[ Page 8363 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Job-creation initiatives. Ms. Sanford –– 8363

Mr. Barrett

Mr. Howard

Quarterly financial reports. Mr. Barrett –– 8364

Municipal revenue-sharing grants. Mr. Stupich 8364

Offence Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 3). Report. (Hon. Mr. Williams)

Third reading –– 8365

Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 4). Report. (Hon. Mr. Fraser)

Third reading –– 8365

Waste Management Act (Bill 52). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Rogers)

On section 5 (continued) –– 8365

Mr. Skelly

On the amendment to section 5 –– 8365

Hon. Mr. Rogers

Division

On the first amendment to section 8 –– 8366

Hon. Mr. Rogers

Mr. Skelly

On the second amendment to section 8 –– 8366

Hon. Mr. Rogers

On section 9 –– 8366

Mr. Skelly

On the amendment to section 9 –– 8366

Hon. Mr. Rogers

Mr. Skelly

Mrs. Wallace

On the amendment to Section 11 –– 8367

Hon. Mr. Rogers

Mr. Skelly

On section 13 — 8367

Mr. Skelly

Division

On the amendment to section 14 –– 8369

Hon. Mr. Rogers

Mr. Skelly

On section 16 –– 8369

Mr. Skelly

Mr. Barber

On the amendment to section 16 –– 8374

Hon. Mr. Rogers

Mr. Skelly

On section 16(4)

Mr. Mitchell

On the amendment to section 17 –– 8375

Mr. Skelly

Mrs. Wallace

On section 17 as amended –– 8375

Mr. Skelly

On the amendment to section 17 as amended –– 8376

Hon. Mr. Rogers

Mr. Skelly

On section 21 –– 8376

Mr. Skelly

On the amendment to section 22 –– 8376

Hon. Mr. Rogers

Mr. Skelly

On section 25 –– 8377

Mrs. Wallace

On section 26 –– 8377

Mrs. Wallace

On section 29 –– 8377

Mrs. Wallace

Mr. Skelly

On section 33 –– 8378

Mr. Skelly

On section 34 –– 8379

Mrs. Wallace

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Attorney-General estimates. (Hon. Mr. Williams)

On vote 10: minister's office (continued) –– 8379

Mr. Macdonald

Mr. Lorimer

Mr. Ree

Mr. Lea

Appendix –– 8386

TUESDAY, JUNE 22, 1982

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I'm happy today to introduce good friends of mine who are down from my home town, Quesnel. I'd like the assembly to give them a good welcome: they are Pearl Martindale and Yvonne Whiting.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, we have in the gallery today Mrs. Belchamber, a teacher at Holly Elementary School, and five A students. They are part of a larger delegation from Holly Elementary, but these particular students wanted to take in the proceedings for at least a bit this afternoon, and I would ask the House to welcome them.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, we're very honoured in having in the House today His Excellency Mr. Allan Gotlieb, the Canadian ambassador to the United States. I'd like all hon. members to express to him the very warmest of wishes and a great greeting.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I see peering down from the gallery today a former member of the House, who was at one time a member in a dual constituency of Delta, and later the single member for Richmond, and who was one of the original self-styled maverick MLAs, Ernie LeCours.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I'd ask the House to welcome Mr. Ian Waddell, Member of Parliament for the New Democratic Party for Vancouver Kingsway. I understand he's already standing.

MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, it's certainly a great pleasure of mine to introduce a friend to the House, Mr. Zieg Skrupski from the Surrey area. Would the House please welcome him.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I'd also like the House to make welcome a visitor from Manitoba today, Mr. Paul Jarvis, who is the manager for corporate planning for Manitoba Hydro.

Oral Questions

JOB-CREATION INITIATIVES

MS. SANFORD: Last week 4,000 people in Alberni were informed they were being laid off, 2,000 people in Powell River have just lost their jobs, and today we are advised that 2,000 more British Columbians are going to lose their jobs because they are being laid off by B.C. Tel. Could the Minister of Labour tell us what new job-creation measures he has taken in the last month?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: The major initiative involves the employment-bridging assistance program. I notice that the member for Comox, in a column published in that particular area, was encouraging the government to proceed with it. For that particular program, we are now awaiting receipt of the umbrella agreement to which the signatures of the federal ministers involved have been affixed. Further particulars with respect to that program have, I'm sure, been passed on to the House by my colleague, the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland).

As far as the youth employment program, which was expanded by the employment development committee, is concerned, I'm pleased to report to the House that our objective, and the jobs which we wish to create, have almost been filled. I don't have the figures with me today, Madam Member, but I can assure the House that it has been quite a successful endeavour, and I suspect it will be fully subscribed by the end of the month.

MR. BARRETT: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, we have waited for some thrust from the Minister of Labour concerning job creation. The member asked: "What have you done in the last 30 days?" That question was not specifically addressed.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: In my view and in the view of the unemployed, Mr. Minister. What direct action is he going to take as British Columbia's Minister of Labour? Never mind Ottawa; what are you doing here in B.C.? There are 2,000 more unemployed today.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I'm sure that everyone recognizes the difficult problems which all governments are having across this country. I would think that the members are also very much aware of the considerable industrial development which is taking place. For those who haven't been travelling in parts of the province, I would suggest that they start with northeast coal and travel to Anzac and Prince George. If that doesn't take the members far enough, then I suggest you proceed further west with the railway development all the way to Prince Rupert.

The policy of this particular government is that we recognize B.C. Place, a great urban renewal scheme in Vancouver, ALRT, and the proposed convention centre. It seems to me that there is a great deal more benefit in allowing the private sector to participate and create those jobs and ensure that we have a climate for tomorrow. The amount of money which would be required to create jobs as may be — and I'm not sure — suggested by the members opposite will not give to this province the returns that an investment in the private sector will.

MR. BARRETT: I have taken the minister's advice and been to Prince George, where as a result of this government's policy there is 18 percent unemployment. I have been to Kamloops, where as a result of this government's policy there is 16 percent unemployment; in Alberni there is 19 percent unemployment. We can't afford any more of those pious statements. What are you going to do to get people back to work? Thousands of people in this province are out of work, and you talk about fictitious programs. What hope can you give...?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

[Mr. Speaker rose. ]

[ Page 8364 ]

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: The member for Kootenay (Mr. Segarty) and the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) know the rules of the House; they know that when the Speaker stands, silence is observed. The hon. member for Kootenay and the hon. member for Coquitlam-Moody failed to observe this rule. Would they please excuse themselves from the chamber for the rest of the afternoon.

Before the Leader of the Opposition proceeds, I would remind him that this is question period; a debate is not in order.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. BARRETT: Is the minister aware that unemployment in Prince George is at 18 percent? Is the minister aware that unemployment in Kamloops is at 16 percent? Is the minister aware that out of 6,000 people able to work in Port Alberni, 5,500 are out of work? Can the minister tell this House what is going to be done immediately to assist those people who are on the edge of going on welfare because their unemployment insurance is running out? What is being done to assist them with jobs related to those resources — not by buying ships in Belgium and Korea and not by having railcars manufactured in the States, but with jobs now in British Columbia for British Columbians?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I recognize the last set of figures presented to the House. Yes, the unemployment rate is high in Prince George. Yes, it's my riding. I recognize that. But there are a few other things which I think ought to be taken into consideration. The mills in that particular area — independents as well as those which are integrated — have, been doing their level best to maintain operation. Yes, some shifts have been cut back from three to two; some have gone from two to one. But the fact of the matter is that they're hanging in there and are showing a great deal of courage even though times are very difficult. With respect, you might as well mention Mackenzie also; it is a single-resource town, and has done an outstanding job. Attrition and layoffs are somewhere in the area of 15 to 20 percent. Yes, they're involved in worksharing as well. The work-sharing program to cover the fifth shift of a five-day week seems to be working reasonably well. I think we should also remember, with respect to that particular area, that we have spring breakup, something not unfamiliar to some members of the House. During spring breakup there is often a layoff, and unemployment rises at that time.

I mentioned a moment ago the employment bridging program. We would very much like to have on stream some of the proposals that are being sent in by sponsor companies, but we can't do anything until that particular agreement has been initialed by the federal government and sent back to British Columbia.

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: The minister talks of spring breakup. I'm not talking about the cabinet; I'm talking about the need for jobs in British Columbia. I ask him for the third time: what has he done, as Minister of Labour, to provide jobs in British Columbia now — don't caterwaul about Ottawa; don't cry about Trudeau.

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition knows that questions of substantially the same import cannot be repeated. This is the third asking of the same question.

MR. HOWARD: On a supplementary to the minister, he has now twice mentioned awaiting signatures on some agreement on silvicultural programs in EBAP. Can the minister explain to the House why it wasn't until last Thursday that lawyers representing the province finally agreed to the wording of that particular agreement?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I'm not sure that that particular question is correct. It's my understanding that the document was concluded long before then, and has been in the east. That's the information passed on to me. If there is a concern with respect to formalization of that agreement on the part of British Columbia, I'll be glad to take it as notice and return to the House with the appropriate information.

QUARTERLY FINANCIAL REPORTS

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Can the Minister of Finance inform the House whether or not the first quarter review will be delivered to this House on schedule, as is normal for that review?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I think that the record will show that the quarterly reports, which were introduced by this government in 1976, are made available at the earliest opportunity. The record would show that those reports are available usually some four weeks after the conclusion of the quarter in question. I have no reason to believe that we will not stay on that schedule with respect to the first quarterly report for the quarter that ends June 30. The member will know, having served as Minister of Finance in the socialist government, that the figures for any given month or period are not readily available, as they take some weeks. I expect to be on schedule.

MUNICIPAL REVENUE-SHARING GRANTS

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Last week the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) said he will not restore the $62 million in revenue-sharing grants confiscated from municipalities. Has the Minister of Finance decided on any other form of emergency financial aid to municipalities to relieve the commercial sector of the crushing burden imposed by the revenue-sharing cutbacks?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I take some offence at the use of the word "confiscated." It has been used a number of times in this House with respect to revenue-sharing. We still have in British Columbia the best revenue-sharing formula with local government. I know that the opposition tires of hearing that, but the fact remains that it is the best formula in place in Canada today, even with the changes that had to occur this year for reasons of budgetary restraint. It is forgotten occasionally, Mr. Speaker, that when the revenue-sharing formula was introduced in the portfolio of Municipal Affairs, the municipalities clearly understood then that as the province prospered revenues increased to the municipalities and therefore they prospered. In periods of

[ Page 8365 ]

relatively little growth the revenues would remain in a relatively flat state, and when revenues declined the same would happen. That was fundamental to the development of the revenue-sharing formula. Those municipalities with which I have had contact, except those which have a partisan interest in criticizing the formula, understand and accept that fact.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: I ask leave to proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Report on Bill 3, Mr. Speaker.

OFFENCE AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

Bill 3 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Report on Bill 4.

MOTOR VEHICLE AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

Bill 4 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 52, Mr. Speaker.

WASTE MANAGEMENT ACT
(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 52; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

On section 5.

MR. SKELLY: We debated this section in part last week, and as I pointed out to the minister at that time, this section allows licences to transport what are called "special wastes." Those licences are issued by regulation behind the closed doors of cabinet, or whatever those regulations prescribe, and of course we haven't seen the regulations.

As far as we're concerned, the people who transport special wastes have a captive clientele and can charge anything they want. Giving licences to these people can be a form of patronage; it's a system that's open to corruption. We're very concerned that, in the way applications are granted for release from the agricultural land reserve, something along the same lines could occur under this section. We're extremely concerned that this will open the whole system to those abuses that take place in other states, where friends of the government, although people of questionable character, are able to get these permits and virtually hold hostage the producers of special waste and the province, deriving tremendous profit from the transportation of special wastes. So we're concerned about this section.

We're also concerned about public involvement and the fact that the granting of licences and permits, particularly in this area, should be totally open to public scrutiny, yet in this act, and in this particular section of the act, public involvement is virtually eliminated. Therefore we're opposed to the act as it's currently drafted.

Section 5 approved.

On section 6.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, I ask your advice. I've attempted to insert a section 5A to provide for a licensing procedure, and I don't know whether this should have been moved as part of section 5.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The time to move that would have been before we passed section 5. However, I do notice that it is on the order paper. Possibly at this time you could move the motion standing in your name, if members would be in agreement.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman. I move the motion standing in my name on the order paper, which reads as follows: "No person shall transport special wastes unless he has a licence to do so issued under this act and the regulations and after the public involvement procedure described in section 14(a) and the regulations." [See appendix.]

On the amendment.

HON. MR. ROGERS: I might just point out that this section was the subject of some debate last week, in which case there was a ruling of the Chair, which was sustained by the House, deciding that section 14(a) was out of order under our standing orders. Since this section deals with a subsequent section 14(a), it would be out of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Inasmuch as the Chair has before it an amendment to section 14(a), that would appear to the

Chair to overcome the difficulty expressed during the last time of debate. The question is should section 5 be amended to add section 5(a) ?

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 21

NAYS — 27

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

[ Page 8366 ]

Sections 5 to 7 inclusive approved.

On section 8.

MR. SKELLY: I'd like to move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. The amendment says, "line one, after 'manager' and before 'may,' insert 'subject to section 14(a) and the regulations,'" which will subject the granting of waste management permits or permits to store special wastes to a public involvement process. [See appendix.]

It's interesting that the minister said in his press release, "We are creating opportunities for public input to waste disposal concerns," yet in every section of the act thus far he has deleted any possibility of public involvement in these waste disposal concerns. So in order to make the act accommodate what the minister said the act provided, I have moved this amendment to create a public involvement procedure for the granting of permits to introduce waste into the environment or to store special wastes.

On the amendment.

HON. MR. ROGERS: I oppose this amendment as it would cause unnecessary delay in getting on with the essential business of dealing with the management of special wastes.

MR. SKELLY: If any statement is more typical of the minister and his bureaucracy, I can't find it anywhere.

AN HON. MEMBER: Then look harder.

MR. SKELLY: You're probably right on that too.

This minister feels that the involvement of the public in any decision-making is a waste of the government's time. What he's essentially doing is declaring a motion of nonconfidence in the public. I think that what has actually happened over the period of this minister's appointment is that the public has lost confidence in him. This minister stated in the press release that he issued at the time of the presentation of this act that he was creating opportunities for public input into waste disposal concerns, yet he has consistently eliminated them. Every statement this minister has made with respect to public involvement is completely inconsistent, and he is doing everything he possibly can to eliminate democratic public involvement in decision-making in this province with respect to environmental concerns. I would urge the minister to reconsider this section and change his mind and allow public involvement in the issuance of these types of permits.

Amendment negatived.

MR. SKELLY: I move the second amendment to section 8 standing under my name on the order paper, which reads that in addition to the other things the manager may require in issuing a permit, subsection (f) be added which will "require the permittee to recycle certain wastes, and to recover certain reusable resources, including energy potential from wastes." I don't see any other part of section 8 which specifies the recycling and recovering of reusable resources, so I would urge the minister to accept this amendment.

On the amendment.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Chairman, it may be very difficult to comply with this amendment, but the government will accept it as put forward by the member. I am prepared to accept it and recommend the same to the government, because while it may be very difficult to actually comply with the recycling — I think there may be some difficulty with what Webster says about that word — the spirit and the intent of your amendment is clearly very positive. I will therefore agree to accept that amendment.

Amendment approved.

Section 8 as amended approved.

On section 9.

MR. SKELLY: Again, this is a section which allows the manager to approve of the introduction of waste, I believe, before the regular permitting process takes place. A similar procedure was done in the Cinola development in the Queen Charlotte Islands, and there were certain problems over the period of approval.

I think that in this case the public involvement procedure should be inserted, so that people know what is happening in the case of approvals before the permitting procedure takes place. A public involvement process inserted in this section will allow people in the area to know what is happening, know why the approval is being granted and have full information as to what is taking place. I would urge the minister to accept this amendment as well.

On the amendment.

HON. MR. ROGERS: This amendment is not acceptable. These particular approvals are to do with short-term discharges, the best example of which is the batch plant used in the asphalt paving business or in construction camps, which are of a temporary nature, or in pilot plants. Notice of these approvals are published. They are subject to appeal and they can go through the standard appeal procedure that other permits can go through. I don't think it requires any special permit other than that. The very nature of the approvals under subsection 9, which existed under subsection 7 of the previous Pollution Control Act, would indicate that that's appropriate.

MR. SKELLY: Can the minister point out where the publication of the approval is required in the section?

HON. MR. ROGERS: That's in the regulations, Mr. Chairman.

MR. SKELLY: Will the minister then table the regulations? I can't see where notice is required or where an appeal is permitted in this legislation. Where in the regulations does it say that, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman?

HON. MR. ROGERS: The appeal section is actually in the act under part 5, section 25. Section 26 on appeals says: "Subject to this part, a person who considers himself aggrieved by a decision of a manager may appeal to the director or district director or a district director and may appeal to the appeal board."

[ Page 8367 ]

MR. SKELLY: Again, the concern remains that there is no public involvement in the decision in the first place. There are serious problems with the appeal procedure. I suppose we'll be able to get to that when we're discussing the balance of this act. I would continue to support the amendment I've made on this section.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, the minister has said that we have the appeal procedure, and he's referred to certain subsequent sections. I would point out to him that section 29, which refers to appeals, does not stay the permit. What we're talking about is after the fact. He says right in his act that you can appeal, but that won't stop the thing going ahead. What this amendment is talking about is before the fact — getting the public involved before the fact and making sure that whatever is going to happen is a safe happening as far as the environment is concerned.

Amendment negatived.

Section 9 approved.

MR. HOWARD: I ask leave of the House to make a very important introduction, if I could, Mr. Chairman.

Leave granted.

MR. HOWARD: We have in the gallery a former longtime, very active and personable member of this House. I'd like the committee to assist us in welcoming Leo Nimsick, who sat here for many years.

Section 10 approved.

On section 11.

MR. SKELLY: I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. [See appendix.] In line 1, after "this section" insert "and section 14A."

On the amendment.

HON. MR. ROGERS: My earlier statements apply to this section as well as the previous section, Mr. Chairman.

MR. SKELLY: Then I would suggest that when the minister had written in his press release that "we are creating opportunities for public input to waste-disposal concerns...." I can't say that he wasn't telling the truth and I can't say that he was attempting to mislead the public, but I can say that the press release is, for that reason, not entirely accurate. I would urge the minister to reconsider his decision to excise from this act anything that involves public involvement in environmental decision-making and I would ask the minister to change his mind and accept this amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Sections 11 and 12 approved.

On section 13.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, what this section does in essence is say that none of the above is operative. The minister can change virtually anything in the act by issuing variance orders, provided in this case alone that he provides notice. If a permit is issued, if an amendment to a permit is issued — or virtually anything else is issued — or a waste management plan is drafted by a municipality, the minister can vary it on his own whim or at the request of somebody who stands to benefit from a variance of the original order, permit, approval, licence or whatever. This section gives the minister the power to totally change anything that was done under the previous sections and subsequent sections of this act. This type of legislation is unbefitting a democratic house in a democratic province, and, although there are very few Social Credit members in the House today, surely there are some who have read this section and who find it so totally abhorrent to the system that they claim to believe in that they would vote against this section as well. At his own whim, simply by making public notice available, the minister can change virtually anything in this legislation. As I said, Mr. Chairman, it's unbefitting a democratic House like this and a democratic province like British Columbia, and I would urge all members in this Legislature to vote against this section.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Never in the time I've been in this House has the economy of the province been in the situation it's in right now. That's the very reason for this section of this act.

When this section was originally proposed, one of the litmus tests that people used was: how would you like it if someone else was operating with this section? This is the section where the minister has to be accountable for a decision that is made. What happens at the present time when someone has a permit to improve their environmental discharge, and that permit is based on three, four or five years and a $100 million or S200 million program to go ahead and proceed? That permit may have been issued during very different economic times. The permit being rigid, the requirement is to meet with the requirements of that permit. We're faced with a situation where, because of changing economic times. a company can no longer meet the schedule that was originally set down, and there is no appeal at the present time. This section allows the minister, where he considers it to be correct and where he's prepared to state the reasons for it publicly and publish it, to issue a variance order. When the members on both sides of this House come to the minister, whoever the minister may be, to apply for a variance for an industrial activity in their community which is to be shut down because of noncompliance with permits, then you'll understand the reason this section is here.

We have two choices. One is that we can turn a blind eye and pretend nothing's happening. The other is that we can be upfront and honest with it, and say that a company is not able to continue to do this because of the economic situation. I can give you several instances where a delay is intended. It's not intended to be a permanent procedure for deferring compliance with an order, but is intended to be on a short-term basis allowing a company to operate outside of its permit.

MR. SKELLY: What the minister says he intends and what he can do under this section of the act are two totally different things. If somebody cannot comply with the conditions of a waste management permit, a pollution control permit, or whatever they are about to be called under this act, there is an amendment procedure. It's a procedure that doesn't take time, because there's no public involvement

[ Page 8368 ]

requirement built into it. It can now be done virtually overnight.

There is also an appeal procedure so any person, as the minister said, quoting subsequent sections of his own act, who felt aggrieved by the decision of a manager can now appeal that. There is every opportunity in this act for people who hold permits to have them amended or changed in some way without the minister becoming politically involved. Nowhere here does it say "in time of economic emergency or depression." Perhaps what it should say is that if someone came along and showed their Social Credit Party card they would be able to get their pollution control permit varied in order to accommodate the minister's political friends. That's what this section is designed to do.

There are other sections of the act which allow for changes and amendments in permits. There are other sections of the act which allow appeals. Nobody, if we had a consistent and fair rule of law in this province with respect to environment, should be able to make a political appeal to the minister to relieve him of the obligation of controlling pollution. Yet under this section, the minister is totally destroying the effect of the rest of the act by allowing himself to exempt his friends and people based on appeals to him behind the closed doors of his office. This is a dangerous section and it should be struck down here and now in this Legislative Assembly. The minister should not be allowed to carry through with this type of unwarranted power under this act.

HON. MR. ROGERS: The argument of my colleague opposite is correct in one respect only. It is that the variance order covers broader terms of reference than the environmental management board. For example, if you go back to section 11, "Amendments of permits and approvals", subsection (1) says: "A manager may, subject to this section and the regulations, and for the protection of the environment...." So their scope is extremely limited. They cannot deal with economic hardship matters. Once again, the minister has to be responsible to say that for economic reasons he's convinced of it and has therefore issued a variance order. I think you're misreading the section.

I appreciate that the power given to the minister for a variance order is broader than the power given to the director, but a person cannot appeal to a director based on economic situations.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, on the other hand there is the section relating to the appeals, where a person who is aggrieved by any order, etc., of the manager can make an appeal and try to get a permit changed through the appeal procedure. Why should citizens have to go through the appeal procedure, which we know is stacked against them, with the $25 deterrent fee under the Pesticide Control Act, or the Environment Management Act, or whatever act those things come under? Citizens are required to go before the Environmental Appeal Board; why shouldn't permit-holders be forced to go before the same board to have their permits varied? Why should they have a special appeal to the minister, a political route to the minister? It's unfair and it should be struck down and taken out of this act.

Section 13 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 27

NAYS — 22

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

Section 14 approved.

On section 14(a).

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, I move section 14(a), entitled "Public involvement process," standing under my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

This section provides a public involvement process which is an improvement over what was in the former act, which provided that certain people could object to the issuance of pollution control permits once they were aware that these were published or posted. Since all of the public involvement procedure has now been taken out of the act, I am suggesting that the minister concur with putting into the act this section, which would bring the public involvement procedure back.

The minister objected in debate a few days ago that this would involve some cost to the Crown. He doesn't seem to be that concerned about it when cabinet ministers wallow in the public trough at taxpayers' expense, but we are concerned about the public involvement process. To meet the minister's objections I have inserted the following: that this involvement procedure has been completed entirely at the applicant's expense, and will include "sufficient public notice" and "full public access to information." The minister was also concerned that a public hearing might be called in every case or required in every case, even for the smallest matter, so I've reworded that to say: "and if in the opinion of the manager a hearing is warranted by potential environmental impacts, or by the level of public concern, a public hearing be included in accordance with the regulations."

I am asking the minister to accept this reasonable amendment to the bill which brings the public involvement procedure back into this act, and which confirms what the minister said in his press release, that we are creating opportunities for public input to waste-disposal concerns. I'm sure that the minister would not want to be inconsistent or to mislead the public by saying that that possibility was in the

[ Page 8369 ]

act when in fact it wasn't. So I'll ask the minister if he would accept this amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Since the amendment before us is not on the order paper, the Chair will have to read the amendment so it is on the record.

"Section 14A: Public involvement process.

"No permit, order or approval shall be issued under section 4, section 5A, section 8, section 9, section 11, section 16 or section 17(2) until a public involvement procedure has been completed entirely at the applicant's expense which includes: (1) sufficient public notice; (2) full public access to information; and, if in the opinion of the manager a hearing is warranted by potential environmental impacts or by the level of public concern, (3) a public hearing in accordance with the regulations."

On the amendment.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Chairman, the public-involvement process in this act is improved over what it was in the previous act, especially where it comes to dealing with municipalities. Exactly the same situation occurs as occurred in the previous act when it comes to dealing with the private applicant. There are some minor problems with your amendment. The director can hold public meetings whenever he deems it appropriate, and has done so. So your proposed amendment is not acceptable to the government.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, there is no provision in this act for a public-involvement procedure. This amendment attempts to correct the act, to make it more consistent with what the minister said in his press release. Now he wants to leave it entirely up to the discretion of the manager. We've seen that in the past, very few public hearings were held — very little in the way of public involvement was available. You can name any instance. The Amax case is a perfect case. This is a reasonable amendment. It involves no cost to the government and does not require a public hearing every time or at unreasonable times. In fact, it simply creates a framework in law for a public — involvement process to be developed in the regulations; that's all it does. If the minister doesn't accept this, then it's clear to me and it's going to be clear to the general public that he has no concern for public involvement at all. As I said in the past, he's declaring a vote of nonconfidence in the public of this province in respect to decision-making on environmental matters. I would urge him to accept this amendment.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 23

NAYS — 27

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

Section 15 approved.

On section 16.

MR. SKELLY: This section deals with municipal waste management lands. It's one of the few sections in which there is a provision for public involvement, although it’s a skimpy provision indeed.

It's interesting that when we discussed this bill in second reading debate I asked the minister why he had not circulated the bill as a white paper before presenting it in the Legislature, or at least allowed some time to elapse between the presentation of the bill and second reading in order that all those people throughout the province concerned about waste management could have an opportunity to comment. The minister said something along these lines: "You'll notice the response in the press. Nobody seems to care about waste management legislation in the province."

I was talking a short time ago to the people at the Union of B.C. Municipalities, who again feel ripped off by this government. Apparently the minister issued the press release during first reading on June 4. They sent a copy of the press release to the Union of B.C. Municipalities on June 16. It was finally received in the offices of the UBCM on June 21, after the bill had completed debate in second reading. The UBCM has had no opportunity to comment on the bill. They've attempted to rush the bill around the province.

I realize that officials of the UBCM were able to get in touch briefly with people in the Ministry of Environment to discuss the sections of the bill that relate to them. But I might add that they had no advance opportunity to be consulted about the bill. The bill wasn't circulated in the form of a white paper as were, for example, the Wildlife Act, the Land Use Act and a number of statutes that some people in municipal government might consider much less urgent than the waste management bill because they might incur much less in the way of charges on municipalities and therefore on local taxpayers.

I share the outrage of those municipalities that they have not been consulted in the drafting of this legislation, or at least informed in proper time so they could comment to the minister on the contents of this bill. I think it's an insult to the municipalities, to municipal governments in this province and to the Union of B.C. Municipalities that the minister did not allow adequate public discussion on this bill before it was debated in the Legislature. I have been asked to convey that feeling to the minister. because in some cases they haven't even had time to write to the minister. I understand they're

[ Page 8370 ]

doing so to ask that the bill be delayed so they'll have an appropriate opportunity to comment.

I'm not sure the minister likes municipalities or cares about them one way or the other. It's clearly evident that the government doesn't do so.

I'm concerned about this section of the act. It's interesting that in every other section of the legislation the minister has attempted to eliminate public involvement. This is one of the few sections where he can see there's an opportunity to impose costs on municipalities for public consultation procedures. He's going to impose those charges on the municipalities.

Looking through the whole statute, it doesn't provide funds to assist municipalities to go through these planning and public consultation procedures. The government doesn't appear to provide any additional funding for the serious problems created by waste disposal, but the government does create additional charges to the municipality, additional taxes on homeowners during a time of economic depression, and additional costs on those people who are out of work, by forcing municipalities to go through this procedure where the government itself does not. Again, I think it's inconsistent, and I would therefore like to move the amendment to section 16(2) in my name on the order paper.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before you proceed, I must advise you that the defeat of section 14A renders the first part of your amendment out of order. The second part of the amendment to section 16 would of course be in order, but the first part is virtually meaningless.

MR. SKELLY: It went along with the rest of the public consultation procedures that the minister booted out of this act. That's what you're trying to tell me, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. ROGERS: I can't speak for Canada Post and the difficulty we have transmitting different documents around the province, but this section is a big improvement for the municipalities over the existing act. For the first time we work in consultation, as opposed to being just in a regulatory function with them. Where municipalities have in the past waited until their permit reached a crisis point before applying, now we will work with them in advance.

There is an enormous amount of public interest in both sewage-disposal plants and sanitary landfills or incineration plants for solid waste disposal. Nowhere is this borne out more obviously than in the Greater Vancouver Regional District with their solid waste disposal problem. Under the existing Pollution Control Act, we had no involvement with that problem. We knew they had a problem, we reminded them they had a problem, but we had no involvement with them at all. Under the existing act they could go ahead and propose something and it wasn't until we had actually issued a permit that the public could have any input into this matter. We think this is a substantial improvement over the existing system.

MR. SKELLY: I'm sure it's a substantial improvement; I'm willing to accept that. However, if the minister is talking about improvements in public consultation or improvements in consultation with the municipalities, why didn't he see fit to treat municipalities in the same way as, for example, rod and gun clubs or the B.C. Wildlife Federation? He could have distributed this legislation in white paper form in the same way he distributed the Wildlife Act to those other organizations. If he is so seriously concerned about consultation with municipalities, why did that not take place? I realize there's a serious problem with solid waste disposal in the Greater Vancouver area, and there are other equally serious pollution problems. Recognizing that, why did the minister not consult about the legislation prior to bringing it down in this House within six working days, having it debated in second reading and then follow through committee stage within four or five days of the Union of B.C. Municipalities receiving a copy of the act?

Whether or not you blame the Post Office, it's certainly possible to courier a copy of the act to the Union of B.C. Municipalities. When you consider the way we send cabinet ministers travelling around this world to attend theatre shows in New York or to get married in Australia, at least we could send them a copy of the waste management legislation which relates so directly to municipal government and municipal problems. You would think it would be an act of courtesy by this ministry to send a copy of the bill by courier so that it might arrive within a day and they might have an opportunity to comment on it before it becomes legislation in fact in this House.

MR. BARBER: To count on the Canada Post to deliver anything on time is to tell a joke. To pretend that putting something in the mail is something called consultation is telling another joke. Even if the Post Office could deliver anything on time, anywhere, so what? Consultation does not consist of sending a letter and hoping they get it on time. On time for what purpose? Certainly not in time to be consulted before this bill came to this committee. There was no time for that. Certainly not in time to obtain the critical views and the professional evaluation of the staff and members of the Union of B.C. Municipalities. There was no time for that either.

What is this so-called consultation that relies on Canada Post? It's not consultation at all. It's informing them of what you've already decided to do, and allowing them, if they're lucky enough, to hear about it before you've done it. That's not consultation; it's nothing. It is an insult, but it's not even good politics. I can't imagine why it's in the interests of Social Credit to ignore the most legitimate body of expression that local government has, which is the Union of B.C. Municipalities. Once again the minister may say: "Well, it's such an improvement over the previous act and they may have no choice but to like it." That, too, is beside the point. The minister indicates that the procedure in place in section 16 is so vastly improved over the previous one that they will, of course, appreciate it. That, too, is beside the point.

It may well be that had the Union of B.C. Municipalities been asked, they would have come up with yet another proposal for a procedure that would be eminently more workable than the one in here, which the minister insists is an improvement. But he'll never know and neither will we, because apparently this government's idea of consultation consists of putting a 30-cent stamp on a letter to the Union of B.C. Municipalities and hoping that it gets there in time. I ask again, Mr. Chairman, in time for what? In time to attend a meeting and have their views heard? We've consulted with the UBCM and there was no such meeting scheduled. In time to come to a press conference and hear the minister explain the bill? The letter they got apparently didn't invite them to a press conference. In time for what was this letter sent? The letter itself is not consultation; the purpose of the letter is

[ Page 8371 ]

apparently only information. That's better than no letter, but that's no consultation either.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

We regret that the government missed an opportunity here to ask a legitimate body of accountable persons what they think the procedure should be. For instance, if the UBCM had been asked their view of this section in advance, I suspect they might have asked a question, which I now ask on their behalf. Section 16(l) reads: "A municipality may submit a waste management plan for the approval of the minister." The operative word there is clearly "may." Therefore the UBCM might be inclined to ask under what circumstances does "may" become "shall." What leverage, if any, does the minister expect will exist or come to exist that would require municipalities to submit a waste management plan?

Again, Mr. Chairman, we don't object to the notion of a waste management plan. At least on the surface of it, it is sound and scientific and rational. We're not questioning that. We're asking about the procedure and in this case we're asking on behalf of an organization that was never asked for its view. It says that a municipality may submit a waste management plan. On whose request, on what advice, and within what criteria may they do this? They go on to talk about the criteria to some extent here, but everyone knows that the Union of B.C. Municipalities represents people who most often are not full-time municipal officers or full-time elected persons. There are only a few full-time mayors or aldermen around the province. It's obviously the case that municipalities will have to rely on their staff and on the professional interpretation that the staff can give. But the staff were not consulted either to the extent that we would think it important or that the minister has previously offered in the case of the Wildlife Act,

This is a major omission. It is, I think, a major blunder on the part of the government. UBCM would probably like to know what "a municipality may submit" means. Again, upon whose request and at what time? How will it come about that they may submit a waste management plan? Are they to do this on their own initiative? Are they to do it entirely at their own expense? Are they to do it in concert with other municipalities? Are they to do it through a regional district?

Mr. Chairman, I ask another question of the minister. In the Municipal Act, as I expect he knows, a municipality is described as a regional district and, conversely so, a regional district is a municipality for the purposes of the act. How are local governments to interpret this section? Does it mean that regional districts — as in, say, the case of Greater Vancouver or Greater Victoria — shall be understood to be the "municipality" referred to in 16(l) ? If so, what is the process for consultation with them? How is it that they will become alerted that they may submit a waste management plan?

Mr. Chairman, what happens if a municipality, as a component of a regional district, decides that it will submit a waste management plan on its own initiative? I think, for instance, of North Saanich in Greater Victoria and the Capital Regional District at the same time submitting a plan, perhaps somewhat separate in concept and perhaps entirely separate in detail. North Saanich has, for very obvious reasons, some considerable problems with sewers, some of which they're attempting to rectify themselves and others of which they are hoping to rectify in collaboration with the Capital Regional
District. In this instance, how are they to know which municipality is to submit the plan, themselves or the regional district? The minister may say: "Well, that's a hypothetical question and reasonable people can always sort these things out." That's true. Reasonable people can always come to a rational conclusion. But the statute is silent on the point. Now the minister may say it's a moot point and the Municipal Act governs. I would remind the minister that the Municipal Act specifically says that a regional district is a municipality, for the purposes of the interpretation of that act. So here, apparently, there is a duplication, or at least the possibility of it, all of which I think could have been avoided — and this is just one small illustration of some of the practical problems of implementation of section 16 — if the UBCM had been asked in advance. As of today's date, to the best of my knowledge.... I stand to be corrected, but my colleague from Alberni (Mr. Skelly) was on the phone to them very recently, I think only hours ago. Is that correct, Bob?

MR. SKELLY: That's correct.

MR. BARBER: That being the case, as of just a few hours ago they were not aware of what the practical implementation or the practical meaning of the section was. They weren't aware because their opinion wasn't asked. They weren't consulted. They weren't advised. They weren't aware, because the government blundered. You should have taken them into your confidence; you should have trusted them. You should have asked them. Had those things been done in an authentically professional and collaborative way, the concerns that they have expressed might not be coming forward today and the concerns that we share we wouldn't bother expressing today because they would be groundless. It was a major blunder to fail to consult the UBCM. It was an incredible blunder to rely on Canada Post to do it for you. I don't think those blunders can form the basis of a competent waste management policy.

I ask that specific question about the interpretation of the word "municipality,'' and the problem of overlap and conflict. I ask the general question as to why it was that the government failed to consult in a thorough and professional way the UBCM. Its representatives and the staff people associated with the various committees of the UBCM that have from time to time met to discuss the question of waste management, solid and otherwise, in British Columbia. I share entirely the concern of my colleague from Alberni, our environment critic, and I speak as well on our behalf as Municipal Affairs critic. From both perspectives we're disappointed in the procedure that has led us to the point we've reached today, from both perspectives we think the government's failure to consult was a technical and political mistake for which there is no good excuse. We hope the mistake isn't repeated, because it's a mistake that does not serve the public interest.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Perhaps if I could refer the member to the interpretation section of Bill 52 in which we have a definition of "municipality" as "a city, town or village incorporated by or under an act, and includes a district municipality, a regional district, an improvement district that has as an object the disposal of sewage or refuse, or the provision of a system for the disposal of sewage or refuse or both, and the Greater Vancouver Sewage and Drainage District." So that, I think, answers your question about what is

[ Page 8372 ]

meant by "municipality." It's covered under the definition of this act.

MR. BARBER: But what about overlap of municipalities and regional districts?

HON. MR. ROGERS: There is a real situation there in overlap, because in some situations solid waste is disposed of at a municipal level, and liquid waste or sewage is disposed of on a regional district basis. When we say "may submit a waste management plan" we mean just that. Many of the municipalities won't need to submit a waste management plan at all. Their sewage treatment plant, if they have one, is operating. It's within the permit that they have. Their sanitary landfill is approved if they use that, or an incinerator in those municipalities where they use that. We don't require anything from those municipalities. They're fine. But in some municipalities where they have growth, or where they have in-filling, or where they have problems because they may have once been on a septic tank and now the soil is saturated to the extent that it can't do that, they are expected to submit a waste management plan that works in conjunction with us to solve their municipal waste problems.

MR. BARBER: Who tells them when they are expected?

HON. MR. ROGERS: How do we know when they're expected? Well, they have a permit that they live under; that's a permit that they have to operate. In some cases a landfill has a time-limit permit on it; in some cases it has a tonnage-limit permit on it. In some cases sewage control plants have a gallonage — litreage, I guess, is the correct metric word — limit on it. When they reach that level they have to submit a waste management plan, and when a municipality gets to that level they're going to have to submit that plan. At the present time, when a municipality gets to a certain level they go through the whole process — total isolation from the ministry, total isolation from the public — and apply for a permit to the waste management branch, pollution control branch. Then the permit is issued and then there's an appeal procedure. Well, we're changing that. We're changing it to the point that the public is involved at the beginning; they develop a waste management plan in concert with the ministry and once that plan is issued that's the plan for the municipality.

There's no question that any legislation brought forward can be either floated as a white paper, or kept close to the breast as developed as an act. Now this act affects industry; it affects municipalities; it affects individuals. The decision was that this act would be kept in-house and would not be discussed outside in public. It could have gone as a White Paper — that's a government decision. This act is considerably more urgent, in my opinion, than the Wildlife Act. The existing Wildlife Act we can stumble along with. We might have to make a few modifications here and there, but we've worked with it for 20 years, and instead we've come up with a brand new act after floating it with a White Paper. This act addresses special waste, which we don't have any control over right now, and for which I consider there to be a great urgency to deal with. I think my colleague opposite would agree with that. In that instance this act is much too important to float it as a White Paper at least for a year to get the input that one would require before you could come back with fine-tuning what may or may not be approved by the municipalities.

I think, after my discussions with people in the municipalities around the province, that this will be more than acceptable to them, and I think you'll find that they will appreciate it. The UBCM has so many members, and the time it would take to canvass all their members would be quite substantial. For all their members to have their legal staff review this bill and come back, in my opinion, would take a substantial amount of time. You may even know them better. You deal with them on a much closer basis than I do, because I only deal with municipalities on waste management matters. I deal with them quite often, and this is what they have been asking for when they have asked me for it. Maybe the officials of the UBCM and maybe the people you've talked to.... As you say, you don't know whether they like it or not, but this is what they've been asking us to provide, and this is what we're intending to do.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, it's interesting how the minister describes the process of consulting with the public on legislation and how he differentiates between which pieces of legislation should go through the consultation process and which should be played, as he says, close to the vest. I don't know how he makes his decision. It seems strange to me that this one affects so many people and he said that nobody cared about it when we discussed this in second reading.

HON. MR. ROGERS: I didn't say that.

MR. SKELLY: He said: "Look how it was reported in the press. It doesn't seem to attract that much attention." Well, the way the bill was issued in the first place was designed to keep it quiet. We know that this bill has gone through a number of revisions within the ministry itself; you can see from the way the bill is patched together how many revisions it went through in the ministry itself.

If we're concerned strictly about hazardous wastes and the urgency of having hazardous wastes or special wastes dealt with in an urgent manner, why can't we compare ourselves with Alberta, where they went through a long and involved public-involvement procedure? They consulted with people throughout that province, they asked them their opinions; they asked them how and where it should be treated, what it was all about and what their opinions were. Yet in British Columbia we feel we have to play it close to the vest. What are we afraid of here? Are we afraid of the democratic system? Are we afraid of what the people will think or just finding out whether they think? Just what is the minister afraid of?

People around this province are concerned about the poisons that are being dumped in their waterways. The by-election in Kamloops was a demonstration of that; the questions around Amax were a demonstration of that; what's happening with Quinsam Coal on Vancouver Island is a demonstration of that. People are extremely concerned about what's happening to the environment. They're extremely concerned about what they see as misadministration by this minister of the Pollution Control Act and the pollution control branch.

Look what's happening in the Thompson River area. Look what's happening with Amax, with Equity Mines, with Carolin Mines — you name it, there is a list a thousand names

[ Page 8373 ]

long of the bungles of this minister. They are concerned about it, and they would like an opportunity to speak about it. The municipalities of this province would also like an opportunity to debate in public their proposals for changes to the Waste Management Act. They simply weren't given the opportunity even to say yes or no, even to make proposals for a change that could be questioned and debated in a public forum. There is really no explanation for that other than the minister's fear of public involvement.

There is another interesting section in the act. I wonder why subsection (4) is included as a part of this section 16 under "waste management plan": "Notwithstanding anything in the Municipal Act, where a waste management plan is for the benefit of only a specified area of a municipality, a bylaw adopted by the municipality for the purpose of implementing the plan does not require the assent of the electors, a petition or an initiative plan referred to in that act."

In other words, under the Municipal Act people had the right to vote in a specified area as to whether they wanted a sewer system or not. The questioning of this decision came to a head at Ganges on Saltspring Island. I know who was consulted on this section of the act: the MLA for Saanich and the Islands (Hon. Mr. Curtis). Because we know what happened in Ganges. We know that where people did not want a sewer system, but where certain developers saw the possibility of a profit in a sewer system, then the rights of the owner-electors, the rights of the voters, the rights of the residents of this area — forget it. They get that sewer system regardless, because the minister has a certain political constituency to serve.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Back to the section, please.

MR. SKELLY: That is the section, Mr. Chairman: subsection (4), if you choose to read it. It denies the owner electors in a specified area, notwithstanding anything in the Municipal Act to the contrary, the right to vote on what kind of services they want in their area. In other words, a huge regional district — say Kitimat-Stikine — could take a look at a small community like Port Essington and say: "There's a major landholder there" — maybe B.C. Packers — "and we're going to put a sewer system in there and make it possible to subdivide the land and make a profit for a certain landholder." Those people who live in Port Essington, or whatever the community is — I'm just using that as an example....

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: The member for Skeena says: "Good." I'm just using it as an example, but a huge regional district could by vote of their directors impose a sewer system on people who don't want it but will be forced to pay for it in order to enrich a developer who may have friends at city hall.

We know who was consulted to get this section in there: a member who is only too willing to use legislation to deprive his constituents of the right to access to the courts, and is only too willing himself to use the courts to silence those who would seek their rights otherwise.

I would like to ask the minister the question: why is that section included in section 16? Why is this section of the act attempting to deprive people in specific areas of municipalities the right to vote on their own services, their own sewage systems, their own solid-waste disposal sites? Ultimately they are going to be forced to pay for them.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Some of your remarks were a little out of order, but some of them were relevant. For your information, after mentioning the fact in the throne speech that we were going to introduce a waste management act, we had four inquiries from people as to what we intended. I said that the public isn't interested; of course the public is interested, because it affects their daily lives, but they largely tend to delegate the matter of waste management to somebody else. They'd just as soon think: flush the toilet, or get the bag to the curb, and let someone else look after it. I don't suggest that they're not involved; they become very much involved the minute you try to build a waste treatment plant or a sanitary landfill near where they live.

The public, generally speaking, would just as soon somebody else looked after those matters. Fm not saying that the public isn't interested, but it's not a subject that everybody sits up at night reading and researching about. Certainly some people do. but as I say, we had four letters from people inquiring as to what our intended waste management act was. I think for a matter of government policy, that is not a terrific response from a pretty well-covered throne speech that went provincewide.

Where a municipality or regional district agrees to a waste management plan, and you get a small group of people who for some reason or other just don't want to do it, at some point you’ve got to say that's going to go ahead anyway. Whether it's for the protection of fish, for the protection of someone else's water source, or for the creation of a landfill, at some point you've got to say no, the plan has been agreed to and approved and this is the procedure that is going to go ahead. That's why we have section 16(4).

MR. SKELLY: Of course, there's the other possibility that someone may be able to profit from the addition of a sewer system in an area in which that person owns land and has friends at city hall. I'm certain that that's why this section is included in the act.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to this section, in response to a concern conveyed to us through conservation officers. that without the minister's permission charges cannot be laid against a municipality for pollution violations. This is the concern that has been conveyed to me from conservation officers, but only if the minister gives his fiat can charges be laid, and that's under subsection (7): "Where the minister considers that a municipality is causing pollution, he has and may exercise in relation to the municipality the powers that a manager may exercise under section 22 in relation to other persons." So it's only when the minister makes a decision to prosecute that action can be taken against a municipality that's causing pollution. We feel, Mr. Chairman, that this unnecessarily politicizes the law-enforcement procedure and essentially creates two categories of polluters. One category of polluters covered under the rest of the sections of the act, on the initiative of the regional managers or the managers as defined in the act, are subject to enforcement. The others are only subject if the minister chooses to enforce the law against them.

When I discussed this question with the minister before, he called it a question of accountability, that ultimately the minister has to be responsible — I suppose because this is a

[ Page 8374 ]

difficult political situation — when you go after local governments and local politicians. Mr. Chairman, any polluter in this province, under the law which governs pollution, should be treated like any other polluter in this province. It doesn't matter whether a company like Weyerhaeuser is pouring phosphates into the Thompson River or the municipality of Kamloops is pouring phosphates into the Thompson River. If they're violating the terms of their permit, then charges should be laid in precisely the same way, no matter what the structure of the organization is. Every person who pollutes in this province should be as subject to this law as any other person. Therefore I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper to section 16, which is "to delete subsection (7) and to substitute the following: 'Where a municipality is causing pollution a manager shall exercise, in relation to the municipality, the powers he may exercise in section 22 in relation to other persons.'" The intent of this amendment is to make municipalities as responsible for pollution as any other entity in this province.

On the amendment.

HON. MR. ROGERS: I'm going to oppose the amendment. I'm going to tell you why, because my standards are no different from that of the manager or the director. Elected officials should deal with elected officials and appointed officials with appointed officials, so that a manager or a director deals with the head of a company or of an industrial polluter that has an industrial permit. To expect bureaucrats, technical people, to phone up a mayor — which we've had to do in the last four months — or an elected municipal person throughout the province and say: "Mr. Mayor, this is so-and so calling from the waste management branch, the Ministry of Environment. You're in violation of this matter and therefore we're going to proceed...." This is unfair. It is not comparable for other people in the public service. When it comes to dealing with elected officials, another elected official should do it, because the moment that one of my officials gets hold of a municipality and tells the mayor precisely what decisions were made because they are outside of their permit, you know perfectly well what the mayor is going to do.

First he's going to contact his MLA, then he's going to contact the Minister of Environment, scream at the top of his lungs and say: "You've got to reprimand this official, who is totally out of his depth. Imagine an official calling a mayor and telling him what to do" — and the rest of it. I much prefer the system we have now, where on the recommendation of the staff — because that's where the recommendations come from in the first place — the minister makes the decision to talk directly with his comparable elected official at the municipal level, which is precisely what we intend to do, and then we don't go through the charade of having some poor person being chastized by an elected official — usually publicly — for the position which he has put himself in, which is technically correct in the first place. Or we assume it's technically correct; of course, that's subject to appeal.

They have made the decision and the recommendation to save themselves from that. Also, just because on a political basis it should be done that way. I find your amendment unacceptable for the reasons I have announced.

MR. SKELLY: I'm sure the minister finds the amendment unacceptable for other reasons which he didn't state. It's absolutely ridiculous, in fact, what the minister says.

Municipalities in this province are bodies, corporate, like any other corporation that operates in the province, whether it's a mobile-home park or whether it's Weyerhaeuser corporation. No matter who it is, they're a corporate body and should be responsible for violations of legislation in the same way every other corporate body is responsible. I'm not saying that the act should be enforced against Weyerhaeuser, MacMillan Bloedel or Cominco in any way that's different than the way it should be enforced against any other corporate body, including municipalities and regional districts.

To say that a public servant of the provincial government is in a worse position when he contacts the mayor of a municipality is patently ridiculous. The municipality is a corporation, and is a corporate body like any other body in the province. It should be dealt with in the same way, under the law, as any other organization. If a municipality pollutes, it doesn't matter what it's dumping in the river. If it pollutes the same way as private industry, it should be treated in the same way as private industry and charged by the same procedures that every other person in this province is liable to be charged by. To say that the minister, because of some protocol requirements, should be dealing with mayors, municipalities and elected officials at the local government level is a phony argument in this case. These people who pollute should be treated like any other person who pollutes. I urge everyone to support that amendment, to enforce the law against everyone in this province equally and not to create a special group of violators who can, by an approach to the minister, have the law enforced in a different way against them or not enforced at all.

HON. MR. ROGERS: This comes from personal experience in seeing what happened to staff when they've had to deal with municipalities. I refute your argument and say that municipalities may be corporate bodies, but the mayor is an elected person. I have personally gone through this entire charade in the last four months with a mayor on Vancouver Island. I see no reason why this section isn't acceptable the way it's drafted. I would also refer you to section 34(5), which says: "A person who, holding a permit or approval issued to him under this act to introduce waste into the environment, introduces waste into the environment without having complied with the requirements of the permit or approval commits an offence and is liable to a penalty not exceeding $50,000." It's up to the minister to do it in terms of the government, but the public still has total and complete access. If they consider a permit-holder to be in violation, they can move themselves by merely going before regional Crown counsel and laying that information.

MR. SKELLY: The minister's statement adds absolutely nothing. His staff still have their hands tied when enforcing the act against municipalities. What it does is create a favoured group that has a separate appeal, behind closed doors, to the minister. In fact, it makes the whole enforcement of this legislation a farce. If municipalities pollute, they have a separate avenue of prosecution and a political appeal to the minister.

Amendment negatived.

MR. MITCHELL: What I want to do is definitely go on record as being opposed to subsection (4) of this particular section. It is destroying the whole concept of the community

[ Page 8375 ]

plan in various areas. I will use the example of the western communities of my particular riding, which is part of greater Victoria's Capital Regional District. Each one of these particular communities has its own community plan. It's a plan that has been designed for a particular lifestyle in a particular area. Some areas desire the community concept of keeping it rural. Others desire a higher density — more commercial.

The community plan has been eroded. Last year there were serious plans from the Capital Region to put trunk sewers into the western communities. It wasn't because there was a particular problem of waste or pollution, but because there was land available for development. That was solely the reasoning behind it. They would prefer to move into the western communities instead of going into Saanich municipality, which, as I said, has a lot of merit. But I feel that before you go into any community and are able to put in the trunk sewers that can be put in under the CRD.... Under this particular section, they can put in all the sewers and they will be chargeable to the residents in that particular area. I feel this is a time bomb that will explode if it is allowed to pass without proper and open consultation with the community, aboveboard and publicly. I think this Legislature is derelict in its duty by not instituting the various committees that would deal with this bill. If this bill were sent to the proper standing committee, that committee could travel to the communities for the input that is needed on a piece of legislation of this magnitude. Very few of our standing committees are in operation. There are committees to deal with environment matters, and the committee could have the hearings and get the input. It could go out and solicit that input, and by explaining what is in the bill, it could get the input that is needed.

If this piece of legislation goes through, if this particular subsection goes through, areas that have their own community plan.... The regional district may decide they want to enlarge the housing or develop certain lands that the local community wants to keep rural, and if they want to institute this this can do so without any input from the local people, except paying the bills. I think it's a dangerous precedent; I think it will be abused and explode in the faces of all of us who are elected.

Section 16 approved.

On section 17.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Chairman, the member for Alberni has suggested an amendment to section 17.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's not before the committee yet.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Prior to addressing it, I move the amendment to section 17 standing in my name on the order paper to section 17, which I believe incorporates in a more legally acceptable way, from a legislative drafting point of view, the spirit of one of the proposed amendments from the member for Alberni.

On the amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We are on the amendment to section 17 as proposed by the Minister of the Environment, which appears on page 16 of the order paper, opposite the other amendment.

MR. SKELLY: Is it possible then to take the amendments out of order?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The minister has moved his amendment and it has been accepted, so we are now dealing with it. His amendment must be disposed of one way or the other, and then we'll carry on.

MR. SKELLY: The opposition is happy to accept this amendment, Mr. Chairman.

MRS. WALLACE: Just out of curiosity, I would like to ask the minister why he is prepared to give this particular responsibility back to the bureaucrats rather than retain it for himself, when he refused to grant that as far as municipal pollution permits were concerned.

HON. MR. ROGERS: We're on section 17(5). I think you're discussing the section 17 amendment by your colleague the member for Alberni. The first amendment is the one put forward by your colleague and the one you're considering. It's the second section 17 amendment which I have moved and your colleague has accepted. I believe you're on the wrong amendment.

Amendment approved.

On section 17 as amended.

MR. SKELLY: Although I'd like to congratulate the minister and his staff for inserting this new section into the act, we believe that one of the major problems in dealing with municipal sewage or any sewer system is that you're not dealing with the problem at the source. You don't know what's in the system or how to treat it, and it becomes a major confusing problem. You never know what's coming out the outfall of the treatment plant. This appears to be an attempt to control the problem at the source, which is what people have been advocating over the years. So we congratulate the minister for putting this section in the legislation.

One of the problems, though, that we see is the discretion of cabinet or the minister being exercised behind the closed doors of cabinet or of the minister's office. The section begins by saying that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may designate the whole or a specified part of a municipality as a sewage control area. I'm wondering why this power was placed in the hands of cabinet, because somewhere later in the act it says that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may also expand and contract the area of a sewage control area. It seems that this opens this legislation to the possibility of patronage and corrupt dealings. Of course, the Attorney-General doesn't see the possibility of that happening, but having observed this government for a number of years, I'm sure that the public is somewhat concerned about the fact. Having observed the government in the way it has been dealing with the agricultural land reserve, there is serious concern on the part of the people of this province that putting anything in the hands of cabinet or in the hands of a minister that could enrich the public, whether it's liquor licensing or alterations in the agricultural land reserve, leaves the possibility that money could be made for their friends.

[ Page 8376 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Those remarks are quite unparliamentary. I'll ask the member to discontinue that type of debate and return to the section.

MR. SKELLY: Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I would move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. The amendment deletes the words "Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council" and substitutes "a manager." This will allow the professionals in the ministry to designate which areas should be sewage control areas and takes it out of the hands of politicians. I have a subsequent amendment which would allow the manager to reduce or extend the boundaries of a sewage control area. Now that the appeal procedure has been taken out of the hands of the politician, that would make the section consistent throughout, and I would move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. [see appendix. ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, we will take the amendments one at a time. The first amendment is moved and in order.

On the amendment.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Chairman, I cannot accept this amendment. All the boundaries — water district boundaries, taxation boundaries, municipal boundaries — are set by cabinet. You suggest that the manager could draw a boundary that went through three municipalities and a couple of regional districts. You know that the cabinet decides what the municipal boundaries are and whether to expand or contract the municipal boundaries and the boundaries of a sewage control area. I can't for the life of me think of the sinister plot that you keep conjuring up in your mind about me sitting down quietly at the dark of night with a lamp and a pencil and a map drawing lines for sewage control areas.

AN HON. MEMBER: Candlelight.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Maybe it's a candle, Tony. You're right. I don't mean to be frivolous about it at all, but boundaries are defined by cabinet in all other jurisdictions. I think it's appropriate that they should be doing it in sewage control areas as well. Therefore we won't accept your first amendment to section 17.

MR. SKELLY: It's interesting that one of the reasons that the minister proposed the appeal procedure in subsection (5) is that the Lieutenant-Governor can really amend the boundaries in any case, so that an appeal makes no sense at all. There are two separate appeals here: one is a political appeal to cabinet and we now have another appeal as a result of the minister's amendment.

What we're trying to do in this amendment is to remove the discretion as much as possible from politicians and place it in the hands of professionals within the ministry and provide an appeal system that anybody aggrieved can use if they feel that they've been unfairly treated.

The problem we've seen in the exercise of the political appeal that was created in 1977 under the Agricultural Land Commission Act is that the public see it as unfair that people with political access can get through the appeal system and those who don't have political access are forced to live with the other system. We really have two separate appeal systems here, which is unacceptable to us. We would rather rely on the judgment of a manager who was appointed under the Waste Management Act, even to draft boundaries. We would trust his judgment more than than that of the politicians opposite.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Let's be parliamentary, please.

Amendment negatived.

MR. SKELLY: I move the amendment to subsection (6) standing under my name on the order paper. [See appendix.] In line 1 of subsection (6), I move that we delete "the Lieutenant Governor in Council," and substitute "A manager."

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment is in order.

Amendment negatived.

Section 17 as amended approved.

Sections 18 to 20 inclusive approved.

On section 21.

MR. SKELLY: I would just like to ask the minister a question. Why has he inserted under section 4(a) "that a justice shall not issue a warrant under subsection (3) unless he's satisfied that admission to the land was sought after not less than seven days' notice of the intended entry had been served on the occupier"?

HON. MR. ROGERS: It's just reasonable notice.

MR. SKELLY: In a case where, for example, hazardous or special wastes are stored on a property and seven days' notice is given to allow the owner the opportunity to remove the special waste to some other property or to destroy it....

HON. MR. ROGERS: If you read subsections (b) and (d), they will explain those particular sections.

Section 21 approved.

On section 22.

MR. SKELLY: I'd like to move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. [See appendix.] In the sentence in subsection (5), "for the purposes of this section, a person does not include a municipality," I move we change the words "does not include a municipality" to "includes a municipality."

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment is in order.

On the amendment.

HON. MR. ROGERS: If you'll refer back to section 16(7), which we have just finished discussing, I have the authority under that particular section.

[ Page 8377 ]

MR. SKELLY: That's exactly what we're concerned about. The minister has the authority, but his staff doesn't have the authority.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: I think you missed that. I think he does have an objection to it, but I think he'd like to protect some polluters and not others. That's what the problem is.

What we're trying to do in this section is to make all polluters — everybody who violates the act — the same under the act, so every polluter can have the act enforced against him by the staff of the ministry. We don't want some polluters treated differently from others simply because they are municipalities or regional districts. We would like all polluters treated the same under the act. This amendment would achieve that purpose.

HON. MR. ROGERS: I'm not prepared to accept the amendment for the reasons outlined in many of the previous amendments, including section 16.

Amendment negatived.

Sections 22 to 24 inclusive approved.

On section 25.

MRS. WALLACE: In the interpretation section relative to decisions, which, I assume, can be appealed, seeing that this major heading is entitled "Appeals" — these are decisions which may be appealed — I'm wondering what the regulations are going to provide in the way of notice of any of these decisions relative to the public. Certainly if it is a polluter who is notified that he is polluting, they will know. What about the public being advised of any decision to allow pollution? What sort of requirements are going to be required?

HON. MR. ROGERS: We're looking for an improvement in our existing system, because there will be publication listing which particular decisions have been issued. I don't know if you want me to enunciate how people get involved in the appeal procedure, or....

MRS. WALLACE: What publication? Is it going to be in the press, or what are you going to do — mail it by dog team?

HON. MR. ROGERS: Well, I expect that they'll be put in the Gazette. That's probably the best place to put them because of the number of different permits that are involved. We have about 3,500 active permits in the province, so the listing of them would probably be placed in the Gazette.

MRS. WALLACE: I would urge the minister to consider that very many of the public do not read the Gazette. Certainly if he could undertake to ensure that where there was a local area affected it would also be advertised in the local press in that area, it would certainly make it much easier for the public to know what was going on.

HON. MR. ROGERS: That's our intention, Mr. Chairman, if you look at section 27 of the act, subsection (5): "The director shall after considering an appeal (a) notify the parties to the appeal of his decision, and (b) cause notice of the decision to be given in a manner required in the regulations." In that case we would not look at taking an ad in the Vancouver Sun for something in your constituency, but in the local newspaper. I believe you have a twice-weekly paper there, and we would look to posting a legal advertisement in that.

Section 25 approved.

On section 26.

MRS. WALLACE: Relative to the appeals themselves, are the fees going to continue to be similar to the pesticide control permit appeal fees that are now in existence? Certainly that has worked a real hardship on a lot of people because of the cost involved, and I'm wondering what you're thinking in terms of fees relative to appeals?

HON. MR. ROGERS: In fact, we don't anticipate charging for appeals. The subject of charging for appeals under pesticide control. A which we have now had in place tor six months, is under review and I would expect an announcement perhaps later this week or early next week as to a change in that procedure.

Sections 26 to 28 inclusive approved.

On section 29.

MRS. WALLACE: This is a really sore point with me because it means that you can appeal all you like, but when you get to the 21 days and another 21 days, as outlined in section 26 or 27 that we've just passed, before you ever get the appeal heard the pollution has been going on for months. The fact that you do not intend to stay the procedure because appeals are launched seems to me to be completely disregarding any possible environmental damage. Certainly there has to be a speeding up of the operation and some control of that pollution until the appeal is heard. To just have appeals filed and have the pollution continue seems to be completely out of line.

HON. MR. ROGERS: I think that perhaps you are misunderstanding the section, because this section allows us to stop it while the subject is under appeal, as opposed to allowing it to continue while an appeal is being heard.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, if you believe that. you'll believe that the world is flat. If this was worded in another way — and that is, "an appeal taken under this act operates as a stay or suspends the operation of a decision being appealed unless otherwise stated or otherwise ordered" — then the appellants are protected and the pollution — or the evil that these appellants see — doesn't continue while the appeal is taking place. This is the same type of condition that we have in the Pesticide Control Act, and the same arguments were made.

Let me remind you of what happened back there in 1977 when we discussed — the minister pulled the bill off the floor — the bill in his office. We talked to the minister's staff, and we said that this should be reworked so that an appeal acts as a stay and nothing takes place until the appeal board meets and decides one way or the other — whether the process should lo ahead or whether it should continue to be stayed until the

[ Page 8378 ]

appeal is heard. This means that pollution can continue, that pesticide sprays can continue, and that the whole appeal procedure is simply a waste of time and money for those concerned citizens — members of the public who are concerned about pollution in the same way that others are — concerned about the use and application of pesticides in this province. It's a very easy thing to reverse the wording, Mr. Chairman, to protect those appellants. After all, we're talking about the citizens of this province, the people who vote for you and me, the people who give us the mandate to govern the province and to legislate on their behalf. What we're saying is yes, you have the right to appeal, but whatever it is that's going on can go on anyway and the appeal can simply be academic, just a formality, just a waste of time and money, just another exercise, just another way of screwing the process of public involvement.

When we discussed this in the first Minister of Environment's office, the present Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen), the minister's staff said: "Well, we don't want anything like that to happen which could stop the ministry from doing what it wants to do." That's the same attitude that prevails on the part of this minister. This act gives the ministry the right to plough ahead regardless, no matter what they're doing and no matter what the public wants them to do or not to do. By simply rewording this, the public and the appellants of this province are given a protection that the minister doesn't want them to have.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Chairman, let's reflect on what happens under section 22, which is a pollution abatement order. Where the director issues a pollution abatement order to tell someone to stop discharging a toxic chemical and the person to whom that order is issued appeals, and they are allowed to continue to discharge.... It can cut both ways. What are we going to do if someone is under order from the director to cease and desist, and is allowed to continue to do it while he's under appeal? Of course there is a discretionary thing in here, because the director in that case would refuse to allow them to do it while it was under appeal.

Your argument can go both ways. You can have an appeal.... We can make an order to stop somebody from doing something, to which there can be an appeal, and they can continue doing it without this section. So this section is necessary to do that; of course the thing can go the other way as well.

MR. SKELLY: What are we staying here? The order abates the pollution, so that solves the problem.

HON. MR. ROGERS: But if he appeals he can keep polluting.

MR. SKELLY: No, the appeal doesn't eliminate the stay or the abatement order. That's the problem. If an abatement order has been issued and is in effect, then by simply appealing you don't stop the effect of the abatement order. The one thing you do allow under this section is that if somebody is polluting and somebody does appeal, or somebody is being issued a permit which people see as dangerous to the environment, that permit will continue in operation even though the appeal is taking place. It makes the citizen appeal procedure simply academic. It's great if you have an abatement order; this doesn't affect the abatement order, because the order stays in effect. But if the citizens appeal something that's happening and the minister hasn't imposed an abatement order, then it's a problem.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I think it's about time the minister pulled this bill and took it back where the first one went. This is ridiculous. He stands up here and tells us this is what it's going to do. It says very clearly that the appeal does not operate as a stay. If you've got an order in place it stays there. If you got a permit issued, it stays there. You can appeal until you're blue in the face; you can spend your money and you can spend the taxpayers' money appealing, and whatever it is goes right ahead. If it's an order to stop polluting, that's there. On the other hand, if it's a permit to spray, that spraying goes right on, because it doesn't affect those existing orders. It doesn't act as a stay. Any appeal should automatically ensure that whatever you're appealing stops until the decision is made. That's the whole purpose of an appeal. The minister gets up and says this is just worded to do that. It's worded exactly the opposite. He can turn the thing right around and, as my colleague suggested, just say that an appeal operates as a stay, and then go on to say that an appeal taken under this act operates as a stay or suspends the operation of the decision being appealed, unless otherwise ordered by the board the appeal is being taken against; or, if the minister wants to take it in his own hands, let him do so.

I've written and asked him — it's a rush deal — to stay the spraying along the two railway tracks in my constituency, that go along two bodies of drinking water, until the appeals have been heard. By the time he answers and those appeals are heard, I think the spraying is going to be done. This is the kind of thing we're concerned about. We're also concerned that if an order is issued against a company that's polluting, they can't just simply appeal and keep on polluting. That's what this section does.

HON. MR. ROGERS: I disagree. I think this section allows either the board or the director to allow the offensive item to stop happening.

Sections 29 to 32 inclusive approved.

On section 33.

MR. SKELLY: I've made the statement on one or two occasions that the administration of pollution control in this province is something that should be required to pay for itself, rather than be subsidized by the taxpayers. This year it's going to cost roughly $7.5 million of taxpayers' money to support an administration which licenses pollution in the province. It was interesting that when I made that statement at the B.C. Wildlife Federation meeting a few weeks ago the minister's staff responded by saying: "The new act is going to change that and incorporate a section which allows us to charge fees for pollution control permits." But, of course, that was in the old act too, under "Fees and regulations" section 23. It says: "The Lieutenant Governor in Council may (a) establish a tariff of fees and charges payable in respect of applications, permits and other things applied for or issued under this Act or a former Act."

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.)

Essentially we can see there's no change, but we hoped here might be a change in the intention of the minister to

[ Page 8379 ]

make this a pay-as-you-go administration. Rather than have the taxpayers of the province of B.C. subsidize pollution, as they have been doing every year under the Pollution Control Act, we hoped that the minister's intention had changed and the roughly $7.5 million it costs the taxpayers of this province to subsidize pollution would now be borne by those who apply for and use pollution control permits. The monitoring and administration of these permits should be paid for by those who derive the benefit from them.

HON. MR. ROGERS: It is our intention to do that. You read out the very section and reason we couldn't do it before: because it's only on application, but not on a continuation. We had a legal opinion saying that we couldn't do it. This section will allow us to do so. It is our intention to charge a fee for service which would repay the Crown for the costs of administering these various permits.

Section 33 approved.

On section 34.

MRS. WALLACE: I wonder if the minister has consulted the Minister of Finance on this section. I notice that there are no minimum fines.

HON. MR. ROGERS: No, these would have been consulted on with the Attorney-General's ministry.

Sections 34 to 50 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Bill 52, Waste Management Act, reported complete with amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL
(continued)

On vote 10: minister's office, $149,981.

MR. MACDONALD: I just have a short question to the Attorney-General. He knows Mr. Guy Faint, and he knows about the PNE and the trust case. Will the Attorney-General be helping Mr. Faint to bring that matter to court for a declaratory judgment — not an injunction — so that there will be a court determination of the terms of the trust? From that point we can go on and create a PNE that is not the commercial honky-tonk we have at the present time.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Perhaps the member would assist me by advising whether or not he has seen my letter to Mr. Faint. The second member from Vancouver East indicates that he has. We considered the prospect of posing a reference to either the supreme court or the court of appeal under the Constitutional Question Act, under which we can refer any matter to the court for a decision. My letter to Mr. Faint makes it clear that the best opinion we have of what has taken place is in fact contrary to the terms of the trust under which the property was conveyed by the province to the city of Vancouver.

I believe that it would be in the best interests of the future of the PNE, the city of Vancouver and the use of this property if the committee studies which are presently being undertaken — one under the auspices of the Provincial Secretary and another under the auspices of the city of Vancouver — could be allowed to continue and be completed, following which we will have recommendations with regard to the future of the PNE and the future of that property. At that time it would be appropriate for the city of Vancouver and the provincial government to consider what legislative action should be taken to rectify the alleged breach of trust and to chart the future use of the property and the future of the PNE at the same time. The existence of a declaratory judgment by itself does not advance the proper concerns of Mr. Faint and would merely create a very serious problem for the continuance of tie PNE under its present mode of operation until such time as some further committee study was undertaken.

In the final analysis there has to be an examination of the PNE and the use of that property. The city has offered what seems to me to be a very simplistic solution to the problem, which is simply passing legislation which would wipe out any prospect of there being a breach of the trust. But the question still remains of the extent to which the province is prepared to allow that property to be used for purposes which the city itself may design — with or without the PNE. I believe the studies that are ongoing will give the people of the city of Vancouver an opportunity to express their views with respect to the two issues: one, the use of the property, and the other, the future of the PNE. Then legislative action can be taken which will resolve the issue properly raised by Mr. Faint and provide for the future use of the property. Could the member indicate what value he sees in a simple declaratory judgment?

MR. MACDONALD: Well, Mr. Chairman, I'll be brief, but the advantage of the declaratory judgment is to light a fire under the government, the opposition, myself and everybody interested in that question, so that if the committee does not come forward with fairly immediate proposals, then that recourse should be had. The matter should be referred to court, and it should be referred to court with the support of the Attorney's-General department. Admittedly it's a social and environmental more than a legal question, but the law is there to make sure that action is taken so that time doesn't drift by year after year with nothing being done.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, if that's the purpose of the member's suggestion then may I say to him that it is my position that if these two committee studies are not carried out expeditiously. then some other action is appropriate, and I think indeed it is incumbent upon the Attorney-General in the public interest to ensure that the appropriate

[ Page 8380 ]

action is taken. There is no indication, however, that the work of either of these committees is being unnecessarily delayed.

One concern I have is whether or not the work of these two committees is being adequately publicized so that the people of the city of Vancouver may make representations to those committees to ensure that their recommendations will reflect what the people of the city of Vancouver, and particularly the people who live in the vicinity of Hastings Park, believe should be the proper use of that property. Anyone who reads the original trusts which were imposed upon the property will clearly recognize that to some considerable extent the people of that section of the city of Vancouver have been denied the legitimate use of the property. Therefore, in the recommendations which are to come forward, these legitimate interests must be recognized and preserved.

MR. LORIMER: Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the staff of the ministry for the cooperation that I received during the past year on a number of problems involving constituents. Many have not been resolved yet, but I'm sure that in time most of them will come to some solution. I want to thank them for the cooperation received, and as a result of my remarks I hope the cooperation will continue for another year.

It might be surprising to the minister that I want to spend a few minutes talking about Oakalla. As a result of activities by the ministry in the past two years, secret studies were held as to the feasibility of building new facilities — maximum security jails for both men and women — on the Oakalla site. This matter became known to the general public of Burnaby through the Solicitor-General, Mr. Kaplan, around the end of last year. As a result of this and the anger and anxiety of a great number of people in Burnaby, a committee was set up, the Oakalla Must Go committee. There are virtually hundreds of members determined once and for all to make sure that.... Many administrations, many Attorneys-General have promised that Oakalla would be phased out over a few years. I have spoken many times in this House with reference to these promises, and they've been carried on for a great number of years. The intention may be to have it phased out or to build smaller units or to make larger units in that facility. The committee held a meeting in which they regretted the failure of the Attorney-General to be able to be there — as he said, due to other commitments. I might say that his Mr. Robinson, the supervisor of jails or whatever his title is, performed very well and certainly, in the words of the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan), didn't disgrace himself in any way. He performed well and answered the questions as best he could, given that he is a civil servant in the Ministry of Attorney-General. But the case is still here. There have been no assurances by the minister that new maximum-security facilities will not be placed on the present Oakalla lands. There was a statement from the minister, which was appreciated, that he was looking elsewhere for facilities. Oakalla has been in Burnaby for some 70 years. At the time it was built, of course, it was out in the country. Now it's in a densely populated residential area.

Another problem here, if my information is correct, is that millions of dollars are being spent on capital improvements on that particular site. New fire escapes have been constructed, and new security doors were installed very recently. I am told that these add up to a substantial amount of money, for a facility that is going to be phased out in the immediate future. It seems to me a great waste indeed to spend this kind of money on Oakalla. No one is opposed to fire escapes in a prison, but presumably the method has proven satisfactory for over 75 years, so I would like the Attorney-General to explain the reason for the new facilities and fire escapes.

The number of escapes from Oakalla is certainly increasing at an alarming rate. You have to commit a crime or appear to commit a crime to get in there, but there's no problem in getting out. It's one of the few places that it's easier to get out of than into. People escape as regularly as clockwork. The other night at around 1 a.m. or 2 a.m. a helicopter was going up one street with its light shining back and forth. That happened just last week. In the same week, another person escaped. Police cars were all over the area, stopping cars to see whether or not the person who had walked out was a passenger in one of the vehicles. This would be funny if it weren't so serious, being in the centre of an urban centre, and I suggest to the minister that the thing has to go. Wardens fire shots at escaping prisoners who don't walk out the front door but go over a fence. They probably aren't aiming at the prisoner, but the citizens across the street all have to dive for shelter as the bullets go by. That sort of thing is not good enough in the centre of a city, and I want to impress upon the Attorney-General that it's really not the place for a maximum security facility.

The people in Burnaby don't expect the jail to disappear overnight, but they do want a commitment from this government that the facility is to be phased out, and no new multimillion-dollar structures to house maximum- security prisoners will be built in that area, right in the centre of the city of Burnaby. Burnaby has done its duty with reference to prisoners. They've had this facility for 75 years. The New Haven school, the Willingdon school and a variety of different centres are in the constituency of Burnaby-Willingdon. We want to get rid of Oakalla, and we want it out at the earliest possible time. We don't want to see any new construction going on in the Oakalla lands.

I want to deal with another matter, and that is the payment of $100,000 to the Olson family and the statements made by the Attorney-General at the time. I'm not going to deal with the pros or cons of the payment of this money. I'm not in agreement with the Attorney-General, but I can see his thinking in approving, so I'm not going to deal with that aspect of the matter. What I'm going to deal with is his questioning by the press and his answers, which I heard on the radio at the time.

I'm reading from a clipping from the Vancouver Sun dated Friday, January 15, which I believe to be correct. The question to the Attorney-General was: "Can you tell us at this point whether you authorized any payment to Mr. Olson for locating bodies?" The Attorney-General is said to have answered: "No, I didn't." Question: "Or to his relatives?" Again the Attorney-General said: "I didn't make any authorization to pay Mr. Olson for anything." The next question: "Was any money ever paid to him?" The Attorney-General: "I have no knowledge of what money they paid to him." Question: "I understand the money went into a trust fund." The Attorney-General asked: "For Mr. Olson?" Questioner: "Or his family." The Attorney-General answered: "Your information is different than mine. As I said, I'll make a full statement with respect to this and aspects of the investigation and trial in the next couple of days."

I suggest that he didn't want to answer the questions. This is the head of the justice system in our province. If he didn't want to answer the questions, I suggest that he could have

[ Page 8381 ]

said "no comment" or that he'd answer them in two days, or whatever. I suggest that in this case the Attorney-General was trying to be cute in his replies — said he was not a party to the agreement. If he classes himself as a non-party by not signing the actual documents, that may be technically true. But it's not true in the full sense of the question that was being asked, and I suggest that the Attorney-General understood what the questioner was referring to.

At a later date the Attorney-General said: "It's not a moral question at all, but the agreement was not with the Attorney-General of British Columbia and I was no signatory. However, to put the record straight, I knew that the proposal was being made and I gave my approbation to such a move." So in actual fact — a few days after he admitted that he did know about the payment of the money — it had been approved by him. Yet in the first interview he had denied knowledge of any payments made.

I would like the Attorney-General to advise whether or not he has a copy of the agreement, due to the fact that it was public money that was expended, and whether that agreement will be tabled in this House so that the public can see the terms under which the funds were paid over for the benefit and direction of Olson. In my opinion, the public deserves to know the terms of the agreement when we're talking about public funds.

With reference to the police investigation, I would ask the Attorney-General to assure the House — as he is the one who has the information that we don't have — that he's satisfied with the efforts made and the investigation as a whole in this case. If he's not satisfied, maybe he could tell the House what steps he intends to take in order that he will be satisfied with such operations in the future.

Those are two or three questions I've asked the Attorney-General, and I hope that he is in a position to give an answer.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, the member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Lorimer) raised for discussion, as did his colleague the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown), the matter of the future of Oakalla, the Lower Mainland Regional Correctional Institute, and the Lakeside Correctional Centre for Women. The member is accurate when he says that successive governments going back two decades or maybe even longer have indicated their intention to remove these premises and free that municipality of the continued presence of Oakalla, old and decrepit as it is.

I might at this juncture advise you, Mr. Chairman, that I've had no report with respect to any recent escape in which helicopters were used at night for the purposes of searching. I think Mr. Hoffman was the more recent highly publicized escapee who was recaptured. In 1978-79 there were 24 escapes, in 1979-80 there were 15, in 1980-81 there were 23, and in 1981-82 there were 20. We attribute this number of escapes to the nature of the facilities. That is but one of the reasons that we wish to have new correctional facilities, wherever they may be located in the lower mainland.

My colleague the Minister of Intergovernment Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom), when he was the Attorney-General, identified the need for improved and expanded correctional facilities for the lower mainland region, and as a consequence a three-phase program was developed. The first was the construction of a remand centre — a pre-trial services centre — in the city of Vancouver, which will open in January 1983. The second phase was to replace the women's facility and build a 150-bed men's sentence facility and a further 150-bed remand centre. Only two of those were ever considered for the Oakalla site. The remand centre was to be located outside the municipality of Burnaby. That left us with the prospect of developing and building a new 150-bed men's sentence unit and a new women's unit of about 120 beds on the Oakalla site. We also identified the need for a further 150-bed men's sentence facility someplace else in the lower mainland region, preferably south of the Fraser River.

At the same time, in respect of phase two and phase three, which embody all five of those new facilities, extensive studies were undertaken with regard to modern correctional institutions. Using Oakalla as a site, we had preliminary sketches drawn of what such a facility would look like if it were situated on ground which slopes as Oakalla does, because we wanted to see what it would look like. This became public — and I have no objection to that — and the mayor and the members of his council in Burnaby and the citizens indicated their continuing resistance to the use of those lands for any correctional purposes. We responded to those concerns and are still responding to them. This government, like previous governments, is prepared to phase out Oakalla, but to do so we have to find locations for the second remand centre, for the women's institutions and for the two 150-bed sentence facilities for men. So we have to have four additional sites, and until we have those sites and can construct the facilities on those sites, we are obliged to continue to use the present facilities in Oakalla.

We have undertaken an extensive search in the lower mainland region to identify locations for facilities. To indicate that this has gone on seriously, I can tell the members who are properly concerned about this matter that I believe we have identified two locations on which we have tentative permission to plan; now we are looking for two more. When I'm able to identify those other two sites, which are for the women's facility and one 150-bed unit for sentenced males, and when I'm satisfied that the mayor and council of the municipalities in which they might be located are prepared to permit us to proceed with the planning of such developments, I'll be only too happy to announce to the mayor and council and the citizens of Burnaby the date on which Oakalla will be phased out. We know that to build these facilities, provided there are no financial problems in making moneys available for that purpose. Is a very expensive proposition. Just so that you'll know the nature of the problem, the total cost of the facilities required to replace Oakalla is $135 million.

At any rate, we have two sites, and planning is now underway with respect to both. If we can locate two additional sites and can identify when construction will commence, we can forecast with reasonable accuracy when the construction period will end, which, if everything goes well, will be sometime in 1986. I would then be happy to sit down with the mayor and council of Burnaby and make a public statement to them and to the citizens of Burnaby, identifying almost to the day when we will march out of Oakalla. This is being done with the full recognition that the people of Burnaby would like us to go. but I must offer this bit of realism if I am not able to find other locations for the women's facility and the 150-bed men's sentence facility. The government owns the land. If the government is to achieve its objective, it may have to go to the municipality of Burnaby and insist upon being allowed to build on the Oakalla site, or elsewhere in the municipality. As the member has pointed out, we have the facilities at New Haven. which would accommodate one of our units. leaving us to find only one other site. Therefore, at

[ Page 8382 ]

this time I cannot say that we have found locations and can discard any consideration of the Oakalla site, but we're making every possible effort to meet this objective.

The new facilities that are being designed will, we are satisfied, be essentially escape-proof. They will be of the type presently under construction at Wilkinson Road, where the building itself is its own security perimeter. With one means of ingress and egress, we believe we can effectively control some of the problems that cause escapes at Oakalla.

You mentioned the matter of the money that is being spent. Yes, moneys are being expended, but I wish to make it abundantly clear that it is only to meet current health and fire safety standards. Even if we had the locations today and could move from Oakalla, it would probably be four years before we could vacate those premises. The fire marshal and the health inspectors have indicated that we must immediately make renovations to our existing facilities in order to meet current fire and health standards. We can't have the number of inmates presently in Oakalla if we can't exit them from those buildings in the event of fire. That's about the situation we're in today. Those facilities are so old, so antiquated, and the standards so low, that we are placing all those inmates in serious jeopardy.

I can only assure the members, as I have before, that we are serious in this endeavour. I look forward to the early opportunity of announcing success in this search for additional sites. As I say, I only need two.

One of the problems that face me in this respect is that while the citizens of Burnaby quite properly have formed the "get out of Oakalla" committee, the mayor and council have gone a step farther. It's not "get out of Oakalla;" it's "get out of Burnaby." So that entire municipality, if we were to meet the wishes of the mayor and council, must be excluded from our consideration. There are some sites in Burnaby that might accommodate it without offence to the citizens, but at the moment we are excluded from consideration of those. I have indicated to the mayor of Burnaby that we are seeking to accommodate his extreme wishes and, until we have exhausted that effort, I don't want to go back to the mayor of Burnaby and say, "I would like you to be more flexible in the approach that you are taking," because we would like to accommodate Burnaby if we possibly can.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I want to make something else clear, as I have to the member, so that other members from Burnaby will not be confused. When we construct the new women's unit, we will, under agreement with the federal government, be prepared to take a maximum of 42 federal prisoners who are from British Columbia. Currently these women are sent to Kingston. We think it appropriate to construct facilities where they can be kept in British Columbia. The federal government will contribute to the cost of the facility, which will provide the security and the programs that the federal institution demands. But this will not be in the facilities that are presently in existence in Burnaby. There was some concern about this, and I wish to make it clear that not until we build a new women's facility will this federal-provincial shared program become operative.

Olson. What the member read with respect to the payment for Olson is substantially accurate, although it's incomplete. Let me hasten to say to the member that within a matter of three hours from the time that I was interviewed in the hallway of this building with respect to that matter, I held a press conference in the city of Vancouver which went on for some 45 or 50 minutes and in which there was full and complete explanation of all matters associated with my authorization of the payment. I stand by what I said in answer to those questions at that first moment. No payment was made to Olson and no payment was authorized to be made to Olson. The member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Lorimer) is a lawyer, and I ask him to think very carefully about the significance of my answer in this respect. The payment was made to a lawyer who was representing Mrs. Olson, and the money was paid entirely for her benefit and the benefit of her child.

If the member will reflect for a moment as to the essential distinction between those two matters from a legal point of view, he will recognize why I took that position from the outset and why I maintain it today. I think that if other members of the House or members of the public do not understand that essential difference, they may, in the fullness of time, by reason of other actions which will be taken, recognize the reason that I must maintain that narrow, legalistic approach to this particular transaction.

The police investigation. I have had the opportunity over the past several months to be briefed by the RCMP, with members of the ministry, in respect to all aspects of this particular criminal activity, the performance of the RCMP throughout, and that of the other police forces which were involved. I am fully satisfied that the police forces involved in the identification and apprehension of this criminal discharged themselves with distinction. It is always possible with the benefit of hindsight to suggest that some other things might have been done at a particular time which may have changed the outcome. It is also possible with the benefit of hindsight to recognize that, indeed, if some different things had not been done on some other days, quite a different result would have been obtained, which might have in fact been worse than the case was. This matter was examined carefully by Dr. Askey in the course of his inquiry into the matter. I think his report independently and fairly discloses what occurred.

This is not to say, however, that through the course of this examination we haven't identified some structural changes which need to be made with respect to the conduct of police forces, both the RCMP and other municipal forces — their interrelationship when dealing with a major crime, particularly in the metropolitan area. We have, as a consequence, with the RCMP, recognized how their serious crime structure should be altered, and this has been done under the command of Deputy Commissioner Venner. Significant changes have been made in the way in which major crimes are reported, analyzed, assessed and reported back to the various detachments. It is to ensure that there will be localized analysis and assessment of crimes occurring in a number of detachment areas throughout the metropolitan and lower mainland areas. They are moving to a computerized program that will enable them to identify more clearly the elements of crime that are taking place in all of British Columbia and will make available to other police forces with whom they must work and cooperate in crimes of this nature the kind of information which, if readily available, will lead to the earliest possible apprehension of criminals.

The investigation was a wide-ranging one, employing hundreds of officers. In the final analysis, having reviewed all

[ Page 8383 ]

aspects of it, I'm satisfied that the apprehension of the perpetrator of these crimes took place at the earliest opportunity.

MR. LORIMER: I did state in my remarks that technically I thought your answer might have been correct with reference to the payment of the fund money. The difficulty that I have with this is that technically the money was paid into a trust account — that's one thing — but indirectly it was paid to Olson, due to the fact that he had to approve the method of payment before he'd give the information with reference to the location of bodies. I still suggest to the Attorney-General that the answers given in that first interview were certainly made in a very narrow context. It would be my wish that the Attorney-General might have answered those questions in a different manner or not answered them at all. That's all I have to say.

MR. REE: A number of people on the North Shore, in my constituency, have become very concerned recently. We have many virtues on the North Shore, but recently we have developed the distasteful distinction of having established on the main street a Red Hot Video Shop, which has a reputation at the moment of distributing what I would call sick-type video films for viewing — either renting or selling them to the public. I don't wish to appear to be a prude, but from what I've had explained to me about some of the depictions in these video films, I think they can only be directed to a very sick type of individual and distributed by people who are sick in mind.

These tapes are very explicit of sexual and violent acts that would be described as very hard-core pornography. The scenes that people may watch can only incite those with weaker minds to conduct violent actions. I don't know whether Mr. Olson or the man in the recent incident up around Duncan might have been subjected to viewing some of these types of tapes. I think that's what this hard-core pornography can lead to. I don't think any community needs to be subjected to this.

Last evening a concerned group appeared before the council of the city of North Vancouver about their concerns. The council's action — I don't know if they were responsible in not taking any action — is to turn the responsibility over to the provincial government. They passed certain resolutions directed towards the Attorney-General. I'm wondering if the Attorney-General has received notice of these resolutions at this time and what action we might be able to anticipate from his office. I understand North Vancouver is not the only community that has this establishment. I understand there's also one in Victoria and others in other parts of the province.

They seem to be established under some sort of loophole in federal legislation which allows the distribution of tapes or copies of this sort of hard-core pornography, but not of originals. I don't think we need to have it in our province. Because of the immunity of the Red Hot Video outfit in North Vancouver, I understand there are now two or three other such establishments within the same community. I think that if responsible action is not taken quickly on this, we'll see a great proliferation of them throughout the province. So. Mr. Chairman — through you to the Attorney-General — I would like to have some information as to what the position of his office might be with respect to these shops.

I have another question I'd like to put to the Attorney-General, and that is about the status of the courthouse in North Vancouver, which I understand has been approved, as far as finance is concerned, by the Treasury Board. Approximately two years ago the court facilities were moved out of the police station in North Vancouver. They are in a temporary, trailer type of accommodation and are starting to burst at the seams. Possibly the Attorney-General could tell us when we might expect someone to put a shovel into the ground and start the actual construction of the facility which is planned.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: With respect to the North Vancouver courthouse, it is my understanding that tenders have been called for that construction. We expect it to commence next month — in the month of July, just a matter of a few weeks. So the shovel will go in the ground then, Mr. Member.

Video porn. I share the concern expressed by the member with respect to what is emerging as another major social problem in our midst. I don't know what it is about modern communications technology, but it certainly attracts people who apparently receive their enjoyment from some of the baser kinds of human practice. The obscenity provisions of the Criminal Code present a major problem with respect to prosecutions in this area, but we have guidelines in this ministry which have heretofore served admirably well. The guidelines are as follows, and they are based, we think, upon an appropriate division of the categories into which pornographic material may fall.

First of all, there is what is called hard-core porn. This is material which deals with explicit sex acts coupled with violence. It deals with bestiality and any pornographic exhibition involving children. These are prohibited, in our view, under the Code. If we receive a complaint from the purchaser of any video cassette from any establishment whatsoever that the video cassette contains this kind of material, the police will seize the material — indeed the operator of the store may find all of the material seized — and a prosecution will be undertaken. I am aware that on the North Shore a number of groups have taken the opportunity, to view some of the material sold in some of these shops, and I can only say to them that if they hold the view that it falls within the category of hard-core, if they would communicate with their local law enforcement agency, we will ensure that the guidelines are followed.

With respect to other obscene material which doesn't fall in the classification of hard-core, we are prepared to permit them to be sold in premises to which no juveniles are admitted. There can be no sale to juveniles and they are not available to public view. There can be no displays in windows, etc.

The third category is what is called soft-core; it is matter which is not pornographic but which may be deemed to be obscene. This will result in specific circumstances in seizures; no juvenile sales are permitted.

With the emergence of these so-called adult entertainment stores and the proliferation of this kind of material, the guidelines that I have just delivered to the committee are under examination in the light of actions which can be taken in this province and some prosecutions which are taking place in other jurisdictions. If it is necessary in order to achieve what I consider to be the appropriate result. which is the limitation of the marketing of this material, those guidelines will be made more stringent.

Not only is this a problem to the community, to adults and young people who may be impressionable when viewing this kind of material. but there is another concern which the authorities have, and that is that major crime is involving

[ Page 8384 ]

itself in the production and distribution of this material. While the merchant in your local community may not himself be directly involved in major crime, he is nonetheless through his operation a contributor to it. The Combined Law Enforcement Unit is doing an intensive study with regard to organized crime's involvement in the production and distribution of video cassettes. Out of this study and analysis we will also be moving to provide for stricter enforcement of this law.

MR. REE: Mr. Chairman, I thank the Attorney-General for his assurances that if hard-core videotapes or material are found in these premises appropriate charges will be laid and proceeded with. I understand that in North Vancouver there were two specific films which the Crown prosecutor did find to be hard-core pornography, and certainly contrary to the guidelines issued by the Attorney-General's office. I also understand that the only, shall we say, penalty for the distribution of such films was that the store has been asked to remove them from the shelves, and no action has been taken against the store because of the backup of prosecutions on the North Shore. Possibly we could have assurances from the Attorney-General that if any further tapes that are contrary to his guidelines are obtained from these outlets on the North Shore — or anywhere in the province, for that matter — prosecution will be proceeded with expeditiously.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, not only will I give you that assurance with regard to future matters, but I will have this particular incident to which you refer looked into immediately. There's no reason why, if the hard-core guideline prohibition has been breached in this particular case, there won't be a prosecution.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to address the Attorney-General in his role as the cabinet minister responsible for the cannery at Port Simpson. That cannery, started as a cooperative, is called the Pacific North Coast Native Cooperative. I'd like to ask the Attorney-General if he would bring this Legislature and the public up to date on the present status of the cannery in Port Simpson. Who's running it? How did it come about? In fact, I would like the Attorney-General, if he would, to take us back through his experience from 1976, or late 1975, and chronologically take us through the events of what's happened to that cannery from the time this minister became the minister responsible, up to the present and current status of that cannery. I don't know whether the minister would need some time to get that explanation for the House. It's an explanation that I and the directors and the members of the Pacific North Coast Native Cooperative feel should be there.

A resolution was passed at a meeting held on November 28, 1981, of the membership and the directors of the Pacific North Coast Native Cooperative. I believe the meeting was legally constituted; they followed the act that would make it a legal meeting. I believe that the resolution was in accordance with the Cooperative Association Act and meets all the rules and regulations. That resolution asks that this government institute an inquiry through the Inquiry Act to take a look at the co-op, not only going back to when this government came into office but going back to when the government I belong to put together the cannery.

I feel that it's an inquiry that should take place. Everyone is in the dark — or at least anyone I know is in the dark. As the member for the area, I'm in the dark as to what's going on. Over the past three years I've tried to get to the bottom of it by arranging a meeting with the Attorney-General and members of the original cooperative. For one reason or another, that meeting has not taken place.

The public has put a lot of dollars into that cannery. I think the time has come for the taxpayer to know how those dollars were spent and where we're going. What is the future of the cannery of Port Simpson? Under what management?

In 1976 a management committee was put together by a special resolution of the cooperative and the government. It was my understanding that that was to be a two-year term and then it would be reviewed and a decision would be made as to whether that cannery would be turned back to the co-op to be managed by the board of directors duly elected by the co-op members. That has not taken place.

There were two parts to that agreement. Part two was called the management agreement duties of the management committee. The management committee would report to the directors of the cooperative. That, to my understanding, has never taken place. There has been no reporting from the management committee to the cooperative or the directors of that cooperative.

At this point I'd like to give the minister the opportunity to tell me how he would like to handle this, in this House and possibly outside of the House. I really believe that we should have a public inquiry. Let the chips fall where they may. I don't know of anything that my government or the present government has to be ashamed of. I think that we all handled ourselves well in regard to that cannery. But there are a great many questions that have to be answered, and I'd just like to ask the Attorney-General to make an initial comment now.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The question raised by the member for Prince Rupert is an appropriate one. With regard to the best way of handling it, I certainly can't handle it in the time available to me this afternoon, and I'm not certain, without some extensive material being available to me, that I could deal with it in the course of these estimates. What I would be prepared to do is to have a chronological report prepared of what has occurred since 1976 and the institution of the management committee, and either table it in this House for further consideration or deliver it to the member, as may be appropriate. I'm in the hands of the members so far as this is concerned.

As the member for Prince Rupert has said, it's not a question of whether any government has failed in the discharge of its responsibilities. It has been a very, very difficult operation, one which has been preserved because of the efforts of a relatively few people who have dedicated themselves to attempting to sustain the cannery operation at Port Simpson.

Very briefly, I can say that up until the spring of 1979 the Pacific North Coast Native Co-op did maintain its operation and had a board of directors who were actively involved in the operation of the cannery, with whom the management committee was able to have — and did have — regular communication and meetings. In that spring, however, the management committee identified some very serious operational problems with respect to the cannery, and particularly so far as the fishermen were concerned. The cannery had unfortunately never been well supported by the fishermen who were members of that co-op.

[ Page 8385 ]

In 1979, in order to sustain its operation, an arrangement was made with the central native co-op to jointly manage that Port Simpson facility and share fish catches that would be available either in the north or in the south. Unfortunately, while there was a great deal of enthusiasm for such an arrangement, within a matter of not much more than a week after the operational agreement became operative, the fishermen from the Port Simpson cannery again failed in the discharge of their responsibilities. The central native co-op had to lay down some very specific rules with respect to the delivery of fish which were caught, and that was breached. The central native co-op organization fairly well threw up its hands and said: "We don't want anything to do with it." But they did struggle through the 1979 season.

When it came to the 1980 season, it was clear that the Pacific North Coast Native Co-op was virtually defunct, but the people of Port Simpson and a few of the fishermen didn't wish to lose the opportunity and they formed the Port Simpson Native Co-op. They came to the management committee and said: "We've got a choice. If you expect the old organization to carry on its operation, nothing is going to happen. But we would be prepared to do what we can to work out a new operating base between shore workers and fishermen. We will see if we can raise some money to keep the cannery operating." They were successful through 1980 and again through 1981. The first year they didn't make any money; in fact, they lost money. The second year, 1981, we understand that they made a little money on their salmon operation. Now they were paying the bare minimum for the use of the facilities. The reason the management committee was prepared to accommodate such an arrangement was that they didn't want the cannery to die, because it was providing a very significant employment opportunity for the Indians of Port Simpson and for those fishermen who were prepared to support the cooperative principle. They survived principally on being able to custom-can. In 1981 there was a large amount of fish available from Alaska for the custom-canning process, and they did very well. They handled more fish than they've handled in any one year of their operation.

This year the Port Simpson co-op attempted to make an extended agreement with the management committee for the continued operation of the cannery. I'm advised they have renewed the arrangement for one further year to see just how this new co-op operation is working out.

In October and November 1981 there was an attempt on the part of some of the members of the original co-op to revive the cooperative. The member refers to a resolution which was passed at a meeting. I'm advised that there was not the quorum that is required under the co-op rules at such a meeting. There were two attempts to hold a meeting in Prince Rupert for the purpose of revitalizing the co-op and reviving interest it. The information I have is that the original co-op is operationally defunct in that it is not able to develop the kind of relationship it needs with the shoreworkers and the fishermen in order to make the cannery work. It has not fulfilled its requirements under the Cooperative Association Act with regard to its legal status, and it has no money.

In those circumstances, the government at the moment is in some quandary as to where we head next. We hope that the Port Simpson cannery can prove itself this year as it did last year as being capable of operating and that they can enlist the continued support of more fishermen. The shoreworkers are no problem, because they're anxious to gain the livelihood that is possible from the cannery. If the government can identify this as an opportunity to maintain that facility, it will be my pleasure to recommend that they give what assistance they can. It is, I think, due to the Indians at Port Simpson and a relatively few fishermen that that operation has been able to continue as long as it has, and we want to ensure that this is the case.

Whether there should be a public inquiry or whether a committee of this House should examine it, I'm not certain at the moment. But I'm satisfied that neither this government nor the previous government has anything to apologize for with respect to the efforts that have been made to provide an employment opportunity and a fishing opportunity to the natives in that area. The public had made a very major contribution in dollars up until about three years ago. Since that time the people who were interested in the co-op and the cannery have largely been self-sustaining.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, the minister has undertaken to do a chronological outline of what's happened since 1976 to now — up to the current status. I'd like to ask the minister, because I believe there's an urgency.... I think the air has to be cleared soon, because there are a great many people in my constituency in the nine villages who really have no idea what's gone or and would very much would like to know what is going on, because the money was originally made available to all of those villages through the cooperative. I do think that they have a right to know. I also think that the only way they'll feel that they have all of the information they need is through a public inquiry. I think that's the only way they'll feel that the air is really fresh and that they'll know exactly what has gone on, what is going on and what the current status of it is.

I'd like to ask the minister if I could have some undertaking of whether the chronological report that he's undertaken to bring back to the House would be during this current session. Would that be enough time for the minister to draw it all together — say, in the next three weeks — so that it could be back here in the House and so I, other members of the House and the public could take a look at it?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I want to consider that deadline of three weeks. I would have to call upon the members of the management committee and the staff in the native programs branch to sit down with the information that's available and pull it together so that any report would be explicit and detailed enough so that the people who read it would recognize what had happened, what has taken place. I suppose this session will continue for another three or four weeks. I'll give instructions that a start be made on this report immediately, and we will make every effort to have it ready within the three-week period or before the House rises. If some difficulties were to intervene, I wouldn't want to be fixed with that deadline. It may be a sizeable amount of work to impose upon the management committee to set aside the other things they're doing and write the story of the last six years, but I'm prepared to instruct that it start forthwith.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, I have a number of questions to ask the Attorney-General, but I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed Mr. Davidson in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Williams moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:59 p.m.

[ Page 8386 ]

Appendix

AMENDMENTS TO BILLS

52 The Hon. C. S. Rogers to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 52) intituled Waste Management Act to amend as follows:

SECTION 17, by deleting subsection (5) and substituting the following:

"(5) A person affected by an order of a sewage control manager under this section may appeal the order under Part 5 in the same manner as if the order were a decision of the director, and Part 5 applies."

52 Mr. Skelly to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 52) intituled Waste Management Act to amend as follows:

SECTION 5A, to add: "No person shall transport special wastes unless he has a licence to do so issued under this Act and the regulations and after the public involvement procedure described in section 14A and the regulations."

SECTION 8, line 1, after "manager" and before "may" insert "subject to section 14A and the regulations".

SECTION 8, to add subsection (f):

"(f) require the permittee to recycle certain wastes, and to recover certain reusable resources, including energy potential from wastes".

SECTION 9 (1), line 1, after "manager" and before "may" insert "subject to section 14A and the regulations".

SECTION 11 (1), line 1, after "this section" insert "and section 14A".

SECTION 14A, to add the following section:

"Public involvement process

"No permit, order or approval shall be issued under section 4, section 5A, section 8, section 9, section 11, section 16 or section 17 (2) until a public involvement procedure has been completed which includes:

(1) sufficient public notice

(2) full public access to information

(3) a public hearing in accordance with the regulations."

SECTION 16, to delete subsection (2) and substitute:

"(2) Where a public involvement procedure has been followed in accordance with the procedure described in section 14A and the regulations respecting the preparation of a waste management plan, the minister may approve the plan subject to any changes and requirements he considers appropriate."

SECTION 16, to delete subsection (7) and to substitute the following:

" (7) Where a municipality is causing pollution a manager shall exercise, in relation to the municipality, the powers he may exercise in section 22 in relation to other persons."

SECTION 17, line 1, in subsection (1) to delete the words "The Lieutenant Governor in Council" and substitute "A Manager".

SECTION 17, to delete subsection (5) and to substitute:

"(5) Any person affected by an order of a sewage control manager may appeal the order in accordance with the provisions of section 26."

SECTION 17, line 1, in subsection (6) to delete "The Lieutenant Governor in Council" and substitute "A Manager".

SECTION 22, in subsection (5) to delete after "person" "does not include" and substitute "includes".