[ Page 8551 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Application by M&B to export unprocessed logs. Mr. King –– 8551

Imports of liner board from U.S. Mr. Skelly –– 8552

Mrs. Wallace

Tax increases. Mr. Stupich –– 8552

De-indexing of old-age pensions. Ms. Brown –– 8553

Government expense vouchers. Hon. Mr. Williams replies –– 8553

Tabling Documents

British Columbia Heritage Trust annual report, March 31, 1982

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 8553

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

On vote 32: ministers office (continued) –– 8553

Ms. Sanford

Mr. Kempf

Mr. Gabelmann

Mr. King

Mr. Nicolson

Mr. Lockstead

Mr. Skelly

On the amendment to vote 32 –– 8565

Division

On vote 33: resource and environment management –– 8565

Mr. Skelly

On the amendment to vote 33 –– 8566

Division

On vote 33: resource and environment management –– 8566

Division

On vote 34: emergency assistance –– 8566

Division

Petroleum And Natural Gas Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 56). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. McClelland)

On sections 5 to 8 –– 8567

Mr. D'Arcy

Division

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 53). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Williams)

On section 4 –– 8568

Ms. Brown

Hon. Mr. Nielsen

Mr. Cocke

Division

On Section 11 –– 8571

Mr. Cocke

Hon. Mr. Nielsen

Division

On Section 12 –– 8572

Mr. Gabelmann

Mr. Cocke

Appendix –– 8574

MONDAY, JULY 5, 1982

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, there is a group of people who have served our legislators over the years and have done such a very good job. I speak of the attendants to this House, under the auspices of the Sergeant-at-Arms. A former attendant, Mr. Charles Glauser, who has retired, is visiting in the gallery today, which is a different role for him. Also in the gallery today — in your gallery, sir — is his brother, who has been recently elected to the Saskatchewan government, Mr. Calvin Glauser. I would ask the House to welcome both brothers to our assembly today.

MR. HALL: I would like the House to join me and the member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Ree) in welcoming to the House and to the city of Victoria the delegates and their wives to the Fourth Annual Conference of Canadian Council ofPublic Accounts Chairmen.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, this conference started some four years ago under the leadership of Mr. Patrick Reid, MPP in Ontario. Mr. Reid and other members of public accounts committees across the country have continued to work in the name of public accounts. We're now at a stage where we're having conferences like this one, dealing with the public's accountability in the public purse. You'll be pleased to know, Mr. Speaker, that present in your galleries are representatives of all ten provinces and one territory. Had it not been for the budget presented last week, we would have had the chairman of the public accounts committee of Canada, and had it not been for a recent election in the Yukon Territory, we would have had their public accounts staff with us.

Further in this welcoming note to these delegates, I would like to advise you that last year's conference was attended by two delegates, one of whom has since become a Speaker of a House, and the other has become a Minister of Finance, which shows that when you become a chairman of a public accounts committee, your bad luck can really start.

MR. REE: I'd like to echo the welcome to the public accounts chairpeople by the second member for Surrey. I'd also like to make specific reference to two ladies in the gallery who are assisting the second member for Surrey and myself in hosting these people: Mrs. Jean Hall and my wife Cheri. I'd ask the House to welcome them.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: We have in the gallery today, for the first time this year, my daughter Jennifer and her friend from Powell River, Paula Stewart. I ask the House to join me in welcoming them.

MR. BARRETT: I ask the House to welcome today the darts champion of Kamloops, Freida Gordon.

Oral Questions

APPLICATION BY M&B TO
EXPORT UNPROCESSED LOGS

MR. KING: I have a question for the Minister of Forests. It's reported that MacMillan Bloedel is seeking permission to export 100,000 cubic metres of unprocessed Douglas fir to China. Has the minister received such an application; if so, has he approved that application?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The policy regarding the export of unmanufactured logs from British Columbia remains unchanged. Any logs from Crown land are subject to review by the log export advisory committee before such authorization can be given. I understand that the logs contemplated for export by MacMillan Bloedel are from taxation tree farm 19, which is fee simple land and not subject to export regulations.

MR. KING: In view of the fact that processing these Vancouver Island logs would keep 600 British Columbians employed for six weeks, has the minister decided to oppose any relaxation of the policy regarding the export of raw logs?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: There is no consideration whatsoever of relaxing the requirements for review before logs are exported. That procedure will carry on.

I would also point out that according to MacMillan Bloedel, the company which is contemplating export of the logs, there are no markets for the manufacture of the fir lumber that would be made from these logs. If government were to take action to prevent them from exporting logs, it would probably result in the laying off of some 500 loggers.

MR. KING: Has the minister held any discussions with the Chinese commercial consulate, or with any official of the Chinese government, to obtain sales of processed lumber from British Columbia instead of exporting jobs in the form of unprocessed logs?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I think the member is well aware that I visited China last fall, and since that time several delegations of Chinese involved in the forest sector have visited British Columbia. As is the case with trips to countries such as China, they always ask if they can buy logs from our country. Our answer is always no; we prefer to manufacture logs to create employment and industrial activity here in British Columbia. That has been the policy of this government, the previous government and governments in British Columbia for many decades, and will remain so.

MR. KING: If that is the case, can the minister explain why the export of raw logs increased this year over last year? Last year 42,800 cubic metres were exported from July to December, whereas this year 445,841 cubic metres of raw logs were exported from January 4 to June 17. Is that not a change in policy?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I don't know the source of the member's statistics and I would very much question the first number that he gave. I'll find that information and bring it back to the House.

[ Page 8552 ]

The policy remains unchanged. Any logs contemplated for export must first be reviewed by the export advisory committee, whose members are from the federal government, the provincial government, the industry and the IWA; only after approval of such committee is a request made for an export permit from this government. I would also say that a substantial surcharge is placed on any logs to be exported. So in lieu of the benefits created in British Columbia by manufacturing, there is a higher return to the province as well.

IMPORTS OF LINER BOARD FROM U.S.

MR. SKELLY: A question to the Minister of Forests. MacMillan Bloedel recently closed its liner board operations at Port Alberni, throwing more than 100 people out of work. MacMillan Bloedel's carton plants in the lower mainland are now importing their liner board requirements from M&B's Pinehill operation in Alabama. Has the minister contacted M&B to insist, where processing facilities are available in B.C., that B.C. resources be used in B.C. plants in order to protect B.C. jobs?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Indeed, MacMillan Bloedel has imported a minor amount of liner board from their United States operation. They did this because they could obtain it at a lower cost from Louisiana. In spite of having to overcome a 12 percent tariff barrier, they could still acquire that liner board at a much lower cost than from their former supplier, Eurocan Company in Kitimat.

MR. SKELLY: A supplementary to the Minister of Forests. Is the minister saying he's in favour of allowing a company which started in this province, and which expanded internationally using profits earned on this province's resources, to convert its operations in this province to a branch plant of its Alabama operation?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: No, I'm not saying that at all. What I'm saying is that we must not put artificial barriers into the free trade that exists between our country and the United States, and other trading nations of the world. If our industry is to survive in the long run, then it must be competitive in markets. In spite of the fact that there is a 12 percent impost on liner board coming into this country, they can still purchase it cheaper from their subsidiary operation in Louisiana. That should be a lesson to all of British Columbia that if we are to remain competitive, we must be competitive in the true sense and not expect to be protected by artificial barriers.

MR. SKELLY: Has the Minister of Forests estimated the amount of unemployment insurance and welfare costs that this province and the government of Canada have to pay in order to make M&B more competitive within its own operations? I'd also be interested in hearing from the minister how many people he is willing to see unemployed in this province in order to make M&B more competitive in its operations.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Like all members of this government, I do not like to see any unemployment in British Columbia. The marketplaces into which we trade are very competitive, and my position is that our industry must be allowed to be competitive and it must be able to compete in these markets. If we were to begin to do the types of things that that member suggests, the chances of retaliation by our trading partners in this world are tremendous, and in the long term it would be very detrimental to the industry in British Columbia.

MRS. WALLACE: I have a further question to the Minister of Forests. When Noranda took over MacMillan Bloedel they advised that they would be investing some $500 million in upgrading plant here in British Columbia. When the Chemainus mill closed, a MacMillan Bloedel spokesperson said that the portion of money that had been designated for the Chemainus mill would be routed to Alabama. Did the minister take any steps to prevent that export of capital and jobs from British Columbia?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Again, we have one of these undisclosed sources. I would hope that that member could advise me who in MacMillan Bloedel made such a statement, for I have exactly the opposite information.

TAX INCREASES

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of Finance. On Tuesday last week the minister announced further increases in gasoline taxes resulting from indexing of such taxes. In view of the current economic recession, has the minister decided to de-index the gas tax and stop gouging British Columbia motorists?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Without in any way conferring a comment on the word "gouging," we have ad valorem taxation of petroleum products in this province, and that is set by statute, as the member knows. It should be noted that the last change prior to the one which has just occurred was very minimal.

If he's asking about future policy, of course I cannot answer that question. But this House dealt with the ad valorem principle of gasoline taxation — as is the case in a number of provinces now.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I did not ask about what we have done in the past, but about what we are going to do in the future because of the problems. On an annual basis, the current increase amounts to one of 25 percent, which is beyond all reason.

MR. SPEAKER: The member will restrict his debate.

MR. STUPICH: In view of the fact that the government has no political mandate for the hundreds of tax and user-fee increases over the past two years, has the minister decided to review these increases because of the sagging economy?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, all fees levied by government and generally described as user fees are under regular review.

MR. STUPICH: The president of the Union of B.C. Municipalities estimates that regulations passed on Friday under the Revenue Sharing Act mean that $54.4 million previously paid by the province must be borne by the municipalities this year. Why has the government decided to impose

[ Page 8553 ]

this additional burden on local property taxpayers at this time in our economic history?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I have not had an opportunity to review the contents of that communication.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I suppose I can't say at this time that the minister should know something about the regulation he put through on Friday. So I won't say that, but I will ask: in view of the widespread protests at property tax levels, particularly by commercial and industrial taxpayers, has the minister decided to restore this funding which was confiscated by the provincial government?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, the question seeks an answer with respect to future policy. But I take exception to the continued use by that member of the word "confiscation." As the House knows, when we introduced revenue-sharing, we said that it is the best program in the country.

It is a program which will increase as provincial revenues increase; it is a program which will level out as provincial revenues level out; and indeed, when and if provincial revenues decrease, then a similar decrease will be felt with respect to municipal revenue-sharing. Notwithstanding the decrease which has occurred, the revenue-sharing program between British Columbia and its local governments remains the finest in this country.

MR. STUPICH: Given the position now taken by hundreds of small business owners to defer payment of property taxes, has the minister now decided to provide emergency funding to the municipalities to compensate for these losses?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, no, I have not decided.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I have one more question for the minister. It is estimated that the British Columbia government will receive a $60 million windfall because of federal income tax increases imposed by the recent federal budget. Has the minister decided to rebate these increases to British Columbia taxpayers in view of the regressive nature of the de-indexing imposed by Ottawa?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, we have had experience in the past — and I think that perhaps that member did when he was on this side of the House — with revenues which it was indicated would be coming from Ottawa. That is the difference between our sharing with local government in British Columbia and Ottawa's oft-repeated grants to provinces. Somehow they disappear a little between Ottawa and the provincial capitals.

DE-INDEXING OF OLD-AGE PENSIONS

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance as well. The decision of the federal government to de-index old-age pensions at the same time as it is de-indexing taxes will deliver a double whammy to many senior citizens in this province. My question to the minister is: has he taken this into account, and has he decided on any action to cushion seniors from the blows of this decision?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I think that all of us, regardless of political persuasion, share concern with respect to what was announced in Ottawa last week, particularly with respect to the elderly. Any decision taken by this government will of course be taken in consultation with all of my colleagues, and particularly with the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy). Such conversation has not yet occurred.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to respond to a question taken on notice last week.

Leave granted.

GOVERNMENT EXPENSE VOUCHERS

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) asked the Attorney-General the following question: "...did his department give a legal opinion to the office of the comptroller-general that the audit records of government, which must be kept secure, cannot be photocopied by members of the public accounts committee, which would make them even more secure? Did you give that opinion?"

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated to the member, an opinion was sought by the acting comptroller-general. The opinion doesn't quite fit the question. Perhaps I can say that audit vouchers are of a class of audit documents which have traditionally been kept secure, as the member in his question notes. The comptroller-general has the custody and control of those documents under his oath of office. He is not authorized to release them except as legislation in this province may provide. A consideration of the order of this House referring the public accounts to the committee, of the Constitution Act and the Financial Administration Act makes it clear that the comptroller-general can in this context only release these documents when he has been subpoenaed by the public accounts committee to do so. Hence the photocopying of those documents at any time prior to their presentation to the public accounts committee would amount to an unauthorized release of the documents and therefore one which is not within the authority of the comptroller-general.

Mr. Speaker, the member asked a second question: did the Attorney-General give another opinion that members of the public accounts committee could not have the help of staff in examining the expense vouchers of his own colleagues? The response to that question is no, no such opinion was given. However, I would say to the member that if the examination of those vouchers by others than members of the committee would constitute unauthorized disclosure, then the same opinion would apply.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe tabled the annual report of the British Columbia Heritage Trust for the year ended March 31, 1982.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT

(continued)

On Vote 32: minister's office, $206,012.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, I have a copy of a press release issued in July 1980 by the Minister of Lands, Parks

[ Page 8554 ]

and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) with respect to a specific issue in my constituency, the imposition of a three-year moratorium on issuing log-dump permits in that area. "The three-year period would provide an opportunity for rationalization by the forest industry of its log-handling practices" — and I'm reading from the press release, Mr. Chairman — "in Baynes Sound, considering intermediate and long-term needs. Of equal importance, it provides a time for study and securement of a mariculture policy for the sound."

The Minister of Environment at that time supported this three-year moratorium, this study, and I'm wondering what stage it is at this point. As the minister pointed out in the press release, it is imperative that long-term policies be established to provide for the security of the oyster-growing industry. Over 60 percent of the oysters in the entire province are produced in the Baynes Sound area in my constituency. I'd like an update on that.

The other thing that I wanted to raise relates to an issue that was brought before the minister last Wednesday morning during debate, relating to the use of various herbicides, pesticides and sprays. I'm very concerned — as are many of my constituents — with the way in which permits are given out, the way that forest companies, and Hydro in particular, can get permission to utilize these sprays for the purposes of controlling weed growth.

People are becoming more and more skeptical about items like 2,4-D, for instance. People are becoming more and more alarmed that the government continues to allow these as-yet-unproven chemicals to be utilized on the Hydro lines and by the Ministry of Forests.

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: These programs, it seems to me, are being utilized with insufficient testing, Mr. House Leader. We don't know the long-term effects of a lot of these products. People are becoming more and more skeptical because of the fact that many of the tests that have been done on these chemicals are, in fact, false tests, and the information that we have received about the safety of these products is indeed false.

Another problem is the fact that many of these companies do their own testing, and we, as citizens in this country, have to rely on the information that's provided to us by these companies. Very often that information is most suspect.

In addition to the fact that many of these chemicals, in my view, should not be used, we have the fact that the provincial government regulations regarding their use are not being enforced. I have a letter from a constituent who is very concerned about the 2,4-D that was applied last year near the Qualicum River, near Horne Lake, by the Forests ministry. He went to visit the site some time after the 2,4-D had been applied, and he found tracks.... I'm quoting from his letter: "I found tracks, or tears, of the chemicals had run down literally every tree on the site out of the hatchet cuts, and even the regional inspector for the Ministry of Environment agreed that the program had not been very well executed." This person has taken water samples and paid to have them tested for traces of 2,4-D. He has taken pictures of the way in which this material was applied and the way in which the tears of chemicals were running down following that hack-and-squirt program.

The other thing is that the people that were utilized — and I'm not sure whether this applies throughout the province — to apply this particular pesticide were, in fact, not trained. They had no training whatsoever, and they were simply inexperienced people hired off the street in order to apply a chemical which we all know is potentially very dangerous.

I would like to know what alternatives the provincial government is looking at in terms of the use of 2,4-D and other sprays. Can we not put more people to work in executing some of these programs? Has the minister looked at the suggestions made by Dr. Ross Hall, who is a professor of biochemistry at McMaster and who prepared a report for the Canadian Environmental Advisory Council in which he suggests a number of alternatives?

But, Mr. Chairman, if we're going to apply those materials as carelessly as they were in the Qualicum area, then there's no way I can support the use of any of these chemicals in any way, shape or form. I would prefer that they were eliminated entirely.

HON. MR. ROGERS: The member for Comox asked some questions. The Baynes Sound study was done by our ministry as part of the study by Lands, Parks and Housing. I'm not aware of the status of that particular report. We weren't going to do a separate report. I understand that it was going to be included in the study being done by Lands, Parks and Housing. Perhaps that question might better be addressed to the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot). In any event, I will endeavour to inquire about it.

Pesticides. To the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace), I spoke about pesticides last week. I think it's worth repeating some of what I said then, but some of what I have to say now is perhaps new. All pesticide applicators who wish to apply pesticides on Crown land — or, in fact, everywhere except on private property, homes and gardens and agricultural operations — have to go through a school and pass the test. Every operator, including the hack-and-squirt people, have to have had formal training, and if they haven't, then it's incumbent upon your constituents to report that to our people, and we will do what we can. One problem is that it's a relatively short, seasonal system; pesticide-application jobs just don't last that long.

We're aware of the Hall report and have had discussions about it with Environment Canada and with my colleagues in other parts of Canada. Research is going on. Most of the research into alternatives to 2,4-D is done by the Canadian Forest Service through Environment Canada. They tend to have more of a handle on it than we do. After all, our job here is the regulatory and enforcement side rather than research. For example, Agriculture Canada does much more research into various herbicides and pesticides than would Environment in British Columbia, because their constituency is much larger in terms of using these things.

There is still the problem of the IBT testing laboratory and the various compounds of 2,4-D, where the findings were not as correct as they should have been; but that's being worked on. In the meantime, we insist on using those 2,4-Ds made by the so-called clean method, without the various ester compounds that create problems. I think we're working towards it. I think wholesale removal of pesticides or herbicides is out of the question at the present time.

MS. SANFORD: The minister mentioned that people who had information with respect to the application of herbicides by inexperienced people should contact his ministry. I have a letter that I wrote, dated June 25 of this year — just a

[ Page 8555 ]

few days ago — in which I enclosed a letter which a constituent personally asked me to get to you. He has been complaining about this situation at regional levels for a long time and has got nowhere. He asked if I would please deliver this personally to you. So I wrote a covering letter and enclosed his letter — just for the minister's information.

MR. KEMPF: I have just two or three subjects while we're still on the estimates of the Minister of Environment. Before I begin, I would like to comment on a few of the words uttered by the member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet) before we adjourned last Wednesday. The notes I made then are a little puzzling even to me at this time. One of the things the member for North Peace River was talking about was the wolf-predation problem. Of course, that is a very real problem to many of my constituents. He mentioned the voracious appetite of wolves, and I just wanted to pass on to him some statistics which I have grown conversant with over the years. A full-grown wolf will consume the equivalent of a full-grown moose per month. I think that is very interesting, when you consider that wolves travel in packs of up to 25 or 30. So you can see what a problem our ungulate herds are having with wolf predation.

During the speech of the member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet), I also heard the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) utter the words "Farley Mowat in reverse." Yes, that was true. What the member for North Peace River was speaking about was absolutely Farley Mowat in reverse. Some of Farley Mowat's works can be compared to Pinocchio. I've never met Mr. Mowat, but I'm sure that he too must have a very long nose. That is exactly what you can compare Mr. Mowat's works to, particularly regarding the wolf predation problem which this province faces. He doesn't know what he's talking about when he talks about wolf predation, and it's unfortunate.

MR. SKELLY: What has he written?

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, the member for Alberni chatters away. I guess Farley Mowat is all he reads. I wish he'd come up to the north sometime and learn what the wolf predation problem is all about and see the kind of fictitious stuff he's read that Farley Mowat has written.

Before I get off the subject of wolf predation, the member for North Peace River mentioned the Spatsizi and other areas in the northern part of this province which could produce more wildlife than they do. We presently have a caribou population of about 4,000 in Spatsizi Park. With a proper predator control program in the Spatsizi, that same area could produce 40,000 and possibly twice that number of caribou. It just points out the exact problem that presently exists.

The member for North Peace River told the little story about the wolves surrounding a herd of sheep in his constituency. To the member of Alberni, if Farley Mowat is speaking the truth, the member for North Peace River must have an awful lot of old, sick sheep in his constituency.

Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the minister a few questions. First, I would like to ask for his reconsideration of a proposal that was put forward by a number of individuals in Smithers for the lease of the game production and hunting rights for the Telkwa Range, which is a range of mountains just southeast of Smithers. The proposal is to have this group of individuals set this area aside and attempt to practise true wildlife management — as is done in many countries in Europe — to prove once and for all that to practise that kind of wildlife management can certainly be fruitful to many areas of the province. I can see the reluctance on the part of the minister's staff about this proposal. The bureaucrats are apprehensive, and rightly so, because for a long time in British Columbia we haven't practised proper wildlife management. I can see their apprehension. They don't want to be proven wrong. They don't want that particular proposal to go forward to prove, which I think it will, that through good and proper wildlife management our wildlife herds could be increased tenfold in this province. Their proposal in the Telkwa Range wishes to do this. So I ask the minister if he is going to reconsider that proposal. If not, why?

The second question I have regards a proposal by a Dr. David Kuntz of Hazelton. He has made application for a zoological permit. His proposal is for the salvaging of maimed animals such as moose and deer along the northern CNR line. Dr. Kuntz has a ranch in the Hazelton area. It is equipped with proper pens, etc. He is a medical doctor, one of the best in the province of British Columbia, and his proposal is for obtaining a zoological permit in order that he may, through cooperation with Canadian National Railways, pick up injured moose and injured deer along about a 150-mile stretch of that railroad so that he can take them to his ranch and nurse them back to health. My second question of the minister is: is he seriously considering allowing Dr. Kuntz to obtain a zoological licence?

I would like to commend the minister for what he says in his letter to me about small suction dredges and the possibility of operating them in the northern part of this province. I suggested in a letter to the minister — the reply to which I received in this letter — the possibility of a pilot project on the use of small suction dredges in rivers and streams of this province for the purpose of placer mining. I would suggest to him at this point that we proceed with such a pilot project as quickly as possible.

Before I leave the subject of this minister's estimates, there are three questions I'd like to ask about the staff of his regional office in Smithers. As far as I'm concerned, that staff — although it has risen from two 15 years ago to some 17 today — is not doing its job for that area. I'd like to have the answers to questions that I've already put on the order paper of this Legislature. Those questions are as follows: (1) How many do you presently have on staff in the regional office in Smithers? (2) What are their job descriptions? (3) What are their salaries?

[Mi. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. GABELMANN: I'm going to be relatively brief this afternoon, which will please the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly). There are two issues that I want to talk about, the first very briefly, and that's the decisions that have been made by various members of cabinet relating to Robson Bight. I recognize that some decisions are in Lands, Parks and Housing, others are through ELUC and what not. But I want to suggest to the minister that over the last few years, while the question of preservation of whales in Robson Bight has been high in the public mind, some of the proposals made, although I think they were quite well motivated, wouldn't be very wise if they were to be implemented. Among those proposals that have been not so widely recommended is one that there should be some kind of park development in and around the Robson Bight area. I appreciate that parks isn't the minister's

[ Page 8556 ]

responsibility, but the fact that decisions that relate to the development or non-development of that particular area are going to flow through ELUC — and the minister is chairman of that committee — makes it, I think, appropriate to talk about them in general here.

I think the minister knows that I have argued for some time that next to dumping logs in that bight, the worst thing we can do is dump people into it. Everything that government does in terms of attempting to preserve that particular piece of foreshore and waterway must be on the understanding that, while whales are a social animal and are quite tolerant of a limited amount of public participation with them, if some of the proposals that have been made for parks on Cracroft Island or in the Tsitika River basin and down onto the foreshore of Robson Bight itself were allowed to go ahead, I think we would have devastation of the area which would be as profound in its impact as would have occurred if a log dump had been allowed to proceed. I am pleased to report that that particular program isn't going to be allowed to proceed, that there will not be a log dump. It seems from decisions made so far by Lands, Parks and Housing that there will be limited public access to that area. Obviously it's a waterway, and you can't control boating traffic, but my plea is let's not make it any easier.

But there's a third element in all of this that I think needs to be dealt with a little bit more seriously, and that is that the bight is a shallow area. One of the major attractions to it from the whale's point of view appears to be the stones, the rubbing rocks, and the fact that the whales can go in and roll around on these underwater stones. If the logging that is proposed for the Tsitika watershed is allowed to go ahead, even under the limited restrictions proposed under the Tsitika public plan — which I don't think are very strict at all — that's in existence at the moment, there will likely be enough siltation, if not refuse, coming down that river to wipe out that bay from a third source.

We've protected it from logs. We're likely, judging from the mood of conservation and environmental groups, and from the government's response, to preserve the bight from people. It seems we're moving in that direction. But the one area that we haven't done enough about — and I wouldn't mind hearing the minister's response to this — is in finding some way either not to log those reaches of the Tsitika River or to log in a selective and very careful way, which we haven't done on the coast before, so that we don't get the kind of situation that would be inevitable in normal logging practices. In my view, such siltation would probably do as much damage as either the logs or the people would have done. We've prevented the destruction from those two aspects, but I wonder if we shouldn't look carefully at the third.

I wouldn't mind if the minister, in commenting on that remark of mine, would give his reaction to what I would think would be the logical public designation of the lower reaches of the Tsitika River: that is, that it be made into a public wilderness conservancy. To make it into a park, I think, leads us in the wrong direction. To create an ecological reserve on the foreshore itself and a certain number of feet into the saltchuck does not solve the problem of industrial activity up the river a little way, and it seems appropriate to me that that's a very logical area for some kind of wilderness conservancy to be established. I would appreciate the minister's comments.

By far, the major environmental issue in my constituency is one that the minister and I have had many exchanges of opinion about and many conversations about, including in previous years' estimates debates; that's the question of the proposed Quinsam coal development in Campbell River. I don't think it would be very useful today for me to go into all of the questions that concern residents in that area, and the people who come to that area from all over British Columbia and beyond, who are concerned about the possible impacts of a coal-mine development right in the middle of a very important salmon-spawning area.

I don't intend to go into all those technical kinds of things today; I don't think very much would be served by it. We've had the exchanges of comment before, and the minister's response is always that he's waiting for the recommendations or that he will wait for the revised second-stage report or application from Quinsam coal and the technical evaluation of that by his staff before making any comment. So rather than dealing with the substance of the environmental impacts, which are all arguable — although not much argued in Campbell River.... The feeling there is pretty clear. I think if people were polled, and if they had any say as to the decision about whether or not this mine were to be developed or to go ahead, clearly it would not go ahead, because the public is overwhelmingly opposed to the construction of that coal-mine.

I want to ask the minister three or four questions. In the ELUC reaction to the stage two request, will economic impact considerations be included in that reaction and in that decision? In other words, the company proposes that they will be able to provide so many people-years of employment for the area. Will there be equally detailed studies into the economic impact of jobs that could well be lost were that mine to do anywhere near the damage that it is being said it could do? Will studies be done by the ministry about the loss of jobs through the tourism industry, sports fishing and commercial fishing in the Campbell River area?

I know that minister's response to that would be to say: "We won't approve it unless it's safe." My retort to that would be that mines have been approved in this province before that haven't been safe. The nearest one to Quinsam is the one at Buttle Lake, where guarantees were made by the government that there would be no damage whatsoever downstream, and yet there have been dramatic, devastating results. We've got other examples, and I don't need to recite them, Carolin Mines being just the most recent of a mine where things go wrong that aren't expected. I ask the minister: will studies be done by his ministry through ELUC or through some part of the government that will measure the economic impact should something go wrong with a mine on that site?

Secondly, I wonder whether the minister has looked at and has any reaction to the report commissioned by the Campbell River town council on the mine, and what his reaction is to their recommendations that the mine could not be safe and should not be proceeded with.

My third question is: in respect of the coal guidelines process, how does the ministry expect to be able to measure the possible impact of coal-mining in that area when no site-specific guidelines appear to exist? It appears, at least, as if coal guidelines are established and then applied to whichever applications are made from whatever part of British Columbia. No coal-mines exist in high-rainfall areas such as the one we are talking about in the uplands to the west of Campbell River. We cannot compare it at all to any of the Kootenay or northeast coal-mine projects. There is a particularly high

[ Page 8557 ]

sulphur content, a high rainfall, and a very close proximity to three important salmon-producing rivers, not to talk about a hatchery.

The company, Quinsam Coal Ltd., talks about comparing itself to an operation in Centralia, Washington. However, a variety of differences exist there: different terrain, rainfall levels much lower down there, and the important one is that the sulphur content in that particular operation is much lower. How does the evaluating team measure the unique aspects of coal-mining in a rain forest on the west coast?

I think that the minister and I have some difficulty — as will probably become clear when he responds — dealing with this issue at this particular time, because it's my understanding that the company has not yet submitted its stage two application, or it's just come in; I'm not certain of that. I understood it was supposed to come in in June. The minister shakes his head, so he still doesn't have the application. The problem with it is that the next opportunity we will have to debate it will be in estimates next year. He'll be the critic then.

The problem remains that from an environmental point of view this is probably one of the most sensitive industrial proposals that this province has seen for some time. I'm not going to refer to anyone by name or make any reference that people can draw certain names from, but there are some highly placed people in surprising sectors of this province who would normally be seen to be totally for pro-development, for creating new jobs, for mining — all of those gung-ho things about job development — who, even though they're in private business themselves, when they look at this particular proposal, react with sheer horror that the company would even consider spending the dollars that they have in proceeding as far as they have. There is a shocked disbelief that a word wouldn't have been given to the consortium of Weldwood and Brinco, that they are throwing good money after bad and that they should just abandon the project now because it is one that could never be tolerated in British Columbia.

When I've asked the question before in those ways, the minister has always said: "No, we've got the rules, we've got the regulations, and I'll deal with them as they come in. I'm not going to say yes or no before any project goes through its normal process." But this is not a normal application. What we're talking about here — and I think the public of British Columbia has yet to grasp the full significance of this proposal — is open-pit coal-mining in the heart of three of the better salmon-producing rivers of British Columbia. We're talking about open-pit coal-mining within miles of a community well known around the world as the salmon capital of the world. For the government to have remained silent in all these years of proposals by this particular coal-mine company is astounding to a lot of people.

Millions of dollars have been spent by the company in preparing its applications. If the minister is at all considering that there is a possibility that the answer will be yes as a result of these applications, I would be very surprised. The minister must know, as I think everyone who has looked at the issue knows, that it is not possible to develop a coal-mine in that particular vulnerable, high-rainfall, salmon-producing area — period. Yet the government's silence has been an implicit approval to the company to proceed with spending millions of dollars in preparing its reports and its application. If the government were to say no to them, they would have some cause, I think, to say: "Why didn't you tell us at the beginning you were going to say no, because you're going to say no not based just on technical requirements that are not site specific but on a variety of other things." There are some other factors involved in a case like this when virtually an entire community opposes.... The only organization in town that is split on it is the chamber of commerce, and they're coming around. When virtually the entire community is saying no, how can the government even consider saying yes to that proposal, particularly when we have no other evidence or examples on this coast of successful open-pit coal-mining in that kind of terrain?

While I anticipate the minister's answer to be that he's going through the processes, I appeal to him to make it clear that there will be more than just technical requirements that apply to east Kootenay or northeast coal proposals and that the standards and regulations will, in fact, reflect the peculiar and particular nature of that area in Campbell River.

HON. MR. ROGERS: I'd like to answer the questions put to me by the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) first. Unfortunately he isn't here.

There were questions about a proposal put forward by a private group of people who wish to take over an area of Crown land and manage it as their own wildlife area. While many people dispute whether or not the government runs wildlife well, I think it remains our mandate to do so and am not prepared to reconsider any proposal which would have areas of the province's wildlife farmed out to other people for operation.

Regarding the doctor who proposed salvaging wounded animals.... He didn't really say so, but of course the animals became the property of this gentleman after he was able to salvage the animals. Those that met their untimely death would be given to the government for distribution to people who would normally get a sustenance permit, but the others that survived would become part of the doctor's essentially game-ranching operation. We proposed game-ranching and ran it out to people, not on a come-and-shoot basis, but on the fact that some of the general public would like to be able to buy wild meat without having to go hunting for it — either for dietary or other reasons. So we asked, and I'll tell you that we got a very heavy response provincewide saying that they didn't want it. Then we asked in one of these polls, and even there some of the people said that they'd like to see it but they didn't really think they'd buy much of it. So we've rejected that at this time. It was never our intention to allow a private hunting preserve; it was only our intention to give consideration to offering game-ranching so that people who wanted to raise ungulates, slaughter the animals and sell the meat, the hide and the velvet could so so.

When I looked at the operation in New Zealand, it turns out that it's just the velvet that they're interested in. The prices of the other parts of the animal are such that....

The velvet's harvestable every year, and they haven't done it. He asked questions about the regional staff. We have a program of going to regional offices, and so our staff in Smithers — as with our staff in a lot of other areas — has increased. Appropriately our staff in Victoria has decreased. I'll answer his question on the order paper.

Robson Bight is one of the things I think we've done very well. I think it's been handled well from the very beginning by Environment, federal Fisheries, and Lands, Parks and

[ Page 8558 ]

Housing. I share the member's concern. Once you understand the rubbing rocks, the beaches that they wallow in, and the rest of it, two problems become apparent. One is that we identified for a lot of people who didn't know about it the fact that here is an area where the whales come to play and relax. We don't quite understand all the things they do there, but we are understanding more every year. The best way to do it is to let them go and do it and not to bother them. That means being very diligent about what happens upstream and also not making it park-bench, ten cents into the glass to watch them, and all that kind of stuff. That kind of activity is going to lead to further problems for the whales, who are doing pretty well, by the way.

I don't think a park is the solution, but some kind of a reserve status would be. Lands, Parks and Housing are working on it with the Tsitika followup committee, and I think they'll have a successful resolution to it. I hope so. I think it has been handled very well.

Quinsam coal. I don't think I'd be misjudging the public in Campbell River if I said that you were correct. The majority of the people in Campbell River, if they could give their opinion on a ballot somehow, would probably say that they are not prepared to take Quinsam coal. I don't know if they would say no at any price, but I think if the simple question were put there right now, they'd probably say no.

But that's not the only criterion we're going to use. You asked about impact on other industries. Industry and Small Business, of course, does the positive side of the impact on jobs and spinoffs. Environment is quite involved with what happens on the negative side of it — what happens in the event of a water system degradation. So we balance industry's optimism with a cloud of our own, saying that this is what would happen in the event that we had a problem based primarily on fisheries management. Tourism, of course, would have an impact as well, but the fisheries side would be looked after by us.

The submission I have from Campbell River town council should be part of the whole ELUC consideration. Rather than dealing with them in isolation — we haven't dealt with the company in isolation in advance — we will consider it at that time, although I have read it.

You asked about the site specifics. Of course, under the coal guidelines, that is the stage three proposal, and there aren't other examples to use. If the company gets through the stage two approval, from there on in it's fairly routine, generally speaking, to go into stage three. I don't think that would be the case here, because there isn't a signpost along the way to say: "Here's another company that went through it two years ago, and this is what their studies have to do." The site specific studies as laid down by the coal guidelines steering committee would be at the stage three level, although I think most of the problems they would have to address in stage three would probably come out in stage two in any event.

You asked why I don't go and see the company and tell them the writing is on the wall or whatever. There is no way a minister can do that with any company. I mean, hindsight is 20-20. Imagine going to see some of the corporate operations in the province and saying: "Well, we've looked at this thing, and common sense would dictate that you people shouldn't have made that decision." You know, if I'm an expert in business, I'd better stand accountable to my shareholders — or to me, if it's a proprietorship, or to my partners if it's a partnership — for the decisions that I make or the decisions that management makes. The very same thing has to apply here. Those are the kinds of questions that they're going to have to answer for themselves. I'm not prepared to make the decision in the absence of the information. They haven't come and solicited an opinion from me particularly, and I don't think it's my duty to go and give one to them either.

MR. KING: I just have three matters to raise with the minister. I think he is probably intimately familiar with each and every one of them.

Mr. Minister, you've heard of the Illecillewaet River. It's close to Revelstoke, as the minister knows. We have an annually recurring problem with respect to flooding from that river at its confluence with the reservoir created by the Keenleyside Dam. There are 13 families affected annually by the flooding that occurs usually in the dead of winter, Mr. Chairman, at a time when the flooding situation is about as bad as it can be. Flooded basements are always a nuisance, often a health hazard, and of course in the dead of winter they create all manner of hazards to furnaces and other appurtenances that people keep in their basements.

B.C. Hydro, when they first acquired the land incident to the development of the Keenleyside Dam, did initially offer to buy out at least some of the people involved in this flooding. They eventually decided to dyke that area, and they did install a dyke. Subsequent to that time the old dam on the Illecillewaet River, which used to be the generating station for a power supply to the city of Revelstoke, was removed, and literally hundreds of thousands of tonnes of silt and gravel were washed down, elevated the level of the channel and as a consequence slowed down the flow of that river, as did the elevation of the Keenleyside reservoir; it is now much retarded in terms of its flow into the river.

The problem has been studied and studied and studied, Mr. Minister, and the people are tired of studies — they want some action. It was dredged at one point in time, and that relieved the problem for a period of time. But I want to appeal to the minister. We've had correspondence over this matter, and the only thing I can assure the minister of, Mr. Chairman, is that the correspondence will continue until the problem is solved. But realistically, a significant number of people are involved here; they never had this problem before. You know, one can be over-technical and one can engage in all the hydrological engineering studies; one can go into a whole variety of costly analyses of precisely what is causing the problem — whether it's the increased level of the groundwater, whether it's the increased elevation of the channel from the Illecillewaet River. I think it's a combination of all those things and the phenomenon of extreme icing of that slowed-down river channel in the winter, which tends to back up the river and probably increase the level of the groundwater. But I want to submit to the minister that we're spending more money on studies than we are on resolving the problem.

Mr. Minister, I would like an answer. I appeal to the minister, on behalf of my beleaguered, patient, tolerant constituents, to please do something decisive — whether it's dredging the river, an improved standard of dyking or some offer to purchase those properties that are impaired greatly in terms of their comfort to the landowners. I would appreciate something from the minister on that.

One other issue I want to raise with the minister — and I shan't be long — is the question of the notorious Eurasian milfoil problem in Shuswap Lake, or in the Okanagan lake chain and the prospect of its major entry into the Shuswap lakes. I'm concerned that the funding for control stations to

[ Page 8559 ]

monitor boats travelling from the Okanagan chain to the Shuswap chain has been withdrawn. The statistics regarding the number of boats that were actually apprehended containing Eurasian milfoil on the propeller or on some part of the boat, which could then easily be introduced into the Shuswap chain, was very high. It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that it's false economy for the minister to withdraw the funding from those control monitoring stations and allow the almost inevitable introduction of Eurasian milfoil into the Shuswap chain in a major way, which will present the government and the taxpayers of this province with a far greater bill — indeed, an enormous bill — in terms of any program of control and elimination of the nuisance after it takes root. So I want to appeal to the minister to restore that funding.

I note that the Salmon Arm and District Chamber of Commerce comment on it in their newsletter of June 17. In case the minister missed that document, I'll read it into the record:

" Foiled again. As of May 5, 1982, the Ministry of the Environment discontinued Eurasian milfoil quarantine check stations. Many areas feel that replacing the stations with a public awareness and education campaign will not reach enough of the boating public to be effective.

"Statistics released by the aquatic studies branch for 1981: (1) three check stations — Enderby, Midway and Falkland; (2) 12,679 boaters voluntarily stopped; (3) 218 boats found to be transporting Eurasian milfoil weed; (4) eight percent of boaters did not stop; (5) percentage of weed found on boats checked at boat launches was much higher.

"Withdrawal of the check-station program could accelerate the spread of Eurasian milfoil in lakes in the Shuswap region, creating immeasurable problems for the future of tourism and residential development in our area. We ask all Salmon Arm and district residents to check their own boats and those of your friends when boating in lakes known to contain Eurasian milfoil weed. Help keep our lakes clear and clean."

I draw this to the minister's attention simply to emphasize and stress that the now relatively minor cost of maintaining those monitoring stations is a prudent investment in terms of the cost of any cleanup after the weed takes root in the Shuswap chain. When we're spending millions of dollars to attract tourists to that part of the country offering one of the most beautiful and well-used recreational spots in the interior of the province, it seems penny wise and pound foolish to withdraw the amount of funding necessary to maintain what intelligent monitoring can be enforced, to apparently pretty effective use.

The other matter that I want to raise with the minister is also of long standing, one that we've discussed in past session, and of course in private. As well, the minister has received correspondence on it from a variety of local organizations in the Revelstoke area. The Rod and Gun Club has written to him complaining of the bear problem in Revelstoke. Our conservation officer was cancelled some years ago, and we are now serviced only by a conservation officer stationed in the city of Nakusp. He has as his territory all of the country lying between Nakusp and Mica Creek, which is, as anyone can readily recognize, an absolutely impossible task for the conservation officer, who is a hard-working individual and does a pretty good job within the ambit of the resources at his disposal. The recurring bear problem in our area is getting beyond being a laughing matter. At one point, families in the village of Mica Creek were barricaded in their trailers on the Mica property because the grizzly bears had become so brazen they'd virtually taken over the village. That is a dangerous situation. Black bears are bad enough, but Grizzlies are unpredictable, and a highly dangerous animal.

It's not good enough to rely on the RCMP. They are not equipped to do the job of controlling bears. The minister has in the past relied on Parks Canada to do the job that the provincial government has jurisdiction for. The minister has conceded that there is insufficient staff and resources to adequately patrol that area for bear control, or indeed any of the other important duties of a conservation officer in a rural area. Until last year we had an assistant conservation officer in Revelstoke. He is a local chap who worked part time and had a great knowledge of and dedication to game management, control of the fisheries and to the ideals of environmental control generally. His name is Alan Aho. The funding was withdrawn for him. He worked at a very low cost to the ministry and did an outstanding job. In fact, I can tell the minister, Mr. Chairman, that the only time I have ever been checked in my life, either hunting or fishing — and I've done both since I was very young — was by Alan Aho. I think it was two years ago when I was fishing at Downie Creek. The guy got around, did a good job and provided some control to the area in terms of protection of the fish and wildlife and also in terms of protecting people from problems with bears and that type of thing.

The minister received a letter from Mr. Bill Gallagher, the superintendent of Mount Revelstoke National Park. I want to read part of it. I don't want to embarrass the minister. The minister is not a bad chap at all, Mr. Chairman, but I think his government should be embarrassed at the contents of this letter that was received from Parks Canada. I do this not to embarrass him but to try to lend more emphasis and be more persuasive in my argument that appropriate allocations be made so the ministry assumes its full responsibility in this area. Part of the letter says:

"For the past few years, black bears have been few in number, no doubt due to the indiscriminate destruction of these animals on provincial lands, in construction and logging camps and townsites; also the uncontrolled illegal hunting practices existing in areas surrounding the national parks because of minimal coverage by B.C. Fish and Wildlife officers. The bear population, as well as other game species, is on a drastic decline.

"If I may suggest that, since the reorganization of the B.C. Fish and Wildlife branch, the very few officers who are remaining to cover impossibly large areas can only result in a very serious wildlife resource situation in the Kootenay-Columbia region of British Columbia. The national parks are directly affected since, as you are aware, many of the wildlife species are migratory between provincial and federal lands.

'"In conclusion, if any of the Fish and Wildlife staff suspect that a problem bear is a national park animal because of tags or otherwise, please have them contact immediately the park warden staff as it is of mutual concern to both agencies."

[ Page 8560 ]

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Basically what prompted this letter was a suggestion by the minister that all of the bear problems emanated from the federal parks, which is nonsense. I guess this government has gotten into the habit of pointing the finger at Ottawa, and now they're even going to blame the problem bears on them.

It's interesting that the minister responded to that letter, and confirmed and acknowledged that indeed his ministry was remiss in terms of providing the staff and resources necessary to hold up their end of the bargain. He responded by saying:

"Thank you for your letter. It is important to recognize, as your letter points out, that management of animals which are potentially dangerous to the public is a difficult matter, and that our agencies must work cooperatively to find satisfactory solutions.

"I agree that additional Ministry of Environment management and enforcement staff in the Revelstoke area would be desirable, and I am taking steps to provide that staff. I know you will appreciate, however, that in times of fiscal restraint, provision of additional manpower can be a difficult task."

This letter was written on March 16, 1982.

I acknowledge that we are in difficult economic times and that every reasonable area must be looked at very closely in terms of curbing government expenditures. But I want to submit to the minister that there is no way that something as serious as bears invading a community, and to a great extent inevitably jeopardizing the lives and safety of children in that area, should be subject to the restraint program of this government. I don't think the minister intends that either. I take him at his word when he says in his letter: "I am taking steps to provide that staff." I ask for his assurance that indeed we can expect additional conservation officers and the re-establishment of a local officer in the city of Revelstoke.

HON. MR. ROGERS: I'm reliably assured that a couple of votes from now is a vote that will cover the massive increase in the travel budget for the conservation officers, which you asked for last year and which has now been included, thanks to the generosity of the Treasury Board, in this year's budget. I'm sure there'll be a division on it. I hope you'll stand up and support me.

Interjection.

HON. MR. ROGERS: We always have to enjoy a little humour on the thing.

I've got some either good or bad news for you: the regional director is considering locating conservation officers in Revelstoke. One of the problems we want to solve has to do with having a single conservation officer's depot. When people phone and he's not in the office, they think he's not at work; when he's in the office and not on the road, they think he's not at work. So where we can, two conservation officers are operating out of one office; then we have a half-day secretary to do some of the typing, which most conservation officers find to be a skill they are not particularly adept at. Nonetheless, it is something that is required because of the forms they have to complete and some of the reports they put in.

So we try to put conservation officers together to work as a team; and there is a very substantial increase in their travel budget this year over last year. Considering fiscal restraint, that's very positive. That was a big problem they had last year. We kept hearing reports of their not having enough fuel. In fact, they're on their own. They have a management problem; they talk to their regional office, but they're literally left to manage their own affairs. They do a pretty good job, by and large, on a province-wide basis.

You mentioned $60,000 worth of funds for the Columbia-Shuswap Regional District in terms of Eurasian water milfoil. Last year it cost about $135,000 per station to monitor vessels moving with Eurasian water milfoil. I think the public is pretty well aware of it. We've got all the border points posted, and most lakes are posted now. At the present time, Eurasian water milfoil is so implanted in the Shuswap system that it's almost pointless. We should now watch vessels moving from Shuswap to the Okanagan. It's not quite as bad as that. You have some of the public cooperating, but you only need one or two people not cooperating to destroy the whole thing. It needs only one carrier to implant the weed.

The Illecillewaet River: all your correspondence and all my studies really don't solve the problem, but we are trying to do something about it. We are working on it. We've put in three observation wells. There's the question of whether the high-ground water comes from the backup in the reservoir, or whether it comes from natural causes, such as an ice buildup in the river. We'll go back and take another crack at it, and see if we can do something. In the final analysis, we may have to move the people, but that's not really the solution that most of them want. I think they would like us to find a proper and workable solution to the problem. It may be that they do want to be bought out; but we'll take another crack at it and see what we can do.

MR. KING: One further quick question to the minister. I recall asking the minister last year — he may recall it too — about game permits for the export of carcasses during hunting season, and the problem with conservation offices not being open on weekends. A number of people have had moose carcasses seized in Alberta simply because they forgot to obtain an export permit. They were travelling back from the Alaska Highway to southern British Columbia. I was one of those people, but fortunately I remembered to get my export permit. The RCMP make a joke out of it in Alberta and say it is a great way to get a free moose when they find unsuspecting British Columbians coming out. The problem, of course, is that the conservation offices are not open on the weekends.

My question to the minister is: can you simply not allow the RCMP to issue those export permits for the weekend so that people can go on their way, without having to spend a harried weekend in Fort St. John or some other exotic spot?

HON. MR. ROGERS: You said earlier, when you were winding up your comments, that this is the only comment you had to make. I have it written right here: "Bill didn't get his moose." I knew darned well you would have brought it up again this year.

I did ask the director of Fish and Wildlife to ensure that RCMP officers could give those permits. I'd have to check to make sure it was done, but I did talk to him; now that you've mentioned it, I'll make a note to check, but I did ask him your question during last year's estimates. Unfortunately, I had the same problem; I didn't have a transportation of animal problem. However, the fishing was excellent.

[ Page 8561 ]

MR. NICOLSON: I have six questions, one of which is similar to the question just raised by my colleague on flooding. It's such an important problem. If there's a flood in the lower mainland that affects 500 people and the damage runs over a million dollars, it becomes a national disaster and then there are funds available from the federal government and matching funds from the provincial government. It is treated totally differently from what happens when some small creek backs up and maybe nine homes are flooded, yet the damage to those individuals on a per capita basis is every bit as devastating. The problems even in my one constituency are too numerous to go into them all, but as an example, one problem is in Kaslo. The Kaslo River runs right through the village where a senior citizens' housing project was being constructed. It was then designated as being on a floodplain. Of course, there is other housing and construction all around it as well. You know, there is a real need to do something about it. We have to face the fact that having put all this housing and so on into these areas, we do have to interfere with nature and we cannot allow alluvial fans to operate in their normal manner.

Another area is Salmo. They formed the Salmo Residents Association, and I've worked with them. My colleague's remarks were all too familiar. I recall the Brady report in 1974, the Morley report in 1976 and now the Rungas report in 1981, but there has been no real action. In fact, a little bit of work was done — some dyking was built and so on. But I would submit to the minister that one of the problems is that he has responsibility for a couple of the departments — the provincial emergency program and certainly the water management branch — but when it really does come to an emergency situation, the Ministry of Highways are the ones with the equipment. In real emergency situations they could move in and place rip-rap and heavy equipment and do that kind of work.

I would like to propose to the minister that he form some kind of intersector committees in the various districts in which the provincial emergency program, water management and the Ministry of Highways and such other ministries as might be involved in certain problems — be it due to Forests, the manner of cutting or whatever is affecting water sheds — take on some of these identified priorities. I know there are probably several priorities in every interior riding, but he should identify some priorities and maybe even set class one, class two and class three problems. Some of these involve fairly major river systems; others involve creeks where the problem might be solved for something less than $1 million and others might involve something where the problem could be solved for less than $100,000.

We do know that each year people are losing furnaces and contents of freezers; there is warping, there is unsettling of houses and the cracking of foundations, and all of these things happen because these areas are settled. The Crown alienated the land, and nobody stopped people from building houses in these areas. In some cases we even have municipalities located in these areas that are designated as floodplain.

Last year in my riding, in the village of Salmo, there was some work done on Erie Creek. There also needs to be work done on the Salmo River. This year in Lardeau in the Meadow Creek area the river came up over the highway. There is a huge log jam up there and people debate on whether removing the log jam would solve some of those problems or exacerbate the problems. This year we were very fortunate with the runoff in that we had very high snow and a very late runoff. It stayed cool and clear for a long time and there was a very long, controlled runoff. We escaped almost unscathed, but we just cannot tempt nature much longer, Mr. Chairman.

I would invite the minister's reaction to forming some kind of an intersector committee, and I think it should be done all over the province to start trying to pick these problems off one by one. There have been three reports on the Salmo River since 1974. As my colleague said, I don't know how many reports on the river or creek which I will not even attempt to pronounce — Illecillewaet or whatever it is.

Number two: I'd like to voice my displeasure with the manner in which the fish and wildlife licence increases occurred this year. Licences have been printed with several years on them, and you tick off or you actually eliminate the years that do not apply on the licence form — and I don't know if the current form will be usable until 1985. It does away with the reprinting of licences every year. But look what happened this year. For the fishing licence alone, you raised the fees from, I think, $5 to $13. Word of this got out; there was almost a land-office rush from some people who knew about it. In certain districts the word got out and in other districts the word didn't get out, and before that licence increase went into effect there were lineups in certain areas for people getting their fishing licences, hunting licences and all these licences. Now somebody comes along later this year and he's only going to fish the last half of the season, but he's got to pay 13 bucks, and some guy who has had his licence for the whole season paid five bucks. It just wasn't good management. I would hope that if you're getting another directive to increase licence fees, you come up with a better, fairer way of doing it so that all licence fees for that calendar year will be equal. You could have realized just as much revenue if you had put in a lower licence increase this year but had it applied fairly and equally to all.

The third thing is the water licence increase. It appears the minister was given a directive from Treasury Board to raise so many dollars. A water licence increase, of course, affects individual water-right owners. I've had senior citizens who, on top of having to pay $500 property tax for the first time in their life — having paid $1 in the previous year — to add insult to injury have seen their water licence increase by a few hundred percent or something — a very large percentage increase, at any rate. But I suppose the most important one in our area is the effect of the water licence increase to Cominco, where that increase represented almost the equivalent of one month's payroll. Was any impact study done as to what was going to happen to Cominco and its operations if you were to suddenly levy an increase, when we know that the Bunker Hill smelter operation down in the United States — a very similar operation, although not as competitive and as modern as Cominco — had closed down because of the world economics of the smelting business? Was any kind of impact analysis done, or were you just following orders from the Minister of Finance (Hon- Mr. Curtis)?

The fourth thing is the Valhalla wilderness proposal. The Regional District of Central Kootenay has now endorsed a proposal which would more or less include everything from the southern end of the proposal at the Mulvey basin up through the Evans Creek drainage, the Beatrice drainage, the Wee Sandy and the Nemo Creek drainage and excluding only some of the most northern portions that were requested by the proponents in the Valhalla Wilderness Society. I would like to bring to the minister's attention that the regional district is

[ Page 8562 ]

now behind us, after some debate, and that on that regional district are the representatives from the village of New Denver, the village of Silverton and the village of Slocan, the mayor of which is an employee of Slocan Forest Products.

There has been a tremendous amount of study, and the reports show... What they're calling for is an exploitation of the Valhallas, but not the normal kind of exploitation; the exploitation will be as a recreational resource, and they're looking at it in a very economic way. I would just like to tell the minister that there are very high expectations in the area. I imagine it's to be reviewed by ELUC, of which the minister is chairman, and certainly people are very well informed as to the kind of study that's gone into it. I hope that after all this very careful work it's not going to be disregarded by having a really political decision made on the basis of some kind of ministry representation at ELUC rather than government going back and telling their ministries what government has decided on behalf of the people.

I'd also like to bring up the business of budgets. I hope that this year the provincial emergency program is not going to run out of an operating budget in June, as it did last year. It's my understanding that last year the budget was taken up because of some precautions they took about the drawdown of a water supply in my colleague for Cowichan-Malahat's (Mrs. Wallace's) riding, but that actually drained all of the operating budget and cut off a lot of the volunteer programs — or certainly made them very difficult — to the point that by July programs had to be cancelled because the local coordinators couldn't even rent a hall in which to carry on instruction or serve coffee. I'm glad to hear that this year there's an increase in the budget, because last year during the hunting season COs were grounded. I don't know why there couldn't have been a special warrant.

HON. MR. ROGERS: No, not quite.

MR. NICOLSON: They were grounded. I know COs in our area. I socialize with COs in our area, and believe me, they were grounded during the hunting season last year. The minister can deny it if he likes, but that was the situation, and I hope that.... The minister well knows that, doesn't he? The member for Columbia River (Hon. Mr. Chabot) well knows that they were grounded. I don't know if that was by order of some members, but....

Those are six items. I would like the minister's response to the possibility of forming intersector committees around the province to look into the flooding problems of each area, and of having a better way of introducing licence increases when they must be introduced in the branch. I'd like his response as to whether there was any kind of economic impact study done prior to imposing water licence increases, particularly on Cominco, and to the Valhalla wilderness proposal concept, how soon it will come before his committee and when a decision will be brought down. I'd also like an assurance that funding problems will not leave ministries or departments like the provincial emergency program on hold for a whole year, or the CO vehicles and the conservation officers virtually grounded during hunting season.

HON. MR. ROGERS: You started off by mentioning flooding. I might digress a little bit from what you said. Virtually every year during the season — if it is such, because it's not really a season — people come and say that we should have stricter regulations about people building on the floodplain, but about now I start getting letters from mayors and regional districts saying that onerous regulations of our ministry are preventing people building on the floodplain — "We've got a couple of old-timers up here who say it never floods in this area." We've had two cases that strike my mind — one is a hospital that was proposed for a fan and the other a housing development proposed for a floodplain, both of which we were roundly criticized for stopping in the first place and both of which flooded in the subsequent winter. I don't know how to explain it. It happens every year: they come and see me saying that they want it changed; they think that anybody should be able to build anywhere they want — just because we say it's a floodplain — and then they want assistance. Of those municipalities that have adopted our floodplain regulations, many are much better off for it now. But there are a whole host of residences and industries and businesses located in areas subject to flooding, and it's a constant problem with us year in and year out.

In terms of a disaster, we don't — at least I don't — distinguish between one in the lower mainland and one in your part of the province. Each individual disaster is addressed by cabinet. Where a compensation program is decided upon, I am given a mandate for the various items to be covered under that compensation program. Only when the damage from a particular event — be it a tsunami or an earthquake or a flood or even a fire for that matter — exceeds $1 per capita for the province does the federal government kick in with assistance. Had we had the kind of disaster that we could have had in the lower Fraser Valley this year, for example, which we were very fortunate about — we came very close — then the federal government would in all likelihood have been involved, because the damage certainly would have gone over that level. Some good things came out of that. One was the fact that we have now moved the provincial emergency program offices into the mainstream of the Ministry of Environment offices. They used to be a separate entity, but they now have all of the facilities available within the ministry. You're right, Highways almost always has the equipment and almost always works with us in the event of any disaster, because they have more earth-moving equipment, trucks, tankers, or whatever else is involved. We have done what you've suggested we do this year. The dress rehearsal that we went through for flooding in the lower Fraser Valley was a good exercise for everybody — everything from citizen's band radios to the availability of cots, high ground, schools to accommodate people, cafeterias, and the whole thing. It was a very well done rehearsal.

We have come a long way. We could still use more money every year for riverbank improvement and flooding-prevention assistance. It's a big dollar amount required provincewide, and one that I'll continue to work on. Had the snow come a little bit before Treasury Board, we might have been able to have it this year, but in October, when these things are being considered, people tend to forget the flood of the previous winter, or the lack of one, whatever happens.

Fish and Wildlife increases. I was upset about it as were the people in Fish and Wildlife. Our increases were not as high as the recommendations that we had from groups on the outside which said they should be increased. I was under considerable pressure to increase them. We know that some people, suspecting that the licences would go up, took advantage of it and got themselves a bargain. It won't happen again next year, and I doubt if it will happen for many years to come. Nonetheless, that's the situation.

[ Page 8563 ]

Water licence increases. Serious consideration was given, on a province-wide application basis, to what those increases would do to affect West Kootenay Light and Power, B.C. Hydro, and all the industries. That's one of the things the cabinet considered when they made that decision.

The Valhalla Wilderness proposal. Colleen and I are now on a first-name basis. She's been to see me three or four times and I think has met all the members of ELUC. I have certainly signed my share of letters on the subject, and I'm sure you have as well. It does come before ELUC, I would think in late July, maybe sometime in August. There are about five things in the hopper, including the Cascade Wilderness, Valhalla, Windy Bay and Robson Bight. There are several things coming, and they're aware of that.

The provincial emergency program. Yes, we did spend quite a lot of money last year trying to solve a problem in the Cowichan area. Those pumps which we purchased are back in our inventory. It was a capital investment which we made and didn't give away, and it's nice to have the extra equipment around. I think we'll be able to survive this year because it was a very substantial outlay which was done to meet a local emergency. I think we'll be able to solve that this year.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Chairman, we do have a couple of serious matters that I'd like the minister to be aware of. First of all, we're quite fortunate that to date we haven't had the possible severe flooding problems that we could have. I'm thinking primarily of Bella Coola. I have been in touch with your engineers and water rights people — what they're doing, and what's not happening. I should point out first that in that particular area the major flooding takes place usually in August, so we don't know whether there is going to be a major flood this year. I hope not, but there is still a possibility. Just three years ago we had a major flood in the 10-year cycle. The floods in that area, as you know, go in 5-year, 10-year, or 25-year cycles. The 5-year cycle in that area is horrendous. It wiped out the whole community less than 100 years ago. That could happen again this year, but we hope not. Those possibilities exist in that particular valley because of the nature of the valley.

I've got to tell you that I've been in constant touch with the committee of the regional district in the community called the flood protection committee. Your engineers are there quite frequently taking readings. These kinds of things are all very useful, but the bottom line is money. Perhaps the minister, if it's possible to get that figure at this time, could tell us what funds have been set aside for actual flood control banking for Bella Coola. The minister is very much aware of what I'm discussing, so I'll leave that point.

Another topic I want to briefly discuss with the minister is mariculture and fish farming. I raise this topic every year under this particular vote. The minister has a great deal of knowledge in these matters. However, large parts of my riding lend themselves to this particular industry. From time to time I meet with the various groups who are involved in mariculture, oyster raising and fish farming, etc. They seem to be at the bottom of the totem pole. They're not recognized as farm income groups so they don't get the tax breaks on gasoline, for example, that the farmers get in that regard, or the break in a whole lot of other taxes.

When it comes to seeking waterfront leases for this purpose.... They're usually relatively small areas. I know this is more under the Ministry of Lands, and I don't want to get too far away from this, but you are in cabinet, Mr. Minister, and you must have input into this particular industry. What we have is application after application blocked. We see people getting applications approved for waterfront leases in front of their private homes for moorage of their $350,000 sailboats, but some person who wants a lease to go into business to raise clams or oysters or for fish farming or whatever has a great deal of problems. In fact, there have been lease applications refused in my riding because on the uplands side is a TFL, of all things. It is utterly ridiculous that on that basis they would refuse a lease to a person who wants to get into the business.

I don't want to hear the fact this year that too many people want to get into the business because it's lucrative, attractive and all those things. That may be, but it's also a heck of a lot of hard work. The markets aren't that great, but that's no reason. You're over there. You're always talking about initiative. If these people want to go into the business and make it, fine; if they don't, that's the way it is in free enterprise. What I'm suggesting to you and your colleagues in cabinet is that this is an aspect of the mariculture industry that should be looked at.

One thing I might tell you under this estimate is that I have a great deal of respect for some of the technical people in the ministry. I really do. They know their stuff. If they've got the means to work with it, fine. They don't often have the.... It always boils down to money, doesn't it?

The next — and not the last — thing I have on my list is pesticides. I know this matter has been raised before. I know the minister is familiar with it. Most of the letters that I received on this particular topic were actually addressed to you with copies to me. Let's be conservative in this House, if we may, because there are no others here at the moment. We received approximately 300 pieces of correspondence relating to some companies and forest service applications to apply pesticides in certain areas of my riding, primarily within the Powell River Regional District in this particular case.

To apply to pollute and dump these possibly very dangerous chemicals into watersheds and in some areas where people live — certainly where there's animal and fish habitat — it costs them absolutely nothing. But in order for these 300 or 400 people, who have written me — the minister has responded to every one with a standard reply, which is fine — to appeal that application, they have to pay a $25 fee. Don't you think, Mr. Minister, that your priorities are mixed up a little bit? Don't you think it would be better to charge those large multinational companies, and the forest service in this case, a fee for application to use those possibly dangerous chemicals? Why shouldn't those ordinary people out there who are concerned about the health of their families and children be allowed to appeal for free? In this particular instance, because of the local community pressure, the regional district has hired a solicitor and will be filing —if they have not done so already — a blanket appeal on behalf of everyone. That only happened because there was enough public pressure at the local level.

What I'm suggesting. Mr. Minister, is that you reverse that procedure. Those people who are making an honest attempt to preserve their watersheds and the health of their families shouldn't be charged $25 or whatever to appeal those applications to use those dangerous chemicals.

I'm informed that I have exactly three minutes left, and I haven't even discussed Cheekye-Dunsmuir and all these

[ Page 8564 ]

things. But, Mr. Minister, we've discussed that hundreds of times.

There is one last item I want to bring to your attention, and that is the incident and the charges surrounding Hawkins Contracting. It relates to a problem on the Louis River at the Stillwater division of the MacMillan Bloedel company and what your ministry did. The very small contractor was operating a relatively small gravel pit. One of the employees made a mistake and dumped a load of gravel into that river, which normally is and has been a fish-spawning river. Mr. Hawkins was charged under various sections of the Environment and Land Use Act. Approximately two months after he was charged with this offence — one of his employees made an honest mistake and dumped one load of gravel into the river — MacMillan Bloedel, Stillwater division, completely opened the floodgates in front of the Gordon Pasha Lake — now known as Lois Lake — and because of the high water at the time, it wiped out the total spawn for the year in that river. Not one charge was ever laid against MacMillan Bloedel. Banks were eroded, the whole bottom of the river was scoured, the total spawn was wiped out, and not one charge was laid.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Well, I checked into it very carefully and I think that perhaps I discussed it with you in an area of this building other than this room.

The reason given, Mr. Chairman, was that MacMillan Bloedel has a water licence dating back to 1800-and-something and they can do whatever the heck they want. But the honest little contractor, hanging on financially by his fingernails, gets charged. I ask you where the fairness is in that. I think because the judge saw the injustice of the situation, the charge was finally dismissed. It wasn't dismissed on the grounds that the contractor was innocent but only because the case was so gross. They opened the floodgates, wiped out the fish spawn in that particular river for the total year and they didn't even get a "naughty, naughty" from the government.

What I'm suggesting to you, Mr. Minister, is that in this kind of case I think fairness should be the criterion. I have a pile of correspondence from Mr. Hawkins' solicitor dealing with this case and from residents of the area. What I'm telling you is that the pressures that your ministry put on that little contractor.... Nothing to this huge multinational corporation that is moving its business out of British Columbia to Alabama! I think we ought to have a minister from Alabama representing this House. Most of our business seems to be going down there; and we're providing jobs down there, but not in this province.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Bella Coola. This year we only have funding for emergencies — and that applies provincewide. We have not the funds in our budget for riverbank improvement, although I'm sure when the situation improves we will have.

Mariculture and fish farming. The lease policy is a policy question that should be directed to the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot), although we have discussed in the past the possibility of turning over areas subject to mariculture lease to the marine resources branch in the Ministry of Environment for operation, which would probably be more conducive. I must tell you that I get several applications a year from people who want a three- or four-acre lease, and I really think it's more a question of an upland owner wanting to keep the beach for himself. It's the same problem that you talked about earlier. They do keep the legitimate ones out.

We've had some real successes in your constituency. The Tidal Rush farm has done very well with a very high degree of expertise in the management of the company, which is one of the first times we've had it into that level of fish farming. It's a great success and others are coming from around the world to see it and people are trying to expand it. I'm quite optimistic that that's going to be a really big success and will go further on up, and there's even a black cod operation proposed for further up in your constituency.

The fines. I get hassled one way or the other whether we lay fines under the Pollution Control Act. I would hazard a guess that that fine for dumping the gravel was under the Fisheries Act and not the pollution act, but I'll look into that.

I also want to look into the terms of reference of the water licence for MacMillan Bloedel. If what you say is correct in terms of their being able to dump that substantial amount of water without giving due consideration for the downstream effect of the....

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I guarantee what I tell you is correct.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Yes, okay. I don't mind getting together with you and looking into that either.

MR. SKELLY: It has been the policy of the NDP caucus for the past two years to examine the budgets of the various ministries vote by vote, nickel by nickel, to find out where restraint can be imposed on these ministries, where the minister is performing effectively and within his budget, and whether or not that minister deserves the budget he has allocated to himself, or that the government has allocated to him, during the current year. It involved on our part a bit of a performance audit — an effectiveness audit — to see how effective this minister is or how effective those dollars are in accomplishing the mandate of the ministry.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: I fully expect that the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) is going to vote with us on this one, given all of the excellent points that he made during the debate on the minister's estimates. He scored many points against Farley Mowat. I'm not sure he's ever read the gentleman's books, but I'm sure he's heard of his existence from other people in the constituency who are more well read.

MR. KEMPF: I also read Bambi and Pinocchio.

MR. SKELLY: Yes, I think that the member did have Bambi and Pinocchio read to him, and he shouldn't misquote them.

Actually, what we are doing here is a bit of a performance audit on the minister. We know that his travel expenses were $45,000 in 1981-82, and this year he hasn't increased his travel expense budget. We think that's an excellent example of restraint compared to the Ministry of Agriculture. We even investigated the possibility of rolling it back a little bit, because given the inadequacy of this minister in performing in his role as minister and in the mandate of the ministry, we

[ Page 8565 ]

should really have imposed a rollback on his travel budget. I ask you, Mr. Chairman: what did that travel budget accomplish? How effective was it? Did it prevent the spill at Carolin Mines? At Equity Mining? At Granisle? Did it prevent the dumping of pentachlorophenol and tetrachlorophenol in the Fraser River system by people the minister calls good corporate citizens — although sometimes he doesn't call them good corporate citizens?

Did this minister improve the quality of the administration of the pollution control branch? Well, if you look at the auditor-general's report, he was pretty much of a failure in that regard as well. The auditor-general took a sample — according to her report on page 129 — in which she selected 69 permits. She found out that there was complete data on nine of those and partial data on 30 more. In other words, out of 69 permits, only 39 had data either in full or in part which could be used for this test. Some 21 out of 23 were high-volume permits, 18 out of 46 low-volume permits in the sample, and no data were available on the remaining 30 permits. "Using the above criteria..." according to the auditor-general, "14 of the 39 permits where we were able to assess compliance" were found to be seriously violating permit conditions, and this is a chronic problem in the waste management branch.

What has the funding for the minister's office done to improve the effectiveness of the ministry in fulfilling its mandate? We considered rolling back the minister's travel expenses because he didn't appear to be accomplishing anything of value in improving the operation of his ministry and fulfilling the mandate of the ministry.

During debates we've talked about a number of things: about the Consolidated Cinola and about the public-hearing process. During the debate on legislation this session we talked about public involvement in decisions made by the ministry. We mentioned the Cinola mines on the Queen Charlotte Islands. The minister's answer was that he didn't have any funding in his budget for public hearings. Yet he could easily impose on those companies a requirement that they put on the public hearings and that the Ministry of Environment could attend. In this province the people have lost their day in court with respect to decisions on environmental issues under this minister specifically, and we don't feel that that is a good performance in fulfilling the mandate of the Ministry of Environment.

A number of issues have been outlined in the Legislature, mainly on a constituency basis, relating to the operation of the fish and wildlife branch. Again, there's little confidence in the minister with respect to his fulfilling the mandate of the branch and his ministry.

Again and again it has been brought up in issues relating to pesticides, for example. We have advocated a change in the pesticide approval procedure, wherein the procedure would have public involvement from day one, which would eliminate a lot of the problems which surround the appeal procedure. If the citizen feels that he has his input and his information when the decision is first being made and has the right to his day in court at the first instance, then the appeal problem is not so much a problem and you don't have so many people wanting, to get involved in that decision after the fact.

It's the structural problem the minister has created which has caused a lot of the difficulties surrounding pesticide appeals. Now he requires everyone who wishes to appeal a permit to pay $25; yet the people who apply for the permit pay nothing. It's grossly unfair. The $25 is not designed to pay the cost of the appeal procedure; it's simply designed to keep the public out of the environmental decision-making process. It shows the minister's lack of confidence in the public, and it shows the minister's lack of respect for the people of this province and their democratic right to make decisions.

We therefore don't feel that the minister has earned his travel expenses or his ministerial office expenses to the extent he has requested. For all these reasons we have mentioned, and for a number of other reasons, we have moved the motion that the minister's vote be reduced by $7,001. That represents a $1 deduction from the minister's salary, which is our statement of a lack of confidence in the minister and his ability to fulfil the mandate of the Ministry of Environment, and the elimination of a $7,000 increase in office expenses which we do not feel is justified, given the restraint program apparently adopted by the provincial government as it applies to their employees. We seek to impose this additional bit of restraint on the minister. I therefore move that vote 32 be reduced by $7,001.

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

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 21

NAYS — 28

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

Vote 32 approved.

On vote 33: resource and environment management, $84,419,142.

MR. SKELLY: It appears that the policy of the ministry is now to try to reduce all the expenditures of the ministry to four votes. This one covers all the resource and environment management functions of the ministry. We've taken a look through the expenditures projected for 1982-83, and have taken a look at some of the increases over the previous year. We do feel many are justifiable. The ministry relies to a large

[ Page 8566 ]

extent on professional and special services and those kinds of things, and office expenditures can probably be explained because of the change in the conservation-officer staff, regionalization and that kind of thing.

Travel expenditures went up 21 percent this year over last year. Of course, we're looking for a little better enforcement in management as a result of that increase in travel expenditures, so we will not be voting against that. Office furniture and equipment went up 91 percent. But even there, with the regionalization of the ministry and the changes in the conservation-officer establishment, we're of course looking at new offices and buildings. Advertising and publications.... But when we get to data-processing, we feel a little bit can be cut back. We're looking at the difference between 1981-82 and 1982-83. We feel that increase should be rolled back, given the need for restraint on the part of this government, and are therefore going to move that $789,700 be removed from this budget for data-processing. We feel that B.C. Buildings Corporation charges should also be rolled back to the 1981-82 level — by $2,102,000.

In looking at the pesticide control and waste management expenditures, again, as last year, we feel that in these cases the people who have the benefit of pesticide control permits and pollution control permits should be paying the full cost, rather than the taxpayers subsidizing those permits, as is presently the case. What we're therefore going to be doing is to reduce the minister's budget by the amount of the pesticide control program and the waste management program, which will bring the total reduction under this vote to $11,020,263. We feel that if the ministry levies the total cost of operations for the pesticide control program and the waste management program against those who benefit from it, they will not have these expenditures, and in fact will be releasing something like $8 million within the budget to spend for other purposes.

I've been advocating over the last little while that this ministry get involved in an employment-creation proposal, which I prefer to call the B.C. conservation corps, which is very similar to the conservation corps established in California and the one which was established during the last depression. It would employ people on the ground to do a number of the functions of the Ministry of Environment. I estimate that out of that expenditure you could employ something like 200 to 400 people partly on a permanent, partly on a full-time basis. The function of these people would be very similar to the conservation corps in the United States: observation of the natural environment; monitoring wildlife populations and hunter and fishermen movements; hiker-recreationist monitoring and search; weather, snow and flood dangers and observation; monitoring of weirs and stream measurement requirements; and coast watchers — an example of this requirement would have been in my riding, where one of the fish boats was lost, the Ramsey Isle. It appears that we have any number of dollars that we're able to expend on radar and radio and navigation facilities for oil tankers going up and down the coast, but for the average fisherman who works day to day on the west coast of British Columbia, there's very little in the way of navigation aids or radio assistance. They're living at peril to their lives and safety every single day that they're out working for the benefit of the people of the province of British Columbia.

We feel that employment could be generated by this additional $8 million if the minister would see fit to create a conservation corps similar to what we have in California or what we had in the United States up until Ronald Reagan did away with it a few weeks ago. It would create something like 200 to 400 jobs with no increase in the expenditures of the Ministry of Environment. I move that vote 33 be reduced by $11,020,263.

Motion negatived on following division:

YEAS — 22

NAYS — 28

Vote 33 approved unanimously on a division.

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

Vote 34: emergency assistance, $500,000, approved unanimously on a division.

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

Vote 35: advances to habitat conservation fund, $750,000 — approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

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

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 56, Mr. Speaker.

PETROLEUM AND NATURAL
GAS AMENDMENT ACT, I 982

The House in committee on Bill 56; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Sections 1 to 4 inclusive approved.

[ Page 8567 ]

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Chairman, with leave of the House, I would like to consider sections 5 to 8 in one piece, otherwise we can consider them separately.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We could do that, hon. members.

On sections 5 to 8.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Chairman, we on this side of the House strongly oppose these sections of the act. Once again we have heard in this House the government indicate that they want to add some $13 million to $14 million this year alone, and Lord knows how much in future years, in costs to an industry which is already saddled beyond bearing by fees imposed on it by both this government and the federal government. This is clearly another revenue grab. The government earlier put a bill forward affecting the mining industry in a similar way — Bill 53. The minister quite correctly withdrew that bill due to opposition from this side of the House and from the industry themselves. We are going to oppose this bill on the same grounds.

Most recently the government was presented with the Govier report on natural gas and the uses to which it could be put in B.C. We do know that that learned gentleman indicated that there simply is not sufficient gas available to the government to do the things that the government had hoped to do — not because it was not there in potential, Mr. Chairman, but simply because the conditions were not favourable for the industry to develop those gas sources. We know, for instance, that in the province of B.C. there were, as recently as the 1980-81 fiscal year, nearly 320 new oil and gas wells brought on stream. Last year that figure fell to 80; now we have only a handful of drilling rigs working in this province.

With this kind of background, this government seeks to increase fees from the industry by amounts in excess of tens of millions of dollars this year alone, and it wishes to give itself carte blanche powers to increase fees quite arbitrarily, as it sees fit, in future years. I don't believe that any industry should be faced with a situation where any government — this one, or any future government — could arbitrarily move the goalposts, changing the rules in the fourth quarter. If we expect a stable investment climate in this province, if we expect stable, rational resource development, particularly when it comes to fossil fuels, we have to anticipate that we are going to be able as a province to tell industry exactly what the rules are going to be and exactly what the fees and costs are going to be.

For these reasons, this side of the House will oppose those sections in the act which deal with fee, licence and lease-rental, particularly as they take it out of prescribed fees in the act and simply put it up to discretionary powers of that minister or any minister in whatever government may succeed this one.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I'd like to make a very brief comment, Mr. Chairman. The fees have not been changed in this regard since 1974. They certainly haven't kept up to inflation, and unfortunately they don't even keep up to the actual costs of doing the business. What we are attempting to do here is to at least allow us to maintain a financial base in the petroleum resources division of my ministry that will at least pay for the cost of doing the kind of work that is covered under these fees: recordings and title searches.

Just in case someone thinks we are talking about huge increases and huge amounts of money, some of the fees.... Permits, for instance, are going from $250 to $500, but things like recording under the Bank Act are going from $5 to $10; recording and cancelling documents, from $5 to $10; other kinds of recording, from $10 to $25; issuing of title searches, from $2 to $5. So we're not looking at huge increases or huge amounts of money in most instances. But it's necessary if we're to keep up with the workload that we anticipate will come when the industry gets back to normal. We need to pay for at least the cost of doing that business. That's really about all we're doing here.

MR. D’ARCY: The minister doesn't seem to realize that if he and that government continue on the course they're on, we won't need the petroleum and natural gas section of his ministry because there will be absolutely no activity whatsoever out there. There are few, if any, drilling rigs working in this province today. There is simply no way anybody can make any revenue from it. In many cases, companies have indeed gone bankrupt. And the government seeks to load further fees onto them.

I would like the minister to understand that he and his government have contributed to that situation. At a time when both the federal government in Ottawa and the Alberta government have realized the error of their ways and are reducing fees and lease rentals, this government increases them.

Sections 5 to 8 inclusive approved on the following division:

YEAS — 28

NAYS — 22

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

Sections 9 to 23 inclusive approved.

On section 24.

[ Page 8568 ]

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 24 as amended approved.

On section 25.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 25 as amended approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I move the bill be reported complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Bill 56, Petroleum and Natural Gas Amendment Act, 1982 reported complete with amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call committee on Bill 53, Mr. Speaker.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, I 982

The House in committee on Bill 53; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

On section 4.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak against this section, and I'm going to do it at great length.

What this section does is amend the Community Care Facility Act, which is the act that has to do with the inspections of day-care centres, nursing homes and other facilities. In the existing act it says that these facilities have to be inspected at least once a year. This section amends that, removing the compulsion for these facilities to be inspected at least once a year. I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that that is a mistake. When there is a compulsion that these facilities be inspected at least once a year.... In most instances that is the only inspection that they have.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I want to deal primarily with family day care. I want to talk about some of the reasons why there should be inspection. The act should remain as it is with a compulsory inspection of at least once a year. In fact, it should be increased to call for inspection more than once a year.

The Nelson Family Day Care Society did a survey of its own because they were so concerned about the quality of care that was being given by some of these family day-care centres. They did a study covering up to the end of 1981. They said that in the past year they had assumed responsibility for monitoring and assessing all family day-care homes in all of the Nelson district as the need for ongoing frequent contact of the day-care homes was being recognized. This need was recognized because, in fact, the ministry had cut back so seriously in terms of the quality, the level of inspection and the number of times that those homes were inspected. They were beginning to recognize, and I quote: "recent increasing incidence of child neglect and child abuse in these homes. There is more need to acknowledge as crucial that there should be constant contact and monitoring of these homes to protect the children in those homes and to ensure their health and welfare." In their report they go on to document at great length a number of instances. They quote from reports in some of the Vancouver papers and, of course, document some of their own experiences. I don't want to read these experiences into the record, Mr. Chairman, because I don't think that that is necessary. Suffice it to say that the Nelson Family Day Care Society, which is an umbrella organization, was sufficiently alarmed by the increase in the incidence of child neglect and child abuse in the family day-care centres in that particular school district that they took unto themselves some of the responsibility that really belongs to the community care licensing facility in terms of inspection.

The other thing that I want to bring to your attention, Mr. Chairman, is a letter written by Karen Brandolini, who is the president of the B.C. Family Day Care Association. She wrote in October 1981 to express some alarm at the rumours circulating that the government was contemplating relaxing the number and the quality of inspection of the family day-care homes. She said: "Due to the deplorable and ever-increasing shortage of staff in community care licensing and day-care information offices and centres, the effectiveness of the present licensing standards and requirements has steadily deteriorated, causing great frustration to all those involved." As I said, this letter is from the president of the B.C. Family Day Care Association. She said: "Family day-care givers, parents as well as the children, would like to ensure that there is safe, reliable and quality care for young children. To even consider a change in policy would be drastic at this time. We would appreciate and encourage your immediate attention to this matter." She in fact quotes from a letter from Dr. John Blatherwick, chairman of the Child Care Facilities Licensing Board, about the possibility of some changes in policy.

I also have, Mr. Chairman, another letter which I received from Kay Wallace, who was the corresponding secretary of the British Columbia Family Day Care Association. I want to tell you first of all that the statistics across Canada show that British Columbia has far more family day-care facilities than any other province in Canada. Family day care is a way of life in British Columbia. The monitoring and supervising of these facilities is very important, because that's where a large number of our small children are. It's really crucial, Mr. Chairman, that the quality be maintained at all times. Kay Wallace, the corresponding secretary, wrote to say: "The

[ Page 8569 ]

British Columbia Family Day Care Association wishes to express its concern over the possible removal of supervision of family day care and after-school day-care homes." She goes on to say that she thinks that to do that would endanger the present quality of family day care available in the province.

I also had in February of this year a letter signed by a number of students of the first-year early childhood education component of Okanagan College in Kelowna. They said:

"Dear Mrs. Brown:

"The government has decided to lower the educational standards necessary to qualify child-care workers to be licensed in B.C.

"The reasons are twofold: one is to save the government money and the other is to fulfil the increased demand for child-care workers. The province also needs doctors; should their qualification standards also be lowered?

"Indeed we are appalled at the changes that are taking place in the child-care facilities licensing board in regard to the competence required for licensing teachers for early childhood education."

What I'm doing by reading this into the record, Mr. Chairman, is showing you that not only is this amendment saying that it is no longer necessary to monitor these homes at least once a year, but at the same time that that is happening, the qualifications for the people working in these homes are also being reduced.

A number of things are happening which really do threaten the quality of family day care in this province. As I mentioned earlier, family day care is important; it is used extensively by the parents of British Columbia. To depreciate the requirements in terms of the qualifications of early childhood educators working in these family day-care centres and in day-care centres in general, and to curtail the level of monitoring of these centres, is definitely to place in jeopardy the children who are in these homes.

In September of last year I received a letter from a parent who works at the James Bay centre, again expressing some concern that there were rumours circulating that the licensing was going to be relaxed — "deregulation of family day care." I also had a letter from the Kelowna Family Day Care Society and Linda Elliott, family day-care coordinator: "We have received indication from other day-care groups that there is some possibility that the existing regulations governing the licences of family day-care homes may be downgraded."

I know the minister got copies of all of these letters which I'm reading into the record.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Why?

MS. BROWN: Because it says at the bottom of the letter "carbon copy to" — Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing was curious — "Mr. Jim Nielsen, Minister of Health; Mrs. Grace McCarthy, Minister of Human Resources; Mr. Brian Smith, Minister of Education; B.C. Daycare Action Coalition." So carbon copies of those letters went out.

There is also a letter from a Sharon Burgess on Church Street, who is a parent, again expressing concern — and this actually is a copy of a letter which was sent directly to Dr. Blatherwick expressing concern that the government was thinking of relaxing the supervision of family day-care centres.

I must confess, Mr. Chairman, that in every instance in response to these letters I expressed some doubt that the government would do that. I mentioned in my responses that the government recognized how crucial and how important it was that the children who stay either in family day care or in other child-care facilities have the very best of supervision and the very best quality of care. I did not believe that the government was, in fact, somehow going to change its policy on this and of course I have been proven wrong.

Mr. Chairman, I think there are a number of reasons for this. One of the reasons is that the private for-profit day-care cooperations are interested in moving into British Columbia. The kinds of day-care organizations that we now have in the United States and in other parts of Canada are referred to as the McDonald's of day-care centres; they're present in Alberta, for example. However, they've expressed some concern about moving into British Columbia because they say that our standards are too high. A spokesperson from Kindercare's Canadian head office in Oakville, Ontario, said that they were interested in bringing corporate day care into B.C., but they can't do that presently because of the rigid day-care regulations. They go on to say that the rules and regulations governing day care are difficult to live with and would have to be relaxed before it would be possible for them to move into B.C. This amendment relaxes those regulations and makes it possible for corporate day care — which in the U.S. as well as Alberta and everywhere it exists has been proven to have a negative impact on the quality of day care — to move into B.C. We are lowering our standards with this amendment. By amending this community care licensing facility we are now saying we don't want the best quality day care for our children. We are now saying we are prepared to settle for shoddy day care. So corporate day care, day care for profit —groups like Kindercare — will be able to move into British Columbia, because they don't have to deal with the rigid, top quality regulations which we've always insisted any facility must have which serves our children. I don't believe the government has really thought very carefully about the impact of this amendment on quality of the care of the children of the province.

We are living in a time when more and more parents are finding that both parents have to work because of economic reasons — not through choice but through necessity. We're living in a time when we find that more and more children need day-care facilities. As a province, we've decided to meet that challenge by putting more money into family day care rather than group day care. Now we are lowering the qualifications of the people who work in those day-care centres, and we're lowering the standards of the kinds of monitoring, and supervision which those day-care centres must have. We are placing our children at risk. I don't think any government should be permitted to do that. I think the existing section, before this amendment was introduced, which said that there should be inspection at least once a year was in itself not adequate enough. As I mentioned earlier, the Nelson Family Day Care Society found that once a year was not enough; now even that is going to be removed. In terms of child neglect and child abuse, the horror stories in the submission from the Nelson day-care association are going to multiply. We cannot support this amendment.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Section 9(c) says that the medical health officer appointed under the Health Act for the municipality shall inspect thoroughly every community care facility

[ Page 8570 ]

that is being operated within the municipality under licence or interim permit at least once a year and report the result to the board. The amendment says that the medical health officer appointed under the Health Act for the municipality shall, when he considers it necessary, inspect every community-care facility that is being operated within the municipality under a licence or interim permit and report the results of the inspection to the board. The term is very clear: it's a community-care facility. It's not limited to family day-care centres, as the member who just spoke would have you believe. It's not limited to family day-care centres at all, but rather to community-care facilities, regardless of the age of the person who may be receiving services or treatment in them.

A medical health officer in a municipality or district has a broad range of responsibilities, including the inspection of community-care facilities. A medical health officer who has a mandatory requirement to make certain inspections in his area may find that much of the working year is taken up in routine inspections, simply because the statute requires that the inspections be made at least once a year. The medical health officer may feel that his time might be much better utilized in responding to specific incidents which are reported to him. However, he may feel impaired — that in responding to these incidents which are reported he may not be fulfilling his statutory obligation with respect to the inspection of all facilities in the area.

We will be modifying the act to permit the medical health officer to use some discretion in developing more flexibility in his schedule, in order to respond to those incidents which he deems to be of the uttermost importance. We believe that's a good management capacity on his behalf, and we have considerable faith in the capabilities of the medical health officers to respond in that way. I believe the community-care facilities which require inspection will continue to receive inspections with respect to the medical health officers' responsibilities.

The former member said that incidents which have been reported — horror stories...

MS. BROWN: Stop calling me a former member. I'm still a member.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I'm sorry — the member who spoke previously.

...alarming incidents and other things — are going to multiply because of this. I would disagree that that is going to occur. I further suggest that the horror stories which that member referred to, if indeed they have been reported, have been investigated. I would think that to a very large degree they've either been resolved or corrective action has been taken. I find it difficult to accept that a family day-care centre might report difficulties without taking some corrective action themselves. I understand that one group day-care centre was investigated last year following a complaint, and they were closed down. There have probably been other complaints which have been followed up with certain remedial action taken.

I think the capacity for the medical health officer to be able to manage his time more appropriately to suit the needs, as he believes them to be, in his area is very responsible management. We are attempting to provide the flexibility for that health officer to make better use of his time, and to inspect those facilities he deems necessary for whatever specific reason may be brought to his attention. This, of course, does not limit the inspector, nor did the previous section, to inspect a facility as many times as he may feel it necessary.

It is an inspection process. The member referred to "monitoring," which is really not the role, other than by way of comparative inspections. There are other people within the government who have the responsibility of responding to complaints received with respect to family day-care centres. We feel that permitting the medical health officer the flexibility offered in this amendment will in no way impose upon the quality of care in any of these community-care facilities. We believe that it will offer the medical health officer more flexibility in the management of his time, and thus serve the people better.

MS. BROWN: I think, for the benefit of the Minister of Health, who just took his seat, I should explain what the Community Care Facility Amendments Act covers. The Community Care Facility Act sets standards and licences for a variety of adult- and child-care facilities, private nursing homes, long-term care facilities, day-care centres, group day care, specialized day care, out-of-school day care, family childminding, nursery schools, etc.

When I began speaking I made absolutely clear that I was going to confine my remarks to day-care centres. I wasn't going to speak about long-term care or private nursing homes. I am well aware that the Community Care Facility Act covers them too, but I believe that there is enough for me to talk about just talking about the day-care centres, whether they be group, specialized, out-of-school, family, childminding, nursery or whatever.

The other thing I want to bring again to that minister's attention, since she really is the minister responsible for this, is that what the original act does is to set minimum standards. It said that these places had to be inspected at least once a year. I'm saying that in most instances the minimum standard was the only standard, that these places were not inspected more than once a year. What this amendment does is to remove that minimum standard. Now it's not even necessary to inspect those facilities at least once a year, and I'm saying that it is necessary to have minimum standards at least. I know that the flexibility that's there has always been there. But with the kinds of cutbacks that have been imposed by this government in the health-care field and in other services to people, the only thing that the government has been honouring is its minimum standards. Now we find that even those minimum standards are to be relaxed. For that reason — again, speaking only about the child-care facilities — I am saying that to amend this section to remove that minimum of one annual inspection is not good enough, and it's going to place the children in those facilities at risk.

MR. COCKE: Over and above the children's facilities, there are a number of other facilities covered by this section of the act, and these are private nursing homes, long-term care facilities.... Day-care centres are just part of it. What I'm concerned about is that we're looking at a government that continues to cut back in the area of health care, on the delivery of services to people. What the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) talked about in terms of day care goes equally in the area of long-term and private nursing homes and so on.

[ Page 8571 ]

I contend that it makes it very attractive for the private sector to move into those areas if, in fact, they're not going to be inspected. Let me describe what happens. The minister says in his explanatory note that it allows for more flexibility to make inspections. What more flexibility can you have? What we have now is a minimum standard of at least once a year when each and all of those homes are to be inspected. Now we say we'll give them more flexibility and they can inspect.... Well, they can always inspect at will and they can always inspect under pressing circumstances. The fact of the matter is that we are short of staff on a conscious basis by this government, who cut back in all the important areas. They don't cut back on some of their megaprojects, but they sure cut back on the delivery of health care to people. This is not more flexibility at all, unless you consider more flexibility not providing that level of service any longer. If a medical health officer is in any doubt whatsoever, and staffed as they are now, he's just not going to be able to inspect — he can't inspect.

Wait until we get to section 67 in this act. They're doing the same thing to the sanitation and water supplies for logging camps. They're not going to inspect there on a mandatory basis any longer. This is just part of the cutback in essential services by this government — nothing short of that. It's a health restraint program right down the line. There are health restraints in hospitals, in public health, in mental health, health restraints everywhere you go in this province. It's a shocking situation.

HON. MR. FRASER: Order!

MR. COCKE: Have you ever listened to anything in your life, Mr. Minister of Transportation and Highways? You should be more concerned than anybody.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the committee please come to order. I'll ask the member for New Westminster to please address the Chair.

MR. COCKE: We have before us an amendment to the act that does not provide what the explanatory notes tell us, nor what the minister tells us, and that is added flexibility. Why do you need added flexibility? What we have before us, Mr. Chairman, is fewer inspections in the future. We see what we have in terms of some of these private programs that are going on. Some of these licensed community-care facilities are shocking in terms of their level of sanitation and all sorts of things. Now what we're going to say is that you don't even have to inspect them once a year. To suggest that we could vote for this, under these circumstances, would be contending that we would be as irresponsible as the government is. Mr. Chairman, we cannot support this.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Why doesn't the minister pull the section of the bill? The section is not necessary, it does not provide flexibility, and it doesn't do any of the things that he suggests. So we have all the flexibility now, and we at least have a guarantee that each and all of these facilities are going to be looked at once a year — and that's minimal. Let's see the minister stand up and say that section 4 of Bill 53 is to be pulled.

Section 4 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 28

NAYS — 21

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

Sections 5 to 10 inclusive approved.

On section 11.

MR. COCKE: Here they go again. That bottom-line, grabbing, greedy bunch are now going to tax what is historically a preventive service, and that's the whole question of providing health inspections. I can't believe such a group that would retard the progress of prevention of disease and illness in this province. Ultimately this adds to inflation by turning it on the customers of the restaurants or any of the other facilities that are going to be charged. Oh, the minister is going to jump up and justify the fact that for the first time in history they're going to charge for health inspections. I think it's a shocking display of shortsightedness.

AN HON. MEMBER: They think it's funny.

MR. COCKE: Yes. They're not going to think it's quite so funny, Mr. Chairman, when they find themselves booted out, as the public is going to do to them at the earliest opportunity. This is the group that calls for restraint; this is the group that's been calling for restraint for some time. "Restrain ourselves," they say to the people, but by heaven they're not restraining themselves. "Oh, we haven't increased taxes." they said. They've increased medicare premiums twice in seven months; they've increased everything that they can possibly get their greedy little hands on, and here again they're moving in for another $3 million or $4 million in health inspections.

The Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) is reaching for his mike. You get up, Mr. Minister of Housing, and justify section 11. He probably doesn't even know it's there.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you in favour of user fees or not?

[ Page 8572 ]

MR. COCKE: No. Not for this. "User fees," he says. This is a preventive service, Mr. Chairman, and this is the first time that we've seen this encroachment on prevention.

AN HON. MEMBER: Community health.

MR. COCKE: Community health. So they'll charge for inspections of swimming pools, they'll charge for inspections of anything that health inspectors inspect, and it will be passed on to the public and add to the inflation that this government is so determined to reduce.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: The first minister says: "Where does the money come from now?" Let me tell you where the money comes from now to build your megaprojects and all the rest of the things: it comes right out of the taxpayers' pockets. But be direct, Mr. Chairman, through you to that first minister; have enough courage to tax directly and fairly. These indirect, sneaky little ways of pulling money out of the taxpayers' pockets are not going unnoticed. This is a very chippy way of raising money. They're reaching surreptitiously into the pockets of the taxpayers and adding to the old inflation fire, not trying to circumvent any of the blame for what's going on. The people out there know the propensity....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: You haven't read the same surveys, I gather. The people know that this government will do anything to raise money in a surreptitious way, and here again they're doing it — campsites, water systems, new buildings, all to be charged for their inspections. I think it's a shame, and I'm going to vote against this section.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The most enlightening comment made by the member for New Westminster with respect to this amendment was in response to a question on where the money comes from. The member for New Westminster said that the fees charged for inspections will be passed on to the public. There is no question that if we charge a fee for the inspection of a restaurant, beer parlour, campsite, commercial swimming pool or other facility, the costs will be passed on to the consumer of that service. The member for New Westminster said it's passed on to the public, and of course it is. At the present time, the cost isn't passed on to the public; the cost is extracted from the public. They're not being asked whether they wish to participate in any of this; the money is taken from the taxpayer now to cover the costs of these inspections. You don't even have an opportunity to participate; it is imposed upon you as general taxation at this time.

The various fees, the tests and inspections which will take place, cost money to fulfil — staff money, facilities and so on. We feel it is very reasonable, particularly in the area of commercial business, where they are required to meet certain standards by way of inspection, that they pay a certain amount of that cost so that the other citizens of the province who make no use of these facilities are not expected to subsidize them endlessly, without any consideration of whether they want to be involved.

For many years forms of inspection, other than in health, have taken place for which fees have been levied directly on the person who is asking for that service or who is required by law to have that service performed. I recognize it's an imposition on those who must pay and, indirectly, on those who make use of those facilities. That's not an unreasonable way to help compensate for the cost of carrying out these inspections for the general good. So it's a question of whether the money — or at least a portion of it — is produced directly from those receiving the benefit or indirectly from the general taxation pot. I suppose it's just a difference of opinion. I thought it was enlightening that it's passed on to the public; I certainly agree. The way it is now, it is simply extracted from the public. I suppose that's one reason people wonder why taxes need to be as high as they are across this country.

I might add that those people in commercial industries who will see some of these fees imposed have generally responded very favourably.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, obviously the ones to whom the minister is talking would respond in that way, because they know perfectly well that they'll just pass it on.

What I'm talking about here is a matter of principle. This is a preventive service. It should be just like any other public health service. It's a required service which should be paid for out of the public health pool — general revenue.

I don't think we're talking about building inspections. We're talking about inspection of swimming pools, publicly used centres. This is a good way to start a whole new taxation situation that is going to be counterproductive. I can't support it.

Section 11 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 28

NAYS — 21

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

On section 12.

MR. GABELMANN: We have another illustration of how the minister is doing exactly what he talks against. On various occasions the Minister of Health has talked about the need to establish preventive health-care programs in this province and not to rely on a sickness health-care model. Yet

[ Page 8573 ]

in every action the government embarks on exactly the opposite. They do not embark on preventive health care. In section 12 of this omnibus bill, amending section 67 of the Health Act, we have the ministry once again violating that basic premise with which the minister says he agrees: an argument that we have put forward for many years, that the basis of the health-care system must be prevention and not just treating illness.

This amendment eliminates the requirement that logging camps and mining camps shall be inspected every year. I'm not particularly concerned about the fact that the legislation should perhaps be amended to eliminate the requirement that those inspections take place in April or May. A legitimate amendment would be that you eliminate the April or May requirement and that inspections take place in any particular month throughout the year. But to do as the government is proposing in this amendment, and wipe out the requirement of health inspections in those logging and mining camps, is to directly deny the whole premise of preventive health care. What the opposition is trying to establish in these particular amendments is that health inspections of swimming pools, restaurants, logging camps, child-care centres or whatever are a part of the preventive health-care system. They are one of the first steps in determining whether or not illnesses can develop as a result of poor sanitary conditions.

For the government to say, in response to public criticism, that there are not enough health inspectors.... In my health district alone, last year inspections went undone because there were not enough health inspectors. They were a minimum of two short. What's the government's response to that? Not to hire more inspectors, but to say that inspections are no longer necessary. It is entirely inappropriate in a modern era, and in a country as advanced as this one, to go back to the old days when camps were able to operate without inspection. The amendment is entirely wrong, and it is directly in opposition to everything that the minister says he stands for.

MR. COCKE: One thing about this government is that they're totally predictable and consistent in this bill. Our tabulation last March showed that in nine health units in this province, we were 15 health inspectors short. Then he has the audacity to bring in a bill with an explanatory which says: "Provides the health officers with increased flexibility in their inspection program." In other words, they don't have to go and inspect.

We're short of health inspectors. They're pennypinching in the wrong places. They don't give a darn if people in this province get sick. As far as I'm concerned, this is an impertinent way to do business.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

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

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:59 p.m.

[ Page 8574 ]

Appendix

WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

72 Mr. Stupich asked the Hon. the Minister of Finance the following question:

What was the total of accounts receivable and of notes receivable from each of the Crown corporations and agencies as at March 31, 1982?

The Hon. H. A. Curtis replied as follows:

"The total of accounts receivable and of notes receivable from each of the Crown corporations and agencies as at March 31, 1982 as follows:

COMBINED GENERAL FUND AND SPECIAL PURPOSE FUNDS
ACCOUNTS AND NOTES RECEIVABLE FROM CROWN CORPORATIONS
AND AGENCIES—MARCH 31, 1982

(Unaudited)

AMENDMENTS TO BILLS

56 The Hon. R. H. McClelland to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 56) intituled Petroleum and Natural Gas Amendment Act, 1982 to amend as follows:

SECTION 24, by deleting "July 1, 1982" wherever it appears and substituting "September 1, 1982".

SECTION 25, by deleting "July 1, 1982" and substituting "September 1, 1982".