particular runoff. There's still going to be a problem in that watershed with the natural mineralization that occurs in the rock in that area and the runoff, but I'm sure that once we remove the effluent from the lake, most of that will be solved.

Getting on to estuaries for a minute, I would hope the Robson Bight report comes down reasonably soon. It's virtually ready to go now. I think all members of the House, and especially you, will be more than pleased with it. I think if I leave it at that you can read between the lines. I share your concern about going into a park. When you talk to people who are in the park maintenance business they tell you some pretty terrible stories about what people are like in parks. People tend to abuse parks, so I think we're probably going to have to have some kind of reserve on it — an ecological reserve with restricted areas that you can boat in, or what have you. I'm not sure just how we want to do it.

We can go through the Environment and Land Use Committee secretariat argument. I'm sure we will on others. For a large number of reasons I happen to think the talents of the people there are better served where they are now. Whatever particular ministry happens to chair a particular committee it still has to go through the Environment and Land Use Committee technical committee before it goes to ELUC, and the course that the secretarial services are now provided with by Intergovernmental, which is only incidental.

River maintenance. You weren't here last week. I had been directed by cabinet, and subsequently directed the ministry to prepare an analysis of what we're going to have to spend province-wide so that we stop this hit-and-miss business on river maintenance. Part of the problem — and it's a legitimate problem — is that the federal Fisheries and Oceans are pretty restrictive about when they allow you to go in the river. It may seem like the local contractors aren't too busy at the time and we can get the trucks and the riprap, but federal fisheries say: "No, this isn't the time to go." I certainly support taking their opinion or value judgment. They control that kind of thing. In a lot of cases we're playing with nature, and nature has a way of coming back all over us. The funding on riverbank protection in areas other than the Fraser River is 100 percent provincial. It's only the compensation for flood damage victims under the federal-provincial flood-sharing arrangement which kicks in after a certain amount. I think it's $1 per person, per population. So it's entirely provincial.

I couldn't agree with you more that a dollar spent in advance will sometimes save you $10 afterwards, and you can probably point that finger at every place in the province that was subjected to flooding last winter. But you can't tell me where it's going to happen next winter; otherwise I'd know exactly where to spend my budget. You can make predictions, but that's the difficulty we have. What I would like to say is, if we do get the program in place, and my colleague the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hyndman) gets the real-estate boards to start advising people when they purchase houses that they're in a floodplain zone so that people become more aware of that, then we can look to some improvements in the kind of problems we're going to have every time we have a particular

[ Page 6040 ]

flood. I know it's the first week in June, but I'm not too sure we're not going to have one right now, based on the weather I've seen today.

I think that answers your questions.

MR. KEMPF: Since we're having such very quiet debate this afternoon, it's even difficult to get up and voice my concerns, but for several days, particularly at the end of last week, I've listened to the debate, particularly of the members opposite....

MR. NICOLSON: When are you going to call the Crown corporations committee?

MR. KEMPF: We'll get around to that, Mr. Member. They've all awakened anyway, Mr. Chairman, and that's a step in the right direction.

The members opposite would have this province and the members of this chamber believe that they're the only ones in British Columbia who are concerned about the environment. In listening to them you would think that those great socialist defenders of the poor and underprivileged over on that side of the floor had the edge on environmental concerns in this province. That is not so. The truth of the matter is that it is definitely.not so. There are many of us on this side of the floor who are much mote cognizant of the need for a carefully managed and well-protected environment in this province. There are many more, in fact, than the majority of the NDP ranks opposite.

I know it's a great political and emotional issue. It's an issue that they would like to use. The socialists opposite would use anything for their very narrow political purpose. That purpose is to regain power at any cost. I for one have the greatest respect for our environment. The member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) grunts. As an ardent fisherman, and one who loves and has spent many hundreds of hours in the outdoors of this province, I have a real concern for doing things in a manner which will ensure retention of a clean and healthy environment in British Columbia.

That is not to say that I'm anti-development and that we should stop everything and ignore the need for development, as the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) — he's not in the chamber now — would suggest, to have a clean environment. In order for a clean environment to be enjoyed, we must have people. In order to have people, we must have jobs. In order to have jobs, we must have development; yes — orderly, careful development, but, nevertheless, development; development which will not ruin that which is our greatest heritage in British Columbia, our environment. Notice, hon. members opposite — there aren't many there right at the moment — that I said "our." I mean "our" environment. I don't think one self-interest group, whoever they might be, should have it over any other when it comes to that environment. It's very important to all of us.

If we have situations where in the past mistakes have been made and the environment damaged, let us, by all means, find ways in which to rectify that. I agree with those that have said that those who pollute or damage our environment must pay for restoration. But we cannot move too quickly and without thought. There must be cooperation to doubly ensure that we achieve both a clean environment and a province in which we have jobs for our people. That is our philosophy. In the search for that kind of a partnership in this province I believe we on this side of the floor have the edge on the socialists opposite.

The area which I would like to primarily discuss in this minister's estimates is the area dealing with the fish and wildlife branch, which is under his administration. It's an area which I believe is of great concern to a great number of British Columbians who hunt, trap and fish, and also to a very important group: those who not only make their own living but also add significantly to that of others — the guide-outfitters of British Columbia. I think there are members opposite who would agree with me that there has been, and still is, a movement in this province by certain groups and individuals — academics, specialists, biologists and others — to eventually ban all hunting in British Columbia. It was started some years ago by attempting to stop trapping and guide-outfitting, using a number of excuses including the attempted banning of the leg-hold trap. The argument was backed up in many cases by phony game counts showing that certain species were on the decline because of hunting pressures. To strengthen their argument against guide-outfitting, they used these declining figures — phony figures, in many cases — to point out that the game that was left should be retained solely for the use of British Columbians.

The underlying goal — and make no mistake about it was and still is to eventually ban all hunting and in time all fishing as well in this province. It is up to this government or any government to see that that never comes about in the province of British Columbia. In fact it is the responsibility of government to see to it that these industries and these great sports are enhanced. We must protect and even nurture hunting, fishing and trapping and, most importantly, bring about an atmosphere in which a flourishing guide-outfitting industry can exist in the province. As a province we must begin practising, not just preaching, proper wildlife management — something which in my estimation has not been done for quite some time in the province of British Columbia. We in this chamber and in government must ensure that this minister be provided with a sufficient budget with which to accomplish proper wildlife management.

I heard someone say in debate last week that this minister was a junior minister. Yes, he is, in terms of the amount of dollars allowed him for the practice of wildlife management. Often we can't see the forest for the trees, and we tend to overlook what certain lesser industries actually return or mean to the province of British Columbia. We have got to reassess this in terms of what proper wildlife management would return to our province. I repeat, we do not practise wildlife management in this province. It is not just my feeling alone, Mr. Chairman, that we merely give it lip service. Through no fault of this minister it's been forgotten. It really has slowly gone downhill over the years through a succession of administrations and ministers. We need not embark on something new in finding the means and the ways in which to properly manage our wildlife. We need only learn from the mistakes and the successes of others. Look to other countries such as Sweden, for instance, where they seriously practise (1) multiple use, (2) predator control and (3) proper wildlife management. What has been the result? They have an overabundance of game in Sweden. Proper wildlife management is an absolute necessity in this province. There is a serious concern by many that it is not being practised.

I read with much interest the White Paper now in circulation on the proposed new Wildlife Act. It leaves a lot to be desired. One, I feel very strongly that the new act must include a clause which indicates very clearly that the minister responsible for that act must — I emphasize must — manage

[ Page 6041 ]

all wildlife in this Province, including the predators. Two, the onus — and this must be etched in stone as well — must be on the minister to provide for a viable trapping and guiding industry in this province.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, are we not in Committee of Supply, and is discussion of legislation or the need for legislation in order?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point is well taken. The Committee of Supply does not allow for discussion of the necessity for legislation. If all members of the committee could be reminded that our business in committee is to discuss the administrative aspects of the minister whose votes are before us, then the committee will be well served.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, I'm just voicing my own views on what might be necessary in a new Wildlife Act in this province. I continue. In a new Wildlife Act there must be a clause....

MR. NICOLSON: If it's the Chair's ruling that we may open up the new Wildlife Act White Paper, I'm sure that members on this side of the House will welcome such a ruling from the Chair. Is that the intention?

MR. CHAIRMAN: That ruling was not made. I'll remind the member for Omineca that Sir Erskine May does quite explicitly state that the necessity for legislation cannot be discussed in Committee of Supply and that in Committee of Supply we discuss the administrative actions of the minister whose vote is before us. I'm sure the hon. member can relate his remarks to the administrative action of the minister and not discuss the necessity for future legislation.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, I still repeat that there must be policy in regard to wildlife management and the fish and wildlife branch of the Ministry of Environment of this province that will prohibit the kind of harassment that has taken place in Spatsizi for two seasons now. Whether or not you want to enshrine that in legislation and whether or not it's policy, there must be that kind of policy or legislation in this province. The kind of harassment of legally licensed users that took place in the Spatsizi in the last two years is a disgrace. I believe, quite seriously, that it must become a very serious offence in this province and in fact it must be stopped.

There must be policy in this province which makes the hunting and fishing of harvestable surpluses a right of the individual. Yes, Mr. Chairman, there can be surpluses. We don't see them today, but there can be — with proper wildlife management in this province. I believe that whether it be through policy, legislation or whatever you wish, there must be a situation where the minister is given the responsibility. The onus must be placed on the minister for the administration of proper wildlife management in British Columbia. This cannot happen and it will not happen if, in the final document, unlike the White Paper, the word "director" is replaced by the word "minister," in that way clearly placing the full responsibility on the minister for all aspects of good wildlife management in the province of British Columbia. I think the member opposite will agree with me there, and he won't harass me any longer.

I want to talk specifically about predator control for a few moments. I would say at the outset that the time is long past when we in this province can continue to bury our heads in the sand believing that our very serious predator problem will go away or that it is not real or not true. It is true. It is real. It will not go away until such time as there is no game left in this province — that time is not far off unless positive action is taken by this province; I just got a memo the other day which talked of Limited entry hunting; we already see that happening — or until such time as the farmers and ranchers are to be compensated for feeding all of the wolves of this province with number one grade A beef, or until we as politicians have guts enough to do what has to be done. Here once again we pay lip-service. We play our little political games hoping to appease those who in this case have been so narrow-minded as to read only the fiction that Farley Mowat writes on the subject and fail to accept the truth.

MR. SKELLY: What has to be done?

MR. KEMPF: I'll tell you what has to be done, We don't listen to those who know and have seen and experienced the real problem for themselves. We ignore those real experts — the people who have been out in the field and know exactly what the problem is — and appease those who know nothing about the subject. We play our little games at the taxpayers' expense: for instance, attempting to control the predator problem by helicopter, a practice that anyone who has ever actually seen the habits of a wolf will tell you is absolute nonsense; hunting wolves by helicopter at a cost to the taxpayer of about $10,000 a wolf. It's absolute nonsense. Lip-service is all we're giving the problem.

We play our little political games. Recently a wolf control study was done in my area. It was not necessary in the first place, because we already know what the problem is and how to rectify it. Besides the cost of the study we have the cost of the loss of stock to the ranchers. Here is a headline from the Lakes District News dated May 6, 1981: "Wolf Study Eats Up $75,000 in Cattle Losses." That's absolute madness. And the Hatler report that followed that study....

Mr. Chairman, I'd like at this time to read into the record — and I'll table a copy for all members, because I think all members should have one — a letter written by someone who knows more about the predator problem in the province of British Columbia than anyone else in this province, and certainly more than every one of us in this chamber put together: Mr. Cyril Shelford. As you know, Mr. Chairman, he was a member of this Legislature for 25 years. He's talking about the Hatler report on predator control, and I quote:

"I read with interest the recent report on livestock predation and predator control effectiveness by Dave Hatler. Even though it will be criticized by many, including myself, for what it doesn't deal with — no recommendations on how to deal with the problem or be much help in the formation of government policy — it does help in many ways in gathering information. At least a few things came out loud and clear, even though not likely intended by Hader, who for years has made it clear he is against any control,

"The first and most important point of all is the clear picture that at Woodmere, with control, there were only normal range losses, and in the Topley no control area the losses were fairly heavy the first year and very heavy the second. This year could be far worse with an expanding, trained cattle-killing pack

[ Page 6042 ]

which will spread out over a very wide area into no-loss areas. In my opinion the cattlemen will have a clear case for compensation against the government."

Mr. Chairman, I could read into the record the whole of this letter, but I'll table it in order that every member have a copy; in fact, I'll make copies for any member who would like one. It goes on and on to tell of the fallacy of that kind of study and of this kind of report, because we already know what the problem is and what to do about it.

We in government can no longer afford to sit on the fence and listen to the bleeding hearts. That luxury is no longer available to us if we wish to have any wildlife in the province of British Columbia — besides wolves. We have a real problem on our hands. I realize that the emphasis on that problem is not sufficient, because that problem exists in the northern two-thirds of this province. I don't know if the people of this province, particularly the people of the urban areas in the lower mainland, are aware that one full-grown wolf will eat — yes, kill and eat — one full-grown moose a month. That's 12 moose a year, and in many cases there are wolf-packs numbering 20 and 25 roaming the area that I represent. Mr. Chairman, that's possibly 300 moose per wolf pack per year; and again, yes, they kill and eat them. It's not just the sick and elderly, as Farely Mowat would have it, because it's quite clear that there wouldn't be enough of them to go around. No, it's the young and particularly the newborn that these wolves go after.

Mr. Chairman, we in government must accept the responsibility for that real problem. Forget the bleeding hearts and the do-gooders; forget the politically-oriented groups who don't know what they're talking about.

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF: The members opposite laugh. Well, Mr. Chairman, I would ask that they go up into my area and talk to the ranchers, the hunters and the guide-outfitters and find out the real problem, and then come back down here and laugh in this chamber. It's a real problem, and one which it's quite apparent they don't understand either. Most of the people who don't understand or don't wish to understand this problem are living in the urban areas — Vancouver and Victoria. They wouldn't know a wolf if it came out from under the doorstep and bit them in the leg when they got home tonight. They wouldn't know what they're talking about, and they're the ones that are perpetuating this very real problem to the ranchers, hunters and trappers of this province. Maybe there should be a few wolves under the steps of the people living on the lower mainland. Maybe then they would understand what kind of a problem we have in the north, and maybe they'd even support having something done about it. Right now they don't seem to give a damn about the people in the north and their problems.

I know my time is just about up. I'm not finished, but I'll let some intervening business happen and finish later.

MR. PASSARELL: There are a number of issues I'd like to discuss with the minister. At the outset I'd say I'm very pleased with the positive suggestion he made earlier about Robson Bight. A number of people will be pleased to see that recommendation when it's finally completed and tabled in the House.

The first issue I'd like to discuss with the Minister of Environment is the fish and wildlife staff. As the minister is aware, all too often one individual covers too large an area. A case in point is up in my constitutuency, where excellent work is being done by the fish and wildlife officer in Cassiar in the vast area he has to cover south down past Spatsizi Park, north along the Yukon border and'east and west. It would certainly be for the benefit of the hunters and people concerned with keeping a good profile on our fish and wildlife area if we could get an additional officer into the Cassiar area to help Mr. Pearson cover the large area he's presently faced with.

Secondly, on the wolf poisoning program, in many ways I support what the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) was saying. I think it's time that people in this province who live in metropolitan areas come face to face with the issue we face in the north when it comes to wolf poisoning programs. Two questions: Does the minister believe that the program itself has been successful? Secondly, can the minister state if there's going to be more funding into the area of the wolf poisoning program?

I'd like to talk about the environmental issue concerning the Stikine and Iskut. The minister is quite aware of the situation B.C. Hydro is planning in that particular valley. On Friday access was denied to build a road into it, particularly on the issue of opening up to hunters an area with one of the last wild herds of mountain goats in the province. Presently the guide-outfitters in that area have a very successful business operation. One of the concerns is that once you put a road into this particular part of the country it opens it up to any individual who wants to go in and hunt this last wild herd of mountain goats in the province.

Another concern I would certainly hope the minister would look at is the Washington Treaty of 1871, in which a number of issues were brought out concerning the protection of the Stikine. I would certainly hope the minister takes a very active role in any future planning on the Stikine, using this particular treaty as a guideline to protect that area. It's a very important international treaty, and I would hope the minister can exert all his power to protect the Stikine environment from development by B.C. Hydro.

The third issue I would like to discuss is Placer Develop ment and the ongoing issue of uranium. It appears right now that Placer's plans to develop the moly mine in the community of Atlin have been put on the back-burner for the time being. If and when it proceeds the minister has to face the situation of having over 500 pounds of uranium a day with drawn from this moly operation in Atlin and stored in tailing ponds. Before there's any type of permission for Placer Development to start operation, there should be some type of strong legislative policy by the Ministry of Environment concerning the protection of wildlife and the environment from 500 pounds of uranium a day stored in plastic-lined tailing ponds. I would certainly hope the minister would take a very active role in the Placer Development situation in Atlin. One suggestion is that my private member's bill deals with this issue to a certain extent. We certainly hope that the government could look into the matter of somehow protecting the environment from 500 pounds of uranium from the proposed molybdenum mine in Atlin.

The fourth issue I'd like to discuss is the trapping regulations. As a suggestion to the minister, I would certainly hope that he could look into the policy that was developed by Alberta concerning trappers. In the province of Alberta right now they have a law which states that when oil or mining

[ Page 6043 ]

companies come into the area and affect a trapping area by putting in a road to an oil rig or a new mine bed, trappers in that area are reimbursed through some type of funding policy. Presently there is no type of policy of this nature in British Columbia. There is a policy of B.C. Hydro's concerning when they build a dam. They give reimbursement to trappers. I certainly hope that the minister, under his own guidance, could develop a similar policy to what Alberta has, concerning the protection of trapping rights.

I don't want to get too familiar, but once again I would have to agree with the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) concerning the protection of trappers. It's a very important issue in the north and across this province. Twice now I've stated something positive about the member for Omineca, but I do have to agree with him. He's making sense when it comes to statements about trapping. This isn't a honeymoon aspect. He is saying something that I think most northern residents feel. On this issue, it looks like we're both on the same side of the fence.

The fifth issue I'd like to discuss with the minister is: does he have any policy or regulations under his ministry to took into the foam aspect of home insulation?

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: None whatsoever. Okay. It was just something that was brought to my attention by a constituent who stated that there might be something in the Environment estimates about the problem of foam in home insulation.

The next issue I'd like to discuss is an issue that I know the minister has had strong feelings about and has been caught in a jam: Amax. The minister has come into the issue once. The initial permits were granted back in 1979. Nevertheless, he's still responsible for what's happening up in Alice Arm today. We hear a lot of conflicting reports concerning Amax. We know for a fact that they've been in operation for a little over a month and already they've had three major incidents — two spills and then the plume. The supposedly sand-like material was supposed to sink to the bottom, but it's been displayed that it doesn't do this.

I think we have a history to look back on. One of the major issues we should look at when looking back into history is Anyox, which I think the minister is familiar with. That's an operation that was in the vicinity of Amax and Alice Arm. It went out of operation in the 1930s. From that operation, before environmental laws were brought down and there was some type of protection for the environment, 35 years later in the particular stream that goes by Anyox the cyanide concentrate is so high that there are no fish in that river. That river flows down into the chuck that's in the vicinity of the Alice Arm–Kitsault operation.

There's another example that should be brought forward before we allow companies like Amax to proceed in dumping 100 million tonnes of toxic waste into the ocean. That is the operation which we've seen on this island, with Island Copper, and their problems with the environment, and Buttle Lake, where we've allowed companies to proceed in dumping their waste materials into fresh water or, as Amax is doing, into the ocean. I guess the issue comes down to jobs, which are very important. But in the case of Kitsault, there is an opportunity to keep those jobs and even increase jobs at Alice Arm by disposing on land. If the minister was able to order to Amax cease dumping 12,000 tonnes a day into Alice Arm and tell them that they have to use that pipe and put it into land disposal at Clary Lake, there would be many more jobs associated with the new development of bringing those mine wastes out of the ocean, stopping the present exhaust pipe from dumping, and putting disposals on land.

As this issue has come more into the light for the public we've seen some of the policy statements of B.C. Moly before they went out of operation in 1972 stating how they could go about an operation in that particular area, disposing on land. Mr. Steve Hilbert, an engineer who was associated with B.C. Moly, has developed plans for disposal on land. We could see that pipe turned around and brought out of the ocean to the land without affecting the environment as that mine is now.

We've also seen the number of groups across this province and country who are opposing Amax. They're not against the jobs associated with the mine; they're against the dumping of 100 million tonnes of toxic waste into the ocean. I noticed a new organization this week, the British Columbia Teachers Federation, asking for public inquiries associated with Amax.

One of the ironic issues about Amax is that when the federal fisheries ministry asked them to close down after the plume had been sighted off the exhaust pipe, Amax came back and said that they lost over $2 million by being closed down. Mr. Lenton stated that figure. Take previous statements of $320,000 a day when they had two spills and Amax was closed down. Taking the two spills when the pipe backed up and the week it was closed down, in one month Amax lost close to $4 million, if you take their word. Wouldn't it be better, Mr. Minister, to take that $4 million and put it into land disposal of tailings?

I would certainly hope that the minister would take a more active role in the entire issue of Amax, since it is a travesty. The term "cultural genocide" has been used for what Amax is doing to the Nishga people. There has been a scientific review panel which has been boycotted by over 40 organizations. There is a need for the minister to take a very active, statesmanlike role in this. He should use the power that he has to set up a public inquiry in this province on Amax. If Amax has lost $4 million, as they say, by being closed down for a week, and the engineering reports show they could dispose on land.... Amax officials say that they can't dispose on land because of earthquakes. That's kind of a funny argument to use because if you look at the geological formation of this province, we all live in an earthquake zone. Almost every mine that disposes on land, no matter if it's Cassiar Asbestos, Keno Hill or whatever, could be told not to dispose on land.

I would certainly hope that the minister could take a strong statesmanlike position on this. Use your authority. I think that what is happening with Amax is against the beliefs that you uphold for the environment. I know from our previous discussions that you're a sportsman at heart. I don't think any sportsman would want to see 100 million tonnes of toxic waste dumped into the ocean. I would certainly hope that the minister could take an extremely strong position. It's not being offered by the federal government. Mr. Romeo LeBlanc has shown a very poor attitude in dealing with Amax. Here is an opportunity for you, Mr. Minister, to stand up and start something to protect the Nishga people from what Amax has proposed to do.

I've asked a number of questions. I would certainly hope that the minister could give some positive responses to the numerous issues that I raised. I wait for his reply.

[ Page 6044 ]

HON. MR. ROGERS: May I defer to my colleague the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith), who has some introductions?

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, may I have leave to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. SMITH: This afternoon I have the honour to introduce my colleague and friend the Hon. James Horsman, who is Minister of Advanced Education and Manpower for the province of Alberta. He is also a UBC graduate. He is here today for the meeting of manpower ministers. I would ask the committee to make him welcome.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The minister yields to the member for Omineca.

MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order, it is customary for the House to recognize people serially. The member for Omineca just ran a full 30 minutes prior to the last speaker. I've been in this House all afternoon, and inasmuch as there might be some alternating between sides, I find it....

MR. CHAIRMAN: What's the point of order, hon. member?

MR. NICOLSON: The point of order is that people first on their feet are recognized, and that the Chair should not be watching one side of the House. That member has spoken for 30 minutes this afternoon.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. As the member is aware, the Chair traditionally has alternated one side to the other. The member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell) having just spoken, the Chair recognizes the member for Omineca at this time and will recognize the other side at that time. The Chair, I might add, does not watch one side of the House more than the other, and I think the member will reflect that that's a very unfair statement to make.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, as I was saying previously, we in the rural areas of this province have a very real problem in the predation of not only domestic stock but also game animals. That problem really places in jeopardy three industries in this province: the raising of cattle, the guide-outfitting industry, and the trapping industry. As well, it places in grave jeopardy the future of a sport which I believe many people of this province enjoy: the sport of hunting. As I was saying, we as government must act on behalf of the citizens who have the problem. Not only that, we must ensure the continuance of the balance of all of our wildlife species, and not just the wolf. We must have a logical predator control program in the province of British Columbia.

I think maybe even the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) will agree with me, even though he thinks I shouldn't have had my turn. He'll agree with me on that point and many others that I have stood up on this afternoon. We must have a proper predator control program in the province, and we must begin to practise proper wildlife management. We must recognize that in order for that to take place we in this Legislature must give full support to what is right, and give encouragement to the minister. Above all, the wherewithal in the form of a realistic budget is needed in order to do the job properly. We have to pay more attention to a resource which is very important to a great number of British Columbians.

Before taking my place, there is just one other thing which I would like to impress upon the minister. I agree fully with the member for Atlin when he says additional conservation officers must be appointed in all areas of this province, especially in the vast north-central part of British Columbia. I cite particularly the huge area to the north, northeast and northwest of Fort St. James in my constituency. This area must have more coverage, and it has been suggested on several previous occasions that there must be two resident conservation officers stationed at Fort St. James in order to properly cover that area. I don't mean paper-shufflers; I mean people appointed and given the wherewithal to go into the field where the problem actually exists. In suggesting additional conservation officer positions, I'm not suggesting a larger bureaucracy — God knows that's large enough already. I'm suggesting less office staff and more field staff with the wherewithal to do their jobs properly. It can be done, and as far as I'm concerned it must be done.

HON. MR. ROGERS: I'm going to try and touch on two items in particular sequence. When we talk about hunting, which the member for Omineca talked about for a while, I think it's important to stress that within our game management program we do try to err on the side of conservatism. In fact, I think we almost always do. We're often told by the recreational hunter in this province that there's more to harvest out there than we allow them to take. I think if we're going to make an error, we'd better make the error on the side of the animals.

We have a slight conflict between the guide-outfitters — the person who takes the visiting foreign hunter or even a British Columbia hunter who is after a trophy animal, and the indigenous hunter who's after something to put in his or her freezer.... In most cases somebody who has come here from Europe, the United States or from the Orient wants one of our more exotic species. By law they are required to go through a guide-outfitter anyway. They aren't really interested in getting a moose or a deer. The local hunter is really much more interested in that. The conflict comes when we open up new areas that were previously inaccessible to the average recreational hunter and now become accessible either due to road construction or some other type of development. It often means that the guide-outfitters have the local people challenging them for some of their territory. The problem that this brings up is where you draw the limit when you have a limited number of animals that you're going to take. Yes, the guide-outfitter gets an awful lot of money back towards the province by the fees they charge, the services they use and the licences they pay, but the taxpayers of the province also pay the bills for the Ministry of Environment — especially for the fish and wildlife branch. We have to consider the taxpayers. The citizens who live in this province also have a right to that wildlife.

I guess the first priority has to go to the wildlife. We have to ensure that our management controls are sufficient to ensure that the species are available. Then we have to go to a limited-entry system. We do it by a lottery draw. There is conflict both ways. Some people think the guide-outfitters get too many animals, and the guide-outfitters think the sportsmen get too many animals. I constantly deal between

[ Page 6045 ]

Bob Henderson, who is the head of the guide and outfitters association, and the people from the British Columbia Wildlife Federation and others. I suppose it's a bit like labour negotiations as we work in between the two.

I thought I'd comment on your points about Sweden, Mr. Member, because you're right — Sweden has a real abundance of moose and other ungulates, but they have only nine or ten wolves left in the whole country. It wasn't always that way. They just went out on a massive scale to eradicate the species as a predator. I assume that my mandate as the minister is to look after all the species, not just the ones that we find attractive, and to look after that in balance. I would not feel I'm doing my job properly if we identified one particular species for annihilation just because they happen to compete with man for the species that we happen to shoot. Our policy since I've become the minister — which is a change from my predecessor — is that where wolves are bothering cattle, we will assist in whatever way possible in trying to eradicate the problem wolves, provided the rancher or the farmer in question is using good husbandry practices. I think wolves in the wild have a right to survive as much as any other species, but where they do interface with cattle the problems become catastrophic. Rather than have the rancher take the matter into his own hands, we endeavour to do that for him. This past winter we weren't as successful as we might have been because we had such a very low snowpack. We said that when we applied for the use of Compound 1080, first you had to exhaust every other alternative method before you went to 1080. Now that we have used 1080 this winter without too much difficulty — in fact we've had some good success with it — there are people who think we shouldn't use it at all and there are people who think we should use much more of it. I must report to you that we used four grams in British Columbia in this last year and New Zealand used 4.5 tonnes last year. They spread it out of the back of an aircraft with an agricultural spreading device; we use it in extremely confined ways. They don't seem to think it's a problem, I talked to their director and he said: "Well, we may kill a few dicky-birds, but we've got to get to the opossums." I hope that we don't get to that kind of wildlife management in this province.

Predator control remains a problem. I remain convinced we've got to do something about it — and we are doing something about it — but I'm not prepared to go after one particular species like the wolf or the coyote or anything else just because it happens to be on an upswing in the graph. Where man has interfered, man had better interfere again. But if man is interfering because we prefer the ungulates, I have a hard time going along with that. It is a change, though, because there wasn't a program when I was the minister, and there is more money for it this year than there was last year.

I believe the member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell) in his question to me about Fish and Wildlife staff was referring to conservation officers. Yes, we would like to have more conservation officers, but during this last year we've got them an increased travel budget. We've now trained three-quarters of them through the Justice Institute, which has made their job a lot easier. They're a lot clearer now as to what their role is and how to proceed through a lot of the paper work that they have to do in order to do their job properly. In the main they do an excellent job as our representatives in the field. I don't think there is a jurisdiction in the province where we wouldn't want to have some more conservation officers, especially as their role increases and they become involved with the whole ministry and not just with Fish and Wildlife. Admittedly, their first call — especially during the hunting season — is to do with Fish and Wildlife. In your particular constituency of Atlin, a lot of their dealings are with trappers and others. So we could use some more; there i's no question about that.

In our submissions that we make every year, we tack on a few extra conservation officers we'd like to have. I think there are several areas of the province where our people cover very substantial areas. They have a rather lonely existence, because all their instructions come by memo or letter, and occasionally they get drawn into the regional district. They tend to represent the ministry, and try to pass on all our philosophies and policies at their level. I've endeavoured to get around to see a few of them; I suppose I've been to 20 different conservation officer's establishments, and as time permits I drop in and have a chat with them. Most of them, as a matter of fact, have a really enjoyable life, do an excellent job and have excellent rapport in the local community not only with the other law-enforcement agencies but with the rest of the community.

On this Stikine-Iskut situation, that's certainly not the last herd — if you think it is the last herd of goats — but that's not really the question you asked. Rather, what do we do when roads are put into areas to make them accessible? Well, as in the case of northeast coal, when the roads are put in, we just put a blanket closure on the area, put in no-hunting camps and go that whole route. If we don't, we just annihilate the particular species that we put on there. It doesn't mean to say that we can't have the kind of control through the guide-outfitters that we've had in the past; they've tended to run these areas themselves anyway. They do controlled burnings and others.

On Placer's particular concern which you mentioned, the ministry's concern will go through the metal-mines guidelines steering committee in terms of what their tailings disposal situation is and how they're able to handle it. We would see that as being an Energy, Mines problem, as well as ours, and our regulations might be such that they really hinder the operation or restrict them in some way, but we wouldn't see ourselves as the lead agency there.

Home insulation. I'd like to talk to you about that. It's not under my.... Coincidentally, on Friday of last week my critic, the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) said: "You keep saying that it's not your responsibility but somebody else's." I'm reminded, my son this weekend gave me a postcard of a historic castle in England, and who do you think looks after the castles in England? The Ministry of Environment. Well, thank God.... The jurisdiction does change everywhere. I was going to send that to you, but I just thought I'd mention it here.

MR. SKELLY: Send me a postcard.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Well, I'd love to, as soon as we Ret out of here.

Amax. You say I have a strong feeling on it. I don't have a strong feeling on it either way: I'm not pro or anti this operation. I think the company has done everything that we as a provincial government have asked them to do. I think if there is anybody who has to question their position, it's the federal government. having passed a special order-in-council which changed their regulations. Our regulations haven't been changed or compromised in any way despite what people have reported. Admittedly the permit is issued by the

[ Page 6046 ]

provincial government, but it's a one-window approach, as you're well aware, and that one-window approach reflects all of our things.

It's worth pointing out that when B.C. Moly was operating in the past it was the waste management branch of the provincial government that went in and said: "Gentlemen, that's not good enough. You can't discharge into Lime Creek." I think people tend to forget that it was the Ministry of Environment that shut down the original mine years ago for discharging their tailings into the creek. Now the prices of metal do not make it worthwhile to continue operating.

The alternate land disposal system that has been looked at has been looked at and rejected by the ministry for the very reason that if you go to a tailings pond.... I know the earthquake argument is probably the weakest of all the arguments, but if you go into a tailings area where you know the rainfall is very substantial, that gives you the same runoff problems with the intertidal zone as you had previously — not in this controlled way, but when B.C. Moly operated it. As you know, the federal government is monitoring this thing, and Dr. McInerney's technical committee is reviewing it right now. Fisheries and Oceans has a ship on station, I think. Perhaps they're having some second thoughts on it. The thing is being extremely closely monitored.

I can't fault the company on their startup mechanical problems. They did have some problems, but any major project like that does have mechanical problems. They have a permit, a valid permit issued by us. It reflects both those concerns, and if they cannot remain within the restrictions of that permit then we have to change the permit. But you have to give them the opportunity to operate for a limited period of time to see if they can meet those requirements. As the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) said: "Wouldn't it be nice just to say no to people?" That also implies the ability to say yes to people. I don't think you'd want me to do that without being able to prove it one way or the other.

I think that concludes my remarks.

MR. NICOLSON: I was wondering what would be the best tactic in terms of proceeding here — whether to go through a litany of things which I hope to accomplish or to get straight to the most life and death matter, which is the transportation of dangerous chemicals.

Last year we had a derailment — not in Mississauga, but right in Harrop, British Columbia, not too far east of Nelson, on what, I guess, used to be part of the Kettle Valley line and is now really a branch line. At midday, on January 22, 1981, a freight train was partially derailed. I think about 25 cars left the track. Fortunately most of them were ore cars. In that train were fuel cars, which I guess were carrying gasoline, because we carry gasoline in and it was inbound. There were empty sulphur dioxide cars, and there might well have been, but were not on that particular train, full chlorine cars.

What I would suggest to the minister, because we have a pulpmill at Castlegar, is that we bring chlorine tankers into the area because we produce sulphur dioxide at Trail. We take cars out of the area. For some reason or other there was a derailment on a piece of track that had recently had new ties put on it — I know that from firsthand knowledge. I brought the matter to the minister's attention. I wrote him a fairly long letter and also wrote to Mr. Hubbard, head of the environmental safety programs branch, and I got some response and answers.

There are two things I would like to bring out about this. Interestingly enough, when there was a little bit of publicity it was then brought to my attention that in February 1979 there had also been a car spill where a loaded sulphur dioxide tanker at Trail had been let go on the Tadanac spur. This is a spur that slopes so that you can take cars down it by gravity and apply the brakes. There was no brakeman. This thing went down the spur, hit the end, went over and the trucks came off the tanker. This was in February of 1979. To the best of my knowledge, that's never been reported. After this incident — which I reported to the minister — I was given two colour slides of it. Recently, I had these colour slides made into black-and-white negatives and had, of course, a couple of different blowups made of them. I intended to bring them down from Nelson this past weekend. I did not get to Nelson, so I was not able to do that. What it brings out to me is real concern, because we've had not one but two derailments, one of which did see a tank-car go off the rails. In the other we were fortunate in that the cars that derailed were the ore-cars, and everything was cleaned up quite well.

In his response Mr. Hubbard says: "The records that we do have show that the recent Harrop derailment is the only one since 1976 along the Nelson-Castlegar-Trail and Creston sections of the CPR line." This indicates that the CPR, in my opinion, conspired to cover up that derailment at Tadanac. It's my understanding that they had to send to Vancouver in order to get special pipe fittings to transport the contents of that tanker to another car that was on the tracks. There was a three-day delay. This was close to a school. There was no notification of the public at large. There were no emergency programs put into effect. As a result of this incident, I have also reviewed the provincial emergency program.

I have also, of course, looked at the chain of information, which is that, as the minister knows, when notified of this type of thing the reporting procedures are that CPR and CNR report train derailments to the Transport Canada national emergency centre in Ottawa. As the minister knows, in the derailment at Harrop there was some breakdown in communications and our provincial emergency people in Nelson didn't hear about it for about four hours, or something like that. The minister was not happy with that and I wasn't happy. It appears that we have a chain-link of communication. If one link in that chain breaks down, we don't have the communication. I realize that with electronic communication you can phone Ottawa as quickly as you can phone Nelson, Victoria or anywhere else. But it would appear that procedures of that nature are not adequate. They don't allow for a breakdown. When CNR or CPR report to the Transport Canada emergency centre in Ottawa, the centre relays the information to Environment Canada in Vancouver, who inform the provincial emergency program and waste management branch in your ministry. They would then inform the local people in the affected area.

I took pictures of this derailment. The thing that is of most concern to me is that this led to the uncovering of an incident which has never been reported. I suppose that in some respects it never happened, because there's no official record of it. It's something that's only in the memory of a few people who work for the railroad and maybe one or two employees at Cominco, because it's way out on a siding that's away from the plant — and of one ex-railroad employee who was so concerned about it that he took these photographs. I wish they'd been in black and white. It was in February on a very dull day and they're not great. By looking at the transparen-

[ Page 6047 ]

cies, you can see that there was a bill of lading for sulphur dioxide on them — those emergency stickers that they put on. In the black-and-white photographs the sticker on the end is pretty indistinguishable; but, of course, you can see the tanker spilled over.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

What we have is.... It's a cliché — the accident waiting to happen. In our area, where we manufacture chemicals and ship them under pressure in a Liquid form and import chemicals for use at the pulpmill, I am most concerned that, to date, I have not seen a cause put forward for this accident. It was apparently on good track; however, it's track with a 60-year-old alignment, which has not been changed. With long unit-trains being carried — which are just like elastic bands, with sudden little accelerations here and there — you can lift a car right up off a track. When we have this, I hope that neither the minister nor I will be in a position to say that we did not move heaven and earth to bring Ottawa into a more responsible position in terms of the potential for a great disaster. We've had close calls in Canada that got great national attention, but we have come very close to disaster right here in British Columbia in the Kootenays on two different occasions. It was indeed fortunate that the 25 cars that left the track in that derailment were just the ore cars; the damage was just something unbelievable. I would hope that the minister would keep this as an active file. I know that quite often there is a desire to respond and get things off your desk, but this thing is not a finished issue. I hope we can finish it before it becomes a tragedy, because it will happen.

The frequency of this type of accident, the carelessness of the CPR, and the exasperation the CPR foreman showed in Nelson in this particular incident were just shocking and alarming. They show that people are more concerned with the CYA attitude towards things than they are with the lives and safety of thousands of people.

I would like to ask the minister if he does not feel that we should perhaps order on our own initiative some kind of an inquiry into incidents such as this and bring about a public awareness. Perhaps that would force the federal authorities to respond and would also put our provincial emergency program.... Frankly, I don't think the provincial emergency program can really cope with such a disaster. If chlorine spills and starts flowing down the valley — and it just flows close to the ground — I'm sure there would be very little we can do to prevent some disaster. It will only be a matter of trying to minimize the fatalities and injuries that could be occurring. Every second will be very important in doing that, Having read the provincial emergency program guidelines for dealing with chemical spills, gas spills and that sort of thing, I have no confidence that we are in a position where we can even make a halfway decent effort on it.

I'd also like to say that I welcome the news of the improvements made at Redfish Creek. The minister announced in his opening remarks the other day that a program was being set up for dealing with floodplains and protecting private property, as expensive as he realizes that will be. I think that things have gone too far in terms of talking about people's responsibility. It's almost as though people get rather brutalized in a system.... I will deliberately sort of misuse a word, but people sometimes look at what goes on in prisons and they look at prison guards and realize that they become inured to a type of system. I suppose, to some extent, public servants become kind of inured or almost callous in terms of having any sort of empathy towards people who live in a floodplain. Their attitude is: "Well, they moved there and built there. What did they expect?"

Actually, there are a lot of things that could be done and used to be done to mitigate some of the problems. We'll never eliminate all problems of Mother Nature, but I am encouraged that the ministry is going to take a more positive attitude toward doing this rather than saying: "Well, it's their own fault and there's nothing that can be done about it." Regardless of finding fault, it's a tremendous problem for many people, and there are things that can be done in a goodly number of areas.

One of the things which should not be done is to use the inland fisheries people as whipping-boys in this. I've heard them blamed for stopping any sort of constructive work in many, many instances — spawning beds or something. They say: "Well, it's the fisheries people." You go to the fisheries people and find out they never did object; they realized there was a problem and they're not the ones holding it up. Sometimes Highways or people in water management will tend to use that to focus blame on fisheries people. In other cases, of course, these are very important habitats that have to be protected. It makes for a much more complicated problem. I would hope that we can see some start this year.

I know that in the Salmo area there is a study which was supposed to be released. Now I understand it is to be released on June 21. People are very anxiously awaiting that. Other studies have been done before on that particular river. I look at a barn that is going to fall into the Goat River unless some kind of authority comes down for somebody to put some riprap, on the side of a bank of a river which was artificially diverted by the government many years ago. There are road rights-of-way and people are paying taxes on what is now a river. Even this morning I had a new problem brought to my attention on the Lardeau River with which I had never before been familiar. So this is a tremendous problem in my riding. I might as well mention the Slocan River while I'm at it. These are four in one riding alone, not to mention some of the many creeks and things that could also be done there.

I know that this will be very welcome news for members throughout the province. I would urge the minister to fight very hard and to say that it will be a very positive program, very positively received. I would warn the minister, however, not to go out under political pressure during a flood period and put in a little bit of work that is going to get washed away and just add to the load-bed of the stream. Do these things beforehand, at low water. Let's have something on stream for next spring at low water. Let's get something done. Wherever we go, let's do a good, complete job, and not see something that's only half done to buy a bit of time and take a little bit of political heat off. Let's do a good job where we're ready to do a good job, and not see the good work washed away — as we I ve seen with many of the emergency funds. I've seen that in my riding in my predecessor's time and during my time. I hope not to see it any more.

There is something else I'd like to comment on. I received a copy of a letter from Mr. Chilco Choate. I've met Chilco before. He writes concerning the Gang Ranch. It's not the overgrazing issue, which I guess is more or less a dead issue. The grazing permits have gone. He writes in favour of the elk-restocking program. I would like to say that there is evidence that elk existed in many areas in the province where they did not exist before. It was probably because of an

[ Page 6048 ]

overpopulation of predators at some time that the elk were cut right back almost to extinction in certain areas.

My father-in-law, Frank Golata, pioneered in the Peace River country. He was there in 1912. When he arrived in that area there were no moose in the Peace River country. He became a guide and outfitter years later, after trapping for several years. He guided out of the Buckinghorse; he'd go in to the headwaters of the Prophet and Muskwa. He roamed that country from one end to the other on horseback. He guided before the building of the Alaska Highway, and he worked on the Alaska Highway. He told me that when he first came to the Peace River country there were no moose. Now we know that the Peace River country is full of moose. There were also elk in the area. He found evidence of them. Indeed, we had a set of elk antlers which were taken out of the Peace River country — just old, dropped antlers. The elk have lived in many areas.

So when Chilco says that elk have existed in that area and that there is evidence of it — I think that people in the conservation branch will say that — then it is natural to reintroduce elk into that area. The Gang Ranch has played games. The games that have been lost are over, under past ownership and present ownership. But they have their buffalo, which they've released onto Crown range, and they say that somebody let them out. What they seem to be trying to do is to establish a wild buffalo herd up there. They also have elk. I think what they would like to do is bring in their elk herd and say that all the elk in the area are Gang Ranch elk or something. They want to get into a type of game management which I don't think any of the members in this House who are concerned with hunting would support.

We believe that hunting in this country should be kept as natural as possible. I would urge that the minister get on with the elk transplant program, because I think it would be very well received by the majority of people in this province. It's in the best interests of the people of British Columbia. A few private interests cannot be allowed to try to change our whole philosophy of game management into probably a European style of game management where you go out to a farm and shoot an animal that's been tagged for harvesting. There's a challenge to that too, but it certainly is foreign to our experience in British Columbia.

The other item that I'd like to bring up is the business of watershed management. You've had a great deal of correspondence concerning the Creston watershed. There were several issues there. One of them is the concern about logging taking place in the Creston watershed. I think that while we have a great shortage of timber, one has to look at the values in that and look at a way — if it is going to be harvested — of doing it which is going to engender the confidence of the people to be affected. We happen to have a brewery in Creston which requires good clean potable water. It is one of the reasons why that brewery is located there. We have a very important agricultural area, particularly in irrigated orchards. We also have a capability of doubling alfalfa production in the Lister and Canyon area. Right now we don't even have enough water for domestic use in those areas. Applications are being turned down all the time. At this time there is a willingness for the city, which draws its water from the area.... Of course Canyon and Lister have their own little watersheds right now, but everyone is looking to the Goat River as being the only possible area for expansion of watershed.

We look at the alienation of a piece of Crown land in that Goat River area to an individual. It's just a few acres, but as a symbol it was a shock to people. We also look at the desire of Crestbrook to harvest timber in that area. I would say that right now the attitude of the city and the city council and certainly of the brewery and of every segment of the establishment — except the sawmill, I suppose — would be against logging, period.

I would say that if there is any hope for harvesting of that timber and adding it in a meaningful way to the annual allowable cut, you are going to have to look at a way of really involving the people. There is what used to be the old Creston PSYU advisory committee. It's been operating since about 1977. You're going to have to go even beyond that type of approach. I think you're going to have to involve an amalgamated water-users' group, which has been formed and is willing to do some consolidation, I believe. You're going to have to involve them in an appropriate way, but most comparable to the way the Greater Vancouver Water District is involved in harvesting timber. I think the only way that they will be able to trust what is going on in that watershed would be for them to be involved themselves and maybe even sharing in that resource — some of the stumpages or some of the royalties. I think it would have to be a fairly expensive and sensitive type of logging. I think that if the ministry, in conjunction with the Ministry of Forests, were to look at this water resource for its importance and really assess its dollar value in terms of all that agricultural use presently taking place and the potential agricultural use, which could increase the production of some of the finest alfalfa-producing lands in this province, and look at it in conjunction with the brewery and its continued viability.... We have a duty to look at this in a very serious, novel and challenging way. I would urge the minister to give that some consideration.

I must once again ask the minister if he does not feel it proper that we really address ourselves to the dangerous chemicals issue.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Dangerous chemicals. I guess it's the human-error factor. We've tried to get the system lined up so that everybody gets notified on a chain basis. Of course, any link in that chain breaks it down. When we have the system set up as we do now with the railways, where they have to notify Ottawa and Ottawa notifies our system, it should happen as quickly as possible. We do get human errors. We don't want to have our coordinator tied up with getting half a dozen phone calls from half a dozen different agencies, all telling him that the same problem is happening. I'll be interested to find out more about that particular tankcar that you mentioned. I'm sure you'll make copies of that photograph available to me. People often wait until afterwards to do a quiet assessment of just what is going through their community. They don't want it going through their community, but the very existence of their community often depends on chemicals.

If I could just talk about the provincial emergency program for a minute, one of the areas where we have additional staff for this year is the provincial emergency program. There will be 12 new people, one in each of the areas that we have set out. Their expertise comes in coordinating relief efforts. When a problem gets really major, they're good key-resource people. They just don't have a sort of standing army ready to go if the emergency gets very big. When the Governor of Washington state was up here, one of the things he compli-

[ Page 6049 ]

mented the Premier and me on was the people we had from PEP who went down and assisted with Mount St. Helens. Our staff were all set up and were very helpful in that particular instance, mainly from the point of view of knowing what resources to call upon. They're limited as well. They know that. For the great majority of the province, the people of PEP do an excellent job, not only in training, but in having a good inventory of what's available locally. They know who to phone — who you can trust to get the job done and who only has to be called once. They brief people on how to handle toxic wastes, evacuations and the rest of those things.

The quarrel we have with elk restocking has nothing to do with the Gang Ranch. As a matter of fact, with the fun I've had at the Gang Ranch, I thought I would restock the elk in spite of the Gang Ranch and not because of the Gang Ranch. The only question we have with game transplants is that we don't wish to introduce species of animals into an area where they're not indigenous. There are so many examples around the world where well-meaning people have thought that a starling, rabbit, deer or whatever would just be nice in that particular area, only to find out what happens later. Australia is probably the best example, although New Zealand has its share of well-meant things. There are no indigenous mammals in New Zealand. In fact, the government doesn't even get to decide what species are introduced into New Zealand. That's done by the acclimatization society, which selects animals from around the world and introduces them. Consequently, they have to go out and try to find ways of eliminating them. This has presented some terrible problems. The only things that are indigenous there are a few birds. The rest of it has all been brought in by well-meaning people. We just want to make sure that we're not going to duplicate that kind of problem. I'm not against the reintroduction of species, or the transplanting of species, provided they were once indigenous to that area. It's not the pressure of the Gang Ranch that is stopping us from doing that.

We're certainly aware of the Goat River. We have an ongoing study at the present time. We're looking at ARDSA funding for this particular project. We do have guidelines for management, where we have community watersheds involved with conflicting uses. This goes right back to my statements of some days ago. In any kind of stream, I think the very first alienation has to be on the basis that we put aside for the fish the minimum flow they require. Then we go up from there. I expect that there will be further questions on that — maybe not; maybe we'll have solved the Goat River thing by next year.

I talked about Redfish Creek earlier. I think we should be able to make an announcement soon" it's only a question of completing the paperwork.

MR. KEMPF: I'd like to comment just very briefly on the responses given by the minister to my earlier questions and suggestions. In regard to the guide-outfitter versus the resident hunter, I'd just like to say to the minister that there is no need for that kind of conflict if the game animals exist in sufficient numbers. You only have that kind of conflict when there's a shortage. I say again that there is no need for that kind of shortage. Sufficient numbers can be achieved through proper and good wildlife management.

In regard to predator control, certainly we don't need to eradicate the wolf, as has been done in Sweden. They only have a half a dozen wolves, and they know where they are. They patrol their boundaries to make sure that no more sneak into the country. Through predator control, they have great numbers of all kinds of ungulates. But I'm saying that we don't have to do that; we don't have to go to those lengths in the province of British Columbia. We had a proper balance back in the days when we had a logical predator control program — a logical 1080 program in this province. At that time we controlled our wolf population and we had a yearly increase in the number of ungulate herds. It's quite clear that it can be done. You don't have to eradicate the wolf. I'm not talking about eradication; I'm talking only of control. Of course, that can only be done through good wildlife management and a proper predator control program. Yes, you have to use 1080. But I say again that 1080 is perfectly safe in the hands of those who know how to us it.

Today we have 1080 and other poisons in the hands of people who don't know how to use it, because we don't have a program. I don't blame those people. I don't wish to tell the House that I believe in the breaking of the law, but they've had to take the law into their own hands; if they had not, they'd be out of business now. There wouldn't be any game animals in certain areas of this province had it not been for people taking the law into their own hands. They do this only because we as a province have not again embarked upon a proper supervised predator control program, putting 1080 in the hands of those who know how to use it safely and who will not kill other animals in attempting to control predators. That's all I'm asking. Again I want to make that very clear on the record of this House.

MR. BARBER: I'd like to change the course of this debate. I'd like to open what will no doubt not be the last in an order of almost historical debate, in the way this Legislature does its business, particularly in regard to the conduct of one agent of this Legislature. For the first time in this committee I'd like to deal with the report of the ombudsman.

As the Chairman knows, ordinarily we in this Legislature have no means of doing anything other than tabling an ombudsman's report. In other jurisdictions they have other methods. We in the official opposition have had some difficulty deciding how to deal with the issue of The Barrier slide area, for which this minister is responsible, or with the implications of what it means to government policy when for the first time in British Columbia history an ombudsman finds it necessary to present a report to the Legislature and then wait and wait and wait more for a reply from the Legislature to which he addressed it.

There is no standing committee of this Legislature to deal with the ombudsman's report. There is in Alberta, Ontario and the United Kingdom. There is not in British Columbia. We have no committee of this House that deals with reports to the assembly presented by an ombudsman who is sufficiently concerned with the lack of responsive action by any ministry — be it Environment or any other — that he feels it necessary to make a presentation to the whole House.

Our options are limited, and we choose to exercise one of them today. In that sense it's an historic debate for us. I expect it is for the government as well. This is the first time we've had an opportunity on the floor of the House to deal with a report of the ombudsman. It's a report of real concern to a lot of us. I would observe for the record as well that there is an ombudsman's vote which could debate some of these matters. The problem is that there is no one who handles the vote. There is no one who can make a competent reply on behalf of the government under that estimate. For all practical pur-

[ Page 6050 ]

poses, although we have an ombudsman's vote to debate, there is no debate possible. We do have as well the office of the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) and the estimates which he presents. But once again we're limited. We're limited in this sense: the Attorney-General is the author in law of that bill, and in some sense, therefore, can be held accountable for the administration of the ombudsman's office insofar as amendments to legislation are concerned and insofar as amending regulations might also be concerned. That's really not a very practical way either.

I observe in passing that we feel somewhat frustrated by the fact that there is no standing committee not only to receive — as this House received — but also to examine, to query and to make recommendations upon whatever special reports the ombudsman may feel it necessary to bring to the attention of the people through the Legislature. So we're doing it today, although we may do it in another couple of ways as well.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member, of course, is reminded that we are asked by our standing orders to debate the administrative actions of the minister whose vote is before us. I'm sure the member is well aware of that. However, administrative actions mentioned in another report, as long as they deal with the Minister of Environment, can be entertained by this committee, as was the ombudsman's report with respect to estimates of another minister that were discussed last week.

MR. BARBER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I said, it's an unusual debate for us because we've never been presented before with a special report of the ombudsman. Therefore it seemed useful — maybe not to you, but at least to us — to preface it with our appreciation of the problems we have dealing with this stuff.

If I may, let me briefly recount what's at stake here, and then I have a series of questions for the minister. There are some 60 groups and individuals who own homes, recreational cottages and unimproved land in the Garibaldi district. As the Chairman may know, Garibaldi is about halfway between Whistler and Squamish and is some 80 kilometres north of Vancouver in the Cheakamus valley. The Daisy Lake reservoir lies to the north and, as the Chairman will know, B.C. Hydro has an interest there. I have some questions to the minister about the appearance of preferential treatment given a Crown corporation, while at the same time other persons — it is alleged by the ombudsman — were given somewhat more cavalier treatment by the Ministry of Environment. The barrier itself is some four kilometres to the east of the Daisy Lake reservoir. It is a cliff and talus slope, we're advised, about 450 metres high. It's referred to geologically as a barrier.

The political history of this dispute dates back at least to 1972. In that year the Department of Highways refused permission for phase two of a subdivision just south of what's called Garibaldi Village. In 1973 Mr. Justice Thomas Berger upheld the Department of Highways' decision in a famous case after considering evidence that there had been a slide in 1855 and there was risk of another. Justice Berger said in part: "The evidence shows there is a risk, a risk that reasonable men cannot exclude that a disaster will occur within the life of the community." On the basis of that judgment and that evidence, the government of the day — the first New Democrat administration — held that in the interests of public safety no further buildings should be permitted on the site. In the interests of fair play an inquiry should be held to find out what to do in order to meet the first requirement.

In 1974 the New Democrat government announced that there would be a study of The Barrier slide area to assess the risk and to recommend action. The studies were undertaken. A public meeting was held in the area to receive input from the residents. In t975, as the result of that preliminary work, an organization called the Garibaldi Advisory Panel was established to carry out all of the technical details of the study: the hydraulic studies, the geological studies and all of the concerns that people had expressed. In July 1978 the panel concluded and the Ministry of Transportation and Highways subsequently concurred that elimination of the risk was neither apparently feasible nor in any case financially justifiable. There seemed to be no way — financially or mechanically — to stabilize the slide area. That being the case the Garibaldi Advisory Panel also found that: "The risks of landslides are considerably greater in this particular valley than in most other valleys in the mountainous regions of British Columbia."

For some reason the panel's report was kept secret by Social Credit until 1980, two years later. This was despite repeated requests from the Garibaldi director for the Squamish-Lillooet Regional District. However, in 1980 cabinet approved an order-in-council, which achieved the following ends: (1) it designated the area in question a civil defence zone; (2) it authorized the Environment minister to acquire property in the area; and (3) it prohibited any dealing in or development of land without the express permission of the Environment and Municipal Affairs ministers. The order-in-council 207-80 was signed by Mr. Rogers and Mrs. McCarthy in their respective capacities. The Environment minister then went on to retain the Canadian Independent Adjusters Conference to negotiate for the government, and delegated the handling of the acquisition program to the director of the provincial emergency program, which person is, of course, a public servant.

On the basis of those, I think, indisputable facts, the following conclusions have been drawn: first, neither the government nor the official opposition holds any other position than that the issue of public safety is paramount, and the argument in favour of relocating the residents of that area is absolutely justifiable. We do not quarrel with it now, we did not quarrel with it when we were in government, and we will not quarrel with it in the future. The public safety is at stake here, and the issue of public policy that follows is paramount. Our concern is not — repeat not — in regard to the policy that sees people moved from this clearly dangerous and unstable area. Our concern is that due, just and fair process be observed and honoured. The ombudsman apparently feels it was not, and we have some feelings along those lines too.

The ombudsman argues that this government was unnecessarily secretive and arbitrary, and was thereby unfair to the residents of the area. The ombudsman argues that information that should have been made freely available was suppressed. He argues that information that should have been made available on a timely basis was delayed unnecessarily. The ombudsman argues in this report that a free exchange of information and opinion was not, in fact, allowed by the Ministry of Environment. The result of that has been anger and disrespect for the public policy itself, and some real concern that the government has played favourites. The concern has been shown that the government has been playing favourites in the interests of B.C. Hydro and against the

[ Page 6051 ]

interests of certain landowners and tenants in the Garibaldi slide area.

I have been up there myself, Mr. Chairman, and so have several of my colleagues. I had an opportunity last fall, as did several of my colleagues at a meeting in Victoria, to meet with a number of the residents who came down from The Barrier slide area. I'm persuaded that those people speak honestly when they tell us that they feel they were significantly kept in the dark. Their opinions and their need to know was not respected by the government. They also feel that the comments of the ombudsman in regard to the arbitrariness and unwillingness to be entirely open about the matter are justifiable and fair.

There are at least two issues we see which the ombudsman raises, and these are the two issues I wish to address to the minister. I would appreciate his comments. The ombudsman specifically argues, in a number of areas, that this government simply refused to make information available in a complete and timely manner. The minister has yet to reply to those charges. If he has, we have no record of his reply to them. Today is as good a time as any to do so.

The other principal case put by the ombudsman is that the procedure for compensation has not been fair. It has not been just or even-handed, and it has significantly discriminated against the economic interests of certain of the property owners in the area. Is there any dispute that compensation should be paid? Apparently not. On March 20, 1973, the now Attorney-General said this in the House, in regard to the Garibaldi plan:

At the outset some people will suffer loss of value for their land by reason of the designations contained in the official plan. I suggest that those people who lose value should be compensated. It must be demonstrable loss; but they are entitled to be compensated. Because if for the general good we are to take this kind of action and we are to direct for the future the way in which the land resource is to be used for the general good of the people of this province, then no single individual should be obliged to pay the cost of that general benefit.

The general benefit here is the general question of public safety. The general discrimination felt by these citizens is that in order to advance a larger public policy they have been made, personally and privately, to pay an unfair price. The ombudsman argues — so do they and so do we — that it's a fundamentally unfair public policy. You needn't believe a New Democrat; you may only look at the words of a then Liberal, now Socred, when he stood in opposition on the same principle that his government today chooses to ignore. At least that's how the ombudsman tells it. That was said by Allan Williams in Hansard of March 20, 1973, page 1514.

When the Attorney-General is arguing in favour of a fair compensation process that holds that no individual shall be required to pay individually the public benefit that will accrue from a decision of this sort, why do we see the ombudsman, in page after page of this report, arguing that compensation has not been fairly assessed, assigned or paid? Why is the ombudsman — acting on, I gather, the same principle as the now Attorney-General — drawing a very different conclusion than he government has drawn? The ombudsman has a number of questions, and so do we. I'll run over them now, and if the minister wants them given one at a time later on we can do it that way. These are questions to which we would specifically and individually like answers.

1. The ombudsman asks, and so do we: why has the ministry permitted the exclusion of certain properties from the development ban but not other and similar properties in the same area? I'm referring to another subdivision and, of course, to the B.C. Hydro improvements as well. The ombudsman lists them in the report.

2. The ombudsman asks whether or not the ministry has improperly discriminated against the owners by not enforcing the provisions of the development ban against B.C. Hydro, which was allowed to maintain and improve its recreational area while leaving the private owners under the impression they must comply with the no-development requirement.

3. The ombudsman asked whether or not the ministry applied unfair pressure to owners of improved properties in order to get them to sell their properties to the ministry. In page after page he cites examples of how it is alleged this was done by employees of the Ministry of Environment.

4. The ombudsman asks: are the criteria upon which compensation for improved properties has been determined fair, in that the owners, if they choose to sell, receive a price based on the value of the property as of May 28, 1980, as opposed to a price based on the value of the property on the date it is transferred to the ministry? This is a very important and challenging point. In today's housing market, and given what the land was worth before and after the designation as a civil defence zone and what it was worth before and after certain public policies were revealed, it is an important matter to know whether or not the properties have in some fashion been artificially devalued and thus will be subject to a lower compensation payment by virtue of certain public statements made at the time. It's an important question to which, as far as I can tell, the ombudsman has received no competent answer at all.

The ombudsman, goes on to ask.... I should point out, Mr. Chairman, that these are not direct quotes. These questions appear in the report, but the specific language is lengthier and I've chosen to condense it here. Each of these questions can be found in the report.

Has the ministry unfairly refused to vary some of the terms of the agreements of sales or to add to the others at the request of vendors?

Once more, it is alleged by certain landowners that others were able to make somewhat more beneficial, and thereby more prosperous, deals than those who were complaining in the first place. The report once again recounts claims by residents that certain people did better than others. The ombudsman reflects those claims and once more argues that, because of the secretiveness and arbitrariness of this government's procedures in carrying out unnecessary public policy in the interests of public safety, they ended up doing an unfair thing.

The ombudsman goes on to ask, and again I paraphrase: is it just for the ministry to refuse to purchase unimproved lands? This too is an important question. If you own land in the area and you're not allowed to build on it, to whom may you sell it? Could you sell it to someone else who wants to buy land in a slide area that's been declared the subject of a civil defence regulation? What sort of person would buy that kind of land? Well, perhaps B.C. Hydro might. But one can't think of any rational approach that would be taken by some one else who sees that land at the site of Garibaldi slide is available for sale providing you don't build anything on it, and finds that it's available at fire-sale prices because for all practical purposes the land has been condemned by the government.

[ Page 6052 ]

It seems to me, and to the ombudsman as well, that this ministry's apparent policy of refusing to purchase unimproved lands at this site has left the owners in an impossible position. They bought the land in good faith. They used it in good faith. They may have in good faith proposed to develop it. Now they are told they may not develop it. We think that's fair, Mr. Chairman, because public safety requires it. But according to the ombudsman, it is also the case that they have been denied the opportunity to have that land purchased at a fair price. So they're left stuck with something they cannot improve and, for all practical purposes, cannot sell. That's pretty unfair, at least on the surface of it. If the government has a reply, we'd like to know what it is. The ombudsman's report makes it quite clear that whatever reply there has been to date is unsatisfactory to both the residents and the ombudsman.

The ombudsman also asks, to paraphrase question 7: has the ministry acted unfairly by making no commitments with respect to the creation of a relocation subdivision, by making available little information about where such a site would be located, how much the lots would be sold for and what the priorities would be for distributing the lots? I'm aware that since the time of the ombudsman's report to cabinet the deputy minister has advised as follows. I would appreciate it if the minister could tell me whether or not this is currently the policy. This was the policy some time ago.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Following the ombudsman's report to cabinet, this is what the deputy minister advised:

1. The relocation subdivision site will be announced at the earliest opportunity. Serviced lots will be marketed at a price equal to their fair market value at May 28, 1980. Offers for sale will be subject to acceptance of compensation on existing lots, signing off all further claims and construction of the home within a one-year period. Other lots are to go for sale at current market value.

2. Written appraisals will be available when a negotiation and appeal procedure has been finalized and will be applied to any disputed assessments.

3. Acquisition of unimproved properties is being referred to a cabinet committee. Parenthetically, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask whether or not it has come back from the committee and if there is a formal reply. If there is, we're not aware of it. Maybe we missed it, but I doubt it, because the residents aren't aware of it either.

4. The deputy minister, I am informed, also advised that the boundaries of the civil defence zone are being reviewed to more precisely reflect the hazard area.

This is the next set of questions I have for the minister. Could he confirm whether or not the policy announced by the deputy minister is still in force? If so, have you now determined the relocation subdivision site? If so, could you tell us the status of the negotiations with the residents who may choose to relocate to the proposed new subdivision? Could you tell us whether or not the written appraisals are now available and whether or not a negotiation and appeal procedure has been finalized? If so, what is it and how will it be applied? Could you tell us whether or not the decision — of which we are advised — to refuse to purchase certain unimproved properties in the Squamish area at question has been referred to the cabinet committee? If so, has the committee found in favour of one policy or another? If so, what is the policy? The residents and we would like to know. It remains an important issue. If you can't use it and you can't sell it, what's the point of having it? The property owners ask those questions and so do we. They're fair questions.

By the way, the minister may want to know, philosophically, whether we approve of the right of property ownership in this instance — and lots of others. You bet we do. I personally think that these people are absolutely entitled to own that land and to dispose of it within the framework of a public policy that protects public safety. I believe that their private property rights are reasonable and fair. I believe that they have to be honoured. The ombudsman believes — and so do they and so do we — that due process and fair process has not been achieved. That's the question at stake.

Could the minister indicate whether or not the government has now concluded its review of the boundaries of the civil defence zone? If so, what are the new boundaries to be? That's the next set of questions I have of the minister.

I have some comments and further questions on some other topical areas raised in the report and raised when we met with the residents who came down to see us some months ago. The ombudsman concluded that it was unfair to assess the fair market value on an arbitrarily selected date months prior to the actual date of sale and transfer. He recommends that compensation paid for property sold to the ministry be based on fair market value of the property on the date of sale. He further recommends that for this purpose fair market value be determined by multiplying the fair market value of May 28, 1980, by a factor based on the average appreciation rate of similar properties in neighbouring communities since the same date. I wonder if the minister could tell us whether or not he has considered the ombudsman's recommendation. If so, what is his position on it? If he has an alternative and new policy, would he be prepared to announce it today? This is one of the primary criticisms of the residents and of the ombudsman made in the special report. I'd appreciate the minister's comment on that.

The ombudsman has recommended, of course, that the deadline for acquisition of the properties, which is June 30, be abolished, and that the ministry's offer to purchase remain in effect until all the properties have been sold to the ministry. I wonder if the minister could tell us whether or not he has given consideration to that recommendation of the ombudsman, or if in fact the June 30 deadline still applies. If so, are there any mitigating circumstances that the minister could imagine which would allow an extension of that deadline for certain individuals in particularly tough positions?

There is a third issue that I have questions for the minister on, and it concerns compensation for improved properties already sold. The ombudsman has concluded that individuals who had already sold their properties to the ministry had been unfairly pressured to sell and therefore have not been fairly compensated. He asks that the amounts of those compensation awards for these properties be reassessed. Has the minister considered that recommendation? Is he prepared to honour it? If not, is he prepared to offer a compromise? Once again, it's the honest opinion of those property owners and of the ombudsman that because of unfair pressure and because of what they conceived to be harassment and duress, some people were bought out early and low, and that therefore they should be given an opportunity to receive a later and better price for their property. I'd like to know what the minister's position is on that argument and on that recommendation.

[ Page 6053 ]

On another topic, Mr. Chairman, the solicitor for the ombudsman advised that the order-in-council — and in particular, section 3 — was itself sufficiently broad to allow for the purchase of unimproved land. The ombudsman's own lawyer says that the minister had that power, and he concludes that the minister, presumably for some reason, refused to exercise it — at least in all cases — as a policy of general application. The ombudsman concludes that the ministry's refusal to purchase is unjust and oppressive, and recommends that the minister offer to purchase all unimproved properties in the area designated by the order-in-council on the basis of fair market value. He doesn't say this but I presume he means, as well, that it take into account the same May 28 formula and also his proposal to abandon the June 30 deadline of this year as being unfair and arbitrary and discriminatory against the economic interests of the property owners in the area,

There is another question of policy upon which the ombudsman has recommended — and I'd be grateful for the minister's comments on it. This is in regard to the terms of sale. To avoid the necessity of residents relocating and being forced to arrange bridging finance on a new residence, he recommends that where vendors wish to remain in the premises without a tenancy agreement for up to a month, they be allowed to do so and the terms of sale be amended accordingly. Again, we ask whether or not the minister has taken cognizance of the ombudsman's recommendation in this instance. If so, what is his reply? If he has an alternative policy, could he tell us what it is?

Finally, in regard to this set of topics, the order-in-council was not sent to all the owners affected until March 1981. According to the ombudsman, the requirement, in the name of fair play, to inform all of the residents of the precise contents of the order-in-council was not actually observed and kept until March of this year. The ombudsman also recommends that copies of the written appraisals obtained by the ministry be furnished to the owners or to the prior owners, and that those who have not sold be advised of their right to independent appraisal, and that what the ministry is willing to negotiate as the amount of compensation should be paid for each of those properties on the basis of that policy instead of the former one.

I see the green light is on, and I appreciate that I've asked a lot of questions and there is a lot of detail, but I presume the minister is well briefed, in any case, for what, I guess, he anticipated would be today's debate. I have more questions, but I'd appreciate the minister's reply to these.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could first touch briefly on the problems brought up by the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf). Predators aren't the problem with all the wildlife we have to deal with. I guess the member isn't here right now, but it's worth pointing out that many of the species that we're looking at aren't the ones where the problem is predators — the problem is hunters. Anyway, that gets that off the list.

The ombudsman's report and how we got to it. The member did a good job in starting off with Judge Berger, and he struck on the note of public safety. I want you to try and keep that one thing in mind, because when the order-in-council was drawn up the priority given to me was to save lives. Okay. Now you've got to remember this, because in my opinion the ombudsman in his report goes between the ministry and the government so many times. He doesn't quite understand or hasn't sorted out what is criticism of the ministry and what is criticism of the government. Criticism of the government covers the ministry as well, but criticism of the ministry doesn't necessarily cover the government. The reason I say this is that many of his recommendations and suggestions are things which we were not mandated to do. We are not of the opinion that we.... Nor is anyone instructed in the initial order-in-council to purchase unimproved property. Because the original mandate was to save lives, the risk of human life, the buy-out was based on existing homes. When you go down to his recommendation that the deadline be abolished and we buy people out when they're willing to sell, that flies right in the face of the reason for moving the thing in the first place. The reason for doing it in the first place was because the report indicates that the barrier can come down, and what happens?

First of all, yes, the cabinet committee is meeting and has met. Quite frankly, the hangup is in finding an alternate subdivision site with sufficient accommodations for the improved lots which we want to be able to offer people. That's where we're hung up on it.

Yes, we've redrawn the boundaries. I should hope that in this week's cabinet meeting an order-in-counciI can be moved through that will redo the boundaries of the OIC. That's how close that is. It's constrictive because, among other things, we've done better topographical mapping of the areas upland of Daisy Lake which shows where people can build in certain areas outside the danger zone. That should come forward.

Further to that, the conditions are being expanded under which we can deal. I am also prepared to table — I would expect that within a week or ten days.... I've been working at it. I can't believe how much of my time has been taken up in trying to hammer this thing down. You've got regional districts, Municipal Affairs, Lands, Parks and Housing and B.C. Hydro to deal with. Yes, there was a time when B.C. Hydro got preferential treatment, not based on any instructions from me or from the ministry. We have certainly seen that being stopped.

Unfair pressure by the staff. We've heard this. No one's proven it to me, but they've obviously brought it up at the meetings with the ombudsman.

MR. BARBER: And with us, Steve.

HON. MR. ROGERS: I'm sure they brought it up with you as well, but they don't bring it up to me when I've been up there. The thing is that we do an appraisal with these independent adjusters who are not ministry staff. If you weren't happy with their appraisal, you could go out and get your own appraisal. If that wasn't satisfactory, you could get a third opinion. But remember, you're dealing with an unwilling buyer and an unwilling seller. This isn't a market that's buoyant. This is like going through someone's estate. It's not a pleasant thing to do. It's something you have to do afterwards. Yes, we've done that.

May 28, 1980. We're using that date because it's the last one for which there was any value. Since that time all the land is worthless. There is a body of opinion that says that just as soon as we buy out all these properties well find another opinion that says: "Oh, it's quite all right now. We're going to do some kind of Crown land subdivision there." I've heard more rumours about Garibaldi than about anything else. That's the date we've used. It's also the date we promised to people with improved lots — that the price of property that

[ Page 6054 ]

they purchase in our proposed Crown land subdivision will be based on May 1980 prices. Like a fire or flood, you are going to be inconvenienced by having to remove.... If you had a look at some of the improved properties, you would realize that some of the improvements are pretty minimal. Some of those people held that unimproved property for as long as 15 years. It was a little difficult to call it urgent in terms of compensating them at the first go-round. We knew that eventually we would have to buy out everybody, or at least offer to buy out everybody. But in the first go-round, the idea was based on life. I think we're now down to three or four people who are actually permanently resident there.

I will be tabling in the House a reply from the ministry to the report from the ombudsman, which will answer.... Again, I want to try and tie it in with the order-in-council and the whole package, so that it all comes together in one piece. The people in Garibaldi will be able to see it.

There have been criticisms about our dealings with orders-in-council. This is the first time we've ever been involved in these things. The problem was handed to us because we had the legislation under which to deal with it. When Judge Berger brought down his decision, Highways took it over. Highways gave it to us, and we're sort of stuck with it. This is the first time we have ever done one. If we ever have another Garibaldi-type situation — and it's a possibility — let me tell you that we've learned an awful lot from this one. There's no question about it, people have been upset.

We will extend the deadline, by the way. You asked about June 30. It will also be part of the package that I hope to bring in later on this week or early next week.

I think the ombudsman makes a mistake when he says that we should allow people to stay there indefinitely, until we're prepared to settle. If you take that argument, then you can say: well, you know, the slide has been there an awfully long time; it will probably go on forever. There is the possibility that it could go on indefinitely. Nonetheless, we have the report. The report says the danger.... Our first responsibility is to the people who live there; we're going to do that.

The other thing that I think is worth pointing out is that every day the government changes the value of people's property by changing government regulations — not just in this case. In this case we wiped it out entirely. The agricultural land reserve changes the value of people's land; the Islands Trust changes the value of people's land; the location of highways changes the value of people's land. We don't automatically go out and say, "Well, you know, that piece of property you once had was a potential subdivision," and then say, "No, you're going to leave it as a dairy farm; here's a couple of million bucks for the difference between what it was worth now and then." So we have to come up with a program, but I can tell you that you're never going to make everybody happy and still be honest with the taxpayer. That's just not possible. You can go up there and buy everybody out at a price which they'd be happy with, and then the taxpayers would have cause to be concerned. As I say, I'll table the report, but we think that the revised position will satisfy most of the people. I can assure you there are people for whom absolutely nothing would suffice other than to go right back to before Berger and prove that the whole thing was a mistake and we never should have looked at the barrier in the first place.

I've totally abandoned the idea of trying to please those people. They may like our new program, but I will be suspicious, because they've called me things now which even my critic wouldn't call me. I got proof this weekend that what he said wasn't true, by the way. However, you may have some more questions on the ombudsman's report, and I'm sure it will go on at great length. I could talk about it all day long.

You gave me a great list of questions here about yes, no, yes, no. There were no special deals made that I know of. If people want to go and look at their assessments, and what their neighbours got, and what they agreed to after the fact, that's available. But assessors are given a job to go in like insurance appraisers, and it's very difficult to go in and get complete satisfaction for everybody. I'll bet you didn't hear people say: "I got too much and my neighbour didn't get enough." It's almost always the other way around.

That's the problem we have to deal with, and they are the best people we could find. If you have suggestions as to who we could use as adjusters next time, I'd be willing to listen. I'll tell you, I think they do a marvellous job. The people up there, unwilling sellers, and really an unwilling buyer.... It's just a public necessity. We haven't forgotten the ombudsman's report, but we quarrel with some of it, and I'll be tabling my answers.

MR. BARBER: I thank the minister for the detail of his answers. If it could have been June 30 of last year, that would have been preferable in the issue of public safety. Of course, any extension of a deadline, on the basis of that test alone, should tell you that it shouldn't be permitted. What the ombudsman has argued, though, and I gather what you concluded, is that because there has been, charitably, confusion about the process — you say it was your first time and I think you imply that mistakes were made — you are prepared to offer an extension of the June 30 deadline. That's a good thing — not on the test of public safety, but on the test of fairness of public policy. On that one alone, I think, an extension is worthwhile.

The other questions that I raised in some detail.... If you have a chance to look at the Blues, or if you could have your deputy do so, and reply to those in whatever statement you will be making in a week or two, I would appreciate it. Those are questions that are not just raised by the ombudsman but have also been raised to us in private correspondence from residents of the area. I'm at a loss as to how to reply to them except by telling them to pay attention to what you've said. If you could help answer those questions, one way or another, that would be really helpful. I appreciate that you might not be able to do so in detail today.

On the issue of unimproved property, I just take a different position than you do.

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: Well, the ombudsman's solicitor, if I may quote from the report, observes that section 3 of the order-in-council is sufficiently broad to allow for purchase of unimproved land. Evidently your solicitor has told you something else. In any case, there seems to be some honourable debate about whether or not it's broad enough. Let's pretend for a moment that it is. I'd like to hear, thereafter, why it is unreasonable to purchase property which has for all practical purposes been condemned. Regarding the land, you yourself said: "The land is worthless since May 28, 1980." In referring to the value of the land, you also said: "In this case we wiped it out entirely." You're absolutely right. That

[ Page 6055 ]

land has no value for any purpose at all except for the wildlife who trot through it.

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: Well, no, and I want to argue with you on that one and in regard to the agricultural land reserve as well. It's the question of real versus potential value. It's the question of today's value versus tomorrow's imaginary profits. I don't believe, nor apparently does your party, that we're required to compensate the owner of a farm in Saanich who is told that he may not turn his farm into a Safeway. You see, he hasn't been denied the right to continue earning from his farm. He hasn't been told that he may no longer farm it. He's simply been told that he may not turn it into a Safeway. That's a world of difference from what's happened to the owners of land at Garibaldi who've been told that they may not farm it, use it or sell it, except to one person; or, according to the real estate market and its inexorable laws, they may not sell it at all if it's unimproved, condemned, in a slide area or a civil defence zone and no one wants to buy it. Then they turn around and ask if that is fair. With respect, Mr. Minister, there's a world of difference.

When we said "you may not turn your farm into a Safeway" we didn't deny people the right to continue farming it. To the contrary, we offered a variety of programs to encourage them to do so. It was a good, successful program. It worked, and it still works. When municipal councils downzone land they don't tell you that you may not any longer live in your single-family home that you hoped to make a profit on by tearing it down and turning it into an apartment. They don't deny you the present use of the land. You can continue to use it as a single-family dwelling. There is no real loss for those persons. There is a potential loss in their imagination; they thought they were entitled to turn it into an apartment. But there was no real loss, and they could still use it as their home.

Interjections.

MR. BARBER: They can't have the subdivided or potential value, but the real value is a secondary question. There's no dispute on our side about that. It's not the question of subdivided value that concerns us. I haven't talked about that today and I haven't argued in favour of subdivided values. Other values that are at stake include the replacement values, which the minister evidently concurs are ones which have to be found, measured and found elsewhere. You've proposed the relocation plan. That's certainly one way to do it. I'm talking about unimproved land, and its potential value as a subdivision. I'm talking about its simple, raw value as unimproved land. What you have done, as you yourself said, is made that land, and I quote you directly, "worthless."

We never made any farms worthless. City councils that say you can't turn your home into an apartment building haven't made that home worthless. You have repudiated the notion of future and imaginary profit if you could get them to do something else. But that's irrelevant. The question is not whether or not this is like the farmland law, but whether or not the real value of that raw, unimproved land can be measured and paid for. The minister said the land is now worthless, He's right. But if you don't let them sell it to anyone — who in their right mind would buy condemned land in a slide zone — and if you, the only possible vendor, refuse to purchase, then what position do these people find themselves in?

The position is simply this — loss. They have the right of paving taxes, and they have Do return whatsoever on their property. They can't sell it; they can't use it or subdivide it. All they can do is pay for it. I don't think that's fair, and I argue again it's a world apart from downzoning in urban communities or from the extension of urban zoning to create something called the agricultural land reserve. Just because their farm is still a farm doesn't mean they can't use it as a farm. There's no paradox there — it's still a farm and no one lost any value on it as a farm. They only lost the value of it as a Safeway. That was totally fictitious value. It wasn't a real thine at all.

In this case, you have described their land as worthless. You have made it worthless for a good purpose. Why, then, are they to be forced into a situation, as the ombudsman puts it, of paying a private price for a beneficial public policy? They bought the land in good faith. They chose not to develop it at the time, for whatever purposes. The reasons are their own. It's not our business; it's theirs exclusively. Now their land has been condemned as worthless in the words of the minister. I don't think that's fair. I honestly don't think that's fair; some other formula or remedy has to be applied. I do not support buying it at subdivision values. That's not reasonable either. They're not entitled to an imaginary profit, but they are entitled to the real price of the raw, unimproved land. If they can't sell it and no one will buy it except the government — which refuses — they're stuck. They're simply stuck, and I don't think that's a fair basis for public policy.

I have a couple of other questions, and then I'm through. The ombudsman concluded that the effect of the relocation plan will be to intensify the pressure to sell to the ministry those properties yet unsold. There are two categories of potential purchasers: Garibaldi owners who already sold their properties to the ministry; and any other member of the public, including Garibaldi owners, who have not sold to the ministry. Vendors in group one, Garibaldi owners who sold their properties to the ministry, will be out of pocket by the amount their improvements appreciated between the dates of sale and relocation. The dates of sale and relocation being quite different — apart probably at least two calendar years, if not more — mean a potential loss of a real sort, not a hypothetical loss based on subdivision values. I wonder if the minister could tell us whether or not his revised policy to be announced next week or whenever it comes down will take into account that particular problem of the difference between the dates of sale and relocation. Dr. Friedmann argues that this could be as much as $25,000. This is a real loss suffered by these people in the name of a public policy. He goes on to observe — I'm just repeating — that owners of unimproved land will be left holding land that is effectively worthless, as they may neither sell nor develop it. That doesn't seem entirely fair either.

Finally, I wonder if the minister could tell us whether or not the revised policy to be announced might include a revised protocol for handling all of these matters in the future. You said that it was your first time. You implied that mistakes were made. I think everyone agrees that mistakes were made, for good or bad purposes. The fact that people didn't even receive the order-in-council, for God's sake, until March of this year says that some kind of mistake was made there, deliberately or not. I wonder if the minister would be willing to accept a proposal from the official opposition that from now on certain conditions be met before this kind of procedure takes place again.

[ Page 6056 ]

I make this as a positive proposal from Her Majesty's loyal etc. First of all, as a matter of public policy all the appraisals of disputed properties should be made available as soon as they are available to the government itself, and not withheld for any purpose or any period.

Secondly, whatever orders-in-council should be passed must, by policy and preferably by law, be required to be sent by registered mail to each of the property owners and tenants in the designated area.

Thirdly, would the minister be prepared to consider a province-wide statement of those areas — the Downie slide is among them, and there are others as well with which the minister is a lot more familiar than I — where these potential problems might occur and where systematic and scientific review will be undertaken? It seems to me that the third issue is also of concern. The minister hinted as much in his own remarks.

Fourthly, would the minister accept a proposal from the official opposition that a lot of this subject matter has to be entertained in a revised and comprehensive expropriation statute? In 1975, in the general election, Social Credit promised they would bring down such a bill. In 1979 they promised it again. We've been witness to the crocodile tears of the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), who in this instance is intervening on behalf of Lillian Mann, a resident of Burnaby. This year, six years after he got elected, he is concerned about the absence of an expropriation statute, which is demonstrably fair to both sides in an expropriation dispute. The fourth positive proposal the official opposition makes to ensure that this doesn't happen again is to ask that many of these issues be raised and remedies be found in a revised and comprehensive expropriation statute. If that were done, it would be a welcome conclusion to this episode at Garibaldi.

HON. MR. ROGERS: I want the member to understand clearly that the ombudsman spoke to me fairly early in his investigation. I told him clearly that it was the policy of the cabinet, as I was given it to administer, that at that time at least we were not to acquire unimproved property. He knew it. Whether he had a legal opinion that said that under the OIC I could do anything differently is, again, just a legal opinion. He was advised of that personally by me. I just think that's worth pointing out, because you stress that point.

I think it's also worth pointing out that in this case, when Judge Berger put his freeze on it.... When you were up in Garibaldi, did you by any chance see all the homes that were constructed after Judge Berger ruled that there should be no more construction? Do you know what they did? They did a strata title with the approval of the regional district, against the best advice of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. They did a strata title when the regional district knew perfectly well of Judge Berger's decision. That was enough for them to circumvent the rule that Judge Berger brought in. We have been more than generous in compensating those people. There's a body of opinion around that says the regional district bears some of the responsibility in this whole matter for having allowed that to go on in the first place.

I liked some of your suggestions. I have no quarrel with the appraisals program. I don't know that I want to compensate on the expropriation. Areas identified usually come up.... We all sort of have a whole list of secret areas that we think there's a problem in. It comes up when a study is done either by a pipeline company or a railway company or something else to say that this is an unstable area, and if this slides into this river or if this discharges into this lake, you're going to have a problem. We don't keep it a secret. If we know of an area, we advise people right away about it. The rest of your suggestions I'll take.

MR. LEVI: This is a new topic. I want to deal with a couple of questions on waste management and particularly the care of toxic waste. I'd like to say something to the minister. About three years ago in this House under this same vote, as I recall, the minister as a member made a speech. Taking care of oil was the subject that he was interested in, I think. They have now done something about that. At that time I was speaking generally about the waste-management industry, generally known as the garbage industry. At that time I made this observation. I was addressing a minister and said that we must get into a debate and into a discussion in terms of the garbage industry as to whether in fact it should not be considered to be a public utility. As we have to face some of the larger problems of disposal, we're going to require more infusions of money from the governmental area. That was three years ago when the ministry really did not have any concern about waste management. They now have a division. It's all part and parcel of pollution control and that kind of thing. What I want to say to the minister is this: we recently had down the Reid-Crowther report which particularly concerns itself with hazardous wastes in north and western Canada. It's a report that was done by Environment Canada. In the report one of the major recommendations is this — if I might quote the one I'm going to deal with:

"The recommended system provides a network of collection stations throughout the geographic area with a transportation system for delivery of wastes to regional treatment plants located in each of the four western provinces. A single high-temperature incinerator would be located in Alberta for the destruction of organic wastes. The system allows for the treatment of wastes in the same part of the region in which they are generated whenever this situation is both operationally and economically feasible. The capital and annual operating costs for the system are estimated to be approximately $71 million and $22 million respectively. The average unit treatment cost is approximately $120 per tonne.

There are further recommendations related to this:

"It is recommended that the system be owned by a Crown corporation, financed by the participating governments and monitored by the provincial and territorial government agencies that would have an arm's-length relationship with the corporation."

At the moment, just dealing with our own province, we're spending around $60 million a year on waste disposal. We have not yet addressed the questions of the toxic waste problem in a broad way. For instance, look at the problem of the Richmond landfill and what it's going to take to put safeguards into that, regardless of whether it ever takes another tonne of garbage into the fill. Whatever the decision will be on that, somehow there has to be a system put in there that will stop the leachates from going into the Fraser River, which is apparently what is happening.

That, of course, is not the only place in the province where that exists. I point out to the minister that when you phone around the province to find out what goes on about the handling of hazardous waste, you get some very interesting

[ Page 6057 ]

reactions from various kinds of people. I'll give you an example. In the Health department we have a radiation section, and they informed me the other day that since January I they've shipped out a hundred separate truckloads in terms of waste related to nuclear substances, mostly from disused dials and the kinds of things they have in large plants. Somebody said to me one day: "Have you ever stopped to realize how many thermometers in hospitals and elsewhere ever get broken and what happens to them when they're thrown away and cleaned up?" In some hospitals they incinerate them. Of course, there is a gas which is given off which is pretty dangerous unless it's scrubbed through the chimney. There are some safety regulations regarding this.

We don't have anywhere at all we can put any of this material in the province. We are making use of two sites, one in Alberta and one in Oregon, to which we're able to ship stuff. I think that what we need to be doing is somehow putting together an arrangement or an organization, if you like, where there is a considerable amount of public input.

In Ontario they have an advisory board which is made up of about ten people, and its function is to meet and advise on matters in relation to general waste matter, including the question of what happens to toxic waste. That's the business of involving the public in what is a very serious and growing problem. If you read the literature from the United States, what's happening is amazing.

We have here a particular problem of immense dimensions. First of all, the inevitability is that the major portion of the money, if not all of it, for whatever we're going to do in terms of safeguarding hazardous waste is going to come from the public purse. I see that the study that was done on the topic for the four provinces and the Northwest Territories recommends setting up a Crown corporation. I think that because of the nature of the role of, for instance, waste management.... I was reading an article the other day about job perception, and one of the general feelings the public have is that garbage people have a very low image of themselves because they have such a terrible job to do. However, there is the other view, the view I take, that these are the people that are the first line of defence in terms of a preventative health system. We know the kind of difficulties we run into when we don't have them. What we don't have is the kind of adequate public input into this question. I know that we have the recycling council, which is very active, but they're involved in another area.

There is the other area going on in the public sector area, which is the whole business of whether we should have public or private management of waste collection. I just want to read for the minister a quote from an article that was in the Centre for Investigative Journalism annual review for 1981. This was done by a lawyer. John Swaigen. Mr. Swaigen is a Toronto lawyer who put the article together based on files he gathered. He appeared before two tribunals in Ontario. One was the Ontario Environmental Assessment Board and the other was a royal commission looking into the business of corrupt practices in respect to a waste management company. He makes this observation right at the beginning of his article: "It is the year 2000, and in an energy- and resource starved world Canadians are buying back their own garbage at inflated prices from a few giant foreign corporations which are reaping windfall profits." This is a projection on his part. He goes on: "These companies. which own virtually all of Canada's garbage dumps, are 'mining' them for metals, wood and paper. At some sites they capture the methane gas generated underground by rotting garbage and sell it for the fuel."

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: Why don't you keep quiet for a minute? Can't you keep that animal in order?

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: Look at him — completely out of control. Where's Mr. Heal? The only time he's in control is when Heal is here.

I think we'd better let the House have a rest. Right, Mr. Chairman?

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. McClelland tabled the annual report of the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources for 1979 and the annual report of B.C. Hydro for 1980-81.

Hon. Mr. Williams moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:53 p.m.