[ Page 6059 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

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

On vote 76: minister's office –– 6059

Mr. Levi, Mr. Leggatt, Mr. Mitchell, Ms. Sanford, Mr. Davis, Mr. King, Mr. Cocke, Mr. Skelly

Division on an amendment

On vote 78: resource and environment management –– 6068

Mr. Skelly

On the amendment to vote 78 –– 6068

Mr. Skelly

Division on the amendment

The House met at 10 a.m.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I would ask the House to join me in welcoming a group of grade 7 students from Assumption School in Powell River. I hope the House will make them welcome.

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. LEVI: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to finish what I was attempting to say last night, but we were a little fractious here. The question that I want to put to the minister specifically is: what is happening in respect to the Reid-Crowther report, and has he given consideration at all or has he looked at the waste management advisory board that exists in Ontario in respect to the public input that needs to be brought to this particular subject? As I pointed out yesterday, we're fast moving towards an industry and a major concern in terms of the disposal of toxic wastes that is running over $100 million. At the moment we're spending better than $50 million a year on waste disposal. That's not counting the special arrangements that have to exist for the transportation of those toxic wastes that have to go out of the province. What is the strategy that the government has in respect to becoming more self-sufficient in terms of transportation outside of the province versus the development of something within the province? I appreciate that the Reid-Crowther report has made a number of recommendations that in the western part of the province there should be some centres where disposal can take place. They've indicated at least eight places that might be looked at in British Columbia.

The major concern I have is that we will be facing the same basic pressure problems that exist in eastern Canada and the major centres in the United States which come from the private sector having the technology for management of all this waste disposal, plus a lot of expertise in terms of the particular problems of toxic waste. It involves an enormous amount of public money going towards the private sector. Because the Reid-Crowther report recommended that the governments of the four western provinces and the Northwest Territories look very seriously at the setting up of a Crown corporation, I personally feel that we are in the health sector here in terms of waste disposal management and toxic waste. That's the appropriate area — a Crown corporation or at least a public utility. That's what we're really talking about, as opposed to the kind of problem that exists particularly in Quebec and Ontario, where literally millions of dollars have been made available to private companies.

We will be faced with the same kind of problem. We need to develop a strategy as to how we're going to deal with this. First of all, we need to deal with the whole question of the expertise in this. At the moment the expertise does lie in the private sector — most of it flowing from tile United States because of the trans-national nature of some of the companies. They have gone to great lengths.... I have in mind Browning-Ferris Industries, which is in British Columbia in a very small way right now. However, they are not in a small way in eastern Canada; they are the second major company in the United States, if not the first.

Just before we finished yesterday I tried to point out some observations in an article in the annual review of the Centre for Investigative Journalism. I'll read the first two paragraphs. I think it really highlights what we have coming down the road if we don't address ourselves to the size and import of the problem, not just with waste management but also with the management of toxic waste.

John Swaigen was a lawyer in Ontario who appeared before the Ontario Environmental Assessment Board and a royal commission in 1980, talking about waste disposal. I just want to read into the record two of the observations he makes in the first part of the article. He says:

"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. 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 fuel. At others they burn the garbage and sell the steam it produces to heat buildings. They're making a killing."

He says in the first three lines of the third paragraph: "Garbage disposal is an essential public service like mail delivery, health care and supplying energy and water." That's the thrust of what I'm saying in respect to the strategies being devised by the minister's department. He has a very small waste management department. This is a major, multi-million-dollar proposition. I think he would be well advised to look closely at the establishment of a waste management advisory board, you have a number of the people in the province who are knowledgeable about this who you could involve. You have a broad representation from the public, particularly from the trade union movement. There is a great debate — going on in the waste management industry about private versus public. There needs to be that kind of input and the technical input.

I appreciate that the B.C. Research Council has done some of this work, but at the moment the whole question in respect to the Ministry of Environment is in very low profile. It's really something that grows every day by millions of dollars in terms of expenditures and the need to acquire new technology. At the moment it's my feeling that the ministry is in no way prepared to deal with this subject. Of course, there is a question as to whether the government is prepared to go the Crown corporation, public utility route or whether it's going to go the private sector route in which eventually, in a matter of four or five years, we could well see hundreds of millions of dollars committed to the private sector in terms of the resolution of some of these problems. I'd appreciate it if we could get some observations from the minister on this.

HON. MR. ROGERS: For the benefit of the member and others who are listening, I'd like to touch briefly on what we're trying to do in waste management, because when you read that article you touched a point which really deals with the whole of our waste management spectrum. If you remember. what we start off with as our feed stock is something that

[ Page 6060 ]

somebody else doesn't want, but it's not necessarily useless. At the present time we have things in our stream that are recyclable, such as glass, metal, paper, tires, oil and some wood products items which we can call coffee grounds — household waste, broken toys and plastics, things for which we have no use at all; then, of course, the toxic wastes, which are another subject altogether. We are working with recycling societies by giving them matching operating grants up to a limit of $10,000 per society. That's working well in some parts of the province and not in others. It really depends a lot on local initiative. SPEC in Vancouver have put out an excellent map showing the location of all the recycling centres, and it is available for anybody in Vancouver who wants one. They've done this in cooperation with us. There are a number of others. The one in Nanaimo is very active.

In addition we have two pilot projects, one in Saanich and one in West Vancouver where we are going to source control and separation at the household level. We have three different containers: one for "garbage garbage, " one for glass, one for metal and one for paper. We have independent operators who have contracted to pick up those particular substances, and we're doing some cost-benefit analysis on that. It's interesting to note that there is about 75 percent cooperation with the taxpayers. Mind you, there's a saving of course, because there's less cost of picking up garbage. You may not want it, but it isn't necessarily garbage. In fact you're throwing out something that has some value. If the soft drink industry would go to a mono-metal can, we could see even better recycling, because at the present time the bi-metal can isn't really a recycling product to the same extent as the monometal can, which they have in the United States.

As to our landfilling situation, I've had great talks with people from the GVRD. Their engineers have been all over the world looking at these marvellous incineration cogeneration systems, as have others from other areas. They have all come up with the same answer; that is, it's very expensive. It's prohibitively expensive, and in many cases they're shut down and reverted to landfill. So I don't think we want to do Much experimentation there. The ministry does monitor both the operation of sanitary landfills and of waste-treatment plants.

The last area is toxic substances. Once again we have sonic which can be recycled, some which are neutralized and sonic which are encapsulated. For example, arsenic as an element can't be neutralized; its basic form is a toxic substance. We have several things to consider at the present time. As you know, sonic of our wastes — in terms of PCBs — are shipped to Alberta and some go to Oregon. There is a very active firm in Seattle which recycles paint products. My former colleague has a surplus to his particular operation. There is a firm in Seattle which also handles a lot of our oil and water operations where we have oil and water mixed in. That gets recycled.

So in the whole host of hazardous waste, we have different solutions identified for almost every different product. The problem as I see it is that we have to address, as Reid and Crowther suggest in their report, a B.C. graveyard for B.C. chemicals. I don't think we would, in this province, be prepared to accept other people's garbage, and I don't really think that in the long term other people are prepared to accept Mrs. What we have to look at is the location of an area in British Columbia where neutralized waste can be stored in an effective and safe manner, as is recommended in that report. I would hope that the shipment of them is in a neutralized fashion, rather than in an active fashion.

Whether or not it should be operated by the private sector or by a Crown agency is something that Bob Ferguson's hazardous waste task force is mandated to do. They are made up of people from the community at large, as represented by SPEC and others, and also by some of the users. That committee has met on several occasions and has been asked to come back to me with a report on what our volumes of hazardous waste are and what our present destinations of hazardous waste are, and to provide recommendations.

The Ontario system has some merit, but I can tell you that when the minister in Ontario had his public advisory committee and they came to finding a place to designate as their toxic waste disposal facility, everybody agreed it was necessary, but nobody wanted it. He ended up putting it in a Liberal riding. We don't have that option in British Columbia. I don't really think that's what I would intend to do. In fact, the last minister quit in disgust, or didn't bother running again, just because of the sheer frustration of trying to locate this. The municipalities were frustrating his every effort to clean up the problem.

I think we're working in the right direction. We have nothing like the problems they have in Ontario in terms of the amount of waste that is generated, and the awareness factor is there. I think if we get more people involved in recycling, there are two experiments we have which work well, and I think we can go without government funding and expand in other jurisdictions. The West Vancouver and Saanich report will be made available to the UBCM this year so they consider it for their areas.

I guess that really sums it up. We do have problems in the more remote areas of the province. Where landfills tend to be an open garbage dump and not well supervised, we do have problems, of course, with bears finding it to be their picnic grounds. That requires some much more vigilant work in terms of covering the disposal with sand or earth so that we don't present a hazard to the people who are using the facility. I think that answers most of your questions, Mr. Member.

MR. LEVI: The one question I'd like the minister to address is simply in relation to the way the toxic-waste operations work. In discussing with a number of people — hospitals and local landfill operators — there seems to be a lack of cohesion in respect to the knowledge that people have. That's something that certainly concerns me. I'll give you an example without expressing any concern at the moment as to whether the danger is not being looked at. As I pointed out yesterday, there's the business of using incinerators in hospitals where you're incinerating a range of things. I gave the example yesterday of thermometers, and what comes from there, and the dangerous gases that are given off in the burning process. The important thing is that I had a sense that there was really no hard-nosed policy about this — not that it was known to people. That's the concern I had when I was phoning around. The whole question is from safety committees in hospitals to the kind of thing that the hospital accreditation council has in the handling of all of these things.

I'll give you an example of another one. There was a request made by a safety committee that none of the nuclear type medicines that are handled in hospitals should be carried down the corridors, but rather that they be pushed on a trolley so that there is no direct contact with people. It was just what I thought to be, to put it frankly, a rather loosey-goosey attitude to what is really a very serious problem. I am not at all convinced in phoning around that there is some hard-nosed

[ Page 6061 ]

policy about this. That's the thing that worries me, not just about that particular thing, but about the general attitude toward how serious it really is in terms of the toxic-waste question — not where you dispose of it, but simply the whole question of what people are dealing with.

The last thing I want to leave the minister with is this: the city of Philadelphia recently passed a bylaw. They said that every product that produces a toxic waste is going to have to be made known to the city — exactly what's happening. They want to know exactly what they're manufacturing and it they, in fact, have any end-product which could be characterized as toxic waste. That way they build up a large inventory of the kind of thing they have to deal with. I don't get any sense that that kind of thing is going on here or that we have that kind of inventory. As a matter of fact, the Environment department of Canada has just recently changed the form, which makes it extremely difficult for some of our local people to really know what they have installed in the province that eventually will have to be disposed of because of some changes. That's the key point of concern that I have: it's not comprehensive enough and it's a little too loose in terms of its application.

MR. LEGGATT: If I could have his attention, I would like to ask the minister to come on a hike with me in the near future. I see he's making notes, and I'm sure it would have to be a date that we would find mutually agreeable, but I'd certainly be at the minister's disposal in terms of a time. The reason I'm inviting the minister for a hike is that I want him to see one of the most beautiful lakes in the province. It's called Widgeon Lake. It's in my constituency, between Pitt Lake and Coquitlam Lake. I think maybe the minister is familiar with Widgeon Lake and also perhaps he's going to be sympathetic to what I have to say about it, because he is the Minister of Environment, and I know he may have some concerns about it.

Mr. Chairman, there is a proposal presently before the Greater Vancouver Water District to divert the waters of Widgeon Lake into Coquitlam Lake for the purpose of water supply to the eastern Fraser Valley and into the burgeoning expansion of the North Shore. If this proposal is accepted — and the cost will be about $40 million — it will mean that the public will be denied access to one of the most beautiful, pristine alpine lakes in the province of British Columbia, and this lake is situated within about 25 miles of the one million population in the lower mainland. One of the major problems we have in the lower mainland, from an environmental point of view, is that we have cut off access to Lynn Valley, Capilano Valley and Seymour Valley. That's just three; I'm sure there is another one I've missed. Access to all of those recreational areas has been cut off for the good reason that the people of Vancouver need to have a clean, good and adequate water supply. Of course, I'm not suggesting that those can be reopened. Since we have already seated off the Coquitlam Valley — the public is not allowed access to that beautiful lake and area — we are now in the process of sealing off the Widgeon Lake Valley. Widgeon Lake is a very large alpine lake — a fantastic recreational resource presently used only by a very few hikers. It's very difficult to get in at the present time; you have to take a boat up to Pitt Lake and get over to Widgeon Lake. If we seal off Widgeon Lake, we have again lost one of the most fantastic recreational areas next to the lower mainland.

One of the minister's responsibilities in the environment is to protect these islands of tranquillity which are situated around the lower mainland, so that the people of the lower mainland have an opportunity to get away from the urban stress quickly on a weekend and don't have to travel miles and miles away; even a trip to Hope and Manning Park is a fairly substantial one-day trip for any person in the lower mainland. But to the marvellous alpine valleys situated all along the north shore of the Fraser River it's not a long trip; it's a marvellous hike into Widgeon Lake. Yet because the public is not aware of those fantastic resources that lie in the valleys just next to the urban centres, we are now in danger of losing Widgeon Lake forever as a recreational resource. The proposal, which as I say would cost $40 million, would divert the waters of Widgeon Lake into Coquitlam Lake and thereby add to the water supply for the Fraser Valley.

Now I think perhaps the villain in the piece is B.C. Hydro. It continues to generate power through the Coquitlam Lake system, diverting that water through the Buntzen generating plant into Indian Arm. It's a very small part of the total generated power in British Columbia — less than I percent of B.C. Hydro's power now comes from that rather ancient system in Coquitlam Lake — and yet B.C. Hydro has been extremely jealous of that water supply. They haven't been willing to expand the use of that water for consumption purposes. The result is that we now have a proposal which is very close to fruition — the pressure for additional water supply is enormous — and this could be a decision taken any day.

What I would like the minister to do, if he would — and I realize he has a busy schedule — is come up and look at the Widgeon Lake system, given the fact of its closeness to the lower mainland. So when dealing with his colleagues — and the important colleagues he has to deal with are the Ministers of Forests and of Lands, Parks and Housing — on the question of protecting this pristine alpine wilderness for hiking recreation.... It will be a very sad day if we decide to seal off another valley next to the urban core for this purpose. The costing figures in terms of additional water supply.... All of the water for the eastern Fraser Valley can be supplied out of the existing system, probably situated in the riding of the member for North Vancouver.

By raising the Cleveland Dam there will be an additional cost. It is cheaper to divert Widgeon Creek, because it will be about $40 million to divert it, and the costing in terms of the alternate is around $70 million. What we have to evaluate is whether we are willing to save ourselves that difference and lose this valley forever for recreation and hiking purposes. For the sake of $30 million, it's a tremendous investment to save the valley and add to the height of the Cleveland Dam and provide the additional water supply that's needed for the Fraser Valley.

What we're having is a debate that has not yet reached the public. The debate is internal and between the various bureaucracies. I would very much urge the minister to come with me and have a look at Widgeon Lake. Then I urge him to support a position which will protect that marvellous alpine wilderness for the rest of time for the citizens, particularly those nearby in the lower mainland.

HON. MR. ROGERS: I'd like to thank the member for his invitation. I'm sure I've been to Widgeon Lake many more times than you because it's one of those lakes that people in the flying-training business use to teach people how to land in remote lakes. One of the few pleasures I have on the weekend is teaching people to fly on floats. I will save you the

[ Page 6062 ]

strain on your legs and the strain on my lungs and personally fly you there in my airplane and show you a much nicer way to get there.

AN HON. MEMBER: Leave him there!

HON. MR. ROGERS: There are no ejection seats with voluntary buttons in my little airplane, so you have to stay with me I can't throw you out even if one of my colleagues might suggest that I do.

No licence has been applied for on Widgeon Lake. There is the Coquitlam River study which would have to be totally reviewed before any consideration of granting a licence would be given. I think it's a little bit of Hydro's usual business of keeping all of the balls in the air so we don't know which one they are going to select next. I realize the water district is involved in it as well. I am of the opinion that there is sufficient water elsewhere in the system for domestic use. There may not be for enough hydroelectric generation, but I know Widgeon Lake very well. I've actually spent a couple of evenings in that tiny little cabin on the island. The fish and wildlife branch also stock the lake, in case you're wondering how those lovely little trout got there. They come by truck from Kamloops and then go in by helicopter from the marsh. I think that answers the question.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman, I have only one item to bring to the minister's attention. This is an item which has been bothering the Western Community and the greater Victoria area for a number of years, and that is the lack of a proper septic tank disposal unit in the community. If I could just go over a little of the background for the benefit of the minister.... Originally in the Western Community there was I privately operated septic sludge dump which, at that time, originally was composed of three ponds. One pond would be obviously in the drying process, and the third pond was used for burning oil waste. When the present Capital Regional District took it over, they made it into one large pond. What really happened was that you had one pond of sludge waste covered in oil. That stopped the process of evaporation and killed the effect.

The Pollution Control Board, quite rightly in their wisdom, ordered some change made to it. The proposal at that time was to correct it and to stop the leaking into one of the smaller streams. The engineering staff of the capital region, in their wisdom, decided that they would open a dump which would dump all the septic waste into the sewer systems to be pumped out to sea. This problem, from an environmental point of view and from the point of view of a person who lives in a coastal city, is only going to add a vast amount of sewer pollution to the beaches of greater Victoria. At the present time, the pollution in the greater Victoria area is getting worse and worse each year.

A number of the operators of septic-tank trucks met with me. They had a proposal and suggestion that a more constructive proposal be made to the capital region to adopt a policy that is in operation in the city of Kelowna, where septic sludge is mixed with forest waste and returned as compost. This method is being used in a number of cities throughout the interior and on the Prairies.

We made a submission to the capital region, and a committee was set up with one regional director and many operators who are involved. A proposal was made in three parts: that they change the dumping and servicing costs to septic tank owners, that they use the composting method, and that they make the proposed site more central to the Western Community.

I want to bring to the minister's attention that for a lot of people who are not involved in the Western Community or in building.... There are 30,000 to 50,000 people in the Western Community on septic tanks, and 20,000 to 25,000 people living north of Royal Oak on the Saanich Peninsula are also served by septic tanks. When you intend to increase this amount of sewage waste into the sea you are raising the actual amount of nutrients to far above the volume that is considered.... When you compare the amount of water that goes through a city sewer to the amount of solids dumped out of a septic-tank truck....

I feel that this ministry should give some leadership to communities on the coast which are involved and have septic-tank trucks, to develop a better method than is presently in operation in the Western Community: a large pond where all wastes — industrial waste, oils and everything — are dumped. The proposal by the capital region is that it all be dumped straight into the sewer system.

I have to note that a sewer construction proposal has been made for Saltspring Island, at Ganges. The cost would be about $4 million to serve between 300 and 500 homes. This government in its wisdom has offered a $2 million subsidy to this project. The government has a responsibility to give leadership, to make some financial contribution to get operations of this type started, to make them viable and to promote them not only from the ecological point of view but from the need of our society to return some waste to the land, in the form of some type of compost and to stop the continual eroding of our beaches in the Victoria area with load after load of sewer pollution. Nearly every beach in greater Victoria is posted as polluted. The addition which the capital region is now proposing is going to cause such turmoil with the community, the tourist industry and the children who are growing up in this area that we are going to have to reverse the project in operation today.

We're going to have to go to treatment plants. We can take that first step now, Mr. Minister, because you'll never get.... We all know that if you are starting a treatment plant you have to concentrate sewage into a sludge form and separate it. At the present time the septic sludge is concentrated. It is in a solid form; it is somewhere you can start. To dump that into the sewer, dilute it, and then down the line have to go through the process of bringing it back to a solid so we can go into a treatment plant is going to be highly expensive and highly wasteful of the resources and the tax dollar in the greater Victoria area.

In closing, I would like to ask the minister, through his ministry, to read some of the many publications he has in his ministry — books, pamphlets and resources that his ministry and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs supplied me with when we were making the study with the operators, and presenting our brief and arguments to the capital region.

MS. SANFORD: I have three brief issues I would like to raise with the minister. Yesterday we heard from the member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell), who again raised the concern about the Amax mine. I certainly concur with his concerns and the feeling that the minister has not taken an active interest in this, has not spoken out, and has not played a role as the minister responsible for protecting the environment in British Columbia, in dealing with that Amax mine. I have an edi-

[ Page 6063 ]

torial which appeared last week in the Parksville paper the Arrowsmith Star which is written by Bruce Winfield who, I think, speaks with a great deal of experience in terms of what we can expect from that Amax mine. I m not going to quote the whole editorial, but he makes some points that I think are valid and that should be read into the record here. He says:

"There is one other mine in British Columbia that dumps millions of gallons of tailings into a salt water inlet every day of the year. That mine is Island Copper, located a few miles from Port Hardy. The parallels between it and the Amax mine are numerous."

Mr. Chairman, I just want to let the minister know that I'm reading from an editorial by someone who has had experience working in another mine that dumps millions of gallons of tailings into salt water.

"Before making the jump to newspaper work in June 1976 I was one of the several hundreds of workers employed by the Island Copper mine.

"More importantly, though, for about three years I worked in the environmental department of that mine and was one of the five employees performing thousands of tests each month intended to determine what effects the dumping of tailings was having on Rupert Inlet, Holberg Inlet and Quatsmo Sound. I helped to chart mine tailings and their effects as they spread along the bottom of Rupert Inlet, around Hankin Point and into Holberg Inlet. Just about the time I resigned, Island Copper officials were admitting privately that some of their tailings were even escaping into Quatsino Sound, something experts had testified at Pollution Control Board hearings was an impossibility. On an aside, the only expert who accurately predicted the movements of tailings was Patrick Moore, now the national president of the Greenpeace Foundation."

Incidentally, Mr. Chairman, Patrick Moore comes from that part of the province up in the northern part of Vancouver Island.

"In situations like those at Island Copper and Amax there is a greater danger to the environment than the millions of tons of finely ground rock that must inevitably cover many acres of the deepest part of the inlet bottom. The most finely ground particles, measuring only a few thousandths of an inch in diameter, can easily become suspended in the water column. Once suspended, these extremely fine particles reduce the amount of sunlight that reaches plankton, cutting the productivity of these plants and animals that form the base of the marine food chain. This blocking of light, an effect called turbidity. occurred regularly at Island Copper, a fact clearly documented in both public and secret data collected by myself and other technicians. Also, these suspended particles travel with the tides, often going further than the bulk of tailings. When they eventually do settle, many land in shallower areas. These shallow areas produce, feed and harbour most of the bottom-life of an inlet. When I changed careers almost five years ago, tailings were beginning to accumulate in several areas, the most obvious being the waters just off Hankin Point.

"These are two of the possibilities that concern the Nishga Indians. As I said before, my experience at Island Copper shows them to be well within the realm of feasibility."

Mr. Chairman, this is a very important part of this editorial, and I specifically refer the minister to this. Bruce Winfield goes on to say:

"When I read that Amax vice-president Wayne Lemon has called opponents of the mine irresponsible radicals, I couldn't help but remember that's what Island Copper called Patrick Moore. What I find even more incredible, though, is that Lenton said, 'there is no scientific basis for any cause for alarm whatsoever that the selected method of marine tailing disposal will have any significant effect on man, woman, animal or marine life.' "

When Bruce Winfield worked at Island Copper, "Lenton was my boss's boss. He must know that statement — especially the portion about marine life is very unlikely to be borne out by fact."

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Here we have the same man who was critical of those people who were opposed to the dumping of tailings in Rupert Inlet by Island Copper now in a position at Amax and saying the same thing. He was proved wrong before, and I suspect that he's going to be proved wrong again. I think that the minister responsible for the environment in British Columbia should take an active interest in this, should express his concern publicly and look at what's happened with Island Copper at Rupert Inlet and Quatsino Sound. All of those places have been affected by the tailings, when we were assured there would be no harmful effects whatsoever

One of the other issues that I wanted to raise is regarding a letter that I have had from the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) as a result of issues that I raised with him concerning compensation for farmers in my area who have been forced to pay for the losses to their crops caused by the swans that are nesting or settling in the area for a period of time. Since these swans are protected, there is no way the farmers can do anything except accept their presence and also accept the losses that they suffer each year to their crops. I raised this with the Minister of Agriculture in his estimates and subsequently through correspondence. I have received a letter back from the minister indicating that: "We have requested the Ministry of Environment to consider some form of assistance to farmers who have had swans wintering on their cropland during the winter months." I don't know if the minister has had time to deal with this letter, but the compensation for the farmers, which I requested through the Ministry of Agriculture, has now been referred to the Ministry of Environment. As I say, these are protected birds, and therefore I'm wondering what action the minister is prepared to take in terms of compensation.

I have one last point. The people within the Ministry of Environment remain vehemently opposed to the proposal to put in a log dump at Buckley Bay. We went through this in some detail last year in this Legislature. I realize that the final decision about the issuing of he permit is up to the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot). I hope that the minister is aware, as I am aware, that the people within his ministry remain vehemently opposed to any log dump at Buckley Bay, because it's one of the finest oyster-growing areas in the world.

MR. DAVIS: I want to ask the minister a question. It relates to the development of the Stikine River watershed. I

[ Page 6064 ]

understand that meetings are being arranged among the Governor of Alaska, perhaps one or two of the senators and federal Minister of the Environment John Roberts relative to this trans-border issue of developing the Stikine, principally developing it in Canada, but also its impact on Alaska — in other words, on the United States. I'm referring particularly to an article which appeared in the Vancouver Sun which says:

"Canadian minister of environment John Roberts offered the full cooperation of the Canadian government Wednesday in order to resolve a dispute over several proposed Canadian dams on the Stikine and Iskut rivers in northern B.C. Before a meeting here with Alaskan Republican Senator Ted Stevens, Roberts said every effort will be made to find an environmentally acceptable solution to problems posed downriver on the Alaska side by the planned B.C. Hydro project."

My question to the minister really is: has the B.C. Minister of Environment been in close contact with the Canadian Minister of State for the Environment, John Roberts, who is meeting Senator Stevens and prospectively meeting the governor of Alaska, Jay Hammond?

According to this clipping also, Governor Jay Hammond fired off a letter to U.S. Secretary of State Alexander Haig protesting what is considered lack of cooperation between B.C. Hydro and the Alaskan officials. These talks, scheduled for early June, have not been finalized — quoting an aide to Roberts — "because B.C. has been dragging its feet." Finally, the article says — and this is conjecture, but I think it's very important conjecture — "Roberts has much to gain...." Roberts is an MP from Ontario. There was a substantial article about John Roberts in the weekend magazine last week — how he was going to look after the lakes of Ontario suffering from acid rain. "Roberts has much to gain from offering his cooperation to Stevens, since his visit to the U.S. centres on gaining congressional support for a much larger Canadian objective, stopping American-generated acid rain suspected of killing fish in northern Ontario lakes."

What we have here, at least in conjecture, is a saw-off. If the United States will endeavour to reduce some of its acid rain — incidentally generated principally by coal-burning power plants on the U.S. side — perhaps Canada, if not British Columbia, will be more cooperative in respect to the development of the Stikine watershed. If I could draw an analogy, I would think that a Stikine River treaty would be much more difficult to negotiate with the Americans than the Columbia River Treaty, because on the Columbia River development the United States had a good deal to gain as a result of cooperation with Canada. In this case, the development of the Stikine — 95 percent of the watershed of which lies in Canada — Canada almost exclusively would be the beneficiary, certainly in terms of power production, but perhaps in other resource development as well. The Alaskan side, the U.S. side, would benefit little if any; and of course they are concerned about the salmon fishery in that area and the possible impact of any Hydro development there.

So I suggest that B.C. Hydro and indeed the province of British Columbia are up against a much more difficult task in bringing about a development in that watershed than on the Columbia. The Columbia development took a dozen years to come to fruition, with the United States having a good deal to gain. In this case, on the face of it at least, it looks as if the U.S. side has very little to gain by cooperating. My question really is: how closely is the B.C. Minister of Environment working with the Hon. John Roberts, the federal Minister of the Environment, in respect to a matter which I think — and I think most people, on giving it further thought, would think — would be much more difficult to resolve, namely a Canada-U.S. agreement on the development of the Stikine?

The Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909 covers these matters. There are many precedents. There have been long drawn-out negotiations before any developments on transboundary rivers have taken place. I suggest that B.C. Hydro, in assuming that it will have little difficulty going ahead with a power development on the Iskut-Stikine, will have second thoughts before this decade is out, and that it may be a long, long time before we reach an agreement in this area. Hopefully we're talking not only with Alaska but also with the federal people on the Canadian side in endeavouring to get a rational solution to what undoubtedly is going to be a very challenging project for the future, in an area which really covers about 10 percent of the province of British Columbia.

MR. KING: Some time ago I had a discussion with the minister regarding a problem pertaining to the transport of wild game carcasses out of the province and back in. I pointed out that last year my own hunting party travelled to the Alaska Highway area through Alberta and returned that way. The problem arises on a weekend when a hunting party is returning and the local fish and game office is closed. There is no way to obtain the export permit which is necessary to accompany a carcass into another province and back into British Columbia. There are a whole number of areas in the province where this requirement is obvious. If people are inconvenienced to the extent that they have to wait two days in Dawson Creek, Prince George or Cranbrook before obtaining the necessary export licence, I suggest that that's a foolish and unnecessary delay imposed by the requirement of having an export licence. Of course, if that export licence does not accompany the carcass, then the carcass can be seized in the neighbouring province.

I have had discussions with the guides and outfitters about this province, since talking to the minister, I've been made aware that many of the clients of the guides and outfitters in the province have this problem too. They've bagged their trophy and are returning to points in Canada or the United States. Unless they leave on a day during the week, they may well be subject to a delay over the weekend until the office opens up again. I suggested to the minister that one solution, if he's not prepared to hire more staff or make them available on the weekend, might be to allow the RCMP local detachment office to issue the export licence. There may be some possibility of an agreement with the RCMP on this matter, although I understand that in certain areas their offices now close on the weekends too. It is a problem. Probably my colleague, the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf), has encountered it too. I think it could be remedied with some thought and a little bit of planning. I would very much appreciate having the minister respond to see whether he looked into it since I spoke to him about it about a month ago. There are many people in the province who are interested in this particular problem.

There are two other small matters. I've been advised by the strata group in the Shuswap Lake area that the testing by the Health department for uranium in the waters and creeks in that area has ceased. There is a concern that there might be a health problem manifesting itself now. I intend to deal with

[ Page 6065 ]

that, of course, under the Minister of Health's (Hon. Mr. Nielsen's) estimates. I would hope that the Minister of Environment would keep an ongoing interest in the areas around Shuswap Lake where uranium exploration had been undertaken prior to the freeze being imposed to make sure that from time to time monitoring is done in those waterways to determine the level of any radioactive material. I would appreciate him giving me some kind of a status report on that.

Finally, I want to say to the minister that his riverbank erosion responsibility is, in my view, being sadly neglected. The cases from my own riding that I've brought to the minister's attention have yet to receive any cooperation, any funding or any physical work whatsoever, in terms of remedying some of the potential hazards from creeks and rivers in those particular areas. Once again, I draw the minister's attention to the problem in the village of Chase, where the rivet, that pretty well runs through the centre of town jeopardizes a number of residents. I suggest to the minister that we're not looking at a large capital outlay. We're looking at some rip-rap for a short distance which would eliminate a potential hazard and probably be a wise economy in the long run. If there is major flooding and property damage there, that undoubtedly will impose a higher cost on the province than some remedial work now.

I ask the minister to be a bit more sensitive and aggressive in terms of dispensing funds from that particular program. I don't think anyone is asking for the expenditure of public funds on a project that is unnecessary. There is a real hazard there, and I suggest to the minister it should be given his attention and support. I'd appreciate a response to those points.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I believe that within a generation or two we will be fast headed toward burying ourselves in our own garbage.

MR. BRUMMET: A lot of verbal garbage.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. COCKE: I don't think these chaps like me, Mr. Chairman. It really makes me feet badly and empty inside not to be loved by a Socred, particularly on a Tuesday morning.

On Friday last, my impression was — and I have verified it — that the Vernon recycling people had a delegation come down to see the minister. I happen to have gone through the Vernon recycling plant, which I believe is one of the most successful in the province. The Vernon recycling plant has two very important aspects. It has 17 people working in a very productive way. Eight of those 17 people are handicapped; eight of them are disabled. I had hoped that when the mayor of Vernon came down here last Friday the minister would have said yes to a request for a $35,000 grant to assist them getting into their own place. They're going to have to close down. They've been offered land by the city of Vernon, they've been given $25,000 by the Vernon Rotary Club, for heaven's sake, and the minister can't even give them a $35,000 grant. He does give a matching grant of $10,000 a year. They are prepared to forsake that operating grant for the $35,000 they need now. If they do not receive it, they will have to close. If this plant closes it will mean that all of this material — glass, plastic and all other disposables — will be once again thrown onto the land and will assist us in burying ourselves in that material.

This society has done a monumental job in terms of briefs and correspondence with this minister and others. They haven't had much help from the member for their area. Every once in a while she gives them a pat on the back and then says she's off to Manila or points elsewhere. Mr. Chairman, I think it .would be an absolute disgrace if this plant isn't given government backing. If a community group like the Rotary Club can come up with $25,000 to assist this group in constructing a building.... Don't forget, they had been given the property in the first place. They thought they were going to have to go out and buy property, but they've been given it by the city of Vernon. That's a major grant, if you want to look at it that way. The only people who are withholding grants are the province.

The province has $200,000 to beautify the roads outside of Vernon. They're putting $200,000 into those roads. The Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) has talked to the Highways minister (Hon. Mr. Fraser), and he's going to be planting tulips up and down Highway 401. There's a $500,000 arts festival being promoted in Kamloops. It's not that I'm against any of these things, but where the hell are our priorities? This is a very important matter. The minister could say, as I'm sure some of his officials have said: "If we do it for you, we'll have to do it for others." Good. Let's put people to work recycling our garbage. We are the greatest creators.... Under the Ministry of Highways I was talking about the monumental amount of plastic garbage created by the ferry system alone in the course of one day on one ferry. The people in Vernon are not only doing a real service to our society: they are providing productive jobs for people.

I went through their plant. Sure, they need a new one. Incidentally, they have to leave where they are now. If they leave without this assistance, it's all going down the tube for $35,000. Isn't that a monumental sin? If the minister can't find it in his budget, then I charge him, as a responsible minister of the Crown, to go to the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe), or somebody and find the bucks. I've never seen such a wastrel government in all my life. They can spend money like water off a duck's back and never even notice that it got there in the first place, but when it comes to $35,000 for a very significant and important venture, no.

This group has been going for years. They've provided a tremendous focus on the whole question of recycling. To let them down is totally irresponsible. I suggest also their do-nothing member in Vernon, the member for Okanagan North (Hon. Mrs. Jordan), should have been up on her feet during this debate and fighting for that grant.

I'm very sorry that the people who came down last Friday were told "no" by the ministry. I planned not to say a word about it. of course, knowing that if I raised the question it might prejudice the whole thing. That's why I didn't get on my feet on Friday and discuss this whole question — I knew that they were going to be met. But now I understand. I've been told by the chairperson of the Vernon recycling plant that, yes, they've been turned down. They are absolutely in wonderment up there; they can't figure out why, nor can you, nor that vociferous little person from North Peace River, nor anybody in this House.

MR. BRUMMET: I resent that. I'm not little.

MR. COCKE: You've got the littlest mind I ever saw in my life. How you were ever a teacher is beyond me.

[ Page 6066 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Personal allusions are most unparliamentary.

MR. COCKE: I know they are, Mr. Chairman. My memory is very short, but I do remember my opening remarks. I just thought I would say to the member what I thought maybe I should say in the first place.

In any event, I believe that the minister should take a fresh look at this today. It's an important issue. If there are others who require assistance in this whole question of recycling, let's give it to them. Let's do something productive in this province about the whole question of garbage. Failing that, we're going to bury ourselves in it.

HON. MR. ROGERS: If I had known that the member for New Westminster was interested, I would have had him come to my office on Friday and sit in on the meetings, where he could then have probably gotten the facts correct, as opposed to the way he has them now. There was no one specifically representing the Vernon Recycling Society, but the mayor and one alderman did come to see me on Friday. They hadn't given me any advance warning of their coming, nor had they told me what they wanted to discuss. It was fortunate that I had the occasion to speak to them. The Vernon recycling project currently gets 20 percent of all the money available to recycling in this province.

MR. COCKE: That's a shame and a shock — ten thousand bucks a year.

HON. MR. ROGERS: That's quite correct, as the member says. That's 20 percent of it. The reason it's 20 percent of it is that in past years even that wasn't taken down. I did not say to the member that I would not make efforts to get the money, nor did I say to them I would discourage their efforts, but it was the very first time those people had ever spoken to me or ever corresponded with me on this subject. I think the member should take that into consideration.

MR. COCKE: Do you see this? Most of it's to your department. If it's not to you, they should be talking to you.

HON. MR. ROGERS: This the first time they've spoken to me about the subject, and I have told them I will make the effort to try and see if I can find money from another area of government. I also told them what's available in my budget under the votes appropriated to me.

The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) has left. I've discussed this question with him privately, and I think he knows the answer.

The member for North Vancouver-Seymour (Mr. Davis) asked the question about the Iskut-Stikine and our negotiations with the federal government. These matters are being dealt with by the Ministry of Intergovernmental Relations, and we correspond with them on a technical basis.

I was under the impression the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell) was on Bob Wright's committee. We're waiting for recommendations from Bob Wright's committee. We think it's worth pointing out that the Western Community will have to go onto a sewage system. There's no question about that in the long term, but in the short term we're waiting for their recommendation. The Capital Regional District has been late in doing this, and they have required some prodding. The time for getting it done is past due. I anticipate we will be hearing from them very shortly.

The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke has returned. I've discussed your problem with the director of the fish and wildlife branch, and he has advised me that they're going to check with the RCMP to see if the game export permits can't be something we include on a weekend basis because of that very problem. There are a number of areas where it comes into play, especially for people travelling along the Alaska Highway — they may start in B.C. and end in B.C., and just technically be crossing a line. I would hope to have an answer back for you. Since you personally asked me the question I'll send it to you in writing, if that's all right.

MR. MITCHELL: In answer to the minister, I was part of the Bob Wright committee. Our report has gone in. They adopted two parts of it — that was the financing and changing of location. The third part was the engineer's recommendation that they should not go the composting route, because he didn't feel there was sufficient market for the product; he recommended that they build a dump station in View Royal, dump it into the sewer system and ship it out through the McCauley outfall. This is the part where I feel the ministry can give some leadership to maybe reverse that and go another route.

MR. SKELLY: Over the last few days we've attempted to question the minister, to bring forward some constructive suggestions in the area of environmental administration in the province, the environmental law of the province and the way he's handling his ministry in general. After numerous days of questioning I don't think the opposition has the opinion that this minister is really suited for the job.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's not parliamentary, hon. member.

MR. SKELLY: I heard the Clerk suggest that and I was waiting for your remonstrance, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Committee of Supply cannot discuss which minister should be in cabinet or whether he should be in cabinet. We discuss the administrative action of a department. I'm sure the hon. member is aware of that.

MR. SKELLY: If that was unparliamentary I withdraw it.

We've discussed some serious environmental problems that have been identified for us, through the opposition, by the citizens of British Columbia who, because of their frustration in dealing with this minister and his ministry, have asked us to bring these issues before the Legislative Assembly, in an attempt to deal with these issues through the mechanism of the Legislature.

Unfortunately, from our analysis, the minister just doesn't seem to have the initiative to administer his department properly.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's unparliamentary. You'll hurt the minister's feelings.

MR. SKELLY: I wouldn't even attempt to do that, Mr. Chairman. But we don't feel that this minister has the initiative to get the money from Treasury Board which is required for the operation of the various branches under his ministry to stand up to polluters like Amax. I can recall the answer he gave to the member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell) when the mem-

[ Page 6067 ]

her asked him: "Will you be the statesman and the mediator? Will you go to Amax and attempt to get some kind of a solution which will be acceptable to the Nishga people, who are the traditional residents of that area in Observatory Inlet?" The minister's response was: "Well, I'm neutral. I really don't care one side or the other; it doesn't really matter to me." Well, we don't think that kind of lack of initiative is proper in a Minister of Environment.

In order that he run his ministry effectively, we need a minister who is an advocate for his resources and the environment. In the past four days of constructive suggestions and criticism by the opposition we haven't been able to identify those characteristics in the minister which would make that minister an effective Minister of Environment. As far as we can determine he has failed to put together an effective framework of environmental law in this province which protects the environment and provides effective citizen input for the people of this province to make environmental decisions, nor has he been able to establish, or agree to establish, a fair appeal procedure which would allow citizens who are facing pesticide appeals or Pollution Control Board appeals to appear before the tribunals on the same basis as the proponents for pesticide spraying and pollution. The citizens of this province, in terms of those tribunals, are second-class citizens, and the minister doesn't seem to care. He doesn't care one way or the other. He's neutral on the issue. He doesn't seem to have the initiative to change that legislation in order to improve it.

Through the last several years — through three ministers during the time I've been Environment critic — I have travelled around this province and have identified a lot of serious problems and brought them to the attention of several ministers: problems with sanitary landfill sites, for example. At the Premier Street landfill site in North Vancouver toxic chemicals are leaking into Lynn Creek. The operation of that landfill site seems to be based on oral agreements between waste management branch personnel and the municipal engineering department — agreements which breach the Pollution Control Act and yet these breaches continue to go on. Nobody really takes the Pollution Control Act seriously, Mr. Chairman, because there is no intention or initiative on the part of the ministry or the minister himself to enforce it.

As far as we can see, the performance of this minister has been totally inadequate in the administration of his ministry. The last example given by the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) was characteristic. Here we have the municipality of Vernon, which has pioneered in this province in land disposal of sewage to attempt to keep sewage out of the Okanagan lake system, which has serious problems, as we all know. The municipality of Vernon has pioneered in taking sewage out of the lake and disposing it on land in a safe and satisfactory way. They hired an energy coordinator to attempt to raise the consciousness of the people in that area to lower their use of energy and to become more efficient in the way they use energy. It's a very advanced city compared to some in this province. Vernon Recycling is one of the pioneer recycling depots in the province. They've done a tremendous amount of work pioneering the recycling of community waste.

It's come to our attention in a number of ways that this minister seems to be against the community recycling concept. In his public statements he said that we should go the way where the money is made. He's advanced the cause of Mohawk Oil, for example, and their construction of an oil-recycling facility. He goes the way of Belkin Paper board. You take the items out of the waste-stream that can be recycled profitably by business and you leave the rest to who know, s where — to landfills and to inadequate disposal methods. One of the principles of community recycling is this: by recycling the waste through a community organization you can take those items out of the stream that can be sold and recycled and you can use the profits from that recycling to cross-subsidize the safe treatment of the other items in the stream that cannot be sold profitably. The-e is a value to community waste recycling that this minister doesn't seem to have recognized. and in fact he's gone in a totally opposite direction. That's unfortunate for all communities and the environment in this province.

In view of these comments, it's the opinion of our party in the Legislature that this minister has performed inadequately in his office. We notice under the minister's vote that he's increasing his travel expenses around the province from $24,000 last year to $45,000 this year. He can't afford $35,000 for Vernon Recycling and yet he can afford to travel around the province VN ice as much as last year, and last year he didn't seem to learn a lot on his travels, We feel that it's a waste of public money to allow him to travel that much more. We would rather see this money go to Vernon recycling. I would move an amendment to vote 76 that vote 76, minister's office, be reduced by $20,000, which would give the minister roughly the same travel expenses he had last year. That would allow $20,000 from the amount approved by Treasury Board to go to Vernon Recycling to assist them in their creditable efforts to solve the pollution problems of the province of British Columbia.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment is in order.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 23

NAYS — 28

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

Vote 76 approved.

[ Page 6068 ]

Vote 77: general administration, $5,516,921 — approved.

On vote 78: resource and environment management, $50,679,915.

MR. SKELLY: A few days ago, I made a reasoned proposal to the minister that the waste management program of this province be put on a revenue basis — that is, that those who obtain pollution control permits in the province be placed on the same basis as those who obtain hunting and fishing licences. In other words, they would pay for the cost of the administration of their resource. Play as you go is Social Credit philosophy, so they like to tell us.

If the holders of pollution control permits in the province paid for the cost of administering, obtaining and monitoring those permits, it would cost an average of $1,450 per polluter per year. That is not really a great deal of added cost for a company like Amax, Weyerhaeuser, or some of the major companies operating in British Columbia. In fact, proportionately speaking, it costs a lot more for the average hunter or fisherman in this province to enjoy the resources that we all own than it does for Amax, Weyerhaeuser, MacMillan Bloedel or whoever — the holders of pollution control permits in this province. Proportionally it costs them a lot less to pollute those resources that we all own. I made a reasonable proposal to the minister that pollution control permits and the pollution control waste management program in his ministry be placed on a revenue basis — pay as you go. So that the minister will have an opportunity to put his money where his mouth is, I am now moving that vote 78, resource and environment management, be reduced by $4 million, which is roughly the estimated budget this year of the waste management branch.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment is in order.

On the amendment.

HON. MR. ROGERS: I want to speak briefly to this amendment. I'm not objecting to the principle that we should charge for pollution control permits. I think I know where you got the idea, because we've been discussing it in the ministry internally anyway. I should point out that if this is to pass, then you're an excellent clairvoyant. If this matter were to pass, remember that all revenues to the Crown go to general revenue. Therefore the ministry would be short the $4 million. The money would not revert to this ministry. If you were to follow that philosophy along about the ministry being self-sustaining from the permits we generate, the whole ministry could be self-sustaining on all our permits — all the revenue from all of the various ministries, and it's apportioned out from that. The theory that the ministries that have these are in the permit-granting business and would have the money revert back to their ministries might crank up all the various permits. Some of the ministries would be able to pay dividends to their employees or return money to the treasury. All money goes to the Minister of Finance from all permits for hunting licences, fishing licences and for these licences you're proposing. I want you to know that this would effectively wipe out the waste management branch. The money would not come to us. It would go to the treasury.

MR. SKELLY: That's absolutely not true. The minister adds three dollars to every hunting licence in the province: is the minister saying that that money goes into general revenue and is never seen again by his ministry?

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: Oh, possibly we shouldn't trust the minister even that far.

The minister knows the intention of this reduction in budget. The reduction in budget is to force the waste management branch onto a pay-as-you-go basis — so that the polluters of this province will at least pay the cost of the administration of their pollution control permits. That's what we're asking for on this side. Maybe this amount is just a symbolic amount, maybe it's just a symbolic gesture; but as far as we're concerned, the minister now has the opportunity to put his money where his mouth is. He can raise the money it now costs the taxpayers of this province to subsidize them from the polluters themselves.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 24

NAYS — 28

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

Vote 78 approved.

Vote 79: environment laboratory program, $2,864,580 — approved.

Vote 80: surveys and mapping program, $6,589,952 — approved.

Vote 81: provincial emergency program, $1,702,820 — approved.

[ Page 6069 ]

Vote 82: provincial disaster, $6,000,000 — approved.

Vote 83: Fish and Wildlife Conservation Fund, $10 — approved.

Vote 84: building occupancy charges, $7,792,000 — approved.

Vote 85: computer and consulting charges, $2,271,800 — approved.

The House resumed: Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

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

Hon. Mr. McClelland moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:48 a.m.